G Lai1, A Mahadevan2, D Hackney3, P C Warnke4, F Nigim5, E Kasper5, E T Wong6, B S Carter1, C C Chen7. 1. From the School of Medicine (G.L., B.S.C., C.C.C.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 2. Departments of Radiation Oncology (A.M.). 3. Radiology (D.H.). 4. Division of Neurosurgery (P.C.W.), University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Division of Neurosurgery (F.N., E.K.). 6. Department of Neurology (E.T.W.), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. From the School of Medicine (G.L., B.S.C., C.C.C.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California clarkchen@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiographic assessment of cerebral metastasis after stereotactic radiosurgery remains a major challenge in neuro-oncology. It is often difficult to distinguish tumor progression from radiation necrosis in this setting using conventional MR imaging. The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of different functional imaging modalities for detecting tumor recurrence after stereotactic radiosurgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients treated between 2007 and 2010 and identified 14 patients with cerebral metastasis who had clinical or radiographic progression following stereotactic radiosurgery and were imaged with arterial spin-labeling, FDG-PET, and thallium SPECT before stereotactic biopsy. Diagnostic accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for each imaging technique by using the pathologic diagnosis as the criterion standard. RESULTS: Six patients (42%) had tumor progression, while 8 (58%) developed radiation necrosis. FDG-PET and arterial spin-labeling were equally sensitive in detecting tumor progression (83%). However, the specificity of arterial spin-labeling was superior to that of the other modalities (100%, 75%, and 50%, respectively). A combination of modalities did not augment the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, or negative predictive value of arterial spin-labeling. CONCLUSIONS: In our series, arterial spin-labeling positivity was closely associated with the pathologic diagnosis of tumor progression after stereotactic radiosurgery. Validation of this finding in a large series is warranted.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiographic assessment of cerebral metastasis after stereotactic radiosurgery remains a major challenge in neuro-oncology. It is often difficult to distinguish tumor progression from radiation necrosis in this setting using conventional MR imaging. The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of different functional imaging modalities for detecting tumor recurrence after stereotactic radiosurgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients treated between 2007 and 2010 and identified 14 patients with cerebral metastasis who had clinical or radiographic progression following stereotactic radiosurgery and were imaged with arterial spin-labeling, FDG-PET, and thallium SPECT before stereotactic biopsy. Diagnostic accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for each imaging technique by using the pathologic diagnosis as the criterion standard. RESULTS: Six patients (42%) had tumor progression, while 8 (58%) developed radiation necrosis. FDG-PET and arterial spin-labeling were equally sensitive in detecting tumor progression (83%). However, the specificity of arterial spin-labeling was superior to that of the other modalities (100%, 75%, and 50%, respectively). A combination of modalities did not augment the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, or negative predictive value of arterial spin-labeling. CONCLUSIONS: In our series, arterial spin-labeling positivity was closely associated with the pathologic diagnosis of tumor progression after stereotactic radiosurgery. Validation of this finding in a large series is warranted.
Authors: Graeme F Woodworth; Matthew J McGirt; Amer Samdani; Ira Garonzik; Alessandro Olivi; Jon D Weingart Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Matthew J McGirt; Graeme F Woodworth; Alex L Coon; James M Frazier; Eric Amundson; Ira Garonzik; Alessandro Olivi; Jon D Weingart Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: P Lehmann; P Monet; G de Marco; G Saliou; M Perrin; S Stoquart-Elsankari; A Bruniau; J N Vallée Journal: Eur Neurol Date: 2010-06-19 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Hanna Järnum; Elena G Steffensen; Linda Knutsson; Ernst-Torben Fründ; Carsten Wiberg Simonsen; Søren Lundbye-Christensen; Ajit Shankaranarayanan; David C Alsop; Finn Taagehøj Jensen; Elna-Marie Larsson Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Zijian Zhang; Jinzhong Yang; Angela Ho; Wen Jiang; Jennifer Logan; Xin Wang; Paul D Brown; Susan L McGovern; Nandita Guha-Thakurta; Sherise D Ferguson; Xenia Fave; Lifei Zhang; Dennis Mackin; Laurence E Court; Jing Li Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-11-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Timothy J Kaufmann; Marion Smits; Jerrold Boxerman; Raymond Huang; Daniel P Barboriak; Michael Weller; Caroline Chung; Christina Tsien; Paul D Brown; Lalitha Shankar; Evanthia Galanis; Elizabeth Gerstner; Martin J van den Bent; Terry C Burns; Ian F Parney; Gavin Dunn; Priscilla K Brastianos; Nancy U Lin; Patrick Y Wen; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Richard Rammo; Karam Asmaro; Lonni Schultz; Lisa Scarpace; Salim Siddiqui; Tobias Walbert; Steven Kalkanis; Ian Lee Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Norbert Galldiks; Karl-Josef Langen; Nathalie L Albert; Marc Chamberlain; Riccardo Soffietti; Michelle M Kim; Ian Law; Emilie Le Rhun; Susan Chang; Julian Schwarting; Stephanie E Combs; Matthias Preusser; Peter Forsyth; Whitney Pope; Michael Weller; Jörg C Tonn Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Norbert Galldiks; Martin Kocher; Garry Ceccon; Jan-Michael Werner; Anna Brunn; Martina Deckert; Whitney B Pope; Riccardo Soffietti; Emilie Le Rhun; Michael Weller; Jörg C Tonn; Gereon R Fink; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: F Kuo; N N Ng; S Nagpal; E L Pollom; S Soltys; M Hayden-Gephart; G Li; D E Born; M Iv Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 4.966