English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose  Dynamic amino acid positron emission tomography (PET) has become essential in neuro-oncology, most notably for its prognostic value in the noninvasive prediction of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations in newly diagnosed gliomas. The 6-[ 18 F]fluoro- l -DOPA ( 18 F-FDOPA) kinetic model has an underlying complexity, while previous studies have predominantly used a semiquantitative dynamic analysis. Our study addresses whether a semiquantitative analysis can capture all the relevant information contained in time–activity curves for predicting the presence of IDH mutations compared to the more sophisticated graphical and compartmental models.    Methods  Thirty-seven tumour time–activity curves from  18 F-FDOPA PET dynamic acquisitions of newly diagnosed gliomas (median age = 58.3 years, range = 20.3–79.9 years, 16 women, 16 IDH-wild type) were analyzed with a semiquantitative model based on classical parameters, with (SQ) or without (Ref SQ) a reference region, or on parameters of a fit function (SQ Fit), a graphical Logan model with input function (Logan) or reference region (Ref Logan), and a two-tissue compartmental model previously reported for  18 F-FDOPA PET imaging of gliomas (2TCM). The overall predictive performance of each model was assessed with an area under the curve (AUC) comparison using multivariate analysis of all the parameters included in the model. Moreover, each extracted parameter was assessed in a univariate analysis by a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.    Results  The SQ model with an AUC of 0.733 for predicting IDH mutations showed comparable performance to the other models with AUCs of 0.752, 0.814, 0.693, 0.786, and 0.863, respectively corresponding to SQ Fit, Ref SQ, Logan, Ref Logan, and 2TCM ( p  ≥ 0.10 for the pairwise comparisons with other models). In the univariate analysis, the SQ time-to-peak parameter had the best diagnostic performance (75.7% accuracy) compared to all other individual parameters considered.    Conclusions  The SQ model circumvents the complexities of the  18 F-FDOPA kinetic model and yields similar performance in predicting IDH mutations when compared to the other models, most notably the compartmental model. Our study provides supportive evidence for the routine clinical application of the SQ model for the dynamic analysis of  18 F-FDOPA PET images in newly diagnosed gliomas.

Dynamic 18F-FDopa PET Imaging for Newly Diagnosed Gliomas: Is a Semiquantitative Model Sufficient?