Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 5;16(3):e0248193. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248193

Assessment of the effect of therapy in a rat model of glioblastoma using [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET compared to contrast-enhanced MRI

Julie Bolcaen 1,*, Benedicte Descamps 2, Karel Deblaere 3, Filip De Vos 4, Tom Boterberg 5, Giorgio Hallaert 6, Caroline Van den Broecke 7, Christian Vanhove 2, Ingeborg Goethals 8
Editor: Pierpaolo Alongi9
PMCID: PMC7935304  PMID: 33667282

Abstract

Objective

We investigated the potential of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) and [18F]Fluoromethylcholine ([18F]FCho) PET, compared to contrast-enhanced MRI, for the early detection of treatment response in F98 glioblastoma (GB) rats.

Methods

When GB was confirmed on T2- and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI, animals were randomized into a treatment group (n = 5) receiving MRI-guided 3D conformal arc micro-irradiation (20 Gy) with concomitant temozolomide, and a sham group (n = 5). Effect of treatment was evaluated by MRI and [18F]FDG PET on day 2, 5, 9 and 12 post-treatment and [18F]FCho PET on day 1, 6, 8 and 13 post-treatment. The metabolic tumor volume (MTV) was calculated using a semi-automatic thresholding method and the average tracer uptake within the MTV was converted to a standard uptake value (SUV).

Results

To detect treatment response, we found that for [18F]FDG PET (SUVmean x MTV) is superior to MTV only. Using (SUVmean x MTV), [18F]FDG PET detects treatment effect starting as soon as day 5 post-therapy, comparable to contrast-enhanced MRI. Importantly, [18F]FDG PET at delayed time intervals (240 min p.i.) was able to detect the treatment effect earlier, starting at day 2 post-irradiation. No significant differences were found at any time point for both the MTV and (SUVmean x MTV) of [18F]FCho PET.

Conclusions

Both MRI and particularly delayed [18F]FDG PET were able to detect early treatment responses in GB rats, whereas, in this study this was not possible using [18F]FCho PET. Further comparative studies should corroborate these results and should also include (different) amino acid PET tracers.

Introduction

In the US, 84,170 new cases of primary brain and other central nervous system tumors are estimated to be diagnosed in 2021. Glioblastoma (GB) has the highest number of cases of all malignant tumors, with 12,970 cases projected in 2021 [1]. Surgical resection remains the most effective treatment for gliomas. It has been shown that patients who had a gross total resection have a better response to subsequent adjuvant treatments than those who underwent a partial resection or biopsy only [2]. However, in about half of the newly diagnosed patients, gross total resection is not possible [3]. In 2005, Stupp et al. established the superiority of surgery and combined chemoradiation therapy with temozolomide (TMZ) over surgery and radiation therapy (RT) alone. As a result, for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GB) patients with a good performance status, the standard of care now includes maximal surgical resection followed by combined external beam RT (60 Gy in 30 fractions) and TMZ [46]. Despite the combined treatment, the clinical course of GB is usually rapid and provides only moderate survival benefit with a median survival of approximately 1 year [5]. Hence, the assessment of early treatment response is crucial allowing early change of management and the discontinuation of ineffective treatment and treatment related adverse effects/events. Moreover, the identification of early treatment failure may reduce costs because new systemic treatments (e.g. bevacizumab) are considerably more expensive than conventional alkylating chemotherapy (e.g. lomustine) [79].

In the clinic, MRI is the imaging modality of choice for therapy response assessment in glioma patients. New response criteria for Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) were introduced in 2010, including the tumor size (in 2D) as measured on T2- and Fluid Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR)-weighted images, in addition to the contrast-enhancing tumor part [10]. However, tumor cells have been found at quite a distance from the contrast enhancing region on MRI [11]. Furthermore, 20 to 30% of patients undergoing a first post-irradiation MRI show increased contrast enhancement that eventually subsides without any change in therapy. This phenomenon is well-known as so-called pseudoprogression. On the other hand, pseudoresponse also occurs when antiangiogenic treatment is given, especially when targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) with for example bevacizumab, and the VEGF receptor, with cediranib. Antiangiogenic treatment usually causes a marked decrease in contrast enhancement as early as 1 to 2 days after the initiation of the treatment. These apparent radiologic responses may be partly the result of normalization of abnormally permeable tumor vessels and may therefore not indicate a true/genuine antitumor effect per se. Hence, pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse complicate treatment response assessment in glioma patients using conventional MRI [10, 12]. In addition, therapy-related effects on normal brain tissue, such as radiation necrosis, inflammation and postsurgical changes can also result in increased enhancement or FLAIR/T2 hyperintense signal abnormalities. This also adds to the complexity of assessing treatment response and tumor recurrence that is particularly important in patients with high-grade gliomas for whom the treatment of tumor recurrence is always urgent [10, 1315]. Similarly, pseudoprogression is also common when immunotherapy, which is being increasingly applied in neuro-oncology, is administered [8, 1618].

To address the above-mentioned drawbacks, incorporating techniques measuring treatment induced changes in tumor biology may help [3, 19, 20]. Importantly, PET enables visualization of biological changes preceding anatomical changes. And with an overall increasing access to PET tracers, three indications for PET imaging are of particular interest: (i) the identification of tumor tissue, including the delineation of tumor volume, (ii) the differentiation of treatment-related changes from tumor progression at follow-up, and (iii) the assessment of treatment response for predicting outcome [21]. For these purposes, multiple PET tracers have been proposed, such as [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG), [18F]Fluoroethyltyrosine ([18F]FET), [18F]fluoroazomycin arabinoside ([18F]FAZA), 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[18F]-fluoro-l-phenylalanine ([18F]FDOPA) and [18F]Fluoromethylcholine ([18F]FCho) [2124]. Currently only two of these are frequently used in the clinic, namely [18F]FDG and [18F]FET. [18F]FDG PET measures cellular glucose metabolism as a function of the hexokinase enzyme. However, due to its high uptake in normal brain parenchyma, the localization and the delineation of brain tumors is often difficult [23, 24]. It was shown that delineation of gliomas was improved by extending the interval between the administration of [18F]FDG and PET acquisition, the so called “dual phase imaging” [2527]. Also, increased 18F-FDG uptake in inflammatory tissue hampers its specificity. Therefore, new PET tracers beyond [18F]FDG such as radiolabeled amino acids were developed showing an increased contrast between brain tumors and normal brain tissue. The diagnostic potential of [18F]FET PET in brain tumors is well documented and the RANO working group has recommended amino acid PET as an additional tool in the diagnostic assessment of brain tumors [28]. Also, a superior delineation of gliomas by [18F]FET PET compared with MRI and a promising role for the distinction between tumor recurrence and aspecific post-therapeutic changes has been shown [7, 29, 30]. Hypoxia imaging, using [18F]FAZA as a PET tracer may also have clinical relevance because tumor aggressiveness, failure to achieve local tumor control and an increased rate of tumor recurrence are all associated with hypoxia [22, 31, 32]. A downside of [18F]FAZA PET is that optimal imaging is performed a few hours post-injection and that the degree of hypoxia can theoretically fluctuate, influenced by therapy and the presence of acute versus chronic hypoxia [33]. Finally, positron-labeled choline analogues appear to be successful as oncological PET probes because a major hallmark of cancer cells is increased lipogenesis, resulting in a high tumor-to-normal brain tissue contrast [34, 35]. Recently, the current status of choline PET in neuro-oncology was reviewed. The major advantage of choline tracers is the very low uptake in normal white and grey matter and its accessibility because of its use in the management of castration resistant prostate cancer. The metabolic information acquired by [18F]FCho PET has been shown to be able to distinguish high-grade glioma, brain metastases and benign lesions and to identify the most malignant areas for stereotactic sampling [3538]. Grech-Sollars et al. concluded that [18F]FCho PET was able to differentiate WHO (World Health Organization) grade IV from grade II and III tumors, whereas MR spectroscopy differentiated grade III/IV from grade II tumors [39]. Recently, the potential use of [18F]FCho PET/CT in the intraoperative management or radio-surgical approaches for glioma has been suggested, including intraoperative guidance in conjunction with MR spectroscopy [38, 40, 41].

Previously, our group used the orthotopic allograft F98 GB rat model to mimic GB treatment in patients. The GB F98 rat model exhibited features of human GB with regard to its aggressiveness, histological appearance and lack of immunogenicity [42]. To enable more precise irradiation of the target volume in small animals, precision image-guided small animal radiation research platforms were developed, such as the Small Animal Radiation Research Platform (SARRP, Xstrahl®, Surrey, UK). Using the F98 GB rat model and the SARRP, we described and validated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided 3D conformal arc RT with concomitant chemotherapy to bridge the gap between radiation technology in the clinic and preclinical techniques [43]. In this study, this methodology was applied to investigate the potential of [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET, compared to contrast-enhanced MRI, to detect the early effect of combined radiation and TMZ treatment in the F98 GB rat model. In addition, we also investigated which modality is best suited for the early detection of treatment response.

Materials and methods

The study was approved by the Ghent University Ethical Committee for animal experiments (ECD 09/23-A). All animals were kept under environmentally controlled conditions (12-h normal light/dark cycles, 20°C– 24°C, and 40–70% relative humidity) with food and water ad libitum. Follow-up of all animals was done by monitoring their body weight, food, water intake and their activity and normal behavior. The method of euthanasia was a lethal dose of pentobarbital sodium (180 mg/kg). Euthanasia was performed prior to the experimental endpoint if a decline of 20% body weight was observed or when the normal behavior severely deteriorated (e.g. lack of grooming).

F98 GB rat model

F98 Glioma cells (ATCC, 20 000 in 5 μl cell suspension) were inoculated 2 mm posterior and 2.5 mm lateral to the bregma in the right frontal hemisphere of female Fischer F344 rats (Charles River®) (n = 10, body weight 173 ± 11 g, mean ± SD). Full details of the protocol can be found in our previous publications [4345]. For inoculation, rats were anesthetized with ketamine/xylazine (4/3; 0.13 ml/100 g). Post-surgery, a close follow-up of the animals was performed (body temperature, wound healing and behavior). Animals were kept separately post-inoculation.

