PURPOSE: Differentiation between recurrence and radiation necrosis in patients with glioma is crucial, since the two entities have completely different management and prognosis. The purpose of the present study was to compare the efficacies of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[(18)F]fluoro-phenylalanine ((18)F-FDOPA) PET/CT in detection of recurrent gliomas. METHODS: A total of 28 patients (age 38.82 ± 1.25 years; 85.7% men) with histopathologically proven glioma with clinical/imaging suspicion of recurrence were evaluated using (18)F-FDG PET/CT and (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT. (18)F-FDG PET/CT and (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT images were evaluated qualitatively and semiquantitatively. The combination of clinical follow-up, repeat imaging and/or biopsy (when available) was taken as the reference standard. RESULTS: Based on the reference standard, 21 patients were positive and 7 were negative for tumour recurrence. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET/CT were 47.6%, 100% and 60.7%, respectively, and those of (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT were 100%, 85.7% and 96.4%, respectively. The results of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT were concordant in 57.1% of patients (16 of 28) and discordant in 42.9% (12 of 28). The difference in the findings between (18)F-FDG PET/CT and (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT was significant (P = 0.0005, McNemar's test). The difference was significant for low-grade tumours (P = 0.0039) but not for high-grade tumours (P = 0.250). CONCLUSION: (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT is highly sensitive and specific for detection of recurrence in glioma patients. It is superior to (18)F-FDG PET/CT for this purpose and is especially advantageous in patients with low-grade gliomas.
PURPOSE: Differentiation between recurrence and radiation necrosis in patients with glioma is crucial, since the two entities have completely different management and prognosis. The purpose of the present study was to compare the efficacies of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[(18)F]fluoro-phenylalanine ((18)F-FDOPA) PET/CT in detection of recurrent gliomas. METHODS: A total of 28 patients (age 38.82 ± 1.25 years; 85.7% men) with histopathologically proven glioma with clinical/imaging suspicion of recurrence were evaluated using (18)F-FDG PET/CT and (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT. (18)F-FDG PET/CT and (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT images were evaluated qualitatively and semiquantitatively. The combination of clinical follow-up, repeat imaging and/or biopsy (when available) was taken as the reference standard. RESULTS: Based on the reference standard, 21 patients were positive and 7 were negative for tumour recurrence. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET/CT were 47.6%, 100% and 60.7%, respectively, and those of (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT were 100%, 85.7% and 96.4%, respectively. The results of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT were concordant in 57.1% of patients (16 of 28) and discordant in 42.9% (12 of 28). The difference in the findings between (18)F-FDG PET/CT and (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT was significant (P = 0.0005, McNemar's test). The difference was significant for low-grade tumours (P = 0.0039) but not for high-grade tumours (P = 0.250). CONCLUSION: (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT is highly sensitive and specific for detection of recurrence in gliomapatients. It is superior to (18)F-FDG PET/CT for this purpose and is especially advantageous in patients with low-grade gliomas.
Authors: N J Patronas; G Di Chiro; R A Brooks; R L DeLaPaz; P L Kornblith; B H Smith; H V Rizzoli; R M Kessler; R G Manning; M Channing; A P Wolf; C M O'Connor Journal: Radiology Date: 1982-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C Asensio; M J Pérez-Castejón; A Maldonado; R Montz; J A Ruiz; M Santos; I García-Berrocal; J Albert; J L Carreras Journal: Rev Neurol Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 0.870
Authors: Carlos J Ledezma; Wei Chen; Victor Sai; Bonnie Freitas; Tim Cloughesy; Johannes Czernin; Whitney Pope Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2008-05-29 Impact factor: 3.528
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: Ken Herrmann; Johannes Czernin; Timothy Cloughesy; Albert Lai; Kelsey L Pomykala; Matthias R Benz; Andreas K Buck; Michael E Phelps; Wei Chen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Robert H Press; Jim Zhong; Saumya S Gurbani; Brent D Weinberg; Bree R Eaton; Hyunsuk Shim; Hui-Kuo G Shu Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.654
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: Yang Liu; Austin B Carpenter; Christopher J Pirozzi; Hsiangkuo Yuan; Matthew S Waitkus; Zhengyuan Zhou; Landon Hansen; Michelle Seywald; Ren Odion; Paula K Greer; Thomas Hawk; Bennett B Chin; Ganesan Vaidyanathan; Michael R Zalutsky; Hai Yan; Tuan Vo-Dinh Journal: Nanotechnology Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 3.874
Authors: Vincent Dunet; Anastasia Pomoni; Andreas Hottinger; Marie Nicod-Lalonde; John O Prior Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 12.300