Advanced imaging techniques improve treatment response evaluations in patients with IDH1/2-mutant gliomas, suggesting better assessment methods.
Background: Small-molecule inhibitors targeting IDH1/2-mutant proteins (IDHi) have demonstrated benefit in IDH1/2-mutant gliomas. However, responses assessed by conventional MRI measurements are infrequent, delayed, and difficult to interpret, highlighting the need for early biomarkers of treatment benefit. Here, we investigated 3,4-Dihydroxy-6-[18F]-fluoro-L-phenylalanine PET (¹⁸F-DOPA-PET) and MRI responses in IDH1/2-mutant glioma patients receiving IDHi. Methods: IDH1/2-mutant glioma patients receiving IDHi as part of trials or expanded access programs with pre- and post-treatment MRI and ¹⁸F-DOPA-PET were included. Evaluations included 2D/3D measurements on T2-weighted FLAIR images, T1-post contrast, perfusion, and diffusion imaging for MRI, and metabolic tumor volume (MTV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and tumor-to-background ratios (TBRs) for ¹⁸F-DOPA-PET. Disease response evaluation using volumetric assessments, RANO 2.0 and PET RANO 1.0 criteria were compared and confronted to outcomes. Results: From 2021 to 2025, 20 patients with IDH1/2-mutant glioma (8 astrocytoma, 12 oligodendroglioma) receiving IDHi (4 ivosidenib, 16 vorasidenib) were analyzed. Significant reductions in 18F-DOPA-PET parameters including TBRmean, TBRmax, and MTV were observed in 10/20 patients, aligning with observed changes in perfusion and diffusion imaging. Nine partial responses and one complete response were identified using ¹⁸F-DOPA-PET, while both volumetric and standard 2D morphological MRI assessments indicated stable disease as best response. PET response on metabolic tumor volume (MTV) was correlated with prolonged tumor control. Conclusions: These results highlight the potential of ¹⁸F-DOPA-PET and advanced MRI sequences as valuable complements to standard RANO 2.0 MRI evaluations for assessing treatment response in glioma patients undergoing IDHi therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prost et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: