Usefulness of 18F-FDOPA PET for the management of primary brain tumors: a systematic review of the literature

François Somme, Laura Bender, Izzie Jacques Namer, Georges Noël, Caroline Bund, François Somme, Laura Bender, Izzie Jacques Namer, Georges Noël, Caroline Bund

Abstract

Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging is currently the standard of care in the management of primary brain tumors, although certain limitations remain. Metabolic imaging has proven useful for an increasing number of indications in oncology over the past few years, most particularly 18F-FDG PET/CT. In neuro-oncology, 18F-FDG was insufficient to clearly evaluate brain tumors. Amino-acid radiotracers such as 18F-FDOPA were then evaluated in the management of brain diseases, notably tumoral diseases. Even though European guidelines on the use of amino-acid PET in gliomas have been published, it is crucial that future studies standardize acquisition and interpretation parameters. The aim of this article was to systematically review the potential effect of this metabolic imaging technique in numerous steps of the disease: primary and recurrence diagnosis, grading, local and systemic treatment assessment, and prognosis. A total of 41 articles were included and analyzed in this review. It appears that 18F-FDOPA PET holds promise as an effective additional tool in the management of gliomas. More consistent prospective studies are still needed.

Keywords: F-DOPA; Glioma; Primary brain tumor; Systematic review.

Conflict of interest statement

Authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of systematic review of the literature
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Summary of the risk of bias and applicability concerns according to the QUADAS-2 tool
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Graphic presentation of the risk of bias and applicability concerns according to the QUADAS-2 tool

References

    1. Stockham AL, Tievsky AL, Koyfman SA, Reddy CA, Suh JH, Vogelbaum MA, et al. Conventional MRI does not reliably distinguish radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence after stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurooncol. 2012;109:149–158. doi: 10.1007/s11060-012-0881-9.
    1. Young RJ, Gupta A, Shah AD, Graber JJ, Zhang Z, Shi W, et al. Potential utility of conventional MRI signs in diagnosing pseudoprogression in glioblastoma. Neurology. 2011;76:1918–1924. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31821d74e7.
    1. Zou Q-G, Xu H-B, Liu F, Guo W, Kong X-C, Wu Y. In the assessment of supratentorial glioma grade: the combined role of multivoxel proton MR spectroscopy and diffusion tensor imaging. Clin Radiol. 2011;66:953–960. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2011.05.001.
    1. Bulik M, Jancalek R, Vanicek J, Skoch A, Mechl M. Potential of MR spectroscopy for assessment of glioma grading. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2013;115:146–153. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2012.11.002.
    1. Zhang H, Ma L, Wang Q, Zheng X, Wu C, Xu B-N. Role of magnetic resonance spectroscopy for the differentiation of recurrent glioma from radiation necrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:2181–2189. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.09.018.
    1. Yoon JH, Kim J, Kang WJ, Sohn C-H, Choi SH, Yun TJ, et al. Grading of cerebral glioma with multiparametric MR imaging and 18F-FDG-PET: concordance and accuracy. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:380–389. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-3019-3.
    1. Santra A, Kumar R, Sharma P, Bal C, Kumar A, Julka PK, et al. F-18 FDG PET-CT in patients with recurrent glioma: comparison with contrast enhanced MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:508–513. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.080.
    1. Dankbaar JW, Snijders TJ, Robe PA, Seute T, Eppinga W, Hendrikse J, et al. The use of (18)F-FDG PET to differentiate progressive disease from treatment induced necrosis in high grade glioma. J Neurooncol. 2015;125:167–175. doi: 10.1007/s11060-015-1883-1.
    1. Chen W, Silverman DHS, Delaloye S, Czernin J, Kamdar N, Pope W, et al. 18F-FDOPA PET imaging of brain tumors: comparison study with 18F-FDG PET and evaluation of diagnostic accuracy. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2006;47:904–911.