MRI-guided 3D conformal arc micro-irradiation

Nine days post-inoculation, MRI was performed using a 7 tesla preclinical MRI system (PharmaScan 70/16, Bruker BioSpin, Ettlingen, Germany). The rats (fixed on the multimodality bed) were anesthetized with isoflurane mixed with oxygen at a flow rate of 0.3 L/min (induction 5%, maintenance 1.5%) and covered with a heated blanket. The bed was placed in a holder with fixed rat brain surface coil (Rapid Biomedical, Rimpar, Germany) that was positioned in a 72 mm rat whole body transmitter coil (Rapid Biomedical, Rimpar, Germany). A localizer scan was performed followed by a T2-weighted spin-echo scan (TR/TE 3661/37.1 ms, 109 μm isotropic in-plane resolution, 4 averages, TA 9’45”) to assess tumor growth. Secondly, gadolinium-containing contrast (Dotarem, Guerbet, France; 0,4 mL/kg) was injected intravenously. Fifteen minutes later a contrast-enhanced T1-weighted spin echo sequence (TR/TE 1539/9.7 ms, 117 μm isotropic in-plane resolution, 3 averages, TA 4’15”) was performed. Typical T2- and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR images are shown in Fig 1A and 1B. For the treatment group (n = 5), when tumor growth was confirmed on MRI, the animal was transported to the table of the SARRP. A high-resolution treatment planning CT scan was performed, using an aluminum filter of 1 mm and a 20 x 20 cm (1024 x 1024 pixel) amorphous Si flat panel detector. A total of 720 projections were acquired over 360° and reconstructed with an isotropic voxel size of 0.2 mm, see Fig 1C. The tube voltage and tube current were set at 80 kV and 0.6 mA, respectively. The CT and the T1-weighted contrast-enhanced MRI scan were imported into 3D slicer v3.6.31 (www.slicer.org) and co-registered manually with rigid body transformations. By overlaying the increased signal intensity of the skull on CT with black signal on MRI and using multimodality markers, a precise fusion could be achieved. Using the treatment planning software (Muriplan, Xstrahl®, Surrey, UK), dose plans were calculated to deliver 20 Gy to the target tumor volume using a 3 x 3 mm collimator applying three arcs, one covering an angle of 90° with the couch at 0° and two covering angles of 60° with the couch at 45° and 90°, see Fig 1D and 1E. Concomitant chemotherapy was administered using intraperitoneal injections of 29 mg/kg TMZ (Sigma-Aldrich®) dissolved in saline with 25% dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO, Sigma-Aldrich®) during 5 days starting at the day of irradiation [46, 47]. In the control group (n = 5), the animals received intraperitoneal injections of an equal amount of DMSO and saline on 5 consecutive days. Irradiation was not performed in the control group.

Fig 1. MRI-guided 3D conformal arc micro-irradiation.

Fig 1

T2-weighted (a) and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI (b) clearly visualizing a rat F98 brain tumor. No tumor is visible on the high-resolution treatment planning CT scan (c). The isocenter for irradiation is selected in the center of the contrast enhancing tumor part (b-e). Using a 3 x 3 mm collimator, a dose of 20 Gy is delivered applying 3 non-coplanar arcs (e).

Evaluation of tumor growth using MRI

Follow-up MRI scans were acquired 2, 5, 9 and 12 days after the start of treatment, see Fig 2. Two animals in the treatment group had an additional scan on day 15 and day 21 because of a stable follow-up. T2- and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted spin echo sequences were recorded. Using the PMOD software (version 3.31, PMOD technologies®, Zürich, Switzerland), the volume of the tumor was determined by manually drawing volumes of interest around the tumor on the contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR images.

Fig 2. Study scheme for the assessment of treatment effects using MRI, [18F]FDG PET and [18F]FCho PET.

Fig 2

Assessment of biological tumor response using [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET

The assessment of the biological response was evaluated by small animal PET using [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho. [18F]FDG scans were performed 2, 5, 9 and 12 days after the start of treatment, while [18F]FCho scans were performed 1, 6, 8 and 13 days after the start of treatment. These time points were arbitrarily chosen because, empirically, GB rats survived approximately 14 days after the start of treatment [43]. Also, it is worth mentioning that logistically [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET scanning was not possible on the same day. An overview of the complete imaging scheme is shown in Fig 2 and an overview of the data is listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Overview of the μPET data in the longitudinal PET study.

Therapy PRE-THERAPY DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 5 DAY 6 DAY 8 DAY 9 DAY 12 DAY 13
0 = Control Early Late Early Late Early Late Early Late Early Late
1 = RT+TMZ 18F-FCho 18F-FDG 18F-FDG 18F-FCho 18F-FDG 18F-FDG 18F-FDG 18F-FDG 18F-FCho 18F-FCho 18F-FDG 18F-FDG 18F-FDG 18F-FDG 18F-FCho
0 -
0 -
0 - - - - -
0 - - - -
0 -
1 - -
1
1
1 - - -
1 -

Radiation therapy (RT), Temozolomide (TMZ), 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG), 18F-Fluoromethylcholine (18F-FCho)

Dynamic PET images were acquired in list mode using a dedicated small animal PET scanner (FLEX Triumph II, TriFoil Imaging®, Northridge, CA, USA). Animals were anesthetized with 2% isoflurane mixed with oxygen (0.3 L/min). A 30-Gauge needle connected to a 10 cm long tube was inserted into the tail vein, enabling the injection of the radioactive tracer (37.89 ± 0.35 MBq [18F]FDG and 39.55 ± 0.37 [18F]FCho (mean ± SE) dissolved in 200 μL saline). The total acquisition time was 20 min for [18F]FCho PET due the fast kinetics of [18F]FCho and 60 min for conventional [18F]FDG PET. In addition, a 30-min [18F]FDG PET scan was acquired 240 min after [18F]FDG administration (delayed imaging). All PET scans were reconstructed into a 200 × 200 × 64 matrix by a 2D Maximum Likelihood Expectation Maximization (MLEM) algorithm (LabPET Version 1.12.1, TriFoil Imaging®, Northridge, CA, USA) using 60 iterations and a voxel size of 0.5 × 0.5 × 1.157 mm. Identical reconstruction parameters were applied for [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET. The dynamically acquired PET data were reconstructed into 6 × 20 s, 3 × 1 min, 3 × 5 min, 2 × 20 min time frames for [18F]FDG scans and 6 × 20 s, 3 × 1 min, 1 × 5 min, 1 × 10 min time frames for [18F]FCho scans.

The metabolic tumor volume (MTV) was calculated based on a semi-automatic thresholding method using the PMOD software (version 3.405, PMOD technologies®, Zürich, Switzerland). MTV was defined on the last time frame of the dynamic [18F]FDG PET (40–60 min post-injection), the delayed [18F]FDG PET (240 min post-injection) and on the last time frame of the dynamic [18F]FCho scan (10–20 min post-injection). First, a circular VOI is manually placed over a region with an increased tracer uptake excluding non-specific uptake, such as uptake in the scalp. Within this VOI, MTV was defined as all voxels with an uptake ≥ 60% and ≥ 50% of the maximum uptake for [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho, respectively. The selection of the thresholds was done arbitrarily and based on visual inspection of the [18F]FDG PET scan 40–60 min post-injection, the delayed [18F]FDG PET scan 240–270 min post-injection and the [18F]FCho PET scan 10–20 min post-injection, see Fig 3. Average tracer uptake within the MTV was converted to a standard uptake value (SUV) according to the following formula:

SUV=(uptakeintheMTV(Bqml)injectedactivity(Bq))xbodyweight(g)

Fig 3. Selection of the threshold for defining the metabolic tumor volume (MTV) on conventional [18F]FDG PET (left), delayed [18F]FDG PET (center) and [18F]FCho PET (right).

Fig 3

Different thresholds (≥40-50-60-70%) are contoured. For both [18F]FDG PET (42 MBq, 40–60 min post-injection and 240 min post-injection), the threshold contouring ≥ 60% of the maximum uptake deemed most appropriate (green VOI). For [18F]FCho PET (41 MBq, 10–20 min post-injection), a threshold contouring ≥ 50% of the maximum uptake deemed most appropriate (purple VOI). Inhalational anesthesia with isoflurane (2%) mixed with oxygen (0.3 L/min) was used.

Injected activity was corrected for decay and residual activity in the syringe. In addition to the MTV, the SUVmax, tumor-to-normal brain ratio (TBRmax) and (MTV x SUVmean) were calculated and included in the analysis. The TBRmax was defined as the ratio of the SUVmax of the tumor MTV to the SUVmean of the reference VOI located in the contralateral occipital normal brain region.

Clinical MRI and PET images used to compare clinical and preclinical [18F]FCho PET were data from [48]. The scans were acquired using a PET Allegro system (Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, Ohio, USA). MR examinations were performed on a 3 T Siemens Trio Tim whole-body scanner (Erlangen, Germany). For details, see [48].

Autoradiography and Evans Blue (EB) staining

To evaluate non-specific [18F]FCho uptake due to blood–brain barrier (BBB) breakdown, we performed autoradiography and analyzed EB extravasation of a F98 GB rat tumor on day 16 after inoculation, as described in [45]. 4% EB (Sigma-Aldrich®) dissolved in saline at a concentration of 4 mL per kg of body weight was injected intravenously (t = 0 min). [18F]FCho was injected (20.35 MBq, t = 5 min). At t = 60 min, the rat was euthanized, and dissected rat brains were instantly frozen in isopentane (VWR®) cooled by liquid nitrogen for 2 min followed by 30 min incubation at -20°C. The brains were then cut into 20 μm serial sections using a cryostat (Leica®, CM3050S), with alternating slides for fluorescent staining and hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stain. The H&E sections were dried prior to fixation in 4% paraformaldehyde. The slices for autoradiography were placed on a Super Resolution storage phosphor screen (in red lighted room) and incubated for 2.5 h. The film was scanned using the PerkinElmer Cyclone Plus (600 dpi). A picture was taken of the frozen brain tissue (Sony®), and TRITC (tetramethylrhodamine isothiocyanate) fluorescently labeled sections were imaged with a BD pathway 435 automated imaging system (Becton Dickinson) equipped with a 10× objective. A montage of 20×15 images provided a complete overview of the brain section. Using the PMOD software, the HE and AR image were manually co-registered and the tumor volume of interest (VOI) was manually drawn on the HE image and transferred to the AR image. The normal brain VOI consists of a 5 x 5 mm square placed in the contralateral normal brain.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis of the MRI and PET-derived variables (MRGd tumor volumes, MTV, SUVmax, TBRmax and MTV x SUVmean) between the control and treatment group were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U non-parametric test. Statistical analysis of longitudinal differences within each group was performed using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test and the Friedman test. A probability value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Assessment of the effect of image-guided irradiation using MRI

Because tumor volumes in individual animals were variable, tumor volume after the start of irradiation were normalized to the MRI tumor volume before starting therapy. The evolution of the normalized MRI tumor volumes is shown in Fig 4. The normalized MRI tumor volume was significantly different between control and treated group on day 5 (p = 0.008), day 9 (p = 0.016) and day 12 (p = 0.032) post-therapy (see asterisk in Fig 4 and Table 2).

Fig 4. Evolution of tumor growth based on MRI and PET.

Fig 4

Evolution of the mean tumor volumes (±SE) on T1-weighted contrast-enhanced MR images in both treatment groups. Evolution of the metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and (SUVmean x MTV) of conventional and delayed [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET in the control and treatment group (±SE) are given. Significant differences between the control and treatment groups (p < 0.05) are marked with an asterisk (*).

Table 2. Assessment of the effect of therapy using MRI and PET.

Differences between treatment and control groups at different time points during longitudinal follow-up using the Mann-Whitney U test.

