Reliability of Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy and Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography in Differentiating Metastatic Brain Tumor Recurrence from Radiation Necrosis

被引:0
|
作者
Travers, Sarah [1 ]
Joshi, Kirtan [1 ]
Miller, Douglas C. [5 ]
Singh, Amolak [2 ]
Nada, Ayman [3 ]
Biedermann, Gregory [4 ]
Cousins, Joseph P. [4 ]
Litofsky, N. Scott [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Missouri, Div Neurol Surg, Sch Med, Columbia, MO 65212 USA
[2] Univ Missouri, Div Nucl Med, Sch Med, Columbia, MO USA
[3] Univ Missouri, Div Neuroradiol, Sch Med, Columbia, MO USA
[4] Univ Missouri, Div Radiat Oncol, Sch Med, Columbia, MO USA
[5] Univ Missouri, Dept Pathol & Anat Sci, Sch Med, Columbia, MO USA
关键词
Brain PET CT; Brain tumor recurrence; MR spectroscopy; Radiation necrosis; Stereotactic radiosurgery; GAMMA-KNIFE; STEREOTACTIC RADIOSURGERY; MR-SPECTROSCOPY; FDG-PET; RADIONECROSIS; PROGRESSION; DIAGNOSIS; PATTERN; GLIOMAS; LESIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.WNEU.2021.05.064
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
BACKGROUND: Clinical and/or neuroimaging changes after whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for metastatic brain tumor(s) present the clinical dilemma of differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis. Several imaging modalities attempt to answer this clinical question, including magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) and positron emission tomography (PET) computed tomography (CT). We evaluated our experience regarding the ability of MRS and PET CT to differentiate tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis in patients who have received WBRT or SRS. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed records of 242 patients with previous WBRT or SRS to identify those who had MRS and/or PET CT to differentiate tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis. Patients were sorted into true positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative groups on the basis of imaging interpretation and clinical course combined with surgical pathology results or reaction to nonsurgical treatments including SRS, dexamethasone, or observation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were then calculated. RESULTS: Of 25 patients presenting such diagnostic questions, 19 were evaluated with MRS and 13 with PET CT. MRS sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 50%, and accuracy was 81.8%, whereas PET CT sensitivity was 36.4%, specificity was 66.7%, and accuracy was 42.9%. CONCLUSIONS: MRS has better accuracy than PET CT and a high negative predictive value, therefore making it more useful in distinguishing recurrent tumor from radiation necrosis. We encourage correlation with symptoms at imaging to aid in clinical decision making.
引用
收藏
页码:E1059 / E1068
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING AND AMINO ACID POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY IN DIFFERENTIATING TUMOR RECURRENCE FROM RADIATION NECROSIS IN HIGH GRADE GLIOMAS.
    Sahu, Arpita
    Mathew, Ronny
    Dasgupta, Archya
    Ashtekar, Renuka
    Puranik, Ameya
    Sridhar, Epari
    Sahay, Ayushi
    Chatterjee, Abhishek
    Shetty, Prakash
    Moiyadi, Aliasgar
    Gupta, Tejpal
    NEURO-ONCOLOGY, 2022, 24 : 182 - 182
  • [2] Visualization with positron emission tomography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography/computed tomography, and positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging
    Seemann, MD
    Gaa, J
    CIRCULATION, 2005, 112 (21) : E329 - E330
  • [3] Accuracy of 18F-FDOPA Positron Emission Tomography and 18F-FETPositron Emission Tomography for Differentiating Radiation Necrosis from Brain Tumor Recurrence
    Yu, Jun
    Zheng, Jingwei
    Xu, Weilin
    Weng, Jiaqi
    Gao, Liansheng
    Tao, Li
    Liang, Feng
    Zhang, Jianmin
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2018, 114 : E1211 - E1224
  • [4] Differentiating recurrent tumor from radiation necrosis: Time for re-evaluation of positron emission tomography?
    Ricci, PE
    Karis, JP
    Heiserman, JE
    Fram, EK
    Bice, AN
    Drayer, BP
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY, 1998, 19 (03) : 407 - 413
  • [5] Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Tumor Staging in Patients With Primary Breast Cancer A Comparison With Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Grueneisen, Johannes
    Nagarajah, James
    Buchbender, Christian
    Hoffmann, Oliver
    Schaarschmidt, Benedikt Michael
    Poeppel, Thorsten
    Forsting, Michael
    Quick, Harald H.
    Umutlu, Lale
    Kinner, Sonja
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2015, 50 (08) : 505 - 513
  • [6] Computed tomography, positron emission tomography, positron emission tomography/computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging for staging of limited pleural mesothelioma - Initial results
    Plathow, Christian
    Staab, Adrian
    Schmaehl, Astrid
    Aschoff, Philip
    Zuna, Ivan
    Pfannenberg, Christina
    Peter, Schlemmer Heinz
    Eschmann, Susanne
    Klopp, Michael
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2008, 43 (10) : 737 - 744
  • [7] DIAGNOSIS OF TUMOR METABOLISM WITH POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND MAGNETIC-RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY
    VANKAICK, G
    RADIOLOGE, 1989, 29 (07): : 313 - 314
  • [8] Radiation Safety With Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography
    Devine, Catherine E.
    Mawlawi, Osama
    SEMINARS IN ULTRASOUND CT AND MRI, 2010, 31 (01) : 39 - 45
  • [9] DELAYED RADIATION NECROSIS OF BRAIN EVALUATED POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY
    OGAWA, T
    UEMURA, K
    KANNO, I
    SHISHIDO, F
    INUGAMI, A
    YAMAGUCHI, T
    MURAKAMI, M
    HIRATA, K
    KATO, T
    MINEURA, K
    KOWADA, M
    TOHOKU JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 1988, 155 (03): : 247 - 260
  • [10] Discrepancies between positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in a cohort of oncological patients
    Oh, Geon
    O'Mahoney, Eoin
    Jeavons, Susanne
    Law, Phillip
    Ngai, Stanley
    McGill, George
    Yu, Chris
    Miles, Kenneth A.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2020, 64 (02) : 204 - 210