    1. Jacob MJ, Pandit AG, Jora C, Mudalsha R, Sharma A, Pathak HC. Comparative study of (18)F-DOPA, (13)N-ammonia and F18-FDG PET/CT in primary brain tumors. Indian J Nucl Med IJNM Off J Soc Nucl Med India. 2011;26:139–143. doi: 10.4103/0972-3919.103996.
    1. Tripathi M, Sharma R, D’Souza M, Jaimini A, Panwar P, Varshney R, et al. Comparative evaluation of F-18 FDOPA, F-18 FDG, and F-18 FLT-PET/CT for metabolic imaging of low grade gliomas. Clin Nucl Med. 2009;34:878–883. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e3181becfe0.
    1. Lapa C, Linsenmann T, Monoranu CM, Samnick S, Buck AK, Bluemel C, et al. Comparison of the amino acid tracers 18F-FET and 18F-DOPA in high-grade Glioma patients. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1611–1616. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.114.140608.
    1. Kratochwil C, Combs SE, Leotta K, Afshar-Oromieh A, Rieken S, Debus J, et al. Intra-individual comparison of 18F-FET and 18F-DOPA in PET imaging of recurrent brain tumors. Neuro-Oncol. 2014;16:434–440. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/not199.
    1. Becherer A, Karanikas G, Szabó M, Zettinig G, Asenbaum S, Marosi C, et al. Brain tumour imaging with PET: a comparison between [18F]fluorodopa and [11C]methionine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1561–1567. doi: 10.1007/s00259-003-1259-1.
    1. Youland RS, Kitange GJ, Peterson TE, Pafundi DH, Ramiscal JA, Pokorny JL, et al. The role of LAT1 in (18)F-DOPA uptake in malignant gliomas. J Neurooncol. 2013;111:11–18. doi: 10.1007/s11060-012-0986-1.
    1. Walter F, Cloughesy T, Walter MA, Lai A, Nghiemphu P, Wagle N, et al. Impact of 3,4-dihydroxy-6-18F-fluoro-L-phenylalanine PET/CT on managing patients with brain tumors: the referring physician’s perspective. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2012;53:393–398.
    1. Law I, Albert NL, Arbizu J, Boellaard R, Drzezga A, Galldiks N, 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;46:540–557. doi: 10.1007/s00259-018-4207-9.
    1. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–536. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.
    1. Beuthien-Baumann B, Bredow J, Burchert W, Füchtner F, Bergmann R, Alheit H-D, et al. 3-O-methyl-6-[18F]fluoro-L-DOPA and its evaluation in brain tumour imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1004–1008. doi: 10.1007/s00259-003-1205-2.
    1. Pafundi DH, Laack NN, Youland RS, Parney IF, Lowe VJ, Giannini C, et al. Biopsy validation of 18F-DOPA PET and biodistribution in gliomas for neurosurgical planning and radiotherapy target delineation: results of a prospective pilot study. Neuro-Oncol. 2013;15:1058–1067. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/not002.
    1. Ledezma CJ, Chen W, Sai V, Freitas B, Cloughesy T, Czernin J, et al. 18F-FDOPA PET/MRI fusion in patients with primary/recurrent gliomas: initial experience. Eur J Radiol. 2009;71:242–248. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.04.018.
    1. Morana G, Piccardo A, Milanaccio C, Puntoni M, Nozza P, Cama A, et al. Value of 18F-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine PET/MR image fusion in pediatric supratentorial infiltrative astrocytomas: a prospective pilot study. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2014;55:718–723.
    1. Chiaravalloti A, Fiorentini A, Villani V, Carapella C, Pace A, Di Pietro B, et al. Factors affecting 18F FDOPA standardized uptake value in patients with primary brain tumors after treatment. Nucl Med Biol. 2015;42:355–359. doi: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2015.01.002.
    1. Youland RS, Pafundi DH, Brinkmann DH, Lowe VJ, Morris JM, Kemp BJ, et al. Prospective trial evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[18F]-fluoro-L-phenylalanine (18F-DOPA) PET and MRI in patients with recurrent gliomas. J Neurooncol. 2018;137:583–591. doi: 10.1007/s11060-018-2750-7.