Normalized variable Time point Mann-Whitney U exact Sig. (one-tailed) DMSO
Mean ± SE
Therapy
Mean ± SE
MRI (Gd tumor volume)£ Day 2 0.056 2.36 ± 0.25 1.52 ± 0.20
Day 5 0.008* 4.23 ± 0.53 1.41 ± 0.28
Day 9 0.016* 5.23 ± 0.84 1.43 ± 0.51
Day 12 0.032* 10.41 ± 1.76 2.77 ± 1.35
PET (MTV) £ Conventional 18F-FDG PET Day 2 0.151 5.79 ± 2.61 0.96 ± 0.36
Day 5 0.016* 4.31 ± 2.56 0.67 ± 0.10
Day 9 0.063 6.40 ± 4.76 0.87 ± 0.43
Day 12 0.190 4.97 ± 3.67 0.94 ± 0.32
Delayed 18F-FDG PET Day 2 0.151 8.31 ± 5.10 0.90 ± 0.29
Day 5 0.114 5.03 ± 3.15 0.52 ± 0.11
Day 9 0.032* 5.04 ± 3.04 0.69 ± 0.14
Day 12 0.032* 8.26 ± 3.63 0.84 ± 0.33
18F-FCho PET Day 1 0.063 1.27 ± 0.41 1.53 ± 0.59
Day 6 0.111 0.94 ± 0.37 1.49 ± 0.28
Day 8 0.057 1.55 ± 0.81 0.62 ± 0.24
Day 13 0.700 0.93 ± 0.26 0.90 ± 0.20
PET (SUVmean x MTV) Conventional 18F-FDG PET Day 2 0.056 35.41 ± 13.93 6.00 ± 2.06
Day 5 0.008* 28.14 ± 14.37 3.32 ± 0.54
Day 9 0.063 33.08 ± 20.75 5.77 ± 3.65
Day 12 0.111 39.33 ± 30.35 6.87 ± 3.67
Delayed 18F-FDG PET Day 2 0.032* 31.33 ± 16.14 2.784 ± 1.03
Day 5 0.057 31.15 ± 19.86 1.20 ± 0.20
Day 9 0.032* 26.91 ± 17.76 1.82 ± 0.38
Day 12 0.016* 48.20 ± 21.51 2.56 ± 0.92
18F-FCho PET Day 1 0.556 1.08 ± 0.36 1.35 ± 0.54
Day 6 0.413 1.37 ± 0.51 0.65 ± 0.26
Day 8 0.200 3.18 ± 1.71 0.34 ± 0.08
Day 13 0.200 2.75 ± 1.76 0.50 ± 0.08

* = p ≤ 0.05

£ (normalized to the volume before starting therapy), gadolinium (Gd), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), standard uptake value (SUV), 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG), 18F-Fluoromethylcholine (18F-FCho).

Assessment of biological response of the tumor using [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET

Longitudinal [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET scans were acquired on all the rats in the control group and 5 rats in the treatment group. An overview of the data is listed in Table 1. Missing data are due to failed PET tracer synthesis, paravenous injection or hardware problems. A total of 132 PET scans were included for analysis.

The ratio of the SUVmax and TBRmax post-therapy (day 2-5-9-12 for [18F]FDG and day 1-6-8-13 for [18F]FCho PET) to the SUVmax and TBRmax pre-therapy was not significantly different between the control group and the treated group, at any time point for both [18F]FDG, at conventional and delayed time point, and for [18F]FCho PET (S1 Fig).

To eliminate the influence of the differences in tumor volumes between individual animals, also MTV values were normalized to the MTV pre-therapy. Evolution of the normalized MTV and (SUVmean x normalized MTV) for [18F]FDG (early and delayed) and [18F]FCho PET are shown in Fig 4. Significant differences between control and therapy group are marked with an asterisk and listed in Table 2.

The MTV on conventional [18F]FDG PET was significantly different between both groups on day 5 (p = 0.016). Using delayed [18F]FDG PET imaging, significant differences in MTV were present between both groups on day 9 (p = 0.032) and 12 (p = 0.032). No significant MTV differences were found between control and therapy group for [18F]FCho PET at any time point.

For conventional [18F]FDG PET, (SUVmean x normalized MTV) was significantly different between the control and treated group on day 5 (p = 0.008) post-irradiation using the last time frame of the dynamic PET acquisition. On delayed [18F]FDG PET a significant difference (SUVmean x normalized MTV) was found on day 2 (p = 0.032), day 9 (p = 0.032) and day 12 (p = 0.016) post-irradiation. No significant (SUVmean x normalized MTV) differences were found between control and treated group for [18F]FCho PET at any time point.

In Fig 5, tumor growth is clearly visible on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI, conventional [18F]FDG, delayed [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET. Evolution of the normalized MTV and (SUVmean x normalized MTV) for [18F]FDG (conventional and delayed) and [18F]FCho PET in a rat receiving control treatment are shown in Fig 4. Significant differences between control and treatment group are marked with an asterisk and listed in Table 2.

Fig 5. Longitudinal follow-up on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI (top row), conventional [18F]FDG PET (second row), delayed [18F]FDG (third row) and [18F]FCho PET images (bottom row) of control (left) and therapy (right) F98 GB rats.

Fig 5

For clarity, the brain is contoured in white, [18F]FDG PET (38.1 ± 0.6 MBq, 40–60 min post-injection and 240 min post-injection) and [18F]FCho PET (40.5 ± 0.7 MBq, 10–20 min post-injection) (mean ± SE). Data from one delayed [18F]FDG PET scan on day 5 is missing. Inhalational anesthesia with isoflurane (2%) mixed with oxygen (0.3 L/min) was used.

The autoradiography image showed high [18F]FCho uptake in the F98 GB tumor and very low uptake in normal brain. The background corrected mean tumor-to-mean normal brain ratio was 3,72 and the max tumor-to-mean normal brain ratio was 6.84 (Fig 6A). The [18F]FCho uptake was clearly lower in the necrotic center of the F98 GB tumor (Fig 6B). EB (Fig 6C) and TRITC fluorescent images (Fig 6D) visualize the extravasation, confirming blood brain barrier breakdown. The extravasation is mainly present at the peritumoral edge and less in the necrotic center of the F98 GB tumor.

Fig 6. Ex-vivo analysis of brain tissue sections.

Fig 6

(A) Autoradiography image with clear [18F]FCho uptake in the F98 GB tumor and a high tumor-to-normal brain tissue ratio (20 μm tissue section nr x) (B) Hematoxylin & Eosin staining of a consecutive slice (20 μm tissue section nr x+2) (C) Cryosected rat brain 1 hour after intravenous injection of Evans Blue (EB) and (D) TRITC fluorescent images visualize the extravasation, confirming blood brain barrier breakdown. The extravasation is mainly present at the peritumoral edge and less in the necrotic center of the F98 GB tumor (20 μm tissue section nr x+13).

Fig 7 shows a comparison of contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI and [18F]FCho PET of GB patients compared to the F98 GB rat model. The contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI of patient (A) shows clearly necrosis in the tumor core, while this is not present in patient (B). However, both show a heterogeneous [18F]FCho uptake ranging from moderate to moderate intense (compared to the uptake in the scalp which serves as the reference) at the invasion front of the tumor (25–30 min post-injection; 380.7 MBq (A) and 372.0 MBq (B) injected activity). Low uptake is noted in the normal brain tissue. In the F98 GB rat tumor, no gross central tumor necrosis is seen on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI (C) and increased [18F]FCho uptake is present only in the upper left margin of the tumor (20 min post injection; 39.6 MBq injected activity). Surrounding extra-cranial organs, such as the salivary glands and the masticatory muscles, show intense [18F]FCho uptake (D). This is clearly visible on the pre-clinical PET, while in humans this uptake is not visible within the axial brain slice. In (B) and (C-D), the leakage pattern of the gadolinium contrast agent on MRI differs strongly from the [18F]FCho uptake pattern. Diffuse leakage of Gd in the entire tumor volume is seen on MRI (C), while a more localized choline uptake is seen in the upper left margin of the tumor just beneath the skull (D).

Fig 7. Comparison of contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI and [18F]FCho PET of GB patients compared to the F98 GB rat model.

Fig 7

The contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI of patient (A) shows clearly necrosis in the tumor core, while this is not present in patient (B). Both patients show a heterogeneous [18F]FCho uptake ranging from moderate to moderate intense (compared to the uptake in the scalp which serves as the reference) at the invasion front of the tumor. Low uptake is noted in the normal brain tissue. In the F98 GB rat tumor, no gross central tumor necrosis is seen on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI (C) and increased [18F]FCho uptake is present only in the upper left margin of the tumor (D).

Discussion

We previously proposed an experimental rat model for MRI-guided conformal multiple arc GB treatment with a close resemblance to the image-guided conformal RT in the clinic with regard to beam usage. Irradiation with the SARRP and concomitant TMZ resulted in a stable tumor volume on serial MRI until nine days post-treatment, while continuous tumor growth was observed in the control group [43]. In this study, this optimized methodology was applied to investigate whether PET was able to detect treatment response earlier than contrast-enhanced MRI. For PET image analysis, an automatic threshold technique was chosen because it is known to be the best guarantee that consistent VOIs are defined on repeat PET scans [4850]. Hence, for [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET, a threshold of ≥ 60% and ≥ 50% of the maximum uptake, respectively, was selected based on visual inspection (Fig 3). Based on our results, SUVmax and TBRmax were not able to detect any treatment effects at the chosen time points, nor using [18F]FDG nor [18F]FCho as a PET biomarker. However, we found that for [18F]FDG PET at conventional and delayed acquisition times, the parameter (SUVmean x MTV) was superior to MTV alone in detecting early treatment effect (Table 2). This is in agreement with our previous results in GB patients in which we found that both MTV and mean tracer uptake have to be taken into account to be able to capture therapy effects [48]. In case of [18F]FDG, the (SUVmean x MTV) is also referred to as total lesion glycolysis (TLG), which is a well-known volumetric parameter that enables to capture the glycolytic phenotype and overall tumor burden. In this study, using (SUVmean x MTV), [18F]FDG PET acquired 40–60 minutes post-injection, was able to detect treatment response as early as 5 days post-therapy. Similar results were found when evaluating the changes in contrast-enhanced tumor volume on MRI. Importantly, [18F]FDG PET acquired 4 hours post-injection was able to detect the treatment response even earlier, namely at day 2 post-irradiation (Table 2). This is in agreement with the advantages of dual time point FDG PET that were previously described [26, 27]. In Fig 4 can be observed that tumor volumes measured using contrast-enhanced MRI clearly increase over time in the control group, while metabolic tumor volumes remain more or less stable and also show larger variability. Our hypothesis is that the fast growing tumors, as observed on MRI, are becoming metabolically more heterogeneous tumors. This results in a more heterogeneous tracer uptake within these tumors (e.g. necrotic core vs. viable tumor proliferation and infiltration), which gives rise to higher variations of the measured MTV-values in the control group and that might also explain why the MTV-values are not increasing over time.

For those centers having access to amino-acid PET tracers, [11C]Methionine ([11C]MET) and [18F]FET PET have been suggested to be better suited than [18F]FDG for brain tumor imaging and monitoring therapy response in brain tumor patients [3]. Data in the literature suggest that a reduction of amino acid uptake by glioma is a sign of a favorable treatment response and a decreased tracer uptake as early as 7–10 days after the completion of treatment has been documented [15, 5153]. [18F]FCho PET, first introduced for PET imaging of brain tumors by DeGrado et al. [36, 54, 55], has previously been investigated for therapy response assessment in glioma, but only a few studies are available [5658]. Li et al. reported that, for [11C]Choline PET, a tumor-to-normal-brain ratio (TBR) ≤ 1.4 might predict a longer overall survival in patients with suspected recurrent glioma after treatment [56]. Parashar et al. suggested that there was a good correlation between a change in SUVmax of the tumor volume during RT and response [57]. However, in the latter study, only one patient with a high-grade glioma was included. Finally, a [18F]FCho PET study in childhood astrocytic tumors confirmed the added value of [18F]FCho SUVmax and functional MRI apparent diffusion coefficient values to monitor therapy response [58].

