Enhancing predictability of IDH mutation status in glioma patients at initial diagnosis: a comparative analysis of radiomics from MRI, [
BraTS
FET PET
Glioma
IDH mutation status
Radiomics
TSPO PET
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:
24 Feb 2024
24 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
13
10
2023
accepted:
10
02
2024
medline:
24
2
2024
pubmed:
24
2
2024
entrez:
24
2
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
According to the World Health Organization classification for tumors of the central nervous system, mutation status of the isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) genes has become a major diagnostic discriminator for gliomas. Therefore, imaging-based prediction of IDH mutation status is of high interest for individual patient management. We compared and evaluated the diagnostic value of radiomics derived from dual positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data to predict the IDH mutation status non-invasively. Eighty-seven glioma patients at initial diagnosis who underwent PET targeting the translocator protein (TSPO) using [ TBR The findings suggest that incorporating TBR
Identifiants
pubmed: 38396261
doi: 10.1007/s00259-024-06654-5
pii: 10.1007/s00259-024-06654-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : FOR 2858 project number 421887978
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : FOR 2858 project number 422188432
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : 403161218
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Ostrom QT, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2015–2019. Neuro-Oncology. 2022;24(Supplement_5):v1-v95.
Verhaak RG, et al. Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell. 2010;17(1):98–110.
pubmed: 20129251
pmcid: 2818769
doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2009.12.020
Louis DN, et al. The 2021 WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Neuro Oncol. 2021;23(8):1231–51.
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noab106
pubmed: 34185076
pmcid: 8328013
Parsons DW, et al. An integrated genomic analysis of human glioblastoma multiforme. Science. 2008;321(5897):1807-1812.
Yan H, et al. IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in gliomas. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(8):765–73.
pubmed: 19228619
pmcid: 2820383
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0808710
Miller JJ, et al. Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutant gliomas: a society for neuro-oncology (SNO) consensus review on diagnosis, management, and future directions. Neuro-Oncology. 2022;25(1):4–25.
pmcid: 9825337
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noac207
Hartmann C, et al. Patients with IDH1 wild type anaplastic astrocytomas exhibit worse prognosis than IDH1-mutated glioblastomas, and IDH1 mutation status accounts for the unfavorable prognostic effect of higher age: implications for classification of gliomas. Acta Neuropathol. 2010;120(6):707–18.
pubmed: 21088844
doi: 10.1007/s00401-010-0781-z
Wang XW, et al. IDH mutations: genotype-phenotype correlation and prognostic impact. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014: 540236.
pubmed: 24877111
pmcid: 4022066
Lin W, et al. Association of IDH mutation and 1p19q co-deletion with tumor immune microenvironment in lower-grade glioma. Mol Ther Oncolytics. 2021;21:288–302.
pubmed: 34141867
pmcid: 8167204
doi: 10.1016/j.omto.2021.04.010
Mellinghoff IK, et al. Vorasidenib in IDH1- or IDH2-mutant low-grade glioma. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(7):589–601.
pubmed: 37272516
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2304194
Mcgirt MJ, et al. Independent predictors of morbidity after image-guided stereotactic brain biopsy: a risk assessment of 270 cases. J Neurosurg. 2005;102(5):897–901.
pubmed: 15926716
doi: 10.3171/jns.2005.102.5.0897
Mizobuchi Y, et al. The risk of hemorrhage in stereotactic biopsy for brain tumors. J Med Invest. 2019;66(3.4):314-318.
Riche M, et al. Complications after frame-based stereotactic brain biopsy: a systematic review. Neurosurg Rev. 2021;44(1):301–7.
pubmed: 31900737
doi: 10.1007/s10143-019-01234-w
Katzendobler S, et al. Diagnostic yield and complication rate of stereotactic biopsies in precision medicine of gliomas. Front Neurol. 2022;13: 822362.
pubmed: 35432168
pmcid: 9005817
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.822362
Arevalo OJ, et al. The 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a practical approach for gliomas, part 2. Isocitrate Dehydrogenase Status—Imaging Correlation. Neurographics. 2017;7(5): 344-349.
