BACKGROUND: To assess the sensitivity and specificity of [(18)F]-fluoro-ethyl-l-tyrosine ((18)F-FET) PET in brain tumors and various non-neoplastic neurologic diseases. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated (18)F-FET PET scans from 393 patients grouped into 6 disease categories according to histology (n = 299) or distinct MRI findings (n = 94) (low-grade/high-grade glial/nonglial brain tumors, inflammatory lesions, and other lesions). (18)F-FET PET was visually assessed as positive or negative. Maximum lesion-to-brain ratios (LBRs) were calculated and compared with MRI contrast enhancement (CE), which was graded visually on a 3-point scale (no/moderate/intense). RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of brain tumor were 87% and 68%, respectively. Significant differences in LBRs were detected between high-grade brain tumors (LBR, 2.04 ± 0.72) and low-grade brain tumors (LBR, 1.52 ± 0.70; P < .001), as well as among inflammatory (LBR, 1.66 ± 0.33; P = .056) and other brain lesions (LBR, 1.10 ± 0.37; P < .001). Gliomas (n = 236) showed (18)F-FET uptake in 80% of World Health Organization (WHO) grade I, 79% of grade II, 92% of grade III, and 100% of grade IV tumors. Low-grade oligodendrogliomas, WHO grade II, had significantly higher (18)F-FET uptakes than astrocytomas grades II and III (P = .018 and P = .015, respectively). (18)F-FET uptake showed a strong association with CE on MRI (P < .001) and was also positive in 52% of 157 nonglial brain tumors and nonneoplastic brain lesions. CONCLUSIONS: (18)F-FET PET has a high sensitivity for the detection of high-grade brain tumors. Its specificity, however, is limited by passive tracer influx through a disrupted blood-brain barrier and (18)F-FET uptake in nonneoplastic brain lesions. Gliomas show specific tracer uptake in the absence of CE on MRI, which most likely reflects biologically active tumor.
BACKGROUND: To assess the sensitivity and specificity of [(18)F]-fluoro-ethyl-l-tyrosine ((18)F-FET) PET in brain tumors and various non-neoplastic neurologic diseases. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated (18)F-FET PET scans from 393 patients grouped into 6 disease categories according to histology (n = 299) or distinct MRI findings (n = 94) (low-grade/high-grade glial/nonglial brain tumors, inflammatory lesions, and other lesions). (18)F-FET PET was visually assessed as positive or negative. Maximum lesion-to-brain ratios (LBRs) were calculated and compared with MRI contrast enhancement (CE), which was graded visually on a 3-point scale (no/moderate/intense). RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of brain tumor were 87% and 68%, respectively. Significant differences in LBRs were detected between high-grade brain tumors (LBR, 2.04 ± 0.72) and low-grade brain tumors (LBR, 1.52 ± 0.70; P < .001), as well as among inflammatory (LBR, 1.66 ± 0.33; P = .056) and other brain lesions (LBR, 1.10 ± 0.37; P < .001). Gliomas (n = 236) showed (18)F-FET uptake in 80% of World Health Organization (WHO) grade I, 79% of grade II, 92% of grade III, and 100% of grade IV tumors. Low-grade oligodendrogliomas, WHO grade II, had significantly higher (18)F-FET uptakes than astrocytomas grades II and III (P = .018 and P = .015, respectively). (18)F-FET uptake showed a strong association with CE on MRI (P < .001) and was also positive in 52% of 157 nonglial brain tumors and nonneoplastic brain lesions. CONCLUSIONS: (18)F-FET PET has a high sensitivity for the detection of high-grade brain tumors. Its specificity, however, is limited by passive tracer influx through a disrupted blood-brain barrier and (18)F-FET uptake in nonneoplastic brain lesions. Gliomas show specific tracer uptake in the absence of CE on MRI, which most likely reflects biologically active tumor.
Authors: M Weckesser; K J Langen; C H Rickert; S Kloska; R Straeter; K Hamacher; G Kurlemann; H Wassmann; H H Coenen; O Schober Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-01-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Frank Willi Floeth; Dirk Pauleit; Hans-Jörg Wittsack; Karl Josef Langen; Guido Reifenberger; Kurt Hamacher; Martina Messing-Jünger; Karl Zilles; Friedrich Weber; Walter Stummer; Hans-Jakob Steiger; Gabriele Woebker; Hans-Wilhelm Müller; Heinz Coenen; Michael Sabel Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: F Giammarile; L E Cinotti; A Jouvet; J M Ramackers; G Saint Pierre; P Thiesse; E Jouanneau; J Guyotat; I Pelissou-Guyotat; A Setiey; J Honnorat; D Le Bars; D Frappaz Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Friederike C Rau; Wolfgang A Weber; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Michael Herz; Ingrid Becker; Achim Krüger; Markus Schwaiger; Reingard Senekowitsch-Schmidtke Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-05-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Dirk Pauleit; Gabriele Stoffels; Ansgar Bachofner; Frank W Floeth; Michael Sabel; Hans Herzog; Lutz Tellmann; Paul Jansen; Guido Reifenberger; Kurt Hamacher; Heinz H Coenen; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2009-07-29 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Markus Hutterer; Martha Nowosielski; Daniel Putzer; Christian la Fougère; Irene J Virgolini; Andreas H Jacobs; Günther Stockhammer Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 12.300
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: Julie H Harreld; Mikhail Doubrovin; Elizabeth R Butch; Angela Edwards; Barry Shulkin Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Jana Lipkova; Panagiotis Angelikopoulos; Stephen Wu; Esther Alberts; Benedikt Wiestler; Christian Diehl; Christine Preibisch; Thomas Pyka; Stephanie E Combs; Panagiotis Hadjidoukas; Koen Van Leemput; Petros Koumoutsakos; John Lowengrub; Bjoern Menze Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 10.048
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