Our hypothesis is that [18F]FCho PET might be able to detect a treatment-induced diminished cell proliferation rate because this choline PET analogue is a substrate for choline kinase, an enzyme commonly overexpressed in malignant lesions involved in the incorporation of choline into phospholipids, which is an essential component of all cell membranes. In cancer, an increased cellular transport and higher expression of choline kinase leads to an increased uptake of radiolabeled choline [34, 59]. In addition, the major advance for brain tumor imaging is that the choline uptake observed in normal cortex is only corresponding to 10% of the uptake registered with [18F]FDG, ameliorating the delineation of tumor boundaries [60]. In a previous clinical study, we investigated the potential of [18F]FCho PET compared to state-of-the art conventional MRI using RANO criteria for early therapy response assessment in GB patients. We found that SUV values were not able to predict response, while (SUVmean x MTV) allowed prediction of therapy response one month after the completion of radiation therapy, however, not earlier than changes of tumor volume derived from contrast-enhanced MRI [48].

In this study, we did not find significant differences at any time point for MTV and (SUVmean x MTV) of [18F]FCho PET between the control and the treatment group. Based on these results, in rats, [18F]FCho PET was not able to detect early combined radiation and chemotherapy effects after the completion of treatment. We can only speculate about an explanation.

First, it is worth mentioning that the time scale in humans and rats is quite different. In patients, early treatment response after concomitant chemo-radiation therapy is arbitrarily defined at 1 month after the completion of radiotherapy. In rats, we investigated post-treatment changes as early as a few days up to 2 weeks after the combined treatment. Moreover, it should be noted that in rats a single radiation was applied, whereas radiation treatment is fractionated by default in patients. Thus, it may well be that both the difference in time scale as well as the use of fractionated versus non-fractionated radiation treatment underlies the alleged conflicting findings in both studies.

Secondly, we hypothesize that differences in metabolism of [18F]FCho between rat and humans play a major role in clarifying the results. This can only further be elucidated by applying a full kinetic modeling study [44, 45, 6164]. However, such studies require an arterial blood input curve. Arterial blood sampling in patients is no longer approved by our local ethics committee. On the other hand, it was approved by our local preclinical ethics committee. Hence, we managed to obtain arterial blood sampling in F98 GB rats. We found an optimal fitting of [18F]FCho uptake in the tumor using a reversible model, see Fig 8 with data of our previous study [45]. This was not in agreement with the two-compartmental model that we expected. Indeed, relying on the Kennedy pathway of choline metabolism, illustrating why choline may work as a PET tracer to visualize malignancies, a 2-compartmental model could be expected. Given the result of a reversible model as the best solution for our measures, we were not able to differentiate [18F]FCho uptake in the tumor mediated by leakage through the damaged BBB from intracellular metabolic trapping. Choline is in addition rapidly oxidized in the mitochondria of liver and kidney to betaine. As a result, our data showed that [18F]FCho in plasma decreased rapidly while a hydrophilic metabolite, most likely [18F]Fluorobetaine, rapidly increased, see Fig 8B [45, 61]. In contrast, recently, the percentage of activity due to [18F]FCho in plasma of patients was more stable than in rats: 67±11%, 65±9%, 65±7% and 64±7% at 1, 5, 10 and 30 min after injection [65]. This rapid and extensive clearance from the blood after intravenous injection in rats makes an acquisition starting early after injection of [18F]FCho preferable. An ‘early’ [18F]FCho acquisition has also been suggested in the clinic. In prostate cancer patients, the biodistribution of [18F]FCho changed very slowly after 10-min post-injection and the activity in the prostate (with malignant involvement) reached a maximum within a 5-min window following the injection [54, 66]. For brain [18F]FCho, several clinical reports performed emission scanning for 15 min, beginning 5–10 min after injection of the tracer [36, 67]. Our group previously confirmed that [18F]FCho uptake by all types of brain lesions was rapid with minimal changes in uptake activity more than 6 min after administration, except for meningiomas [68]. In brain metastasis, intra-tumor [18F]FCho uptake also reached 80% and 90% of the total activity at 3±4 and 7±6 minutes post injection, respectively [65]. This confirms other studies that radiolabeled choline uptake is rapid and appears to reach a plateau faster than [18F]FET [6972]. Importantly, delayed imaging is recommended if discrimination between meningioma and other brain tumors is of concern or for the detection of bone metastasis in prostate cancer patients [68, 73, 74].

Fig 8. Kinetic modeling of [18F]FCho in F98 GB rat model.

Fig 8

The fraction of plasma radioactivity contributing to [18F]FCho decreased rapidly to 17.2% concomitant with the appearance of a metabolite, most likely [18F]Fluorobetaine (B). Kinetic modeling and graphical analysis of [18F]FCho reached optimal fitting using a reversible model (C, D). Choline transporter (CTL), Choline kinase (CK). Data by Bolcaen et al., previously published under CC BY 4.0 licence [45].

Conclusion

Based on a preclinical rat model for GB and multimodal imaging using MRI and PET with two different tracers, to evaluate early treatment response after combined chemo-radiation therapy, we found that both MRI and PET can be used for this purpose. With regard to the choice of PET biomarker, [18F]FDG (and particularly acquired 4 hours post-injection) is preferred over [18F]FCho. Further comparative studies should corroborate these results and should also include (different) amino acid PET tracers.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The ratio of the SUVmax and TBRmax post-therapy to the SUVmax and TBRmax pre-therapy for both [18F]FDG, at conventional and delayed time point, and for [18F]FCho PET.

(TIF)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Lux Luka Foundation supported this study financially. Funds were received by Prof. I. Goethals and Prof. T. Boterberg. The sponsor did not play a role in study design and analysis.

