4.6 Article

The use of dynamic O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine PET in the diagnosis of patients with progressive and recurrent glioma

Journal

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 9, Pages 1293-1300

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nov088

Keywords

FET PET; malignant glioma; progressive disease; tumor recurrence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We evaluated the diagnostic value of static and dynamic O-(2-[F-18]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine (F-18-FET) PET parameters in patients with progressive or recurrent glioma. We retrospectively analyzed 132 dynamic F-18-FET PET and conventional MRI scans of 124 glioma patients (primary World Health Organization grade II, n = 55; grade III, n = 19; grade IV, n = 50; mean age, 52 +/- 14 y). Patients had been referred for PET assessment with clinical signs and/or MRI findings suggestive of tumor progression or recurrence based on Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria. Maximum and mean tumor/brain ratios of F-18-FET uptake were determined (20-40 min post-injection) as well as tracer uptake kinetics (ie, time to peak and patterns of the time-activity curves). Diagnoses were confirmed histologically (95%) or by clinical follow-up (5%). Diagnostic accuracies of PET and MR parameters for the detection of tumor progression or recurrence were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic analyses/chi-square test. Tumor progression or recurrence could be diagnosed in 121 of 132 cases (92%). MRI and F-18-FET PET findings were concordant in 84% and discordant in 16%. Compared with the diagnostic accuracy of conventional MRI to diagnose tumor progression or recurrence (85%), a higher accuracy (93%) was achieved by F-18-FET PET when a mean tumor/brain ratio a parts per thousand yen2.0 or time to peak < 45 min was present (sensitivity, 93%; specificity, 100%; accuracy, 93%; positive predictive value, 100%; P < .001). Static and dynamic F-18-FET PET parameters differentiate progressive or recurrent glioma from treatment-related nonneoplastic changes with higher accuracy than conventional MRI.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available