%0 Journal Article
%T MGMT promoter methylation status shows no effect on [18F]FET uptake and CBF in gliomas: a stereotactic image-based histological validation study.
%A Song S
%A Shan Y
%A Wang L
%A Cheng Y
%A Yang H
%A Zhao G
%A Wang Z
%A Lu J
%J Eur Radiol
%V 32
%N 8
%D Aug 2022
%M 35192012
%F 7.034
%R 10.1007/s00330-022-08606-9
%X OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status of gliomas on O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine ([18F]FET) uptake and cerebral blood flow (CBF) of arterial spin labeling (ASL), evaluated by hybrid PET/MR. Stereotactic biopsy was used to validate the findings.
METHODS: A set of whole tumor and reference volumes of interest (VOIs) based on PET/FLAIR imaging were delineated and transferred to the corresponding [18F]FET PET and CBF maps in 57 patients with newly diagnosed gliomas. The mean and max tumor-to-brain ratio (TBR) and normalized CBF (nCBF) were calculated. The predictive efficacy of [18F]FET PET and CBF in determining MGMT promoter methylation status of glioma were evaluated by whole tumor analysis and stereotactic biopsy. The correlation between PET/MR parameters and MGMT promoter methylation were analyzed using histological specimens acquired from multiple stereotactic biopsies.
RESULTS: Based on the analysis of whole tumor volume and biopsy site, TBRmean, TBRmax, nCBFmean, and nCBFmax showed no statistically significant differences between gliomas with and without MGMT promoter methylation (all p > 0.05). Furthermore, stereotactic biopsy demonstrated that TBRmean, TBRmax, nCBFmean, and nCBFmax showed no correlation with MGMT promoter methylation (r = -0.117, p = 0.579; r = -0.161, p = 0.443; r = -0.271, p = 0.191; r = -0.300, p = 0.145; respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: MGMT promoter methylation status shows no effect on [18F]FET uptake and CBF of ASL in gliomas. Stereotactic biopsy validates it and further reveals there is no correlation of [18F]FET PET uptake and CBF with the percentages of MGMT promoter methylation.
CONCLUSIONS: • Based on whole tumor VOI assessment, MGMT promoter methylation status shows no effect on [18F]FET uptake and CBF of ASL in gliomas. • For WHO grade IV glioblastomas, [18F]FET PET and ASL parameters based on hybrid PET/MR fail to predict the MGMT promoter methylation status. • Stereotactic image-based histology reveals that there is no correlation of [18F]FET PET uptake and CBF with the status and percentages of MGMT promoter methylation in gliomas.