BACKGROUND: (1)H-MR spectroscopy (MRS) and (18)F-dihydroxyphenylalanine (DOPA) PET are noninvasive imaging techniques able to assess metabolic features of brain tumors. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic and prognostic information gathered by (18)F-DOPA PET and (1)H-MRS in children with supratentorial infiltrative gliomas or nonneoplastic brain lesions suspected to be gliomas. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 27 pediatric patients with supratentorial infiltrative brain lesions on conventional MRI (21 gliomas and 6 nonneoplastic lesions) who underwent (18)F-DOPA PET and (1)H-MRS within 2 weeks of each other. (1)H-MRS data (choline/N-acetylaspartate, choline-to-creatine ratios, and presence of lactate) and (18)F-DOPA uptake parameters (lesion-to-normal tissue and lesion-to-striatum ratios) were compared and correlated with histology, WHO tumor grade, and patient outcome. RESULTS: (1)H-MRS and (18)F-DOPA PET data were positively correlated. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in distinguishing gliomas from nonneoplastic lesions were 95%, 83%, and 93% for (1)H-MRS and 76%, 83%, and 78% for (18)F-DOPA PET, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the 2 techniques (P > .05). Significant differences regarding (18)F-DOPA uptake and (1)H-MRS ratios were found between low-grade and high-grade gliomas (P≤.001 and P≤.04, respectively). On multivariate analysis, (18)F-DOPA uptake independently correlated with progression-free survival (P≤.05) and overall survival (P = .04), whereas (1)H-MRS did not show significant association with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: (1)H-MRS and (18)F-DOPA PET provide useful complementary information for evaluating the metabolism of pediatric brain lesions. (1)H-MRS represents the method of first choice for differentiating brain gliomas from nonneoplastic lesions.(18)F-DOPA uptake better discriminates low-grade from high-grade gliomas and is an independent predictor of outcome.
BACKGROUND: (1)H-MR spectroscopy (MRS) and (18)F-dihydroxyphenylalanine (DOPA) PET are noninvasive imaging techniques able to assess metabolic features of brain tumors. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic and prognostic information gathered by (18)F-DOPA PET and (1)H-MRS in children with supratentorial infiltrative gliomas or nonneoplastic brain lesions suspected to be gliomas. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 27 pediatric patients with supratentorial infiltrative brain lesions on conventional MRI (21 gliomas and 6 nonneoplastic lesions) who underwent (18)F-DOPA PET and (1)H-MRS within 2 weeks of each other. (1)H-MRS data (choline/N-acetylaspartate, choline-to-creatine ratios, and presence of lactate) and (18)F-DOPA uptake parameters (lesion-to-normal tissue and lesion-to-striatum ratios) were compared and correlated with histology, WHO tumor grade, and patient outcome. RESULTS: (1)H-MRS and (18)F-DOPA PET data were positively correlated. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in distinguishing gliomas from nonneoplastic lesions were 95%, 83%, and 93% for (1)H-MRS and 76%, 83%, and 78% for (18)F-DOPA PET, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the 2 techniques (P > .05). Significant differences regarding (18)F-DOPA uptake and (1)H-MRS ratios were found between low-grade and high-grade gliomas (P≤.001 and P≤.04, respectively). On multivariate analysis, (18)F-DOPA uptake independently correlated with progression-free survival (P≤.05) and overall survival (P = .04), whereas (1)H-MRS did not show significant association with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: (1)H-MRS and (18)F-DOPA PET provide useful complementary information for evaluating the metabolism of pediatric brain lesions. (1)H-MRS represents the method of first choice for differentiating brain gliomas from nonneoplastic lesions.(18)F-DOPA uptake better discriminates low-grade from high-grade gliomas and is an independent predictor of outcome.
Authors: Roula Hourani; Alena Horská; Sait Albayram; Larry J Brant; Elias Melhem; Kenneth J Cohen; Peter C Burger; John D Weingart; Benjamin Carson; Moody D Wharam; Peter B Barker Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: K Herholz; T Hölzer; B Bauer; R Schröder; J Voges; R I Ernestus; G Mendoza; G Weber-Luxenburger; J Löttgen; A Thiel; K Wienhard; W D Heiss Journal: Neurology Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: J R Alger; J A Frank; A Bizzi; M J Fulham; B X DeSouza; M O Duhaney; S W Inscoe; J L Black; P C van Zijl; C T Moonen Journal: Radiology Date: 1990-12 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Farzin Imani; Fernando E Boada; Frank S Lieberman; Denise K Davis; Erin L Deeb; James M Mountz Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2010-12-14 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: K E Warren; J A Frank; J L Black; R S Hill; J H Duyn; A A Aikin; B K Lewis; P C Adamson; F M Balis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Meri Utriainen; Liisa Metsähonkala; Toivo T Salmi; Tapio Utriainen; Hannu Kalimo; Helena Pihko; Anne Mäkipernaa; Arja Harila-Saari; Sirkku Jyrkkiö; Jukka Laine; Kjell Någren; Heikki Minn Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-09-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: A Aria Tzika; Loukas G Astrakas; Maria K Zarifi; David Zurakowski; Tina Young Poussaint; Liliana Goumnerova; Nancy J Tarbell; Peter McL Black Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lisbeth Marner; Michael Lundemann; Astrid Sehested; Karsten Nysom; Lise Borgwardt; René Mathiasen; Peder S Wehner; Otto M Henriksen; Carsten Thomsen; Jane Skjøth-Rasmussen; Helle Broholm; Olga Østrup; Julie L Forman; Liselotte Højgaard; Ian Law Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 12.300