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

References

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

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Ricci PE,
   2. Karis JP,
   3. Heiserman JE,
   4. et al

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

   Abstract
3. 3.↵
   1. Wong TZ,
   2. van der Westhuizen GJ,
   3. Coleman RE

   . Positron emission tomography imaging of brain tumors. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2002;12:615–26

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   1. Sasaki M,
   2. Kuwabara Y,
   3. Yoshida T,
   4. 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

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Zuo C,
   2. Liu Y,
   3. Guan Y,
   4. et al

   . Clinical application of FDG-PET for the diagnosis of recurrent glioma. [in Chinese] Nuclear Techniques 2001;24:899–902
6. 6.↵
   1. Gómez-Río M,
   2. Rodriguez-Fernandez A,
   3. Ramos-Font C,
   4. 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.↵
   1. Choi SJ,
   2. Kim JS,
   3. Kim JH,
   4. 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.↵
   1. Pauleit D,
   2. Stoffels G,
   3. Bachofner A,
   4. et al

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

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   1. Lau EW,
   2. Drummond KJ,
   3. Ware RE,
   4. 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.↵
    1. Estrada G,
    2. Gonzalez-Maya L,
    3. Celis-Lopez MA,
    4. 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.↵
    1. McCarthy M,
    2. Yuan JB,
    3. Campbell A,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Kahn D,
    2. Follett KA,
    3. Bushnell DL,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Thompson TP,
    2. Lunsford LD,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Sun A,
    2. Sun L,
    3. Wang R,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Santra A,
    2. Kumar R,
    3. Sharma P,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Hong IK,
    2. Kim JH,
    3. Ra YS,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Tan H,
    2. Chen L,
    3. Guan Y,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Enslow MS,
    2. Zollinger LV,
    3. Morton KA,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Belohlávek O,
    2. Klener J,
    3. Vymazal J,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Spence AM,
    2. Muzi M,
    3. Link JM,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Janus TJ,
    2. Kim EE,
    3. Tilbury R,
    4. et al

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

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Kim YH,
    2. Oh SW,
    3. Lim YJ,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Cai L,
    2. Gao S,
    3. Li DC,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Tripathi M,
    2. Sharma R,
    3. Varshney R,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Li DL,
    2. Xu YK,
    3. Wang QS,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Ye C,
    2. Pan M,
    3. Li Y,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Hustinx R,
    2. Smith RJ,
    3. Benard F,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Jager PL,
    2. Vaalburg W,
    3. Pruim J,
    4. et al

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

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    1. Chung JK,
    2. Kim YK,
    3. Kim SK,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Nakajima T,
    2. Kumabe T,
    3. Kanamori M,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Nihashi T,
    2. Dahabreh IJ,
    3. Terasawa T

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

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
32. 32.↵
    1. Whiting P,
    2. Rutjes AW,
    3. Reitsma JB,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Arends LR,
    2. Hamza TH,
    3. van Houwelingen JC,
    4. et al

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

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
34. 34.↵
    1. Reitsma JB,
    2. Glas AS,
    3. Rutjes AW,
    4. et al

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

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    1. Swets JA

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

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
36. 36.↵
    1. Harbord RM,
    2. Whiting P,
    3. Sterne JA,
    4. 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

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
37. 37.↵
    1. Higgins JP,
    2. Thompson SG,
    3. Deeks JJ,
    4. et al

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

    FREE Full Text
38. 38.↵
    1. Higgins JP,
    2. Thompson SG

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

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
39. 39.↵
    1. Louis DN,
    2. Ohgaki H,
    3. Wiestler OD,
    4. et al

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

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
40. 40.↵
    1. Deeks JJ,
    2. Macaskill P,
    3. 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

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
41. 41.↵
    1. Terakawa Y,
    2. Tsuyuguchi N,
    3. Iwai Y,
    4. 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

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
42. 42.↵
    1. Galldiks N,
    2. Kracht LW,
    3. Berthold F,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Sonoda Y,
    2. Kumabe T,
    3. Takahashi T,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Tsuyuguchi N,
    2. Takami T,
    3. Sunada I,
    4. 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

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
45. 45.↵
    1. Chen W

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

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
46. 46.↵
    1. Schiepers C,
    2. Chen W,
    3. Cloughesy T,
    4. et al

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

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
47. 47.↵
    1. Floeth FW,
    2. Pauleit D,
    3. Sabel M,
    4. 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
48. 48.↵
    1. Dunet V,
    2. Rossier C,
    3. Buck A,
    4. 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
49. 49.↵
    1. Ozsunar Y,
    2. Mullins ME,
    3. Kwong K,
    4. 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.↵
    1. Kosaka N,
    2. Tsuchida T,
    3. Uematsu H,
    4. et al

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

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science