    1. Janvier L, Olivier P, Blonski M, Morel O, Vignaud J-M, Karcher G, et al. Correlation of SUV-derived indices with Tumoral aggressiveness of Gliomas in static 18F-FDOPA PET: use in clinical practice. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40:e429–e435. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000000897.
    1. Patel CB, Fazzari E, Chakhoyan A, Yao J, Raymond C, Nguyen H, et al. 18F-FDOPA PET and MRI characteristics correlate with degree of malignancy and predict survival in treatment-naïve gliomas: a cross-sectional study. J Neurooncol. 2018;139:399–409. doi: 10.1007/s11060-018-2877-6.
    1. Schiepers C, Chen W, Cloughesy T, Dahlbom M, Huang S-C. 18F-FDOPA kinetics in brain tumors. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2007;48:1651–1661.
    1. Nioche C, Soret M, Gontier E, Lahutte M, Dutertre G, Dulou R, et al. Evaluation of quantitative criteria for glioma grading with static and dynamic 18F-FDopa PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:81–87. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e318279fd5a.
    1. Bund C, Heimburger C, Imperiale A, Lhermitte B, Chenard M-P, Lefebvre F, et al. FDOPA PET-CT of nonenhancing brain tumors. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42:250–257. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000001540.
    1. Verger A, Metellus P, Sala Q, Colin C, Bialecki E, Taieb D, et al. IDH mutation is paradoxically associated with higher 18F-FDOPA PET uptake in diffuse grade II and grade III gliomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1306–1311. doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3668-6.
    1. Karavaeva E, Harris RJ, Leu K, Shabihkhani M, Yong WH, Pope WB, et al. Relationship between [18F]FDOPA PET uptake, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and proliferation rate in recurrent malignant Gliomas. Mol Imaging Biol MIB Off Publ Acad Mol Imaging. 2015;17:434–442. doi: 10.1007/s11307-014-0807-3.
    1. Ginet M, Zaragori T, Marie P-Y, Roch V, Gauchotte G, Rech F, et al. Integration of dynamic parameters in the analysis of 18F-FDopa PET imaging improves the prediction of molecular features of gliomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:1381–1390. doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-04509-y.
    1. Girard A, Saint-Jalmes H, Chaboub N, Le Reste P-J, Metais A, Devillers A, et al. Optimization of time frame binning for FDOPA uptake quantification in glioma. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0232141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232141.
    1. Fueger BJ, Czernin J, Cloughesy T, Silverman DH, Geist CL, Walter MA, et al. Correlation of 6-18F-Fluoro-L-Dopa PET uptake with proliferation and tumor grade in newly diagnosed and recurrent Gliomas. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1532–1538. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.110.078592.
    1. Todeschi J, Bund C, Cebula H, Chibbaro S, Lhermitte B, Pin Y, et al. Diagnostic value of fusion of metabolic and structural images for stereotactic biopsy of brain tumors without enhancement after contrast medium injection. Neurochirurgie. 2019;65:357–364. doi: 10.1016/j.neuchi.2019.08.002.
    1. Cicone F, Carideo L, Scaringi C, Arcella A, Giangaspero F, Scopinaro F, et al. 18F-DOPA uptake does not correlate with IDH mutation status and 1p/19q co-deletion in glioma. Ann Nucl Med. 2019;33:295–302. doi: 10.1007/s12149-018-01328-3.
    1. Zaragori T, Guedj E, Verger A. Is IDH mutation status associated with 18F-FDopa PET uptake? Ann Nucl Med. 2020;34:228–229. doi: 10.1007/s12149-020-01442-1.
    1. Cicone F, Carideo L, Scaringi C, Minniti G. Reply to Zaragori et al.: “is IDH mutation status associated with 18F-FDopa PET uptake”. Ann Nucl Med. 2020;34:230–231. doi: 10.1007/s12149-020-01443-0.