References

  • 1.Ostrom QT, Patil N, Cioffi G, Waite K, Kruchko C, Barnholtz-Sloan JS. CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2013–2017. Neuro Oncol. 2020;22:iv1–iv96. 10.1093/neuonc/noaa200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Weller M, van den Bent M, Tonn JC, Stupp R, Preusser M, Cohen-Jonathan-Moyal E, et al. European Association for Neuro-Oncology (EANO) guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of adult astrocytic and oligodendroglial gliomas. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:e315–29. 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30194-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ahmed R, Oborski MJ, Hwang M, Lieberman FS, Mount JM. Malignant gliomas: current perspectives in diagnosis, treatment, and early response assessment using advanced quantitative imaging methods. Cancer Manag Res. 2014;6:149–70. 10.2147/CMAR.S54726 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Weller M, Fisher B, Taphoorn MJ, et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:987–96. 10.1056/NEJMoa043330 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Anton K, Baehring JM, Mayer T. Glioblastoma multiforme: overview of current treatment and future perspectives. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2012;26:825–53. 10.1016/j.hoc.2012.04.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Siu A, Wind JJ, Iorgulescu JB, Chan TA, Yamada Y, Sherman JH. Radiation necrosis following treatment of high grade glioma—a review of the literature and current understanding. Acta Neurochir. 2012;154:191–201. 10.1007/s00701-011-1228-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Galldiks N, Langen KJ. Amino Acid PET—An Imaging Option to Identify Treatment Response, Posttherapeutic Effects, and Tumor Recurrence? Front Neurol. 2016;28:120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Galldiks N, Law I, Pope WB, Arbizu J, Langen KJ. The use of amino acid PET and conventional MRI for monitoring of brain tumor therapy. Neuroimage Clin. 2016;13:386–94. 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.12.020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Baguet T, Verhoeven J, De Vos F, Goethals I. Cost-Effectiveness of [18F] Fluoroethyl-L-Tyrosine for Temozolomide Therapy Assessment in Patients With Glioblastoma. Front Oncol. 2019;9:814. 10.3389/fonc.2019.00814 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, Cloughesy TF, Sorensen AG, Galanis E, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1963–72. 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Drevelegas A, Karkavelas G. High-grade gliomas. In: Drevelegas A, Karkavelas G, eds. Imaging of brain tumors with histological correlations. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. 2011;157–200. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chang JH, Kim CY, Choi BS, Kim YJ, Kim JS, Kim IA. Pseudoprogression and Pseudoresponse in the Management of High-Grade Glioma: Optimal Decision Timing According to the Response Assessment of the Neuro-Oncology Working Group. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2014;55:5–11. 10.3340/jkns.2014.55.1.5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jain R, Narang J, Sundgren PM, Hearschen D, Saksena S, Rock JP, et al. Treatment induced necrosis versus recurrent/progressing brain tumor: going beyond the boundaries of conventional morphologic imaging. J Neurooncol. 2010;100:17–29. 10.1007/s11060-010-0139-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chao ST, Suh JH, Raja S, Lee SY, Barnett G. The sensitivity and specificity of FDG PET in distinguishing recurrent brain tumor from radionecrosis in patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Cancer. 2001;96:191–7. 10.1002/ijc.1016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Galldiks N, Rapp M, Stoffels G, Fink GR, Shah NJ, Coenen HH, et al. Response assessment of bevacizumab in patients with recurrent malignant glioma using [18F]Fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine PET in comparison to MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:22–33. 10.1007/s00259-012-2251-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sampson JH, Maus MV, June CH. Immunotherapy for Brain Tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2450–6. 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.8089 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.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. 10.1007/s11060-017-2375-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fecci PE, Sampson JH. The current state of immunotherapy for gliomas: an eye toward the future. J Neurosurg. 2019;131:657–66. 10.3171/2019.5.JNS181762 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hoekstra CJ, Paglianiti I, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, Postmus PE, Teule GJ, et al. Monitoring response to therapy in cancer using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose and positron emission tomography: an overview of different analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:731–43. 10.1007/s002590050570 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dhermain FG, Hau P, Lanfermann H, Jacobs AH, van den Bent MJ. Advanced MRI and PET imaging for assessment of treatment response in patients with gliomas. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:906–20. 10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70181-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Galldiks N, Lohmann P, Albert NL, Tonn JC, Langen KJ. Current status of PET imaging in neuro-oncology. Neurooncol Adv. 2019;1:vdz010. 10.1093/noajnl/vdz010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lopci E, Grassi I, Chiti A, Nanni C, Cicoria G, Toschi L, et al. PET radiopharmaceuticals for imaging of tumor hypoxia: a review of the evidence. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;4:365–84. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Demetriades AK, Almeida AC, Bhangoo RS, Barrington SF. Applications of positron emission tomography in neuro-oncology: a clinical approach. Surgeon. 2014;12:148–57. 10.1016/j.surge.2013.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Langen KJ, Galldiks N. PET imaging of Brain Tumors. In: Hattingen E, Pilatus U, eds. Brain Tumor Imaging. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 2016:121–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mertens K, Acou M, Van Hauwe J, De Ruyck I, Van den Broecke C, Kalala JP, et al. Validation of 18F-FDG PET at conventional and delayed intervals for the discrimination of high-grade from low-grade gliomas: a stereotactic PET and MRI study. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:495–500. 10.1097/RLU.0b013e318292a753 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Spence AM, Muzi M, Mankoff DA, O’Sullivan SF, Link JM, Lewellen TK, et al. 18F-FDG PET of gliomas at delayed intervals: improved distinction between tumor and normal gray matter. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1653–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Prieto E, Martí-Climent JM, Domínguez-Prado I, Garrastachu P, Diez-Valle R, Tejada S, et al. Voxel-based analysis of dual-time-point 18F-FDG PET images for brain tumor identification and delineation. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:865–72. 10.2967/jnumed.110.085324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Albert NL, Weller M, Suchorska B, Galldiks N, Soffietti R, Kim MM, et al. Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology working group and European Association for Neuro-Oncology recommendations for the clinical use of PET imaging in gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2016;18:1199–208. 10.1093/neuonc/now058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Langen KJ, Hamacher K, Weckesser M, Floeth F, Stoffels G, Bauer D, et al. O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine: uptake mechanisms and clinical applications. Nucl Med Biol. 2006;33:287–94. 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2006.01.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Floeth FW, Sabel M, Stoffels G, Pauleit D, Hamacher K, Steiger HJ, et al. Prognostic value of 18F-fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine PET and MRI in small nonspecific incidental brain lesions. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:730–7. 10.2967/jnumed.107.050005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Nordsmark M, Overgaard J. Tumor hypoxia is independent of hemoglobin and prognostic for loco-regional tumor control after primary radiotherapy in advanced head and neck cancer. Acta Oncol. 2004;43:396–403. 10.1080/02841860410026189 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Rajendran JG, Krohn KA. F-18 fluoromisonidazole for imaging tumor hypoxia: imaging the microenvironment for personalized cancer therapy. Semin Nucl Med. 2015;45:151–62. 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2014.10.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mönnich D, Troost EG, Kaanders JH, Oyen WJ, Alber M, Thorwarth D. Modelling and simulation of the influence of acute and chronic hypoxia on [18F]fluoromisonidazole PET imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:1675–84. 10.1088/0031-9155/57/6/1675 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Calabria FF, Barbarisi M, Gangemi V, Grillea G, Cascini GL. Molecular imaging of brain tumors with radiolabeled choline PET. Neurosurg Rev. 2018;41:67–76. 10.1007/s10143-016-0756-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mertens K, Slaets D, Lambert B, Acou M, De Vos F, Goethals I. PET with (18)F-labelled choline-based tracers for tumour imaging: a review of the literature. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:2188–93. 10.1007/s00259-010-1496-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kwee SA, Ko JP, Jiang CS, Watters MR, Coel MN. Solitary brain lesions enhancing at MR imaging: evaluation with fluorine 18-fluorocholine PET. Radiology. 2007;244:557–65. 10.1148/radiol.2442060898 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Alongi P, Quartuccio N, Arnone A, Kokomani A, Allocca M, Nappi G, et al. Brain PET/CT using prostate cancer radiopharmaceutical agents in the evaluation of gliomas. Clin Transl Imaging. 2020;8:433–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Vetrano IG, Laudicella R, Alongi P. Choline PET/CT and intraoperative management of primary brain tumors. New insights for contemporary neurosurgery. Clin Transl Imaging. 2020;8:401–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Grech-Sollars M, Ordidge KL, Vaqas B, Davies C, Vaja V, Honeyfield L, et al. Imaging and Tissue Biomarkers of Choline Metabolism in Diffuse Adult Glioma: 18F-Fluoromethylcholine PET/CT, Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, and Choline Kinase α. Cancers. 2019;11:1969. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Alongi P, Vetrano IG, Fiasconaro E, Alaimo V, Laudicella R, Bellavia M, et al. Choline-PET/CT in the Differential Diagnosis Between Cystic Glioblastoma and Intraparenchymal Hemorrhage. Curr Radiopharm. 2019;12:88–92. 10.2174/1874471011666180817122427 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Villena Martín M, Pena Pardo FJ, Jiménez Aragón F, Borras Moreno JM, García Vicente AM, et al. Metabolic targeting can improve the efficiency of brain tumor biopsies. Semin Oncol. 2020;47:148–54. 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2020.04.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bryant MJ, Chuah TL, Luff J, Lavin MF, Walker DG. A novel rat model for glioblastoma multiforme using a bioluminescent F98 cell line. J Clin Neurosci. 2008;15:545–51. 10.1016/j.jocn.2007.04.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bolcaen J, Descamps B, Deblaere K, Boterberg T, Hallaert G, Van den Broecke C, et al. MRI-guided 3D conformal arc micro-irradiation of a F98 glioblastoma rat model using the Small Animal Radiation Research Platform (SARRP). J Neurooncol. 2014;120:257–66. 10.1007/s11060-014-1552-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Bolcaen J, Descamps B, Deblaere K, Boterberg T, De Vos F, Kalala JP, et al. (18)F-fluoromethylcholine (FCho), (18)F-fluoroethyltyrosine (FET), and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) for the discrimination between high-grade glioma and radiation necrosis in rats: A PET study. Nucl Med Biol. 2015;42:38–45. 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2014.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bolcaen J, Lybaert K, Moerman L, Descamps B, Deblaere K, Boterberg T, et al. Kinetic Modeling and Graphical Analysis of 18F-Fluoromethylcholine (FCho), 18F-Fluoroethyltyrosine (FET) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET for the Discrimination between High-grade Glioma and Radiation Necrosis in Rats. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0161845. 10.1371/journal.pone.0161845 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Banissi C, Ghiringhelli F, Chen L, Carpentier AF. Treg depletion with a low-dose metronomic temozolomide regimen in a rat glioma model. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2009;58:1627–34. 10.1007/s00262-009-0671-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Robinson CG, Palomo JM, Rahmathulla G, McGraw M, Donse J, Liu L, et al. Effect of alternative temozolomide schedules on glioblastoma O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase activity and survival. Br J Cancer. 2010;103:498–504. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605792 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Bolcaen J, Acou M, Boterberg T, Vanhove C, De Vos F, Van den Broecke C, et al. 18F-FCho PET and MRI for the prediction of response in glioblastoma patients according to the RANO criteria. Nucl Med Commun. 2017;38:242–9. 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000638 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lammertsma AA, Hoekstra CJ, Giaccone G, Hoekstra OS. How should we analyse FDG PET studies for monitoring tumour response? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:S16–21. 10.1007/s00259-006-0131-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Krak NC, Boellaard R, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JWR, Hoekstra CJ, Lammerstma AA. Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:294–301. 10.1007/s00259-004-1566-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Piroth MD, Pinkawa M, Holy R, Klotz J, Nussen S, Stoffels G, et al. Prognostic value of early [18F]fluoroethyltyrosine positron emission tomography after radiochemotherapy in glioblastoma multiforme. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80:176–84. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.01.055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Galldiks N, Langen KJ, Holy R, Pinkawa M, Stoffels G, Nolte KW, et al. Assessment of treatment response in patients with glioblastoma using O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET in comparison to MRI. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1048–57. 10.2967/jnumed.111.098590 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Wyss M, Hofer S, Bruehlmeier M, Hefti M, Uhlmann C, Bärtshi E, et al. Early metabolic responses in temozolomide treated low-grade glioma patients. J Neurooncol. 2009;95:87–93. 10.1007/s11060-009-9896-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.DeGrado TR, Coleman RE, Wang S, Baldwin SW, Orr MD, Robertson CN, et al. Synthesis and evaluation of 18F-labeled choline as an oncologic tracer for positron emission tomography: initial findings in prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2001;61:110–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Treglia G, Giovannini E, Di Franco D, Calcagni ML, Rufini V, Picchio M, et al. The role of positron emission tomography using carbon-11 and fluorine-18 choline in tumors other than prostate cancer: a systematic review. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26:451–61. 10.1007/s12149-012-0602-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Li W, Ma L, Wang X, Sun J, Wang S, Hu X. (11)C-choline PET/CT tumor recurrence detection and survival prediction in post-treatment patients with high-grade gliomas. Tumour Biology. 2014;35:12353–60. 10.1007/s13277-014-2549-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Parashar B, Wernicke AG, Rice S, Osborne J, Singh P, Nori D, et al. Early assessment of radiation response using a novel functional imaging modality-[18F] Fluorocholine PET (FCH-PET): A pilot study. Discov Med. 2012;14:13–20. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Fraioli F, Shankar A, Hargrave D, Hyare H, Gaze MN, Groves AM, et al. 18F-fluoroethylcholine (18F-Cho) PET/MRI functional parameters in pediatric astrocytic brain tumors. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40:e40–5. 10.1097/RLU.0000000000000556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.DeGrado TR, Baldwin SW, Wang S, Orr MD, Liao RP, Friedman HS, et al. Synthesis and evaluation of (18)F-labeled choline analogs as oncologic PET tracers. J Nucl Med 2001;42:1805–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Coleman RE, DeGrado TR, Wang SW, Baldwin SW, Orr MD, Reiman R, et al. Preliminary Evaluation of F-18 Fluorocholine (FCH) as a PET Tumor Imaging Agent. Clin Positron Imaging. 2000;3:147. 10.1016/s1095-0397(00)00059-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Verwer EE, Oprea-Lager DE, van den Eertwegh AJM, van Moorselaar RJA, Windhorst AD, Schwarte LA, et al. Quantification of 18F-fluorocholine kinetics in patients with prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:365–71. 10.2967/jnumed.114.148007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Weber B, Burger C, Biro P, Buck A. A femoral arteriovenous shunt facilitates arterial whole blood sampling in animals. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:319–23. 10.1007/s00259-001-0712-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Roivainen A, Forsback S, Grönroos T, Lehikoinen P, Kähkönen M, Sutinen E, et al. Blood metabolism of [methyl-11C]choline; implications for in vivo imaging with positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:25–32. 10.1007/pl00006658 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Tan H, Chen L, Guan Y, Lin X. Comparison of MRI, F-18 FDG, and 11C-choline PET/CT for their potentials in differentiating brain tumor recurrence from brain tumor necrosis following radiotherapy. Clin Nucl Med. 2011;36:978–81. 10.1097/RLU.0b013e31822f68a6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Grkovski M, Kohutek ZA, Schöder H, Brennan CW, Tabar VS, Gutin PH, et al. 18F-Fluorocholine PET uptake correlates with pathologic evidence of recurrent tumor after stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:1446–57. 10.1007/s00259-019-04628-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.DeGrado TR, Reiman RE, Price DT, Wang S, Coleman RE. Pharmacokinetics and radiation dosimetry of 18F-fluorocholine. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:92–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Kwee SA, Coel MN, Lim J, Ko JP. Combined use of F-18 fluorocholine positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance spectroscopy for brain tumor evaluation. J Neuroimaging 2004;14:285–9. 10.1177/1051228404264957 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Mertens K, Bolcaen J, Ham H, Deblaere K, Van den Broecke C, Boterberg T, et al. The optimal timing for imaging brain tumours and other brain lesions with 18F-labelled fluoromethylcholine: a dynamic positron emission tomography study. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33:954–9. 10.1097/MNM.0b013e328355b6f5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Schaefferkoetter JD, Wang Z, Stephenson MC, Roy S, Conti M, Eriksson L, et al. Quantitative 18F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography for prostate cancer: correlation between kinetic parameters and Gleason scoring. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Res. 2017;7:25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Grkovski M, Gharzeddine K, Sawan P, Schöder H, Michaud L, Weber WA, et al. 11C-Choline Pharmacokinetics in Recurrent Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1672–8. 10.2967/jnumed.118.210088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Sutinen E, Nurmi M, Roivainen A, Varpula M, Tolvanen T, Lehikoinen P, et al. Kinetics of [(11)C]choline uptake in prostate cancer: a PET study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:317–24. 10.1007/s00259-003-1377-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Lohmann P, Herzog H, Rota Kops E, Stoffels G, Judov N, Filss C, et al. Dual-time-point O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET for grading of cerebral gliomas. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:3017–24. 10.1007/s00330-015-3691-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Kwee SA, Wei H, Sesterhenn I, Yun D, Coel MN. Localization of primary prostate cancer with dual-phase 18F-fluorocholine PET. J Nucl Med 2006;47:262–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Husarik DB, Miralbell R, Dubs M, John H, Giger OT, Gelet A, et al. Evaluation of [(18)F]-choline PET/CT for staging and restaging of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35:253–63. 10.1007/s00259-007-0552-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Pierpaolo Alongi

5 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-36019

Assessment of the effect of therapy in a rat model of glioblastoma using [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET compared to contrast-enhanced MRI.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bolcaen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The article describes the results of a pre-clinical study in a rat model of glioblastoma using [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET compared to contrast-enhanced MRI"  for the early detection of treatment response. The objective of the study is interesting and may help future potential applications regard PET imaging in the field of primary brain tumors. However, the paper needs a revision as defined in the section of comments below.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 13 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pierpaolo Alongi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

The article describes the results of a pre-clinical study in a rat model of glioblastoma using [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET compared to contrast-enhanced MRI" for the early detection of treatment response. The objective of the study is interesting and may help future potential applications regard PET imaging in the field of primary brain tumors. I agree with the comments of the two reviewers the paper needs a major revision.

