Comparison of Iodine-123 Metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) Scan and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography to Evaluate Response After Iodine-131 MIBG Therapy for Relapsed Neuroblastoma
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Purpose: Children with relapsed neuroblastoma have poor survival. It is crucial to have a reliable method for evaluating functional response to new therapies. In this study, we compared two functional imaging modalities for neuroblastoma: metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scan for uptake by the norepinephrine transporter and [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) uptake for glucose metabolic activity.
Patients And Methods: Patients enrolled onto a phase I study of sequential infusion of iodine-131 ((131)I) MIBG (NANT-2000-01) were eligible for inclusion if they had concomitant FDG-PET and MIBG scans. (131)I-MIBG therapy was administered on days 0 and 14. For each patient, we compared all lesions identified on concomitant FDG-PET and MIBG scans and gave scans a semiquantitative score.
Results: The overall concordance of positive lesions on concomitant MIBG and FDG-PET scans was 39.6% when examining the 139 unique anatomic lesions. MIBG imaging was significantly more sensitive than FDG-PET overall and for the detection of bone lesions (P < .001). There was a trend for increased sensitivity of FDG-PET for detection of soft tissue lesions. Both modalities showed similar improvement in number of lesions identified from day 0 to day 56 scan and in semiquantitative scores that correlated with overall response. FDG-PET scans became completely negative more often than MIBG scans after treatment.
Conclusion: MIBG scan is significantly more sensitive for individual lesion detection in relapsed neuroblastoma than FDG-PET, though FDG-PET can sometimes play a complementary role, particularly in soft tissue lesions. Complete response by FDG-PET metabolic evaluation did not always correlate with complete response by MIBG uptake.
Lu X, Li C, Wang S, Yin Y, Fu H, Wang H Eur Radiol. 2024; 34(11):7125-7135.
PMID: 38758254 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10781-w.
Piccardo A, Treglia G, Fiz F, Bar-Sever Z, Bottoni G, Biassoni L Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023; 51(3):756-767.
PMID: 37962616 PMC: 10796700. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-023-06486-9.
Fu Z, Ren J, Zhou J, Shen J Front Oncol. 2023; 12:1031078.
PMID: 36591533 PMC: 9798316. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1031078.
Lai H, Sharp S, Bhatia A, Dietz K, McCarville B, Rajderkar D Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2022; 70 Suppl 4:e29974.
PMID: 36184716 PMC: 10680359. DOI: 10.1002/pbc.29974.
Wang Y, Xu Y, Kan Y, Wang W, Yang J Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2021; 2021:5333366.
PMID: 34548851 PMC: 8429030. DOI: 10.1155/2021/5333366.