    1. Kosztyla R, Chan EK, Hsu F, Wilson D, Ma R, Cheung A, et al. High-grade Glioma radiation therapy target volumes and patterns of failure obtained from magnetic resonance imaging and 18F-FDOPA positron emission tomography delineations from multiple observers. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2013;87:1100–1106. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.09.008.
    1. Kazda T, Pafundi DH, Kraling A, Bradley T, Lowe VJ, Brinkmann DH, et al. Dosimetric impact of amino acid positron emission tomography imaging for target delineation in radiation treatment planning for high-grade gliomas. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018;6:94–100. doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.06.004.
    1. Rose S, Fay M, Thomas P, Bourgeat P, Dowson N, Salvado O, et al. Correlation of MRI-derived apparent diffusion coefficients in newly diagnosed gliomas with [18F]-fluoro-L-dopa PET: what are we really measuring with minimum ADC? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34:758–764. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3315.
    1. Cicone F, Filss CP, Minniti G, Rossi-Espagnet C, Papa A, Scaringi C, et al. Volumetric assessment of recurrent or progressive gliomas: comparison between F-DOPA PET and perfusion-weighted MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:905–915. doi: 10.1007/s00259-015-3018-5.
    1. Kosztyla R, Raman S, Moiseenko V, Reinsberg SA, Toyota B, Nichol A. Dose-painted volumetric modulated arc therapy of high-grade glioma using 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[ 18 F]fluoro-L-phenylalanine positron emission tomography. Br J Radiol. 2019;92:20180901. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20180901.
    1. Oehlke O, Mix M, Graf E, Schimek-Jasch T, Nestle U, Götz I, et al. Amino-acid PET versus MRI guided re-irradiation in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GLIAA) - protocol of a randomized phase II trial (NOA 10/ARO 2013-1) BMC Cancer. 2016;16:769. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2806-z.
    1. Schwarzenberg J, Czernin J, Cloughesy TF, Ellingson BM, Pope WB, Grogan T, et al. Treatment response evaluation using 18F-FDOPA PET in patients with recurrent malignant glioma on bevacizumab therapy. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2014;20:3550–3559. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1440.
    1. Wardak M, Schiepers C, Cloughesy TF, Dahlbom M, Phelps ME, Huang S-C. 18F-FLT and 18F-FDOPA PET kinetics in recurrent brain tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1199–1209. doi: 10.1007/s00259-013-2678-2.
    1. Ellingson BM, Chung C, Pope WB, Boxerman JL, Kaufmann TJ. Pseudoprogression, radionecrosis, inflammation or true tumor progression? Challenges associated with glioblastoma response assessment in an evolving therapeutic landscape. J Neurooncol. 2017;134:495–504. doi: 10.1007/s11060-017-2375-2.
    1. Linhares P, Carvalho B, Figueiredo R, Reis RM, Vaz R. Early Pseudoprogression following Chemoradiotherapy in Glioblastoma patients: the value of RANO evaluation. J Oncol. 2013;2013:690585. doi: 10.1155/2013/690585.
    1. Nasseri M, Gahramanov S, Netto JP, Fu R, Muldoon LL, Varallyay C, et al. Evaluation of pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma multiforme using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging with ferumoxytol calls RANO criteria into question. Neuro-Oncol. 2014;16:1146–1154. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/not328.
    1. Humbert O, Bourg V, Mondot L, Gal J, Bondiau P-Y, Fontaine D, et al. 18F-DOPA PET/CT in brain tumors: impact on multidisciplinary brain tumor board decisions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:558–568. doi: 10.1007/s00259-018-4240-8.
    1. Herrmann K, Czernin J, Cloughesy T, Lai A, Pomykala KL, Benz MR, et al. Comparison of visual and semiquantitative analysis of 18F-FDOPA-PET/CT for recurrence detection in glioblastoma patients. Neuro-Oncol. 2014;16:603–609. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/not166.
