Diagnostic Accuracy of PET, SPECT, and Arterial Spin-Labeling in Differentiating Tumor Recurrence from Necrosis in Cerebral Metastasis after Stereotactic Radiosurgery

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Chernov M,
   3. Hayashi M,
   4. Izawa M, et al

   . Differentiation of the radiation-induced necrosis and tumor recurrence after gamma knife radiosurgery for brain metastases: importance of multi-voxel proton MRS. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2005;48:228–34 doi:10.1055/s-2005-870952 pmid:16172969

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Shah R,
   3. Vattoth S,
   4. Jacob R, et al

   . Radiation necrosis in the brain: imaging features and differentiation from tumor recurrence. Radiographics 2012;32:1343–59 doi:10.1148/rg.325125002 pmid:22977022

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Stockham AL,
   3. Tievsky AL,
   4. Koyfman SA, et al

   . Conventional MRI does not reliably distinguish radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence after stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurooncol 2012;109:149–58 doi:10.1007/s11060-012-0881-9 pmid:22638727

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Dooms GC,
   3. Hecht S,
   4. Brant-Zawadzki M, et al

   . Brain radiation lesions: MR imaging. Radiology 1986;158:149–55 doi:10.1148/radiology.158.1.3940373 pmid:3940373

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Rahmathulla G,
   3. Marko NF,
   4. Weil RJ

   . Cerebral radiation necrosis: a review of the pathobiology, diagnosis and management considerations. J Clin Neurosci 2013;20:485–502 doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2012.09.011 pmid:23416129

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Chao ST,
   3. Ahluwalia MS,
   4. Barnett GH, et al

   . Challenges with the diagnosis and treatment of cerebral radiation necrosis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;87:449–57 doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.05.015 pmid:23790775

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Woodworth GF,
   3. McGirt MJ,
   4. Samdani A, et al

   . Frameless image-guided stereotactic brain biopsy procedure: diagnostic yield, surgical morbidity, and comparison with the frame-based technique. J Neurosurg 2006;104:233–37 doi:10.3171/jns.2006.104.2.233 pmid:16509497

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   2. Sawin PD,
   3. Hitchon PW,
   4. Follett KA, et al

   . Computed imaging-assisted stereotactic brain biopsy: a risk analysis of 225 consecutive cases. Surg Neurol 1998;49:640–49 doi:10.1016/S0090-3019(97)00435-7 pmid:9637625

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   2. McGirt MJ,
   3. Woodworth GF,
   4. Coon AL, et al

   . Independent predictors of morbidity after image-guided stereotactic brain biopsy: a risk assessment of 270 cases. J Neurosurg 2005;102:897–901 doi:10.3171/jns.2005.102.5.0897 pmid:15926716

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    2. Waters JD,
    3. Gonda DD,
    4. Reddy H, et al

    . Diagnostic yield of stereotactic needle-biopsies of sub-cubic centimeter intracranial lesions. Surg Neurol Int 2013;4:S176–81 doi:10.4103/2152-7806.110677 pmid:23682345

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Williams G,
    3. Kolodny GM

    . Method for decreasing uptake of 18F-FDG by hypermetabolic brown adipose tissue on PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:1406–09 doi:10.2214/AJR.07.3205 pmid:18430862

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Hill TC,
    3. Holman BL,
    4. Lovett R, et al

    . Initial experience with SPECT (single-photon computerized tomography) of the brain using N-isopropyl I-123 p-iodoamphetamine: concise communication. J Nucl Med 1982;23:191–95 pmid:6977624

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Dai W,
    3. Garcia D,
    4. de Bazelaire C, et al

    . Continuous flow-driven inversion for arterial spin labeling using pulsed radio frequency and gradient fields. Magn Reson Med 2008;60:1488–97 doi:10.1002/mrm.21790 pmid:19025913

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Alsop DC,
    3. Detre JA

    . Reduced transit-time sensitivity in noninvasive magnetic resonance imaging of human cerebral blood flow. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1996;16:1236–49 pmid:8898697

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    2. Ye FQ,
    3. Frank JA,
    4. Weinberger DR, et al

    . Noise reduction in 3D perfusion imaging by attenuating the static signal in arterial spin tagging (ASSIST). Magn Reson Med 2000;44:92–100 doi:10.1002/1522-2594(200007)44:1 pmid:10893526

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Maleki N,
    3. Dai W,
    4. Alsop DC

    . Optimization of background suppression for arterial spin labeling perfusion imaging. MAGMA 2012;25:127–33 doi:10.1007/s10334-011-0286-3 pmid:22009131

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Järnum H,
    3. Steffensen EG,
    4. Knutsson L, et al

    . Perfusion MRI of brain tumours: a comparative study of pseudo-continuous arterial spin labelling and dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging. Neuroradiology 2010;52:307–17 doi:10.1007/s00234-009-0616-6 pmid:19841916

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Chao ST,
    3. Suh JH,
    4. Raja S, et al

    . The sensitivity and specificity of FDG PET in distinguishing recurrent brain tumor from radionecrosis in patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Cancer 2001;96:191–97 doi:10.1002/ijc.1016 pmid:11410888

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    2. Tan H,
    3. Chen L,
    4. Guan Y,
    5. Lin X

    . Comparison of MRI, F-18 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 doi:10.1097/RLU.0b013e31822f68a6 pmid:21975383

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    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 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2009.10.024 pmid:20060750

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Serizawa T,
    3. Saeki N,
    4. Higuchi Y, et al

    . Diagnostic value of thallium-201 chloride single-photon emission computerized tomography in differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation injury after gamma knife surgery for metastatic brain tumors. J Neurosurg 2005;102(suppl):266–71 doi:10.3171/jns.2005.102.s_supplement.0266 pmid:15662823

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Matsunaga S,
    3. Shuto T,
    4. Takase H, et al

    . Semiquantitative analysis using thallium-201 SPECT for differential diagnosis between tumor recurrence and radiation necrosis after gamma knife surgery for malignant brain tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;85:47–52 doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.03.008 pmid:22541963

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Shah AH,
    3. Snelling B,
    4. Bregy A, et al

    . Discriminating radiation necrosis from tumor progression in gliomas: a systematic review what is the best imaging modality? J Neurooncol 2013;112:141–52 doi:10.1007/s11060-013-1059-9 pmid:23344789

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Jiang J,
    3. Zhao L,
    4. Zhang Y, et al

    . Comparative analysis of arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging for quantitative perfusion measurements of brain tumors. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2014;7:2790–99 pmid:25031698

    PubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Hoefnagels FW,
    3. Lagerwaard FJ,
    4. Sanchez E, et al

    . Radiological progression of cerebral metastases after radiosurgery: assessment of perfusion MRI for differentiating between necrosis and recurrence. J Neurol 2009;256:878–87 doi:10.1007/s00415-009-5034-5 pmid:19274425

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Mitsuya K,
    3. Nakasu Y,
    4. Horiguchi S, et al

    . Perfusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging to distinguish the recurrence of metastatic brain tumors from radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurooncol 2010;99:81–88 doi:10.1007/s11060-009-0106-z pmid:20058049

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Choi YJ,
    3. Kim HS,
    4. Jahng GH, et al

    . Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: added value of arterial spin labeling to dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging. Acta Radiol 2013;54:448–54 doi:10.1177/0284185112474916 pmid:23592805

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    2. Lehmann P,
    3. Monet P,
    4. de Marco G, et al

    . A comparative study of perfusion measurement in brain tumours at 3 Tesla MR: arterial spin labeling versus dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Neurol 2010;64:21–26 doi:10.1159/000311520 pmid:20558984

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Warmuth C,
    3. Gunther M,
    4. Zimmer C

    . Quantification of blood flow in brain tumors: comparison of arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003;228:523–32 doi:10.1148/radiol.2282020409 pmid:12819338

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    2. Tilgner J,
    3. Herr M,
    4. Ostertag C,
    5. Volk B

    . Validation of intraoperative diagnoses using smear preparations from stereotactic brain biopsies: intraoperative versus final diagnosis—influence of clinical factors. Neurosurgery 2005;56:257–65; discussion 257–65 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000148899.39020.87 pmid:15670374

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Isiklar I,
    3. Leeds NE,
    4. Fuller GN, et al

    . Intracranial metastatic melanoma: correlation between MR imaging characteristics and melanin content. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:1503–12 doi:10.2214/ajr.165.6.7484597 pmid:7484597

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.↵
    2. Dai W,
    3. Shankaranarayanan A,
    4. Alsop DC

    . Volumetric measurement of perfusion and arterial transit delay using Hadamard encoded continuous arterial spin labeling. Magn Reson Med 2013;69:1014–22 doi:10.1002/mrm.24335 pmid:22618894

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Dai W,
    3. Robson PM,
    4. Shankaranarayanan A, et al

    . Reduced resolution transit delay prescan for quantitative continuous arterial spin labeling perfusion imaging. Magn Reson Med 2012;67:1252–65 doi:10.1002/mrm.23103 pmid:22084006

    CrossRefPubMed