Tomohiko Yamane1, Setsu Sakamoto, Michio Senda. 1. Division of Molecular imaging, Institution of Biomedical Research and Innovation, 2-2 Minatojima-Minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe 650-0047, Japan. yamane@fbri.org
Abstract
PURPOSE: We retrospectively examined the clinical efficacy of (11)C-methionine positron emission tomography ((11)C-MET PET) in patients with brain neoplasm, especially whether the (11)C-MET PET changed the clinical management and whether the change was beneficial or detrimental. METHODS: This study reviewed 89 (11)C-MET PET scans for 80 patients (20 scans for initial diagnosis of brain tumor and 69 scans for differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis). Final diagnosis and the effect on the intended management were obtained from the questionnaire to the referring physicians or directly from the medical records. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the (11)C-MET PET were evaluated. Regarding the management impact, the rate of scans that caused changes in intended management was also evaluated. Moreover, the occurrence of scans having detrimental diagnostic impact (DDI) and beneficial diagnostic impact (BDI) were evaluated. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of (11)C-MET PET was 87.8, 80.0, and 85.9%. The intended management was changed in 50.0% of the scans. DDI and BDI were observed in 4.3 and 36.2% of the total relevant scans, respectively. CONCLUSION: (11)C-MET PET can provide useful information in initial diagnosis and differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis. The intended management was changed in half of the scans. Since a few cases did not receive the requisite treatment due to false-negative results of (11)C-MET PET, management decision should be made carefully, especially in the case of a negative scan.
PURPOSE: We retrospectively examined the clinical efficacy of (11)C-methionine positron emission tomography ((11)C-MET PET) in patients with brain neoplasm, especially whether the (11)C-MET PET changed the clinical management and whether the change was beneficial or detrimental. METHODS: This study reviewed 89 (11)C-MET PET scans for 80 patients (20 scans for initial diagnosis of brain tumor and 69 scans for differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis). Final diagnosis and the effect on the intended management were obtained from the questionnaire to the referring physicians or directly from the medical records. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the (11)C-MET PET were evaluated. Regarding the management impact, the rate of scans that caused changes in intended management was also evaluated. Moreover, the occurrence of scans having detrimental diagnostic impact (DDI) and beneficial diagnostic impact (BDI) were evaluated. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of (11)C-MET PET was 87.8, 80.0, and 85.9%. The intended management was changed in 50.0% of the scans. DDI and BDI were observed in 4.3 and 36.2% of the total relevant scans, respectively. CONCLUSION: (11)C-MET PET can provide useful information in initial diagnosis and differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis. The intended management was changed in half of the scans. Since a few cases did not receive the requisite treatment due to false-negative results of (11)C-MET PET, management decision should be made carefully, especially in the case of a negative scan.
Authors: Mark E Mullins; Glenn D Barest; Pamela W Schaefer; Fred H Hochberg; R Gilberto Gonzalez; Michael H Lev Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: D Ribom; A Eriksson; M Hartman; H Engler; A Nilsson; B Långström; H Bolander; M Bergström; A Smits Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-09-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lutz W Kracht; Hrvoje Miletic; Susanne Busch; Andreas H Jacobs; Jurgen Voges; Moritz Hoevels; Johannes C Klein; Karl Herholz; Wolf-D Heiss Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 12.531
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
Authors: Benoit Pirotte; Serge Goldman; Nicolas Massager; Philippe David; David Wikler; Maurice Lipszyc; Isabelle Salmon; Jacques Brotchi; Marc Levivier Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: T Kato; J Shinoda; N Oka; K Miwa; N Nakayama; H Yano; T Maruyama; Y Muragaki; T Iwama Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-08-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Andrew M Scott; Dishan H Gunawardana; Dylan Bartholomeusz; Jayne E Ramshaw; Peter Lin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-09-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andor W J M Glaudemans; Roelien H Enting; Mart A A M Heesters; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Ronald W J van Rheenen; Annemiek M E Walenkamp; Riemer H J A Slart Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Simon Shek-Man Lo; Elizabeth M Gore; Jeffrey D Bradley; John M Buatti; Isabelle Germano; A Paiman Ghafoori; Mark A Henderson; Gregory J A Murad; Roy A Patchell; Samir H Patel; Jared R Robbins; H Ian Robins; Andrew D Vassil; Franz J Wippold; Michael J Yunes; Gregory M M Videtic Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Nina Poetsch; Adelheid Woehrer; Johanna Gesperger; Julia Furtner; Alexander R Haug; Dorothee Wilhelm; Georg Widhalm; Georgios Karanikas; Michael Weber; Ivo Rausch; Markus Mitterhauser; Wolfgang Wadsak; Marcus Hacker; Matthias Preusser; Tatjana Traub-Weidinger Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 12.300