A Meta-Analysis on the Diagnostic Performance of ¹⁸F-FDG and ¹¹C-Methionine PET for Differentiating Brain Tumors

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Chen W,
   3. Silverman DH,
   4. Delaloye S, et al

   . 18F-FDOPA PET imaging of brain tumors: comparison study with 18F-FDG-PET and evaluation of diagnostic accuracy. J Nucl Med 2006;47:904–11

   PubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Ricci PE,
   3. Karis JP,
   4. Heiserman JE, et al

   . Differentiating recurrent tumor from radiation necrosis: time for re-evaluation of positron emission tomography? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1998;19:407–13

   PubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Wong TZ,
   3. van der Westhuizen GJ,
   4. Coleman RE

   . Positron emission tomography imaging of brain tumors. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2002;12:615–26
4. 4.↵
   2. Sasaki M,
   3. Kuwabara Y,
   4. Yoshida T, et al

   . A comparative study of thallium-201 SPET, carbon-11 methionine PET and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET for the differentiation of astrocytic tumours. Eur J Nucl Med 1998;25:1261–69

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Zuo C,
   3. Liu Y,
   4. Guan Y, et al

   . Clinical application of FDG-PET for the diagnosis of recurrent glioma. [in Chinese] Nuclear Techniques 2001;24:899–902
6. 6.↵
   2. Gómez-Río M,
   3. Rodriguez-Fernandez A,
   4. Ramos-Font C, et al

   . Diagnostic accuracy of 201Thallium-SPECT and 18F-FDG-PET in the clinical assessment of glioma recurrence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:966–75

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Choi SJ,
   3. Kim JS,
   4. Kim JH, et al

   . [18F]3′-deoxy-3′-fluorothymidine PET for the diagnosis and grading of brain tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:653–59

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Pauleit D,
   3. Stoffels G,
   4. Bachofner A, et al

   . Comparison of (18)F-FET and (18)F-FDG-PET in brain tumors. Nucl Med Biol 2009;36:779–87

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Lau EW,
   3. Drummond KJ,
   4. Ware RE, et al

   . Comparative PET study using F-18 FET and F-18 FDG for the evaluation of patients with suspected brain tumour. J Clin Neurosci 2010;17:43–49

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Estrada G,
    3. Gonzalez-Maya L,
    4. Celis-Lopez MA, et al

    . Diagnostic approach in suspected recurrent primary brain tumors using (18)FDG-PET/MRI, perfusion MRI, visual and quantitative analysis, and three dimensional stereotactic surface projections: first experience in Mexico. Rev Esp Med Nucl 2008;27:329–39

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. McCarthy M,
    3. Yuan JB,
    4. Campbell A, et al

    . 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in brain tumours: the Western Australia positron emission tomography/cyclotron service experience. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2008;52:564–69

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Kahn D,
    3. Follett KA,
    4. Bushnell DL, et al

    . Diagnosis of recurrent brain tumor: value of 201Tl SPECT vs 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;163:1459–65

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Thompson TP,
    3. Lunsford LD,
    4. Kondziolka D

    . Distinguishing recurrent tumor and radiation necrosis with positron emission tomography versus stereotactic biopsy. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 1999;73:9–14

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Sun A,
    3. Sun L,
    4. Wang R, et al

    . Value of 18F-FDG-PET in differentiation of brain tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis after radiotherapy. [in Chinese] Chin J Med Imaging Technol 2004;20:1484–86
15. 15.↵
    2. Santra A,
    3. Kumar R,
    4. Sharma P, et al

    . 18F-FDG-PET-CT in patients with recurrent glioma: comparison with contrast enhanced MRI. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:508–13

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Hong IK,
    3. Kim JH,
    4. Ra YS, et al

    . Diagnostic usefulness of 3′-deoxy-3′-[18F]fluorothymidine positron emission tomography in recurrent brain tumor. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2011;35:679–84

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Tan H,
    3. Chen L,
    4. Guan Y, et al

    . Comparison of MRI, 18F-FDG, and 11C-choline PET/CT for their potentials in differentiating brain tumor recurrence from brain tumor necrosis following radiotherapy. Clin Nucl Med 2011;36:978–81

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Enslow MS,
    3. Zollinger LV,
    4. Morton KA, et al

    . Comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose and 18F-fluorothymidine PET in differentiating radiation necrosis from recurrent glioma. Clin Nucl Med 2012;37:854–61

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Belohlávek O,
    3. Klener J,
    4. Vymazal J, et al

    . The diagnostics of recurrent gliomas using FDG-PET: still questionable? Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur 2002;5:127–30

    PubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Spence AM,
    3. Muzi M,
    4. Link JM, et al

    . NCI-sponsored trial for the evaluation of safety and preliminary efficacy of 3′-deoxy-3′-[18F]fluorothymidine (FLT) as a marker of proliferation in patients with recurrent gliomas: preliminary efficacy studies. Mol Imaging Biol 2009;11:343–55

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Janus TJ,
    3. Kim EE,
    4. Tilbury R, et al

    . Use of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with primary malignant brain tumors. Ann Neurol 1993;33:540–48

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Kim YH,
    3. Oh SW,
    4. Lim YJ, et al

    . Differentiating radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence in high-grade gliomas: assessing the efficacy of 18F-FDG-PET, 11C-methionine PET and perfusion MRI. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2010;112:758–65

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Cai L,
    3. Gao S,
    4. Li DC, et al

    . Value of 18F-FDG and 11C-MET PET-CT in differentiation of brain ringlike-enhanced neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions on MRI imaging [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi 2009;31:134–38

    PubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Tripathi M,
    3. Sharma R,
    4. Varshney R, et al

    . Comparison of F-18 FDG and C-11 methionine PET/CT for the evaluation of recurrent primary brain tumors. Clin Nucl Med 2012;37:158–63

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Li DL,
    3. Xu YK,
    4. Wang QS, et al

    . ¹¹C-methionine and ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT in the evaluation of patients with suspected primary and residual/recurrent gliomas. Chin Med J (Engl) 2012;125:91–96

    PubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Ye C,
    3. Pan M,
    4. Li Y, et al

    . 11C-MET PET/CT in the detection of recurrent cerebral glioma. [in Chinese] Chin J Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2009;22:229–31
27. 27.↵
    2. Hustinx R,
    3. Smith RJ,
    4. Benard F, et al

    . Can the standardized uptake value characterize primary brain tumors on FDG-PET? Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26:1501–09

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Jager PL,
    3. Vaalburg W,
    4. Pruim J, et al

    . Radiolabeled amino acids: basic aspects and clinical applications in oncology. J Nucl Med 2001;42:432–45

    PubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Chung JK,
    3. Kim YK,
    4. Kim SK, et al

    . Usefulness of 11C-methionine PET in the evaluation of brain lesions that are hypo- or isometabolic on 18F-FDG-PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:176–82

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Nakajima T,
    3. Kumabe T,
    4. Kanamori M, et al

    . Differential diagnosis between radiation necrosis and glioma progression using sequential proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy and methionine positron emission tomography. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2009;49:394–401

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Nihashi T,
    3. Dahabreh IJ,
    4. Terasawa T

    . Diagnostic accuracy of PET for recurrent glioma diagnosis: a meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:944–50

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Whiting P,
    3. Rutjes AW,
    4. Reitsma JB, et al

    . The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Arends LR,
    3. Hamza TH,
    4. van Houwelingen JC, et al

    . Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of ROC curves. Med Decis Making 2008;28:621–38

    PubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Reitsma JB,
    3. Glas AS,
    4. Rutjes AW, et al

    . Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:982–90

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Swets JA

    . Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988;240:1285–93

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
36. 36.↵
    2. Harbord RM,
    3. Whiting P,
    4. Sterne JA, et al

    . An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:1095–103

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. Higgins JP,
    3. Thompson SG,
    4. Deeks JJ, et al

    . Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–60

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Higgins JP,
    3. Thompson SG

    . Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539–58

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
39. 39.↵
    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
40. 40.↵
    2. Deeks JJ,
    3. Macaskill P,
    4. Irwig L

    . The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:882–93

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    2. Terakawa Y,
    3. Tsuyuguchi N,
    4. Iwai Y, et al

    . Diagnostic accuracy of 11C-methionine PET for differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from radiation necrosis after radiotherapy. J Nucl Med 2008;49:694–99

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    2. Galldiks N,
    3. Kracht LW,
    4. Berthold F, et al

    . [11C]-L-methionine positron emission tomography in the management of children and young adults with brain tumors. J Neurooncol 2010;96:231–39

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    2. Sonoda Y,
    3. Kumabe T,
    4. Takahashi T, et al

    . Clinical usefulness of 11C-MET PET and 201T1 SPECT for differentiation of recurrent glioma from radiation necrosis. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 1998;38:342–47, discussion 347–48

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    2. Tsuyuguchi N,
    3. Takami T,
    4. Sunada I, et al

    . Methionine positron emission tomography for differentiation of recurrent brain tumor and radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery–in malignant glioma. Ann Nucl Med 2004;18:291–96

    CrossRefPubMed
45. 45.↵
    2. Chen W

    . Clinical applications of PET in brain tumors. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1468–81

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    2. Schiepers C,
    3. Chen W,
    4. Cloughesy T, et al

    . 18F-FDOPA kinetics in brain tumors. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1651–61

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    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

    CrossRefPubMed
48. 48.↵
    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

    CrossRefPubMed
49. 49.↵
    2. Ozsunar Y,
    3. Mullins ME,
    4. Kwong K, et al

    . Glioma recurrence versus radiation necrosis? A pilot comparison of arterial spin-labeled, dynamic susceptibility contrast enhanced MRI, and FDG-PET imaging. Acad Radiol 2010;17:282–90

    CrossRefPubMed
50. 50.↵
    2. Kosaka N,
    3. Tsuchida T,
    4. Uematsu H, et al

    . 18F-FDG-PET of common enhancing malignant brain tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:W365–69

    CrossRefPubMed