Yamashita K, et al. MR Imaging–based analysis of glioblastoma multiforme: estimation of<i>IDH1</i>mutation status. Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(1):58–65.
pubmed: 26405082
pmcid: 7960195
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4491
Villanueva-Meyer JE, Mabray MC, Cha S. Current clinical brain tumor imaging. Neurosurgery. 2017;81(3):397–415.
pubmed: 28486641
pmcid: 5581219
doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyx103
Castello A, et al. PET radiotracers in glioma: a review of clinical indications and evidence. Clin Transl Imaging. 2022;10(5):535–51.
doi: 10.1007/s40336-022-00523-7
Lohmann P, et al. FET PET reveals considerable spatial differences in tumour burden compared to conventional MRI in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(3):591–602.
pubmed: 30327856
doi: 10.1007/s00259-018-4188-8
Law I, et al. Joint EANM/EANO/RANO practice guidelines/SNMMI procedure standards for imaging of gliomas using PET with radiolabelled amino acids and [18F]FDG: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(3): 540-557.
Albert NL, et al. Response assessment in neuro-oncology working group and European Association for Neuro-Oncology recommendations for the clinical use of PET imaging in gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2016;18(9):1199–208.
pubmed: 27106405
pmcid: 4999003
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/now058
Miettinen H, et al. Expression of peripheral-type benzodiazepine receptor and diazepam binding inhibitor in human astrocytomas: relationship to cell proliferation. Cancer Res. 1995;55(12):2691–5.
pubmed: 7780986
Unterrainer M, et al. Comparison of 18F-GE-180 and dynamic 18F-FET PET in high grade glioma: a double-tracer pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(3):580–90.
pubmed: 30244386
doi: 10.1007/s00259-018-4166-1
Unterrainer M, et al. TSPO PET, tumour grading and molecular genetics in histologically verified glioma: a correlative 18F-GE-180 PET study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47(6):1368–80.
pubmed: 31486876
doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-04491-5
Quach S, et al. TSPO PET signal using [18F]GE180 is associated with survival in recurrent gliomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50(3):859–69.
pubmed: 36329288
doi: 10.1007/s00259-022-06006-1
Albert NL, Nelwan DV, Fleischmann DF, et al. Prognostic value of TSPO PET before radiotherapy in newly diagnosed IDH-wild-type glioblastoma. J Nucl Med. 2023;64:1519–25. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.122.265247 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.122.265247
pubmed: 37536737
pmcid: 10586482
Weidner L, Lorenz J, Quach S, et al. Translocator protein (18kDA) (TSPO) marks mesenchymal glioblastoma cell populations characterized by elevated numbers of tumor-associated macrophages. Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2023;11:147. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40478-023-01651-5 .
doi: 10.1186/s40478-023-01651-5
pubmed: 37697350
pmcid: 10496331
Kaiser L, et al. Differential spatial distribution of TSPO or amino acid PET signal and MRI contrast enhancement in gliomas. Cancers (Basel). 2021;14(1):53.
pubmed: 35008218
doi: 10.3390/cancers14010053
Lohmann P, et al. Radiomics in neuro-oncology: basics, workflow, and applications. Methods. 2021;188:112–21.
pubmed: 32522530
doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2020.06.003
Vomacka L, et al. TSPO imaging using the novel PET ligand [18F]GE-180: quantification approaches in patients with multiple sclerosis. EJNMMI Res. 2017;7(1):89.
pubmed: 29150726
pmcid: 5693838
doi: 10.1186/s13550-017-0340-x
Owen DR, et al. Mixed-affinity binding in humans with 18-kDa translocator protein ligands. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(1):24–32.
pubmed: 21149489
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.110.079459
Guo Q, et al. Identifying improved TSPO PET imaging probes through biomathematics: the impact of multiple TSPO binding sites in vivo. NeuroImage. 2012;60(2):902–10.
pubmed: 22251896
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.078
Owen DR, et al. An 18-kDa translocator protein (TSPO) polymorphism explains differences in binding affinity of the PET radioligand PBR28. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2012;32(1):1–5.
pubmed: 22008728
doi: 10.1038/jcbfm.2011.147
Wickstrøm T, et al. The development of an automated and GMP compliant FASTlab™ synthesis of [18F] GE-180; a radiotracer for imaging translocator protein (TSPO). J Labelled Comp Radiopharm. 2014;57(1):42–8.
pubmed: 24448744
doi: 10.1002/jlcr.3112
Albert NL, et al. TSPO PET for glioma imaging using the novel ligand (18)F-GE-180: first results in patients with glioblastoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(13):2230–8.
pubmed: 28821920
doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3799-9
Unterrainer M, et al. Towards standardization of 18F-FET PET imaging: do we need a consistent method of background activity assessment? EJNMMI Res. 2017;7(1):48.
pubmed: 28560582
pmcid: 5449315
doi: 10.1186/s13550-017-0295-y
Vomacka L, et al. Voxel-wise analysis of dynamic 18F-FET PET: a novel approach for non-invasive glioma characterisation. EJNMMI Res. 2018;8(1):91.