The results of choline PET and FDG PET have to be discussed carefully because both radiopharmaceutical agents have limited use in this field. For choline PET, despite the biodistribution of the tracer is fast compared to FDG other studies suggest a start acquisition rapidly after injection and a time between 20 and 50 minutes for late imaging in order to have a good balance of T/B ratio. A unique Cho-PET dynamic acquisition 5-20 minutes after the injection may affect negatively the quality of the images. Please discuss in the discussion and eventually in the limitation of the study.

I suggest also to report some references missing of recent representative articles on humans: Eg.

- Vetrano, I.G., Laudicella, R. & Alongi, P. Choline PET/CT and intraoperative management of primary brain tumors. New insights for contemporary neurosurgery. Clin Transl Imaging 8, 401–404 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-020-00398-6

- Alongi, P., Quartuccio, N., Arnone, A. et al. Brain PET/CT using prostate cancer radiopharmaceutical agents in the evaluation of gliomas. Clin Transl Imaging 8, 433–448 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-020-00389-7

- Fraioli F, Shankar A, Hargrave D, Hyare H, Gaze MN, Groves AM, Alongi P, Stoneham S, Michopoulou S, Syed R, Bomanji JB. 18F-fluoroethylcholine (18F-Cho) PET/MRI functional parameters in pediatric astrocytic brain tumors. Clin Nucl Med. 2015 Jan;40(1):e40-5. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000000556. PMID: 25188640.

Alongi P, Vetrano IG, Fiasconaro E, Alaimo V, Laudicella R, Bellavia M, Rubino F, Bagnato S, Galardi G. Choline-PET/CT in the Differential Diagnosis Between Cystic Glioblastoma and Intraparenchymal Hemorrhage. Curr Radiopharm. 2019;12(1):88-92. doi: 10.2174/1874471011666180817122427. PMID: 30117406.

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that Figure 8 in your submission contains copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

(1) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

(2) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: In this study, the authors investigated the role of FDG and F-Choline PET compared to MRI for the early detection of treatment response in a glioblastoma rat model obtained with F98 cells. Rats were divided into two groups (control and treated with radiation and Temozolomide) and the response was monitored with MRI and PET with FDG and F-Choline performed at different times points.

The text is well organized and methods and results are fully described but there are some points that need to be clarified.

Major comments

Abstract

1. Line 43, in the abstract authors indicate that F-Choline was performed on day 7 post-treatment but in M&M and in the text is indicated day 8 (line 218).

Materials and methods

1. Line 231, authors can edit the correct injected dose (mean ± SE) of FDG and F-Choline because in line 231 authors indicated 37 MBq and in the figure legends (Fig.3 and Fig. 5) authors indicated other specific doses.

2. Line 274, the dose of FCho can be edited in MBq, please?

3. Lines- 289-292, why these lines are under the paragraph “Autoradiography and Evans Blue (EB) staining”, can authors add another title, please?

4. Figure 3, is the same animal? Because the images are different. If not, can authors use the same animal, please?

Results

5. In table 2 there are only the p-values, can also add the value of each parameter (mean ± SE), please?

6. Figure 4, why FDG MTV values at d2 are so different between control and treated group whereas the volume measured using MRI is closer? The tumor volume of control animals measured using MRI increased along time whereas MTV (both FDG and Choline) remained stable or slight decrease, what is the hypothesis? Authors should discuss.

7. On day 9, only 2 control animals performed FDG PET, how is it possible that both MTV and MTV+SUVmean values are significantly different between control and treated group (line 347 and 353)?

8. In figure 5 there is represented only a control rat, authors can add a longitudinal figure with a representative treated rat so it is possible compared images of control and treated rats, please?

9. Figure 5, what is the color scale for PET (SUV, %ID/g, TBR)? Can authors also add min and max values on the scale.

10. Did authors evaluate post mortem staining for ki67, GFAP, choline kinase?

Discussion

Edit discuss on the basis of results (point 6), please.

Reviewer #2: The authors evaluate the role of FDG-PET and Cho-PET, compared to c.e. MRI, for the early detection of treatment response in murine model of GBM; 5 animals randomizedly received RT plus TMZ, while other 5 no. The treatment effect was evaluated with serial MRI and FDG-PET (day 2, 5, 9, 12 post-treatment), and also Cho-PET (day 1, 6, 7, 13). The metabolic tumor volume (MTV) was semi-automatically calculatedm and the average tracer uptake within the MTV was converted to a SUV. Using SUVmean x MTV, FDG-PET started to detect treatment's effects at 5 day post-treatment, comparable to c.e. MRI. Moreover, delayed FDG-PET (240 min p.i.) earlier detect such effects (from day 2); on the other hand, no significant differences were found at any time point for both the MTV and (SUVmean x MTV) of Cho-PET. Therefore, the authors concluded that MRI and delayed FDG-PET detect early treatment responses in GB murine model of GBM, whereas these results were not obtained with Cho-PET

The topic is undoubtedly intriguing, but i have some issues:

-INTRODUCTION

The ref 1 is related to 2007 WHO classification; from an epidemiological point of view, it should be better to consider the last CBTRUS report (Ostrom et al., CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2013–2017, Neuro-Oncology, Volume 22, Supplement 1, October 2020).

I suggest also to modify ref. 2 and 3, using a more up-to-date literature reference about glioma management (i.e., Weller et al., European Association for Neuro-Oncology (EANO) guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of adult astrocytic and oligodendroglial gliomas. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Jun;18(6):e315-e329).

Moreover, the study by Stupp in 2005 that showed the role of combined RT-CMT was not the ref n° 5 but the one published in NEJM (Stupp et al, Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 10;352(10):987-96. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0433309).

It shuld be better to update the references related to the clinical role of ChoPET in brain tumors (the authors cite a quite old ref, the number 35, which was a review of literature available more than 10 years ago), due to the increasing interest about such technique.

Why the authors selected Cho-PET, instead of [18F]FAZA PET, for example? I think that clarifying the advantages and disadvantages os this choice could increase the informative role of the present work.

How where the simple size selected?statistical analysis were performed to selected a population of 10 animals?

Finally, the author disclosure a financial support by Lux Luka Foundation, but they must clearly state, according to Journal guidelines, who exactly received fundings, and the role of the sponsor in the study design and analysis.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 5;16(3):e0248193. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248193.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


10 Feb 2021

A. Additional Editor Comments:

The article describes the results of a pre-clinical study in a rat model of glioblastoma using [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET compared to contrast-enhanced MRI" for the early detection of treatment response. The objective of the study is interesting and may help future potential applications regard PET imaging in the field of primary brain tumors. I agree with the comments of the two reviewers the paper needs a major revision.

________________________________________________________________________

Comment 1: The results of choline PET and FDG PET have to be discussed carefully because both radiopharmaceutical agents have limited use in this field. For choline PET, despite the biodistribution of the tracer is fast compared to FDG other studies suggest a start acquisition rapidly after injection and a time between 20 and 50 minutes for late imaging in order to have a good balance of T/B ratio. A unique Cho-PET dynamic acquisition 5-20 minutes after the injection may affect negatively the quality of the images. Please discuss in the discussion and eventually in the limitation of the study.

The main reason for starting the acquisition early (5–10 min) after injection of the tracer is indeed because of the rapid and extensive clearance from the blood after intravenous injection. DeGrado et al. documented that the biodistribution of [18F]FCho changes very slowly after 10-min post-injection (DeGrado TR 2001 and 2002). In 2001, in prostate cancer patients, it was documented that the activity in the prostate (with known malignant involvement) reached a maximum within a 5-min window following the injection (DeGrado TR 2001). This was also confirmed by our group investigating the blood kinetics of [18F]FCho in rats, as shown in Figure 8, confirming a fast metabolization with an availability of only 17.5% of intact tracer after 15 min (Bolcaen et al. 2016). In multiple clinical reports, emission scanning of the brain was performed for 15 min, beginning 5–10 min after injection of the tracer (Kwee et al. 2004, 2007). To confirm this, in a previous publication of our group, we did investigate the optimal timing for imaging brain tumours and other brain lesions with [18F]FCho PET (Mertens et al. 2012). On the basis of the TACs, PET imaging with [18F]FCho starting within minutes after the administration of the tracer is preferred and uptake by all types of brain lesions was rapid, and minimal changes in uptake activity occurred more than 6 min after the administration of the tracer, except for meningiomas that showed decreasing activity after an early peak (Mertens K et al. 2012). Hence, if discrimination between meningioma and other brain tumours is of concern, both 'early' and 'late' PET imaging could be helpful. Recently, Grkovski M et al. performed a dynamic 40 min [18F]FCho PET in patients with brain metastasis. The percentage of activity due to [18F]FCho in plasma was more stable than in rats: 67±11%, 65±9%, 65±7% and 64±7% at 1, 5, 10 and 30 min after injection. However, intratumor [18F]FCho uptake reached 80% and 90% of the total activity at 3±4 and 7±6 minutes (median 1 and 6 minutes) post injection, respectively (Grkovski M 2020). This confirms other studies that radiolabeled choline uptake is rapid and sustained (Schaefferkoetter JD 2017, Grkovski M 2018, Sutinen E 2004) and appears to reach a plateau faster than [18F]FET (Lohmann P 2015).

In contrast with [18F]FDG brain imaging, where dual time point imaging has shown clear advantages to increase the T/B ratio (Mertens et al. 2013, Spence AM et al. 2004), this is assumed to be less advantageous for [18F]FCho PET since the uptake in normal brain is already low (Mertens K et al. 2012). For the use of [18F]FCho PET for the detection of bone metastasis in prostate cancer patients, delayed imaging is recommended. A significant increase in [18F]FCho accumulation in bone metastases was documented using dual-time-point PET imaging (Kwee et al. 2006, Husarik DB et al. 2008).

Based on the above-mentioned we selected a dynamic scan of 20 min for imaging the F98 GB tumor in rats assuming based on the literature that the maximal tumor uptake has been reached by then. Parts of this clarification were added to the discussion: line 567-583.

● Mertens K, Bolcaen J, Ham H, Deblaere K, Van den Broecke C, Boterberg T, De Vos F, Goethals I. The optimal timing for imaging brain tumours and other brain lesions with 18F-labelled fluoromethylcholine: a dynamic positron emission tomography study. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33:954-9.

● Mertens K, Ham H, Deblaere K, Kalala JP, Van den Broecke C, Slaets D, et al. Distribution patterns of 18F-labelled fluoromethylcholine in normal structures and tumors of the head: a PET/MRI evaluation. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:e196-203.

