PURPOSE: The prognosis of patients with recurrent gliomas depends on reliable and early diagnosis of tumour recurrence after initial therapy. In this context, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) often fail to differentiate between radiation- and tumour-induced contrast enhancement. Furthermore, absence of contrast enhancement, or even of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in PET, does not exclude recurrence. The aim of this study was to establish the diagnostic value of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)- L-tyrosine (FET) PET in recurrent gliomas. METHODS: Fifty-three patients with glioma (primary grading: 27=WHO grade IV, 16=grade III, 9=grade II, 1=grade I) and clinically suspected recurrence underwent FET PET scans 4-180 months after different treatment modalities. For semiquantitative evaluation, maximal SUV (SUVmax) and mean SUV within 80% and 70% isocontour thresholds (SUV80/SUV70) were evaluated and the respective ratios to the background (BG) were calculated. PET results were correlated with MRI/CT, clinical follow-up or biopsy findings. RESULTS: All patients presented with FET uptake, of varying intensity, in the area of the primary tumour after initial therapy. In the 42 patients with confirmed recurrence, there was additional distinct focal FET uptake with significantly higher values compared with those in the 11 patients without clinical signs of recurrence and showing only low and homogeneous FET uptake at the margins of the resection cavity. With respect to tumour grading, there was a slight but non-significant increase from WHO II (SUVmax/BG: 2.53+/-0.28) to WHO III (SUVmax/BG: 2.84+/-0.49) and WHO IV (SUVmax/BG: 3.55+/-1.07) recurrence. CONCLUSION: FET PET reliably distinguishes between post-therapeutic benign lesions and tumour recurrence after initial treatment of low- and high-grade gliomas.
PURPOSE: The prognosis of patients with recurrent gliomas depends on reliable and early diagnosis of tumour recurrence after initial therapy. In this context, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) often fail to differentiate between radiation- and tumour-induced contrast enhancement. Furthermore, absence of contrast enhancement, or even of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in PET, does not exclude recurrence. The aim of this study was to establish the diagnostic value of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)- L-tyrosine (FET) PET in recurrent gliomas. METHODS: Fifty-three patients with glioma (primary grading: 27=WHO grade IV, 16=grade III, 9=grade II, 1=grade I) and clinically suspected recurrence underwent FET PET scans 4-180 months after different treatment modalities. For semiquantitative evaluation, maximal SUV (SUVmax) and mean SUV within 80% and 70% isocontour thresholds (SUV80/SUV70) were evaluated and the respective ratios to the background (BG) were calculated. PET results were correlated with MRI/CT, clinical follow-up or biopsy findings. RESULTS: All patients presented with FET uptake, of varying intensity, in the area of the primary tumour after initial therapy. In the 42 patients with confirmed recurrence, there was additional distinct focal FET uptake with significantly higher values compared with those in the 11 patients without clinical signs of recurrence and showing only low and homogeneous FET uptake at the margins of the resection cavity. With respect to tumour grading, there was a slight but non-significant increase from WHO II (SUVmax/BG: 2.53+/-0.28) to WHO III (SUVmax/BG: 2.84+/-0.49) and WHO IV (SUVmax/BG: 3.55+/-1.07) recurrence. CONCLUSION: FET PET reliably distinguishes between post-therapeutic benign lesions and tumour recurrence after initial treatment of low- and high-grade gliomas.
Authors: T Inoue; T Shibasaki; N Oriuchi; K Aoyagi; K Tomiyoshi; S Amano; M Mikuni; I Ida; J Aoki; K Endo Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: N J Patronas; G Di Chiro; R A Brooks; R L DeLaPaz; P L Kornblith; B H Smith; H V Rizzoli; R M Kessler; R G Manning; M Channing; A P Wolf; C M O'Connor Journal: Radiology Date: 1982-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M Bergström; K Ericson; L Hagenfeldt; M Mosskin; H von Holst; G Norén; L Eriksson; E Ehrin; P Johnström Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1987 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Nathalie L Jansen; Vera Graute; Lena Armbruster; Bogdana Suchorska; Juergen Lutz; Sabina Eigenbrod; Paul Cumming; Peter Bartenstein; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Friedrich Wilhelm Kreth; Christian la Fougère Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Alexandra Lucs; Benjamin Saltman; Christine H Chung; Bettie M Steinberg; David L Schwartz Journal: Head Neck Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Kiran Kumar Solingapuram Sai; Chaofeng Huang; Liya Yuan; Dong Zhou; David Piwnica-Worms; Joel R Garbow; John A Engelbach; Robert H Mach; Keith M Rich; Jonathan McConathy Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gabriele Pöpperl; Friedrich W Kreth; Jan H Mehrkens; Jochen Herms; Klaus Seelos; Walter Koch; Franz J Gildehaus; Hans A Kretzschmar; Jörg C Tonn; Klaus Tatsch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 9.236