Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 7, 2025
PET and MRI Guided Irradiation of a Glioblastoma Rat Model Using a Micro-irradiator
Published on: December 28, 2017
High-Grade Glioma Radiation Therapy and Reirradiation Treatment Planning Using Translocator Protein Positron Emission
Daniel Felix Fleischmann1,2,3, Marcel Büttner1, Marcus Unterrainer4
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Purpose:
Translocator protein (TSPO) positron emission tomography (PET) using 18F-GE-180 shows high tumor-to-brain contrast in high-grade glioma (HGG), even in areas without magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast enhancement. Until now, the benefit of 18F-GE-180 PET in primary radiation therapy (RT) and reirradiation (reRT) treatment planning for patients with HGG has not been assessed.
Methods And Materials:
The possible benefit of 18F-GE-180 PET in RT and reRT planning was retrospectively evaluated through post hoc spatial correlations of PET-based biological tumor volumes (BTVs) with conventional MRI-based consensus gross tumor volumes (cGTVs). To find the ideal threshold for BTV definition in RT and reRT treatment planning, tumor-to-background activity thresholds of 1.6, 1.8, and 2.0 were applied. Spatial overlap of PET- and MRI-based tumor volumes was measured by the Sørensen-Dice coefficient (SDC) and the conformity index (CI). Additionally, the minimal margin to include the entire BTV into the expanded cGTV was determined.
Results:
Thirty-five primary RT and 16 reRT cases were examined. BTV1.6, BTV1.8, and BTV2.0 were significantly larger than corresponding cGTV volumes in primary RT (median volumes: 67.4, 50.7, and 39.1, respectively, vs 22.6 cm3; P < .001, P < .001, and P = .017, respectively; Wilcoxon test) and reRT cases (median volumes: 80.5, 55.0, and 41.6, respectively, vs 22.7 cm3; P = .001, P = .005, and P = .144, respectively; Wilcoxon test). BTV1.6, BTV1.8, and BTV2.0 showed low but increasing conformity with cGTVs in the primary RT (SDC: 0.51, 0.55, and 0.58, respectively; CI: 0.35, 0.38, and 0.41, respectively) and reRT setting (SDC: 0.38, 0.40, and 0.40, respectively; CI: 0.24, 0.25, and 0.25, respectively). The minimal margin required to include the BTV within the cGTV was significantly smaller in the RT versus the reRT setting for thresholds 1.6 and 1.8 but not significantly different for threshold 2.0 (median margin: 16, 12, and 10, respectively, vs 21.5, 17.5, and 13 mm, respectively; P = .007, P = .031, and P = .093, respectively; Mann-Whitney U test).
Conclusions:
18F-GE-180 PET provides valuable information in RT treatment planning for patients with HGG. 18F-GE-180-based BTVs with a threshold of 2.0 were most consistent in primary and reRT.
