A Jena1, S Taneja2, A Jha2, N K Damesha3, P Negi2, G K Jadhav4, S M Verma4, S K Sogani3. 1. From the PET SUITE (A. Jena, S.T., A. Jha, P.N.) drjena2002@yahoo.com. 2. From the PET SUITE (A. Jena, S.T., A. Jha, P.N.). 3. Neurosurgery (N.K.D., S.K.S.), Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, India. 4. Departments of Molecular Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Radiation Oncology (G.K.J., S.M.V.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Differentiating glioma recurrence from treatment-induced necrosis can be a challenge on conventional imaging. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of each functional MR imaging and PET parameter derived by using simultaneous FDG-PET/MR imaging individually and in combination in the evaluation of suspected glioma recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five treated glioma patients with 41 enhancing lesions (World Health Organization grade II = 9, III = 13, IV = 19) on MR imaging after an operation followed by radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy formed part of this study. Using PET/MR imaging, we calculated the normalized mean relative CBV, mean ADC, Cho/Cr, and maximum and mean target-to-background ratios. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the diagnostic performance of each parameter by receiver operating characteristic analysis individually and in combination with multivariate receiver operating characteristic analysis for the detection of glioma recurrence. Histopathology or clinicoradiologic follow-up was considered the criterion standard. RESULTS: Of 35 patients, 25 (30 lesions) were classified as having a recurrence and 10 (11 lesions) patients as having treatment-induced necrosis. Parameters like rCBVmean (mean relative CBV), ADCmean, Cho/Cr, and maximum and mean target-to-background ratios were statistically significant in the detection of recurrent lesions with an accuracy of 77.5%, 78.0%, 90.9%, 87.8%, and 87.8%, respectively. On multivariate receiver operating characteristic analysis, the combination of all 3 MR imaging parameters resulted in an area under the curve of 0.913 ± 0.053. Furthermore, an area under the curve of 0.935 ± 0.046 was obtained when MR imaging parameters (ADCmean and Cho/Cr) were combined with the PET parameter (mean target-to-background ratio), demonstrating an increase in diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous PET/MR imaging with FDG offers correlative and synergistic multiparametric assessment of glioma recurrence with increased accuracy and clinical utility.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Differentiating glioma recurrence from treatment-induced necrosis can be a challenge on conventional imaging. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of each functional MR imaging and PET parameter derived by using simultaneous FDG-PET/MR imaging individually and in combination in the evaluation of suspected glioma recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five treated gliomapatients with 41 enhancing lesions (World Health Organization grade II = 9, III = 13, IV = 19) on MR imaging after an operation followed by radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy formed part of this study. Using PET/MR imaging, we calculated the normalized mean relative CBV, mean ADC, Cho/Cr, and maximum and mean target-to-background ratios. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the diagnostic performance of each parameter by receiver operating characteristic analysis individually and in combination with multivariate receiver operating characteristic analysis for the detection of glioma recurrence. Histopathology or clinicoradiologic follow-up was considered the criterion standard. RESULTS: Of 35 patients, 25 (30 lesions) were classified as having a recurrence and 10 (11 lesions) patients as having treatment-induced necrosis. Parameters like rCBVmean (mean relative CBV), ADCmean, Cho/Cr, and maximum and mean target-to-background ratios were statistically significant in the detection of recurrent lesions with an accuracy of 77.5%, 78.0%, 90.9%, 87.8%, and 87.8%, respectively. On multivariate receiver operating characteristic analysis, the combination of all 3 MR imaging parameters resulted in an area under the curve of 0.913 ± 0.053. Furthermore, an area under the curve of 0.935 ± 0.046 was obtained when MR imaging parameters (ADCmean and Cho/Cr) were combined with the PET parameter (mean target-to-background ratio), demonstrating an increase in diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous PET/MR imaging with FDG offers correlative and synergistic multiparametric assessment of glioma recurrence with increased accuracy and clinical utility.
Authors: James R Fink; Robert B Carr; Eiji Matsusue; Ramesh S Iyer; Jason K Rockhill; David R Haynor; Kenneth R Maravilla Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-10-14 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: S Mong; B M Ellingson; P L Nghiemphu; H J Kim; L Mirsadraei; A Lai; W Yong; T M Zaw; T F Cloughesy; W B Pope Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Seymur Gahramanov; Ahmed M Raslan; Leslie L Muldoon; Bronwyn E Hamilton; William D Rooney; Csanad G Varallyay; Jeffrey M Njus; Marianne Haluska; Edward A Neuwelt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: June L Chan; Susan W Lee; Benedick A Fraass; Daniel P Normolle; Harry S Greenberg; Larry R Junck; Stephen S Gebarski; Howard M Sandler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G Estrada; L González-Maya; M A Celis-López; J Gavito; J M Lárraga-Gutiérrez; P Salgado; J Altamirano Journal: Rev Esp Med Nucl Date: 2008 Sep-Oct
Authors: Michael S Enslow; Lauren V Zollinger; Kathryn A Morton; Regan I Butterfield; Dan J Kadrmas; Paul E Christian; Kenneth M Boucher; Marta E Heilbrun; Randy L Jensen; John M Hoffman Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: J Uthoff; F A De Stefano; K Panzer; B W Darbro; T S Sato; R Khanna; D E Quelle; D K Meyerholz; J Weimer; J C Sieren Journal: J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 3.447
Authors: Otto M Henriksen; Adam E Hansen; Aida Muhic; Lisbeth Marner; Karine Madsen; Søren Møller; Benedikte Hasselbalch; Michael J Lundemann; David Scheie; Jane Skjøth-Rasmussen; Hans S Poulsen; Vibeke A Larsen; Henrik B W Larsson; Ian Law Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Julia Cluceru; Sarah J Nelson; Qiuting Wen; Joanna J Phillips; Anny Shai; Annette M Molinaro; Paula Alcaide-Leon; Marram P Olson; Devika Nair; Marisa LaFontaine; Pranathi Chunduru; Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Soonmee Cha; Susan M Chang; Mitchel S Berger; Janine M Lupo Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 13.029
Authors: Anastasia Zikou; Chrissa Sioka; George A Alexiou; Andreas Fotopoulos; Spyridon Voulgaris; Maria I Argyropoulou Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2018-12-02 Impact factor: 3.161