    1. Karunanithi S, Sharma P, Kumar A, Khangembam BC, Bandopadhyaya GP, Kumar R, et al. Comparative diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI and 18F-FDOPA PET-CT in recurrent glioma. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:2628–2635. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2838-6.
    1. Karunanithi S, Sharma P, Kumar A, Khangembam BC, Bandopadhyaya GP, Kumar R, et al. 18F-FDOPA PET/CT for detection of recurrence in patients with glioma: prospective comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1025–1035. doi: 10.1007/s00259-013-2384-0.
    1. Karunanithi S, Bandopadhyaya GP, Sharma P, Kumar A, Singla S, Malhotra A, et al. Prospective comparison of (99m)Tc-GH SPECT/CT and (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT for detection of recurrent glioma: a pilot study. Clin Nucl Med. 2014;39:e121–e128. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e318279bcd8.
    1. Fraioli F, Shankar A, Hyare H, Ferrazzoli V, Militano V, Samandouras G, et al. The use of multiparametric 18F-fluoro-L-3,4-dihydroxy-phenylalanine PET/MRI in post-therapy assessment of patients with gliomas. Nucl Med Commun. 2020;41:517–525. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001184.
    1. Zaragori T, Ginet M, Marie P-Y, Roch V, Grignon R, Gauchotte G, et al. Use of static and dynamic [18F]-F-DOPA PET parameters for detecting patients with glioma recurrence or progression. EJNMMI Res. 2020;10:56. doi: 10.1186/s13550-020-00645-x.
    1. Villani V, Carapella CM, Chiaravalloti A, Terrenato I, Piludu F, Vidiri A, et al. The role of PET [18F]FDOPA in evaluating low-grade Glioma. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:5117–5122.
    1. Rossi Espagnet MC, Romano A, Mancuso V, Cicone F, Napolitano A, Scaringi C, et al. Multiparametric evaluation of low grade gliomas at follow-up: comparison between diffusion and perfusion MR with (18)F-FDOPA PET. Br J Radiol. 2016;89:20160476. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20160476.
    1. Smits M. Imaging of oligodendroglioma. Br J Radiol. 2016;89:20150857. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20150857.
    1. Oughourlian TC, Yao J, Schlossman J, Raymond C, Ji M, Tatekawa H, et al. Rate of change in maximum 18F-FDOPA PET uptake and non-enhancing tumor volume predict malignant transformation and overall survival in low-grade gliomas. J Neurooncol. 2020;147:135–145. doi: 10.1007/s11060-020-03407-w.
    1. Dowson N, Thomas P, Fay M, Jeffree RL, Gal Y, Bourgeat P, et al. Early prediction of treatment response in advanced gliomas with (18)F-dopa positron-emission tomography. Curr Oncol Tor Ont. 2014;21:e172–e178. doi: 10.3747/co.21.1772.
    1. Chiaravalloti A, Esposito V, Ursini F, Di Giorgio E, Zinzi M, Calabria F, et al. Overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with primary brain tumors after treatment: is the outcome of [18F] FDOPA PET a prognostic factor in these patients? Ann Nucl Med. 2019;33:471–480. doi: 10.1007/s12149-019-01355-8.
    1. Pallud J, Blonski M, Mandonnet E, Audureau E, Fontaine D, Sanai N, et al. Velocity of tumor spontaneous expansion predicts long-term outcomes for diffuse low-grade gliomas. Neuro-Oncol. 2013;15:595–606. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/nos331.
    1. Isal S, Gauchotte G, Rech F, Blonski M, Planel S, Chawki MB, et al. A high 18F-FDOPA uptake is associated with a slow growth rate in diffuse grade II-III gliomas. Br J Radiol. 2018;91:20170803.
    1. Karunanithi S, Sharma P, Kumar A, Gupta DK, Khangembam BC, Ballal S, et al. Can (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT predict survival in patients with suspected recurrent glioma? A prospective study. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:219–225. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.09.004.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe