Abstract：Objective This work aims to compare the application value of 18F-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-1007 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT in the grading of gliomas. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted on the data of 32 patients with gliomas who underwent head 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations at the PET Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University from August 2022 to March 2023. The data included 16 males and 16 females, with an age range of 19-79 years (50.3±13.2). All patients underwent intracranial mass resection surgery, and postoperative pathological grading were as follows: 14 patients were classified as WHO grade Ⅱ, 6 patients were classified as grade Ⅲ, and 12 patients were classified as grade Ⅳ. According to the WHO grading, the patients were divided into two groups: 18 patients with grades Ⅲ to Ⅳ were categorized as the high-grade glioma (HGG) group, and 14 patients with grade Ⅱ were categorized as the low-grade glioma (LGG) group. The observation indicators were as follows: (1) Observe the differences in the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) of lesions in 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT images between the HGG group and the LGG group; statistically analyze the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the two different tracer PET/CT imaging methods in differentiating between HGG and LGG; and utilize the receiver operating characteristic curve and calculate the area under the curve (AUC) to assess the diagnostic performance of two tracers in the grading of gliomas. (2) Count the number of cases in which the lesion boundaries were clearly delineated by 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the HGG group and the LGG group, and compare the differences in the clarity of lesion boundary delineation between the two imaging methods. Results In the LGG group, the SUVmax values for 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT were 0.69±0.32 and 8.87±3.20, respectively, whereas the TBR values were 1.05±0.45 and 0.89±0.30, respectively. In the HGG group, the SUVmax values for 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT were 5.39±3.88 and 11.85±3.54, respectively, whereas the TBR values were 12.99±10.60 and 1.25±0.54, respectively. In the LGG group, the SUVmax and TBR values for 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT were significantly lower than those of the HGG group (all P values <0.05). SUVmax and TBR of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT showed higher sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC for distinguishing HGG and LGG compared with those of 18F-FDG PET/CT. In 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, the TBR had the highest AUC of 0.988 (with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.960 to 1.000), and the corresponding threshold value was 2.15. By contrast, the TBR's AUC in 18F-FDG PET/CT was the lowest at 0.694 (with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.512 to 0.877), with the corresponding threshold value of 0.97. 18F-PSMA-1007 imaging showed a higher number of cases with clearly delineated lesion borders in the HGG and LGG groups compared with 18F-FDG imaging, with statistically significant differences (P=0.039 and 0.016, respectively). Conclusion18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT imaging demonstrates potential value in the diagnostic grading of gliomas. Compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT, 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT has higher sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and diagnostic effectiveness in distinguishing high-grade and low-grade gliomas, and can more clearly delineate the lesion boundaries.
尚宇, 刘军, 李瑞春, 梁华, 高俊刚, 刘翔, 周明静, 齐思言, 牛晨. 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT与18F-FDG PET/CT在脑胶质瘤分级评估中的对比研究[J]. 中华解剖与临床杂志, 2024, 29(1): 9-14.
Shang Yu, Liu Jun, Li Ruichun, Liang Hua, Gao Jungang, Liu Xiang, Zhou Mingjing, Qi Siyan, Niu Chen. Comparative study of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the grading assessment of gliomas. Chinese Journal of Anatomy and Clinics, 2024, 29(1): 9-14.
Schaff LR, Mellinghoff IK.Glioblastoma and other primary brain malignancies in adults: a review[J]. JAMA, 2023,329(7):574-587. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.0023
[2]
Horbinski C, Berger T, Packer RJ, et al.Clinical implications of the 2021 edition of the WHO classification of central nervous system tumours[J]. Nat Rev Neurol, 2022,18(9):515-529. DOI: 10.1038/s41582-022-00679-w
[3]
Fink JR, Muzi M, Peck M, et al.Multimodality brain tumor imaging: MR imaging, PET, and PET/MR imaging[J]. J Nucl Med, 2015, 56(10): 1554-1561. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.131516
[4]
Moreau A, Febvey O, Mognetti T, et al.Contribution of different positron emission tomography tracers in glioma management: focus on glioblastoma[J]. Front Oncol, 2019,9:1134. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01134
[5]
Uijen M, Derks Y, Merkx R, et al.PSMA radioligand therapy for solid tumors other than prostate cancer: background, opportunities, challenges, and first clinical reports[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2021,48(13):4350-4368. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-021-05433-w
[6]
van den Bent MJ, Geurts M, French PJ, et al. Primary brain tumours in adults[J]. Lancet, 2023,402(10412):1564-1579. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01054-1
[7]
姜双士,刘烜利,冯洪燕, 等.异机融合 11C-蛋氨酸PET/MRI在原发性、残留/复发性脑胶质瘤诊断中的应用[J]. 中华解剖与临床杂志, 2023, 28(10): 631-639. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn101202-20230217-00040 Jiang SS, Liu XL, Feng HY, et al.Diagnostic value of hybrid 11C-methionine PET/MRI for patients with primary or residual/recurrent gliomas[J]. Chin J Anat Clin, 2023. 28(10): 631-639. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn101202-20230217-00040
[8]
周维燕,华逢春,肖见飞, 等. 11C-MET PET显像对术前脑胶质瘤分级判断及对IDH1基因突变的预测价值[J]. 中华核医学与分子影像杂志, 2020, 40(3): 153-158. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321828-20190729-00138 Zhou WY, Hua FC, Xiao JF, et al.Preoperative 11C-methionine PET imaging in glioma grading efficacy and its predictive value for IDH1 gene mutation status[J]. Chin J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2020, 40(3): 153-158. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321828-20190729-00138
[9]
Law I, Albert NL, Arbizu J, et al.Joint EANM/EANO/RANO practice guidelines/SNMMI procedure standards for imaging of gliomas using PET with radiolabelled amino acids and [(18)F]FDG: version 1.0[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2019,46(3):540-557. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-018-4207-9
[10]
Zhang-Yin JT, Girard A, Bertaux M.What does PET imaging bring to neuro-oncology in 2022? A review[J]. Cancers (Basel), 2022,14(4):879. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14040879
[11]
Eshghi A, Covington MF, Eshghi N, et al.Utility of PET to appropriately select patients for PSMA-targeted theranostics[J]. Clin Nucl Med, 2022, 47(6): 488-495. DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004196
[12]
Akgun E, Akgun MY, Selçuk HH, et al.68Ga PSMA PET/MR in the differentiation of low and high grade gliomas: is 68Ga PSMA PET/MRI useful to detect brain gliomas?[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2020,130:109199. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109199
[13]
Sasikumar A, Joy A, Pillai MR, et al.Diagnostic value of 68Ga PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging of brain tumors-preliminary analysis[J]. Clin Nucl Med, 2017, 42(1): e41-e48. DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000001451
[14]
Verma P, Malhotra G, Goel A, et al.Differential uptake of 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC (PSMA-11) in low-grade versus high-grade gliomas in treatment-naive patients[J]. Clin Nucl Med, 2019, 44(5): e318-e322. DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000002520
[15]
Takahashi M, Soma T, Mukasa A, et al.Pattern of FDG and MET distribution in high- and low-grade gliomas on PET images[J]. Clin Nucl Med, 2019, 44(4):265-271. DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000002460
[16]
Şahin M, Akgun E, Sirolu S, et al.Is there any additional benefit of 68Ga-PSMA PET on radiotherapy target volume definition in patients with glioblastoma?[J]. Br J Radiol, 2022, 95(1139): 20220049. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20220049
[17]
Schwenck J, Tabatabai G, Skardelly M, et al.In vivo visualization of prostate-specific membrane antigen in glioblastoma[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2015, 42(1): 170-171. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-014-2921-5
2024, Vol. 29 
