Vincent Dunet1, Anastasia Pomoni1, Andreas Hottinger1, Marie Nicod-Lalonde1, John O Prior1. 1. Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland (V.D.); Nuclear Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland (A.P., M.N.-L., J.O.P.); Clinical Neurosciences, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland (A.H.); Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland (A.H.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For the past decade (18)F-fluoro-ethyl-l-tyrosine (FET) and (18)F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) have been used for the assessment of patients with brain tumor. However, direct comparison studies reported only limited numbers of patients. Our purpose was to compare the diagnostic performance of FET and FDG-PET. METHODS: We examined studies published between January 1995 and January 2015 in the PubMed database. To be included the study should: (i) use FET and FDG-PET for the assessment of patients with isolated brain lesion and (ii) use histology as the gold standard. Analysis was performed on a per patient basis. Study quality was assessed with STARD and QUADAS criteria. RESULTS: Five studies (119 patients) were included. For the diagnosis of brain tumor, FET-PET demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.79-0.98) and pooled specificity of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.37-0.99), with an area under the curve of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.97), a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 8.1 (95% CI: 0.8-80.6), and a negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.07 (95% CI: 0.02-0.30), while FDG-PET demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.38 (95% CI: 0.27-0.50) and specificity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.31-0.99), with an area under the curve of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.36-0.44), an LR+ of 2.7 (95% CI: 0.3-27.8), and an LR- of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.47-1.11). Target-to-background ratios of either FDG or FET, however, allow distinction between low- and high-grade gliomas (P > .11). CONCLUSIONS: For brain tumor diagnosis, FET-PET performed much better than FDG and should be preferred when assessing a new isolated brain tumor. For glioma grading, however, both tracers showed similar performances.
BACKGROUND: For the past decade (18)F-fluoro-ethyl-l-tyrosine (FET) and (18)F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) have been used for the assessment of patients with brain tumor. However, direct comparison studies reported only limited numbers of patients. Our purpose was to compare the diagnostic performance of FET and FDG-PET. METHODS: We examined studies published between January 1995 and January 2015 in the PubMed database. To be included the study should: (i) use FET and FDG-PET for the assessment of patients with isolated brain lesion and (ii) use histology as the gold standard. Analysis was performed on a per patient basis. Study quality was assessed with STARD and QUADAS criteria. RESULTS: Five studies (119 patients) were included. For the diagnosis of brain tumor, FET-PET demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.79-0.98) and pooled specificity of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.37-0.99), with an area under the curve of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.97), a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 8.1 (95% CI: 0.8-80.6), and a negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.07 (95% CI: 0.02-0.30), while FDG-PET demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.38 (95% CI: 0.27-0.50) and specificity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.31-0.99), with an area under the curve of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.36-0.44), an LR+ of 2.7 (95% CI: 0.3-27.8), and an LR- of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.47-1.11). Target-to-background ratios of either FDG or FET, however, allow distinction between low- and high-grade gliomas (P > .11). CONCLUSIONS: For brain tumor diagnosis, FET-PET performed much better than FDG and should be preferred when assessing a new isolated brain tumor. For glioma grading, however, both tracers showed similar performances.
Authors: Kevin S Tralins; James G Douglas; Keith J Stelzer; David A Mankoff; Daniel L Silbergeld; Robert C Rostomily; Sharon Hummel; Jeff Scharnhorst; Kenneth A Krohn; Alexander M Spence; Robert Rostomilly Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Natalie Charnley; Catharine M West; Carolyn M Barnett; Catherine Brock; Graeme M Bydder; Mark Glaser; Ed S Newlands; Ric Swindell; Julian Matthews; Pat Price Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-07-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Frank W Floeth; Dirk Pauleit; Michael Sabel; Gabriele Stoffels; Guido Reifenberger; Markus J Riemenschneider; Paul Jansen; Heinz H Coenen; Hans-Jakob Steiger; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Gérard Moulin-Romsée; Eduard D'Hondt; Tjibbe de Groot; Jan Goffin; Raf Sciot; Luc Mortelmans; Johan Menten; Guy Bormans; Koen Van Laere Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David N Louis; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Webster K Cavenee; Peter C Burger; Anne Jouvet; Bernd W Scheithauer; Paul Kleihues Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2007-07-06 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Manuel Röhrich; Kristin Huang; Daniel Schrimpf; Nathalie L Albert; Thomas Hielscher; Andreas von Deimling; Ulrich Schüller; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Benjamin B Kasten; Ke Jiang; Denzel Cole; Aditi Jani; Neha Udayakumar; G Yancey Gillespie; Guolan Lu; Tingting Dai; Eben L Rosenthal; James M Markert; Jianghong Rao; Jason M Warram Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Olivia Kertels; Almuth F Kessler; Milena I Mihovilovic; Antje Stolzenburg; Thomas Linsenmann; Samuel Samnick; Stephanie Brändlein; Camelia Maria Monoranu; Ralf-Ingo Ernestus; Andreas K Buck; Mario Löhr; Constantin Lapa Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Antoine Verger; Christian P Filss; Philipp Lohmann; Gabriele Stoffels; Michael Sabel; Hans J Wittsack; Elena Rota Kops; Norbert Galldiks; Gereon R Fink; Nadim J Shah; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 9.236