PURPOSE: The objective was to compare F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and F-fluorothymidine (FLT) PET in differentiating radiation necrosis from recurrent glioma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Visual and quantitative analyses were derived from static FDG PET and static and dynamic FLT PET in 15 patients with suspected recurrence of treated grade 2 glioma or worse with a new focus of Gd contrast enhancement on MRI. For FDG PET, SUVmax and the ratio of lesion SUVmax to the SUVmean of contralateral white matter were measured. For FLT PET, SUVmax and Patlak-derived metabolic flux parameter Kimax were measured for the same locus. A 5-point visual confidence scale was applied to FDG PET and FLT PET. Receiver operating curve analysis was applied to visual and quantitative results. Differences between recurrent tumor and radiation necrosis were tested by Kruskal-Wallis analysis. On the basis of follow-up Gd-enhanced MRI, lesion-specific recurrent tumor was defined as a definitive increase in size of the lesion, and radiation necrosis was defined as stability or regression. RESULTS: For FDG SUVmax, the FDG ratio of lesion-white matter, and FLT Kimax, there was a significant difference between mean values for recurrent tumor and radiation necrosis. Recurrent tumor was best identified by the FDG ratio of lesion-contralateral normal white matter (area under the curve of 0.98, confidence interval of 0.91 to 1.00, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 75% for an optimized cutoff value of 1.82). CONCLUSIONS: Both quantitative and visual determinations allow accurate differentiation between recurrent glioma and radiation necrosis by both FDG and FLT PET. In this small series, FLT PET offers no advantage over FDG PET.
PURPOSE: The objective was to compare F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and F-fluorothymidine (FLT) PET in differentiating radiation necrosis from recurrent glioma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Visual and quantitative analyses were derived from static FDG PET and static and dynamic FLT PET in 15 patients with suspected recurrence of treated grade 2 glioma or worse with a new focus of Gd contrast enhancement on MRI. For FDG PET, SUVmax and the ratio of lesion SUVmax to the SUVmean of contralateral white matter were measured. For FLT PET, SUVmax and Patlak-derived metabolic flux parameter Kimax were measured for the same locus. A 5-point visual confidence scale was applied to FDG PET and FLT PET. Receiver operating curve analysis was applied to visual and quantitative results. Differences between recurrent tumor and radiation necrosis were tested by Kruskal-Wallis analysis. On the basis of follow-up Gd-enhanced MRI, lesion-specific recurrent tumor was defined as a definitive increase in size of the lesion, and radiation necrosis was defined as stability or regression. RESULTS: For FDG SUVmax, the FDG ratio of lesion-white matter, and FLT Kimax, there was a significant difference between mean values for recurrent tumor and radiation necrosis. Recurrent tumor was best identified by the FDG ratio of lesion-contralateral normal white matter (area under the curve of 0.98, confidence interval of 0.91 to 1.00, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 75% for an optimized cutoff value of 1.82). CONCLUSIONS: Both quantitative and visual determinations allow accurate differentiation between recurrent glioma and radiation necrosis by both FDG and FLT PET. In this small series, FLT PET offers no advantage over FDG PET.
Authors: C Dowling; A W Bollen; S M Noworolski; M W McDermott; N M Barbaro; M R Day; R G Henry; S M Chang; W P Dillon; S J Nelson; D B Vigneron Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Hubert Vesselle; John Grierson; Mark Muzi; Jeffrey M Pugsley; Rodney A Schmidt; Peter Rabinowitz; Lanell M Peterson; Eric Vallières; Douglas E Wood Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jack P Rock; David Hearshen; Lisa Scarpace; David Croteau; Jorge Gutierrez; James L Fisher; Mark L Rosenblum; Tom Mikkelsen Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Hubert Vesselle; John Grierson; Lanell M Peterson; Mark Muzi; David A Mankoff; Kenneth A Krohn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: A Jena; S Taneja; A Jha; N K Damesha; P Negi; G K Jadhav; S M Verma; S K Sogani Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-03-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Andre D Furtado; Rafael Ceschin; Stefan Blüml; Gary Mason; Regina I Jakacki; Hideho Okada; Ian F Pollack; Ashok Panigrahy Journal: Neuroimaging Clin N Am Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: M Peck; H A Pollack; A Friesen; M Muzi; S C Shoner; E G Shankland; J R Fink; J O Armstrong; J M Link; K A Krohn Journal: Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 2.346
Authors: Zachary A Kohutek; Yoshiya Yamada; Timothy A Chan; Cameron W Brennan; Viviane Tabar; Philip H Gutin; T Jonathan Yang; Marc K Rosenblum; Åse Ballangrud; Robert J Young; Zhigang Zhang; Kathryn Beal Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 4.130