Amino acid PET vs. RANO MRI for prediction of overall survival in patients with recurrent high grade glioma under bevacizumab therapy.
Avastin
Glioblastoma
Magnetic resonance imaging
Positron emission tomography
Pseudoresponse
Therapy monitoring
Journal
European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging
ISSN: 1619-7089
Titre abrégé: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101140988
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Jan 2024
17 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
20
09
2023
accepted:
01
01
2024
medline:
17
1
2024
pubmed:
17
1
2024
entrez:
16
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To summarize evidence on the comparative value of amino acid (AA) PET and conventional MRI for prediction of overall survival (OS) in patients with recurrent high grade glioma (rHGG) under bevacizumab therapy. Medical databases were screened for studies with individual data on OS, follow-up MRI, and PET findings in the same patient. MRI images were assessed according to the RANO criteria. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to predict OS at 9 months. Five studies with a total of 72 patients were included. Median OS was significantly lower in the PET-positive than in the PET-negative group. PET findings predicted OS with a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 76% and 71%, respectively. Corresponding values for MRI were 32% and 82%. Area under the curve and sensitivity were significantly higher for PET than for MRI. For monitoring of patients with rHGG under bevacizumab therapy, AA-PET should be preferred over RANO MRI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38228970
doi: 10.1007/s00259-024-06601-4
pii: 10.1007/s00259-024-06601-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Diaz RJ, Ali S, Qadir MG, et al. The role of bevacizumab in the treatment of glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2017;133:455–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-017-2477-x .
doi: 10.1007/s11060-017-2477-x
pubmed: 28527008
Taal W, Oosterkamp HM, Walenkamp AME, et al. Single-agent bevacizumab or lomustine versus a combination of bevacizumab plus lomustine in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (BELOB trial): a randomised controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:943–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70314-6 .
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70314-6
pubmed: 25035291
Kulinich DP, Sheppard JP, Nguyen T, et al. Radiotherapy versus combination radiotherapy-bevacizumab for the treatment of recurrent high-grade glioma: a systematic review. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021;163:1921–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-021-04794-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s00701-021-04794-3
pubmed: 33796887
Wick W, Gorlia T, Bendszus M, et al. Lomustine and bevacizumab in progressive glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1954–63. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1707358 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1707358
pubmed: 29141164
Weller M, van den Bent M, Preusser M, et al. EANO guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diffuse gliomas of adulthood. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021;18:170–86. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-020-00447-z .
doi: 10.1038/s41571-020-00447-z
pubmed: 33293629
Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1963–72. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541
pubmed: 20231676
Delgado-López PD, Riñones-Mena E, Corrales-García EM. Treatment-related changes in glioblastoma: a review on the controversies in response assessment criteria and the concepts of true progression, pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse and radionecrosis. Clin Transl Oncol. 2018;20:939–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-017-1816-x .
doi: 10.1007/s12094-017-1816-x
pubmed: 29218626
Hughes KL, O’Neal CM, Andrews BJ et al A systematic review of the utility of amino acid PET in assessing treatment response to bevacizumab in recurrent high-grade glioma. Neuro-Oncology Adv 2021;3. https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdab003
Chukwueke UN, Wen PY. Use of the response assessment in neuro-oncology (RANO) criteria in clinical trials and clinical practice. CNS Oncol. 2019;8:CNS28. https://doi.org/10.2217/cns-2018-0007 .
doi: 10.2217/cns-2018-0007
pubmed: 30806082
pmcid: 6499019
Arevalo OD, Soto C, Rabiei P, et al. Assessment of glioblastoma response in the era of bevacizumab: longstanding and emergent challenges in the imaging evaluation of pseudoresponse. Front Neurol. 2019;10:460. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00460 .
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00460
pubmed: 31133966
pmcid: 6514158
Hutterer M, Nowosielski M, Putzer D, et al. O-(2–18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET predicts failure of antiangiogenic treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:856–64. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.110.086645 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.110.086645
pubmed: 21622893
Galldiks N, Rapp M, Stoffels G, et al. Response assessment of bevacizumab in patients with recurrent malignant glioma using [18F]fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine PET in comparison to MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:22–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2251-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-012-2251-4
pubmed: 23053325
Galldiks N, Dunkl V, Ceccon G, et al. Early treatment response evaluation using FET PET compared to MRI in glioblastoma patients at first progression treated with bevacizumab plus lomustine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:2377–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4082-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-018-4082-4
pubmed: 29982845
Schwarzenberg J, Czernin J, Cloughesy TF, et al. Treatment response evaluation using 18F-FDOPA PET in patients with recurrent malignant glioma on bevacizumab therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:3550–9. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1440 .
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1440
pubmed: 24687922
pmcid: 4079729
Deuschl C, Moenninghoff C, Goericke S, et al. Response assessment of bevacizumab therapy in GBM with integrated 11C-MET-PET/MRI: a feasibility study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1285–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3661-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3661-0
pubmed: 28258444
Friedman HS, Prados MD, Wen PY, et al. Bevacizumab alone and in combination with irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4733–40. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.19.8721 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.8721
pubmed: 19720927
Schlürmann T, Waschulzik B, Combs S, et al. Utility of amino acid PET in the differential diagnosis of recurrent brain metastases and treatment-related changes: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Med. 2023;64:816–21. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.122.264803 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.122.264803
pubmed: 36460343
Park YW, Ahn SS, Moon JH, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI may be helpful to predict response and prognosis after bevacizumab treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma: comparison with diffusion tensor and dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging. Neuroradiology. 2021;63:1811–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-021-02693-z .
doi: 10.1007/s00234-021-02693-z
pubmed: 33755766
Piroth MD, Prasath J, Willuweit A, et al. Uptake of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine in reactive astrocytosis in the vicinity of cerebral gliomas. Nucl Med Biol. 2013;40:795–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2013.05.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2013.05.001
pubmed: 23769262