PURPOSE: Reliable differential diagnosis between tumour recurrence and treatment-induced lesions is required to take advantage of new therapeutic approaches to recurrent gliomas. Structural imaging methods offer a high sensitivity but a low specificity, which might be improved by neurofunctional imaging. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that incorporation of 18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) increases the accuracy of this differential diagnosis obtained with 201Tl chloride-single-photon emission computed tomography (201Tl-SPECT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-six patients (mean age 47.72 +/- 16.19 years) under suspicion of glioma recurrence, 42% with low-grade and 58% with high-grade lesions, were studied by (201)Tl-SPECT and FDG-PET, reporting results under blinded conditions using visual analysis. Tumour was confirmed by histological confirmation (23 patients) or clinical and structural neuroimaging follow-up (mean of 2.6 years). RESULTS: This population had a high disease prevalence (72%). Globally, highest sensitivity was obtained using 201Tl-SPECT assessed with MRI (96%) and highest specificity using FDG-PET + MRI (95%). FDG-PET appeared slightly better for confirming tumour recurrence, whereas 201Tl-SPECT was superior for ruling out possible recurrence (disease present in 38% of FDG-PET negative explorations). In the high-grade subgroup, there were no false-positive examinations (specificity: 100%), but sensitivity differed among techniques (201Tl-SPECT : 94%; 201Tl-SPECT + MRI: 97%; FDG-PET + MRI: 83%). In the low-grade subgroup, 201Tl-SPECT + MRI showed highest sensitivity (95%) and lowest posttest negative probability (9%); FDG-PET + MRI offered highest specificity (92%) with a posttest negative probability of 35%. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET does not clearly improve the diagnostic accuracy of (201)Tl-SPECT, which appears to be a more appropriate examination for the diagnosis of possible brain tumour recurrence, especially for ruling it out.
PURPOSE: Reliable differential diagnosis between tumour recurrence and treatment-induced lesions is required to take advantage of new therapeutic approaches to recurrent gliomas. Structural imaging methods offer a high sensitivity but a low specificity, which might be improved by neurofunctional imaging. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that incorporation of 18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) increases the accuracy of this differential diagnosis obtained with 201Tl chloride-single-photon emission computed tomography (201Tl-SPECT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-six patients (mean age 47.72 +/- 16.19 years) under suspicion of glioma recurrence, 42% with low-grade and 58% with high-grade lesions, were studied by (201)Tl-SPECT and FDG-PET, reporting results under blinded conditions using visual analysis. Tumour was confirmed by histological confirmation (23 patients) or clinical and structural neuroimaging follow-up (mean of 2.6 years). RESULTS: This population had a high disease prevalence (72%). Globally, highest sensitivity was obtained using 201Tl-SPECT assessed with MRI (96%) and highest specificity using FDG-PET + MRI (95%). FDG-PET appeared slightly better for confirming tumour recurrence, whereas 201Tl-SPECT was superior for ruling out possible recurrence (disease present in 38% of FDG-PET negative explorations). In the high-grade subgroup, there were no false-positive examinations (specificity: 100%), but sensitivity differed among techniques (201Tl-SPECT : 94%; 201Tl-SPECT + MRI: 97%; FDG-PET + MRI: 83%). In the low-grade subgroup, 201Tl-SPECT + MRI showed highest sensitivity (95%) and lowest posttest negative probability (9%); FDG-PET + MRI offered highest specificity (92%) with a posttest negative probability of 35%. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET does not clearly improve the diagnostic accuracy of (201)Tl-SPECT, which appears to be a more appropriate examination for the diagnosis of possible brain tumour recurrence, especially for ruling it out.
Authors: Paul Kleihues; David N Louis; Bernd W Scheithauer; Lucy B Rorke; Guido Reifenberger; Peter C Burger; Webster K Cavenee Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: D Kahn; K A Follett; D L Bushnell; M A Nathan; J G Piper; M Madsen; P T Kirchner Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Manuel Gómez-Río; Dolores Martínez Del Valle Torres; Antonio Rodríguez-Fernández; José Manuel Llamas-Elvira; Simeón Ortega Lozano; Carlos Ramos Font; Escarlata López Ramírez; Majed Katati Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-05-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Maaike J Vos; Ban N Tony; Otto S Hoekstra; Tjeerd J Postma; Jan J Heimans; Lotty Hooft Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: George A Alexiou; Spyridon Tsiouris; Athanasios P Kyritsis; Konstantinos S Polyzoidis; Andreas D Fotopoulos Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-05-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: John H Rossmeisl; Paulo A Garcia; Gregory B Daniel; John Daniel Bourland; Waldemar Debinski; Nikolaos Dervisis; Shawna Klahn Journal: Vet Radiol Ultrasound Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 1.363
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: George A Alexiou; Spyridon Tsiouris; Athanasios P Kyritsis; Spyridon Voulgaris; Maria I Argyropoulou; Andreas D Fotopoulos Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-04-21 Impact factor: 4.130
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