Prediction of Glioma Recurrence Using Dynamic ¹⁸F-Fluoroethyltyrosine PET

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Viaccoz A,
   3. Lekoubou A,
   4. Ducray F

   . Chemotherapy in low-grade gliomas. Curr Opin Oncol 2012;24:694–701

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Cloughesy T

   . The impact of recent data on the optimization of standards of care in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Semin Oncol 2011;38(suppl 4):S11–20
3. 3.↵
   2. Stupp R,
   3. Mason WP,
   4. van den Bent MJ, et al

   . Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2005;352:987–96

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   2. Louis DN,
   3. Ohgaki H,
   4. Wiestler OD, et al

   . The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol 2007;114:97–109

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Chaudhry NS,
   3. Shah AH,
   4. Ferraro N, et al

   . Predictors of long-term survival in patients with glioblastoma multiforme: advancements from the last quarter century. Cancer Invest 2013;31:287–308

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   2. Weiler M,
   3. Wick W

   . Molecular predictors of outcome in low-grade glioma. Curr Opin Neurol 2012;25:767–73

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Gutman DA,
   3. Cooper LA,
   4. Hwang SN, et al

   . MR imaging predictors of molecular profile and survival: multi-institutional study of the TCGA glioblastoma data set. Radiology 2013;267:560–69

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   2. Barker FG 2nd.,
   3. Chang SM,
   4. Huhn SL, et al

   . Age and the risk of anaplasia in magnetic resonance-nonenhancing supratentorial cerebral tumors. Cancer 1997;80:936–41

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Scott JN,
   3. Brasher PM,
   4. Sevick RJ, et al

   . How often are nonenhancing supratentorial gliomas malignant? A population study. Neurology 2002;59:947–49

   CrossRef
10. 10.↵
    2. Sanz-Requena R,
    3. Revert-Ventura A,
    4. Martí-Bonmatí L, et al

    . Quantitative MR perfusion parameters related to survival time in high-grade gliomas. Eur Radiol 2013;23:3456–65

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Zonari P,
    3. Baraldi P,
    4. Crisi G

    . Multimodal MRI in the characterization of glial neoplasms: the combined role of single-voxel MR spectroscopy, diffusion imaging and echo-planar perfusion imaging. Neuroradiology 2007;49:795–803

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Padma MV,
    3. Said S,
    4. Jacobs M, et al

    . Prediction of pathology and survival by FDG PET in gliomas. J Neurooncol 2003;64:227–37

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Miyagawa T,
    3. Oku T,
    4. Uehara H, et al

    . “Facilitated” amino acid transport is upregulated in brain tumors. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1998;18:500–09

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Jansen NL,
    3. Graute V,
    4. Armbruster L, et al

    . MRI-suspected low-grade glioma: is there a need to perform dynamic FET PET? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39:1021–29

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Weckesser M,
    3. Langen K,
    4. Rickert C, et al

    . O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET in the clinical evaluation of primary brain tumour. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:422–29

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Niyazi M,
    3. Geisler J,
    4. Siefert A, et al

    . FET-PET for malignant glioma treatment planning. Radiother Oncol 2011;99:44–48

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Rachinger W,
    3. Goetz C,
    4. Pöpperl G, et al

    . Positron emission tomography with O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of recurrent gliomas. Neurosurgery 2005:57:505–11, discussion 505–11

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Floeth FW,
    3. Pauleit D,
    4. Sabel M, et al

    . Prognostic value of O-(2–18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET and MRI in low-grade glioma. J Nucl Med 2007;48:519–27

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    2. Galldiks N,
    3. Stoffels G,
    4. Ruge MI, et al

    . Role of O-(2–18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET as a diagnostic tool for detection of malignant progression in patients with low-grade glioma. J Nucl Med 2013;54:2046–54

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    2. Pöpperl G,
    3. Kreth FW,
    4. Herms J, et al

    . Analysis of 18F-FET PET for grading of recurrent gliomas: is evaluation of uptake kinetics superior to standard methods? J Nucl Med 2006;47:393–403

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    2. Pöpperl G,
    3. Kreth FW,
    4. Herms J, et al

    . FET PET for the evaluation of untreated gliomas: correlation of FET uptake and uptake kinetics with tumour grading. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1933–42

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    2. van den Bent MJ,
    3. Wefel JS,
    4. Schiff D, et al

    . Response assessment in neuro-oncology (a report of the RANO group): assessment of outcome in trials of diffuse low-grade gliomas. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:583–93

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    2. Lutz K,
    3. Radbruch A,
    4. Wiestler B, et al

    . Neuroradiological response criteria for high-grade gliomas. Clin Neuroradiol 2011;21:199–205

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Dunet V,
    3. Rossier C,
    4. Buck A, et al

    . Performance of 18F-fluoro-ethyl-tyrosine (18F-FET) PET for the differential diagnosis of primary brain tumor: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Nucl Med 2012;53:207–14

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    2. van Marwick S,
    3. Beer A,
    4. Metz S, et al

    . M3P-anima: a visualization and quantification concept for multimodal, multiparametric imaging. In: Proceedings of the 97th Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago, Illinois. November 27–December 4, 2011
26. 26.↵
    2. Thiele F,
    3. Ehmer J,
    4. Piroth MD, et al

    . The quantification of dynamic FET PET imaging and correlation with the clinical outcome in patients with glioblastoma. Phys Med Biol 2009;54:5525–39

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Labussiere M,
    3. Wang XW,
    4. Idbaih A, et al

    . Prognostic markers in gliomas. Future Oncol 2010;6:733–39

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Theeler BJ,
    3. Yung WK,
    4. Fuller GN, et al

    . Moving toward molecular classification of diffuse gliomas in adults. Neurology 2012;79:1917–26

    CrossRef
29. 29.↵
    2. Little SE,
    3. Popov S,
    4. Jury A, et al

    . Receptor tyrosine kinase genes amplified in glioblastoma exhibit a mutual exclusivity in variable proportions reflective of individual tumor heterogeneity. Cancer Res 2012;72:1614–20

    Abstract/FREE Full Text