PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to describe the usefulness of a simple (201)Tl single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) technique in the differential diagnosis between tumour recurrence and radionecrosis during the follow-up of patients treated for low-grade gliomas. METHODS: The study population comprised 84 patients treated for low-grade gliomas who showed suspicion of tumour recurrence during their follow-up. All patients were examined by neuro-anatomical imaging procedures (CT, MRI) and (201)Tl-SPECT. (201)Tl-SPECT images were assessed by visual analysis based only on the information on the prescription form and by estimation of the uptake index (ratio of mean counts in the lesion to those in the contralateral mirror area). Examiners were blinded to the results of other tests. RESULTS: Under these conditions, the neuro-anatomical procedures yielded 26.2% inconclusive reports, with a global diagnostic accuracy of 0.61, a sensitivity of 0.63 and a specificity of 0.59. The global diagnostic accuracy for (201)Tl-SPECT was 0.83, with a sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 0.76. Diagnostic pitfalls were observed in regions with physiological (201)Tl uptake, i.e. the posterior cranial fossa, diencephalon, lateral ventricles and cavernous and longitudinal venous sinuses. An uptake index cut-off value of 1.25 showed a sensitivity of 0.90 and specificity of 0.80 for detection of tumour activity. CONCLUSION: (201)Tl-SPECT has adequate diagnostic accuracy to be part of routine algorithms in the follow-up of patients with low-grade glioma suspected of tumour recurrence, as an alternative to neuro-anatomical procedures and not solely as a complementary test.
PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to describe the usefulness of a simple (201)Tl single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) technique in the differential diagnosis between tumour recurrence and radionecrosis during the follow-up of patients treated for low-grade gliomas. METHODS: The study population comprised 84 patients treated for low-grade gliomas who showed suspicion of tumour recurrence during their follow-up. All patients were examined by neuro-anatomical imaging procedures (CT, MRI) and (201)Tl-SPECT. (201)Tl-SPECT images were assessed by visual analysis based only on the information on the prescription form and by estimation of the uptake index (ratio of mean counts in the lesion to those in the contralateral mirror area). Examiners were blinded to the results of other tests. RESULTS: Under these conditions, the neuro-anatomical procedures yielded 26.2% inconclusive reports, with a global diagnostic accuracy of 0.61, a sensitivity of 0.63 and a specificity of 0.59. The global diagnostic accuracy for (201)Tl-SPECT was 0.83, with a sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 0.76. Diagnostic pitfalls were observed in regions with physiological (201)Tl uptake, i.e. the posterior cranial fossa, diencephalon, lateral ventricles and cavernous and longitudinal venous sinuses. An uptake index cut-off value of 1.25 showed a sensitivity of 0.90 and specificity of 0.80 for detection of tumour activity. CONCLUSION: (201)Tl-SPECT has adequate diagnostic accuracy to be part of routine algorithms in the follow-up of patients with low-grade glioma suspected of tumour recurrence, as an alternative to neuro-anatomical procedures and not solely as a complementary test.
Authors: K T Kim; K L Black; D Marciano; J C Mazziotta; B H Guze; S Grafton; R A Hawkins; D P Becker Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1990-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: P Sabbah; H Foehrenbach; G Dutertre; C Nioche; O DeDreuille; N Bellegou; J F Mangin; C Leveque; T Faillot; J F Gaillard; M Desgeorges; Y S Cordoliani Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Maaike J Vos; Johannes Berkhof; Tjeerd J Postma; Otto S Hoekstra; Frederik Barkhof; Jan J Heimans Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-09-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Manuel Gómez-Río; Nathalie Testart Dardel; Alicia Santiago Chinchilla; Antonio Rodríguez-Fernández; Gonzalo Olivares Granados; Raquel Luque Caro; Mercedes Zurita Herrera; Clara E Chamorro Santos; Pablo Lardelli-Claret; José M Llamas-Elvira Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: George Firth; Julia E Blower; Joanna J Bartnicka; Aishwarya Mishra; Aidan M Michaels; Alex Rigby; Afnan Darwesh; Fahad Al-Salemee; Philip J Blower Journal: RSC Chem Biol Date: 2022-04-11
Authors: Karen D Daniel; Grace Y Kim; Christophoros C Vassiliou; Marilyn Galindo; Alexander R Guimaraes; Ralph Weissleder; Al Charest; Robert Langer; Michael J Cima Journal: Biosens Bioelectron Date: 2009-04-16 Impact factor: 10.618
Authors: Manuel Gómez-Río; Antonio Rodríguez-Fernández; Carlos Ramos-Font; Escarlata López-Ramírez; José Manuel Llamas-Elvira Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-01-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Alexander M Spence; Mark Muzi; Jeanne M Link; Finbarr O'Sullivan; Janet F Eary; John M Hoffman; Lalitha K Shankar; Kenneth A Krohn Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2009-03-27 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Jonathan E Leeman; David A Clump; John C Flickinger; Arlan H Mintz; Steven A Burton; Dwight E Heron Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 12.300