● Mertens K, Acou M, Van Hauwe J, De Ruyck I, Van den Broecke C, Kalala JP, et al. Validation of 18F-FDG PET at conventional and delayed intervals for the discrimination of high-grade from low-grade gliomas: a stereotactic PET and MRI study. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:495-500.

● Spence AM, Muzi M, Mankoff DA, O’Sullivan SF, Link JM, Lewellen TK, et al. 18F-FDG PET of gliomas at delayed intervals: improved distinction between tumor and normal gray matter. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1653-9.

● DeGrado TR, Coleman RE, Wang S, Baldwin SW, Orr MD, Robertson CN, et al. Synthesis and evaluation of 18F-labeled choline as an oncologic tracer for positron emission tomography: initial findings in prostate cancer. Cancer Res 2001;61:110-7.

● DeGrado TR, Reiman RE, Price DT, Wang S, Coleman RE. Pharmacokinetics and radiation dosimetry of 18F-fluorocholine. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:92-6.

● Kwee SA, Wei H, Sesterhenn I, Yun D, Coel MN. Localization of primary prostate cancer with dual-phase 18F-fluorocholine PET. J Nucl Med 2006;47:262-9.

● Kwee SA, Coel MN, Lim J, Ko JP. Combined use of F-18 fluorocholine positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance spectroscopy for brain tumor evaluation. J Neuroimaging. 2004;14:285-9.

● Kwee SA, Ko JP, Jiang CS, Watters MR, Coel MN. Solitary brain lesions enhancing at MR imaging: evaluation with fluorine 18fluorocholine PET. Radiology. 2007;244:557-65.

● Husarik DB, Miralbell R, Dubs M, John H, Giger OT, Gelet A, et al. Evaluation of [(18)F]-choline PET/CT for staging and restaging of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:253-63.

● Grkovski M, Kohutek ZA, Schöder H, Brennan CW, Tabar VS, Gutin PH, et al. 18F-Fluorocholine PET uptake correlates with pathologic evidence of recurrent tumor after stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:1446-57.

● Schaefferkoetter JD, Wang Z, Stephenson MC, Roy S, Conti M, Eriksson L, et al. Quantitative 18F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography for prostate cancer: correlation between kinetic parameters and Gleason scoring. EJNMMI Res. 2017;7:25.

● Grkovski M, Gharzeddine K, Sawan P, Schöder H, Michaud L, Weber WA, et al. 11C-Choline Pharmacokinetics in Recurrent Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1672-8.

● Sutinen E, Nurmi M, Roivainen A, Varpula M, Tolvanen T, Lehikoinen P, et al. Kinetics of [(11)C]choline uptake in prostate cancer: a PET study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:317-24.

● Lohmann P, Herzog H, Rota Kops E, Stoffels G, Judov N, Filss C, et al. Dual-time-point O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET for grading of cerebral gliomas. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:3017-24.

● Bolcaen J, Lybaert K, Moerman L, Descamps B, Deblaere K, Boterberg T, et al. Kinetic Modeling and Graphical Analysis of 18F-Fluoromethylcholine (FCho), 18F-Fluoroethyltyrosine (FET) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET for the Discrimination between High-grade Glioma and Radiation Necrosis in Rats. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0161845.

________________________________________________________________________

Comment 2: I suggest also to report some references missing of recent representative articles on humans: Eg.

- Vetrano, I.G., Laudicella, R. & Alongi, P. Choline PET/CT and intraoperative management of primary brain tumors. New insights for contemporary neurosurgery. Clin Transl Imaging 8, 401–4 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-020-00398-6

- Alongi, P., Quartuccio, N., Arnone, A. et al. Brain PET/CT using prostate cancer radiopharmaceutical agents in the evaluation of gliomas. Clin Transl Imaging 8, 433–48 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-020-00389-7

- Fraioli F, Shankar A, Hargrave D, Hyare H, Gaze MN, Groves AM, Alongi P, Stoneham S, Michopoulou S, Syed R, Bomanji JB. 18F-fluoroethylcholine (18F-Cho) PET/MRI functional parameters in pediatric astrocytic brain tumors. Clin Nucl Med. 2015 Jan;40(1):e40-5. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000000556. PMID: 25188640.

-Alongi P, Vetrano IG, Fiasconaro E, Alaimo V, Laudicella R, Bellavia M, Rubino F, Bagnato S, Galardi G. Choline-PET/CT in the Differential Diagnosis Between Cystic Glioblastoma and Intraparenchymal Hemorrhage. Curr Radiopharm. 2019;12(1):88-92. doi: 10.2174/1874471011666180817122427. PMID: 30117406.

We agree that these recent references are important and included these in the manuscript. This section was added to the introduction line 150-157:

The metabolic information acquired by [18F]FCho PET has been shown to be able to distinguish high-grade glioma, brain metastases and benign lesions and to identify the most malignant areas for stereotactic sampling [Mertens et al. 2010, Kwee et al. 2007, Alongi et al. 2020, Vetrano et al. 2020]. Grech-Sollars et al. concluded that [18F]FCho PET was able to differentiate WHO (World Health Organization) grade IV from grade II and III tumours, whereas MR spectroscopy differentiated grade III/IV from grade II tumours [Grech-Sollars et al. 2019]. Recently, the potential use of [18F]FCho PET/CT in the intraoperative management or radio-surgical approaches for glioma has been suggested, including intraoperative guidance in conjunction with MR spectroscopy [Alongi et al. 2019, Vetrano et al. 2020, Villena Martin et al. 2020].

The reference to Fraioli et al. was added in the discussion Line 518 and 523-525:

Finally, a [18F]FCho PET study in childhood astrocytic tumors confirmed the added value of [18F]FCho SUVmax and functional MRI apparent diffusion coefficient values to monitor therapy response [Fraioli et al. 2015].

Also these recent reference were included in the revised manuscript:

- Villena Martín M, Pena Pardo FJ, Jiménez Aragón F, Borras Moreno JM, García Vicente AM, et al. Metabolic targeting can improve the efficiency of brain tumor biopsies. Semin Oncol. 2020;47:148-54.

- Grech-Sollars M, Ordidge KL, Vaqas B, Davies C, Vaja V, Honeyfield L, et al. Imaging and Tissue Biomarkers of Choline Metabolism in Diffuse Adult Glioma: 18F-Fluoromethylcholine PET/CT, Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, and Choline Kinase α. Cancers. 2019;11:1969.

_______________________________________________________________________

B. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Comment 3: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Upon submission of the revised manuscript, extra care was taken to meet the PLOS ONE style requirements, including those for file naming. Referring to supplemental materials was adapted and author titels were deleted. The reference style of the added references was adapted in the final manuscript. Figures sizes were adapted to meet the criteria.

________________________________________________________________________

Comment 4:

We note that Figure 8 in your submission contains copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

(1) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

(2) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Figure 8 is published in our previous PLoS One publication: 2016;11(8):e0161845, Fig S2 and S4. This content is published under CC BY 4.0 license. To the best of our knowledge, an additional permission request is not required. Please let us know if we understood wrong. We changed the caption to clarify the reuse of the figure (line 589-590). The original figures were uploaded as ‘other’ in the online submission.

________________________________________________________________________

Comment 5: Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

The guidelines were applied for the supporting information, including an in-text citation: S1 Fig.

The name of the supporting information figure was matched with the supporting information captions within the manuscript (line 396).

A caption was added at the end of the manuscript, including a title (line 819-820).

________________________________________________________________________

C. REVIEWER 1

In this study, the authors investigated the role of FDG and F-Choline PET compared to MRI for the early detection of treatment response in a glioblastoma rat model obtained with F98 cells. Rats were divided into two groups (control and treated with radiation and Temozolomide) and the response was monitored with MRI and PET with FDG and F-Choline performed at different times points.

The text is well organized and methods and results are fully described but there are some points that need to be clarified.

Major comments

Abstract

Comment 1. Line 43, in the abstract authors indicate that F-Choline was performed on day 7 post-treatment but in M&M and in the text is indicated day 8 (line 218).

This is indeed an error in the abstract and has been modified (line 52). [18F]FCho PET was performed on day 1-6-8-13 as mentioned in M&M line 247 and in Fig 2, Table 1 and Table 2.

________________________________________________________________________

Comment 2. Line 231, authors can edit the correct injected dose (mean ± SE) of FDG and F-Choline because in line 231 authors indicated 37 MBq and in the figure legends (Fig.3 and Fig. 5) authors indicated other specific doses.-4

We agree to include the mean injected activity of all [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho scans in the M&M. The mean injected activity for all [18F]FDG scans was 37.89 ± 0.35 MBq and for all [18F]FCho scans it was 39.55 ± 0.37 MBq (mean ± SE). This was added to the manuscript line 263-264.

________________________________________________________________________

Comment 3. Line 274, the dose of FCho can be edited in MBq, please?

The activity (0.55 mCi) was changed to MBq at line 313.

________________________________________________________________________

Comment 4. Lines- 289-292, why these lines are under the paragraph “Autoradiography and Evans Blue (EB) staining”, can authors add another title, please?

We agree that these lines do not fit under that paragraph. These lines were moved to lines 302-305.

________________________________________________________________________

Comment 5. Figure 3, is the same animal? Because the images are different. If not, can authors use the same animal, please?

The axial PET images used in Figure 3 were indeed of 3 different rats. We made a new figure including coronal images of an [18F]FDG (early and late) and a [18F]FCho PET of the same rat with a F98 GB tumor. Different thresholds (≥40-50-60-70 %) are contoured. The figure legend was adapted (line 294-300).

_______________________________________________________________________

Results

Comment 6. In table 2 there are only the p-values, can also add the value of each parameter (mean ± SE), please?

The mean ± SE was added to table 2 (page 13-14).

________________________________________________________________________

Comment 7. Figure 4, why FDG MTV values at d2 are so different between control and treated group whereas the volume measured using MRI is closer? The tumor volume of control animals measured using MRI increased along time whereas MTV (both FDG and Choline) remained stable or slight decrease, what is the hypothesis? Authors should discuss.

The following paragraph has been added to the Discussion (line 503-510):

In Figure 4 can be observed that tumor volumes measured using contrast-enhanced MRI clearly increase over time in the control group, while metabolic tumor volumes remain more or less stable and also show larger variability. Our hypothesis is that the fast growing tumors, as observed on MRI, are becoming metabolically more heterogeneous tumors. This results in a more heterogeneous tracer uptake within these tumours (e.g. necrotic core vs. viable tumour proliferation and infiltration), which gives rise to higher variations of the measured MTV-values in the control group and that might also explain why the MTV-values are not increasing over time.

In addition (not added to the manuscript):

For example, the FDG MTV at day 2 is indeed very different between the control and therapy group whereas the difference of the MRI Gd tumor volume is smaller. When taken a closer look to the data, this can be clarified because 2 rats of the DMSO group showed a 12x increase in FDG MTV between pre-therapy and d2, whereas there was only a 2 to 3 fold increase of the MR Gd volume. The 3 other rats of the DMSO group showed a 2 to 3 fold increase of both the MR Gd volume and FDG MTV between pre-therapy and d2. As a result, the SE-values are higher.

________________________________________________________________________

Comment 8. On day 9, only 2 control animals performed FDG PET, how is it possible that both MTV and MTV+SUVmean values are significantly different between control and treated group (line 347 and 353)?

