Amino Acid PET Vs. RANO MRI for Prediction of Overall Survival in Patients with Recurrent High Grade Glioma Under Bevacizumab Therapy

Overview

Journal Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging

Specialties Biophysics
Nuclear Medicine
Radiology

Date 2024 Jan 16

PMID 38228970

Authors

Artem Chaban

Birgit Waschulzik

Denise Bernhardt

Claire Delbridge

Friederike Schmidt-Graf

Arthur Wagner

Benedikt Wiestler

Wolfgang Weber

Igor Yakushev

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: For monitoring of patients with rHGG under bevacizumab therapy, AA-PET should be preferred over RANO MRI.

Citing Articles

Magnetic resonance imaging and o-(2-[F]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine positron emission tomography for early response assessment of nivolumab and bevacizumab in patients with recurrent high-grade astrocytic glioma.

Henriksen O, Maarup S, Hasselbalch B, Poulsen H, Christensen I, Madsen K Neurooncol Adv. 2024; 6(1):vdae178.

PMID: 39659835 PMC: 11630048. DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdae178.

Measurable disease as baseline criterion for response assessment in glioblastoma: A comparison of PET -based (PET RANO 1.0) and MRI-based (RANO) assessments.

Muller K, Forbrig R, Reis J, Wiegand L, Barci E, Kunte S Neuro Oncol. 2024; 27(1):77-88.

PMID: 39561103 PMC: 11726251. DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noae208.

References

Hutterer M, Nowosielski M, Putzer D, Waitz D, Tinkhauser G, Kostron H . O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET predicts failure of antiangiogenic treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma. J Nucl Med. 2011; 52(6):856-64. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.110.086645. View

Friedman H, Prados M, Wen P, Mikkelsen T, Schiff D, Abrey L . Bevacizumab alone and in combination with irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(28):4733-40. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.8721. View

Piroth M, Prasath J, Willuweit A, Stoffels G, Sellhaus B, van Osterhout A . Uptake of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine in reactive astrocytosis in the vicinity of cerebral gliomas. Nucl Med Biol. 2013; 40(6):795-800. DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2013.05.001. View

Galldiks N, Dunkl V, Ceccon G, Tscherpel C, Stoffels G, Law I . 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(13):2377-2386. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-018-4082-4. View

Weller M, van den Bent M, Preusser M, Le Rhun E, Tonn J, Minniti G . EANO guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diffuse gliomas of adulthood. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020; 18(3):170-186. PMC: 7904519. DOI: 10.1038/s41571-020-00447-z. View

Delgado-Lopez P, Rinones-Mena E, Corrales-Garcia E . 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. 2017; 20(8):939-953. DOI: 10.1007/s12094-017-1816-x. View

Kulinich D, Sheppard J, Nguyen T, Kondajji A, Unterberger A, Duong C . Radiotherapy versus combination radiotherapy-bevacizumab for the treatment of recurrent high-grade glioma: a systematic review. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021; 163(7):1921-1934. PMC: 8195900. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-021-04794-3. View

Diaz R, Ali S, Qadir M, de la Fuente M, Ivan M, Komotar R . The role of bevacizumab in the treatment of glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2017; 133(3):455-467. DOI: 10.1007/s11060-017-2477-x. View

Wen P, Macdonald D, Reardon D, Cloughesy T, Sorensen A, Galanis E . Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(11):1963-72. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541. View

10.

Schlurmann T, Waschulzik B, Combs S, Gempt J, Wiestler B, Weber W . Utility of Amino Acid PET in the Differential Diagnosis of Recurrent Brain Metastases and Treatment-Related Changes: A Meta-analysis. J Nucl Med. 2022; 64(5):816-821. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.122.264803. View

11.

Taal W, Oosterkamp H, Walenkamp A, Dubbink H, Beerepoot L, Hanse M . 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(9):943-53. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70314-6. View

12.

Schwarzenberg J, Czernin J, Cloughesy T, Ellingson B, Pope W, Grogan T . Treatment response evaluation using 18F-FDOPA PET in patients with recurrent malignant glioma on bevacizumab therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2014; 20(13):3550-9. PMC: 4079729. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1440. View

13.

Deuschl C, Moenninghoff C, Goericke S, Kirchner J, Koppen S, Binse I . Response assessment of bevacizumab therapy in GBM with integrated 11C-MET-PET/MRI: a feasibility study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; 44(8):1285-1295. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-017-3661-0. View

14.

Hughes K, ONeal C, Andrews B, Westrup A, Battiste J, Glenn C . A systematic review of the utility of amino acid PET in assessing treatment response to bevacizumab in recurrent high-grade glioma. Neurooncol Adv. 2021; 3(1):vdab003. PMC: 8369430. DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdab003. View

15.

Wick W, Gorlia T, Bendszus M, Taphoorn M, Sahm F, Harting I . Lomustine and Bevacizumab in Progressive Glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(20):1954-1963. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1707358. View

16.

Galldiks N, Rapp M, Stoffels G, Fink G, Shah N, Coenen H . 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. 2012; 40(1):22-33. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-012-2251-4. View

17.

Chukwueke U, Wen P . Use of the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria in clinical trials and clinical practice. CNS Oncol. 2019; 8(1):CNS28. PMC: 6499019. DOI: 10.2217/cns-2018-0007. View

18.

Arevalo O, Soto C, Rabiei P, Kamali A, Ballester L, Esquenazi Y . Assessment of Glioblastoma Response in the Era of Bevacizumab: Longstanding and Emergent Challenges in the Imaging Evaluation of Pseudoresponse. Front Neurol. 2019; 10:460. PMC: 6514158. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00460. View

19.

Park Y, Ahn S, Moon J, Kim E, Kang S, Chang J . 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(11):1811-1822. DOI: 10.1007/s00234-021-02693-z. View