pubmed: 30203138
pmcid: 6131687
doi: 10.1186/s13550-018-0444-y
Li Z, Holzgreve A, Unterrainer LM, et al. Combination of pre-treatment dynamic [18F]FET PET radiomics and conventional clinical parameters for the survival stratification in patients with IDH-wildtype glioblastoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50:535–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-05988-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-022-05988-2
pubmed: 36227357
Pauleit D, et al. O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET combined with MRI improves the diagnostic assessment of cerebral gliomas. Brain. 2005;128(Pt 3):678–87.
pubmed: 15689365
doi: 10.1093/brain/awh399
Kofler F, et al. BraTS toolkit: translating BraTS brain tumor segmentation algorithms into clinical and scientific practice. Front Neurosci. 2020;14:125.
pubmed: 32410929
pmcid: 7201293
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00125
Isensee F, et al. No new-net, in brainlesion: glioma, multiple sclerosis, stroke and traumatic brain injuries. Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 234-244.
Thomas MF, et al. Improving automated glioma segmentation in routine clinical use through artificial intelligence-based replacement of missing sequences with synthetic magnetic resonance imaging scans. Invest Radiol. 2022;57(3):187–93.
pubmed: 34652289
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000828
Bakas S, Reyes M, Jakab A, et al. Identifying the best machine learning algorithms for brain tumor segmentation, progression assessment, and overall survival prediction in the BRATS challenge. CoRR. 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.02629 .
van Griethuysen JJM, et al. Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res. 2017;77(21):e104–7.
pubmed: 29092951
pmcid: 5672828
doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0339
Zwanenburg A, et al. The image biomarker standardization initiative: standardized quantitative radiomics for high-throughput image-based phenotyping. Radiology. 2020;295(2):328–38.
pubmed: 32154773
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020191145
Leijenaar RT, et al. The effect of SUV discretization in quantitative FDG-PET radiomics: the need for standardized methodology in tumor texture analysis. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11075.
pubmed: 26242464
pmcid: 4525145
doi: 10.1038/srep11075
Li Z, et al. Prediction of TERTp-mutation status in IDH-wildtype high-grade gliomas using pre-treatment dynamic [(18)F]FET PET radiomics. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(13):4415–25.
pubmed: 34490493
pmcid: 8566644
doi: 10.1007/s00259-021-05526-6
Pellerino A, et al. Epidemiology, risk factors, and prognostic factors of gliomas. Clin Transl Imaging. 2022;10(5):467–75.
doi: 10.1007/s40336-022-00489-6
Ammer L-M, et al. The role of translocator protein TSPO in hallmarks of glioblastoma. Cancers. 2020;12(10):2973.
pubmed: 33066460
pmcid: 7602186
doi: 10.3390/cancers12102973
Bartos L, et al. Cell sorting after tracer injection for precise determination of various TSPO-PET signal sources in experimental orthotopic glioblastoma. J Nucl Med. 2022;63(supplement 2):2318–2318.
von Rohr K, et al. Can radiomics provide additional information in [18F]FET-negative gliomas? Cancers. 2022;14(19):4860.
doi: 10.3390/cancers14194860
Lohmann P, et al. Predicting IDH genotype in gliomas using FET PET radiomics. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):13328.
pubmed: 30190592
pmcid: 6127131
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-31806-7
Haubold J, et al. Non-invasive tumor decoding and phenotyping of cerebral gliomas utilizing multiparametric 18F-FET PET-MRI and MR fingerprinting. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47(6):1435–45.
pubmed: 31811342
doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-04602-2
Vettermann F, et al. Non-invasive prediction of IDH-wildtype genotype in gliomas using dynamic 18F-FET PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(12):2581–9.
pubmed: 31410540
doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-04477-3
Da-Ano R, Visvikis D, Hatt M. Harmonization strategies for multicenter radiomics investigations. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(24): 24TR02.
Zounek AJ, Albert NL, Holzgreve A, et al. Feasibility of radiomic feature harmonization for pooling of [18F]FET or [18F]GE-180 PET images of gliomas. Z Med Phys. 2023;33:91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2022.12.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.zemedi.2022.12.005
pubmed: 36710156
pmcid: 10068577
Papp L, et al. Sex-specific radiomic features of L-[S-methyl-(11)C] methionine PET in patients with newly-diagnosed gliomas in relation to IDH1 predictability. Front Oncol. 2023;13: 986788.
pubmed: 36816966
pmcid: 9936222
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.986788