Thank you for this very valuable comment. After re-checking the data and statistical analysis, we observed a mistake in Table 1. On day 9 FDG PET was performed on 4 control animals and not on 2 control animals. We changed this in the table on page 10 and the total scans included was also changed: line 391.

________________________________________________________________________

Comment 9. In figure 5 there is represented only a control rat, authors can add a longitudinal figure with a representative treated rat so it is possible compared images of control and treated rats, please?

Longitudinal FDG and FCho PET/MRI images of treated rats were added to figure 5.

The figure legend was adapted. Mean ± SE injected activity was added of all FDG and FCho PET scans included in the new figure (see line 424-430).

________________________________________________________________________

Comment 10. Figure 5, what is the color scale for PET (SUV, %ID/g, TBR)? Can authors also add min and max values on the scale.

The images in Figure 5 were created using the PMOD software and the color scale of the images is in kBq/cc (kBq/mL) before extracting data. Only after VOI (MTV) delineation, the uptake values in kBq/cc were extracted in excel to calculate SUV and TBR values.

The contrast range of the images selected in Figure 5 was (0-850 kBq/cc) for early FDG, (0-220 kBq/cc) for delayed FDG and (0-350 kBq/cc) for FCho. These were selected manually to obtain an optimal image of the brain and GB tumor uptake. Hence we prefer not to add the different ranges to the color scale.

________________________________________________________________________

10. Did authors evaluate post mortem staining for ki67, GFAP, choline kinase?

These stainings were not performed in this study. We did make a lot of efforts to optimize IHC for staining the choline transporter (CTL1) to correlate with the [18F]FCho PET uptake. However, after mulitple unsuccesfull attempts, the antibody we purchased seemed to only bind human brain tissue and not rat brain tissue (although it was assumed to work by the company).

________________________________________________________________________

Discussion

Edit discussion on the basis of results (point 6), please.

The following paragraph has been added to the Discussion (line 503-510).

D. REVIEWER 2

Reviewer #2: The authors evaluate the role of FDG-PET and Cho-PET, compared to c.e. MRI, for the early detection of treatment response in murine model of GBM; 5 animals randomizedly received RT plus TMZ, while other 5 no. The treatment effect was evaluated with serial MRI and FDG-PET (day 2, 5, 9, 12 post-treatment), and also Cho-PET (day 1, 6, 7, 13). The metabolic tumor volume (MTV) was semi-automatically calculatedm and the average tracer uptake within the MTV was converted to a SUV. Using SUVmean x MTV, FDG-PET started to detect treatment's effects at 5 day post-treatment, comparable to c.e. MRI. Moreover, delayed FDG-PET (240 min p.i.) earlier detect such effects (from day 2); on the other hand, no significant differences were found at any time point for both the MTV and (SUVmean x MTV) of Cho-PET. Therefore, the authors concluded that MRI and delayed FDG-PET detect early treatment responses in GB murine model of GBM, whereas these results were not obtained with Cho-PET

The topic is undoubtedly intriguing, but i have some issues:

-INTRODUCTION

1. The ref 1 is related to 2007 WHO classification; from an epidemiological point of view, it should be better to consider the last CBTRUS report (Ostrom et al., CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2013–2017, Neuro-Oncology, Volume 22, Supplement 1, October 2020).

Reference 1 was changed to the recent publication of Ostrom et al. We included numbers from this work in the introduction, see line 72-74:

‘In the US, 84,170 new cases of primary brain and other central nervous system tumors are estimated to be diagnosed in 2021. Glioblastoma (GB) has the highest number of cases of all malignant tumors, with 12,970 cases projected in 2021 [1].’

________________________________________________________________________

2. I suggest also to modify ref. 2 and 3, using a more up-to-date literature reference about glioma management (i.e., Weller et al., European Association for Neuro-Oncology (EANO) guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of adult astrocytic and oligodendroglial gliomas. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Jun;18(6):e315-e329).

We agree that this is an important and more up to date reference, hence we changed previous references 2 and 3 to Weller et al. 2017

_______________________________________________________________________

3. Moreover, the study by Stupp in 2005 that showed the role of combined RT-CMT was not the ref n° 5 but the one published in NEJM (Stupp et al, Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 10;352(10):987-96. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0433309).

Reference 5 was changed to this reference of Stupp et al. from NEJM.

________________________________________________________________________

4. It should be better to update the references related to the clinical role of ChoPET in brain tumors (the authors cite a quite old ref, the number 35, which was a review of literature available more than 10 years ago), due to the increasing interest about such technique.

We added more recent references related to the clinical role of ChoPET in brain tumors to the manuscript. An extra section was added to the introduction, see line 150-157. The reference to Fraioli et al. was added in the discussion Line 518 and 523-525. We included the following references:

- Vetrano IG, Laudicella R, Alongi P. Choline PET/CT and intraoperative management of primary brain tumors. New insights for contemporary neurosurgery. Clin Transl Imaging. 2020;8:401-4.

- Alongi, P, Quartuccio, N, Arnone, A, Kokomani A, Allocca M, Nappi G, et al. Brain PET/CT using prostate cancer radiopharmaceutical agents in the evaluation of gliomas. Clin Transl Imaging. 2020;8:433-48.

- Fraioli F, Shankar A, Hargrave D, Hyare H, Gaze MN, Groves AM, et al. 18F-fluoroethylcholine (18F-Cho) PET/MRI functional parameters in pediatric astrocytic brain tumors. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40:e40-5.

- Alongi P, Vetrano IG, Fiasconaro E, Alaimo V, Laudicella R, Bellavia M, et al. Choline-PET/CT in the Differential Diagnosis Between Cystic Glioblastoma and Intraparenchymal Hemorrhage. Curr Radiopharm. 2019;12:88-92.

- Villena Martín M, Pena Pardo FJ, Jiménez Aragón F, Borras Moreno JM, García Vicente AM, et al. Metabolic targeting can improve the efficiency of brain tumor biopsies. Semin Oncol. 2020;47:148-54.

- Grech-Sollars M, Ordidge KL, Vaqas B, Davies C, Vaja V, Honeyfield L, et al. Imaging and Tissue Biomarkers of Choline Metabolism in Diffuse Adult Glioma: 18F-Fluoromethylcholine PET/CT, Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, and Choline Kinase α. Cancers. 2019;11:1969.

______________________________________________________________

5. Why the authors selected Cho-PET, instead of [18F]FAZA PET, for example? I think that clarifying the advantages and disadvantages of this choice could increase the informative role of the present work.

For many years, the focus of our research group has been the role of various F-18 labeled PET-tracers in neuro-oncology. In comparison with other PET tracers, FDG and non-FDG tracers alike, [18F]FCho has certain advantages of which a very low uptake in normal white and grey matter of the brain is of major interest because it enhances the contrast between tumour and normal brain tissue. Secondly, it is – at least in Europe - widely available and it is still the tracer of choice in the management of castration resistant prostate cancer for those centers that do not have access to PSMA PET.

Although [18F]FCho PET has been studied for glioma imaging before by other groups, the number of studies is still limited compared to the number of publications on amino acid and hypoxia PET biomarkers.

Since hypoxia is associated with tumor aggressiveness, radiation resistance and poor prognosis, it is possible that changes in [18F]FAZA or [18F]FMISO uptake between pre- and post-treatment can be used to monitor treatment response. However, only few studies have been performed. One downside is that the degree of hypoxia can theoretically fluctuate, influenced by therapy and the presence of acute versus chronic hypoxia which can influence the reproducibility of hypoxia PET (Hirata et al. 2019, Mapelli P et al. 2017, Mönnich et al. 2012). In 2013, [18F]FAZA and [18F]FDG uptake in the F98 GB rat model was investigated by Belloli et al., however, not specifically for therapy response assessment.

It is also noteworthy that there is no current consensus on which tracer is the best for hypoxia imaging. [18F]FAZA has advantages compared to [18F]FMISO due to better pharmacokinetic properties but [18F]FMISO can cross the blood–brain barrier because of its lipophilic nature while [18F]FAZA and [18F]DiFA can not (Hirata et al. 2019). Another downside of [18F]FAZA is that imaging is optimal 2-3 hours post-injection (with [18F]FMISO up to 4h), making it less convenient to work with. However, we studied [18F]FET and [18F]FAZA PET in another in vivo study by our group with a focus on the feasibility of PET-guided irradiation (Verhoeven et al. 2019). Because hypoxia is directly related to radiation resistance, [18F]FAZA PET could be used to guide an additional boost on hypoxic tumor regions as a strategy to overcome radioresistance and increase therapy effectiveness. [18F]FET has already been studied in depth for imaging glioma, however, tumor-to-normal brain contrast is less optimal compared to [18F]FCho.

The underlined parts have been included in the introduction (line 142-144).

- Verhoeven J, Bolcaen J, De Meulenaere V, Kersemans K, Descamps B, Donche S, et al. Technical feasibility of [18F]FET and [18F]FAZA PET guided radiotherapy in a F98 glioblastoma rat model. Radiat Oncol. 2019;14(1):89.

- Mapelli P, Zerbetto F, Incerti E, Conte GM, Bettinardi V, Fallanca F, et al. 18F-FAZA PET/CT hypoxia imaging of high-grade glioma before and after radiotherapy. Clin Nucl Med 2017;42:e525-26.

- Belloli S, Brioschi A, Politi LS, Ronchetti F, Calderoni S, Raccagni I,et al. Characterization of biological features of a rat F98 GBM model: a PET-MRI study with [18F]FAZA and [18F]FDG. Nucl Med Biol. 2013;40:831-40.

- Hirata K, Yamaguchi S, Shiga T, Kuge Y, Tamaki N. The Roles of Hypoxia Imaging Using 18F-Fluoromisonidazole Positron Emission Tomography in Glioma Treatment. J Clin Med. 2019;8:1088.

- Mönnich D, Troost EG, Kaanders JH, Oyen WJ, Alber M, Thorwarth D. Modelling and simulation of the influence of acute and chronic hypoxia on [18F]fluoromisonidazole PET imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:1675-84.

________________________________________________________________________

6. How where the simple size selected?statistical analysis were performed to selected a population of 10 animals?

Using statistical power analysis based on ANOVA (repeated measures, within-between interactions) using 2 group, 5 repeated measurements, an alpha-value of 0.05, a power of 0.80 and an effect size of 0.4, a total sample size of 10 animals was calculated.

________________________________________________________________________

7. Finally, the author disclosure a financial support by Lux Luka Foundation, but they must clearly state, according to Journal guidelines, who exactly received fundings, and the role of the sponsor in the study design and analysis.

Lux Luka Foundation did indeed support this study financially. Funds were received by Prof. I Goethals and Prof. T Boterberg. The sponsor did not play a role in study design and analysis. The funding source was not included in the Acknowledgements section in the manuscript, according to the Journal’s guidelines.

However, this information was added in the cover letter.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Pierpaolo Alongi

22 Feb 2021

Assessment of the effect of therapy in a rat model of glioblastoma using [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET compared to contrast-enhanced MRI.

PONE-D-20-36019R1

Dear Dr. Bolcaen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Pierpaolo Alongi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Pierpaolo Alongi

23 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-36019R1

Assessment of the effect of therapy in a rat model of glioblastoma using [18F]FDG and [18F]FCho PET compared to contrast-enhanced MRI.

Dear Dr. Bolcaen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Pierpaolo Alongi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. The ratio of the SUVmax and TBRmax post-therapy to the SUVmax and TBRmax pre-therapy for both [18F]FDG, at conventional and delayed time point, and for [18F]FCho PET.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES