3.8 Article

Prognostic Value of Metabolic Tumor Volume on 11C-Methionine PET in Predicting Progression-Free Survival in High-Grade Glioma

期刊

NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING
卷 49, 期 4, 页码 291-297

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13139-015-0362-0

关键词

C-11 methionine; PET; High-grade glioma; Prognosis; Volumetric analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose C-11 methionine (MET) PET is commonly used for diagnosing high-grade glioma (HGG). Recently, volumetric analysis has been widely applied to oncologic PET imaging. In this study, we investigated the prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume (MTV) on MET PET in HGG. Methods A total of 30 patients with anaplastic astrocytoma (n= 12) and glioblastoma multiforme (n= 18) who underwent MET PET before treatment (surgery followed by chemoradiotherapy) were retrospectively enrolled. Maximal tumor-to-normal brain ratio (TNRmax, maximum tumor activity divided by mean of normal tissue) and MTV (volume of tumor tissue that shows uptake>1.3-fold of mean uptake in normal tissue) were measured on MET PET. Adult patients were classified into two subgroups according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RTOG RPA) classification. Prognostic values of TNRmax, MTV and clinicopathologic factors were evaluated with regard to progression-free survival (PFS). Results Median PFS of all patients was 7.9 months (range 1.0-53.8 months). In univariate analysis, MTV (cutoff 35 cm(3)) was a significant prognostic factor for PFS (P=0.01), whereas TNRmax (cutoff 3.3) and RTOG RPA class were not (P=0.80 and 0.61, respectively). Treatment of surgical resection exhibited a borderline significance (P=0.06). In multivariate analysis, MTV was the only independent prognostic factor for PFS (P=0.03). Conclusion MTV on MET PET is a significant and independent prognostic factor for PFS in HGG patients, whereas TNRmax is not. Thus, performing volumetric analysis of MET PET is recommended in HGG for better prognostication.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据