OBJECTIVE: To explore prospectively the positive predictive value of O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET)-PET in selected patients with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based suspicion of a glioma recurrence or progression. Methods Patients with a supratentorial glioma (initial World Health Organization (WHO) grade II, III or IV) were considered eligible if they had both an MRI-(new/progressive contrast-enhancing lesion) and FET-PET-based diagnosis of a recurrence/progression after various forms and combinations of irradiation and chemotherapy. Criterion for tumour recurrence/progression in FET-PET was a standardized uptake value (SUVmax)/Background (BG) ratio of >2.0 in the late uptake phase. All patients underwent multimodal (MRI, FET-PET) imaging-guided stereotactic biopsy. The positive predictive value was defined as the proportion of MRI and FET-PET findings indicating glioma recurrence/progression that also tested positive for tumour recurrence/progression after stereotactic biopsy. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with initially WHO grade II (17), WHO grade III (6), and grade IV glioma (8) were included. In 26 patients FET-PET results indicating tumour recurrence/progression were concordant with the biopsy results. In five patients histopathologic evaluation failed to reveal a "vital" tumour. FET-PET findings were also discordant with the radiographic and clinical follow-up in these five patients. The positive predictive value of FET-PET was 84%. CONCLUSION: The positive predictive value of FET-PET using the standard ratio method is high, but not high enough to replace stereotactic biopsy in this highly selected study cohort. Whether the calculation of FET uptake in the early phase and/or the evaluation of uptake kinetics will improve the positive predictive value of FET-PET deserves prospective evaluation.
OBJECTIVE: To explore prospectively the positive predictive value of O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET)-PET in selected patients with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based suspicion of a glioma recurrence or progression. Methods Patients with a supratentorial glioma (initial World Health Organization (WHO) grade II, III or IV) were considered eligible if they had both an MRI-(new/progressive contrast-enhancing lesion) and FET-PET-based diagnosis of a recurrence/progression after various forms and combinations of irradiation and chemotherapy. Criterion for tumour recurrence/progression in FET-PET was a standardized uptake value (SUVmax)/Background (BG) ratio of >2.0 in the late uptake phase. All patients underwent multimodal (MRI, FET-PET) imaging-guided stereotactic biopsy. The positive predictive value was defined as the proportion of MRI and FET-PET findings indicating glioma recurrence/progression that also tested positive for tumour recurrence/progression after stereotactic biopsy. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with initially WHO grade II (17), WHO grade III (6), and grade IV glioma (8) were included. In 26 patientsFET-PET results indicating tumour recurrence/progression were concordant with the biopsy results. In five patients histopathologic evaluation failed to reveal a "vital" tumour. FET-PET findings were also discordant with the radiographic and clinical follow-up in these five patients. The positive predictive value of FET-PET was 84%. CONCLUSION: The positive predictive value of FET-PET using the standard ratio method is high, but not high enough to replace stereotactic biopsy in this highly selected study cohort. Whether the calculation of FET uptake in the early phase and/or the evaluation of uptake kinetics will improve the positive predictive value of FET-PET deserves prospective evaluation.
Authors: Frank W Floeth; Dirk Pauleit; Michael Sabel; Guido Reifenberger; Gabriele Stoffels; Walter Stummer; Frank Rommel; Kurt Hamacher; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: F W Floeth; N Shand; H Bojar; H B Prisack; J Felsberg; E Neuen-Jacob; A Aulich; K J Burger; W J Bock; F Weber Journal: Cancer Gene Ther Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 5.987
Authors: G Pöpperl; R Goldbrunner; F J Gildehaus; F W Kreth; P Tanner; M Holtmannspötter; J C Tonn; K Tatsch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-05-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Tobias J Beck; Friedrich W Kreth; Wolfgang Beyer; Jan H Mehrkens; Andreas Obermeier; Herbert Stepp; Walter Stummer; Reinhold Baumgartner Journal: Lasers Surg Med Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: P A Forsyth; P J Kelly; T L Cascino; B W Scheithauer; E G Shaw; R P Dinapoli; E J Atkinson Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Benoit Pirotte; Serge Goldman; Nicolas Massager; Philippe David; David Wikler; Arlette Vandesteene; Isabelle Salmon; Jacques Brotchi; Marc Levivier Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Nathalie L Albert; Michael Weller; Bogdana Suchorska; Norbert Galldiks; Riccardo Soffietti; Michelle M Kim; Christian la Fougère; Whitney Pope; Ian Law; Javier Arbizu; Marc C Chamberlain; Michael Vogelbaum; Ben M Ellingson; Joerg C Tonn Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Nathalie L Albert; M Unterrainer; D F Fleischmann; S Lindner; F Vettermann; A Brunegraf; L Vomacka; M Brendel; V Wenter; C Wetzel; R Rupprecht; J-C Tonn; C Belka; P Bartenstein; M Niyazi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-08-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: David O Kamson; Sandeep Mittal; Natasha L Robinette; Otto Muzik; William J Kupsky; Geoffrey R Barger; Csaba Juhász Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 12.300
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: Markus Hutterer; Martha Nowosielski; Daniel Putzer; Nathalie L Jansen; Marcel Seiz; Michael Schocke; Mark McCoy; Georg Göbel; Christian la Fougère; Irene J Virgolini; Eugen Trinka; Andreas H Jacobs; Günther Stockhammer Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 12.300