Differentiation between Treatment-Induced Necrosis and Recurrent Tumors in Patients with Metastatic Brain Tumors: Comparison among ¹¹C-Methionine-PET, FDG-PET, MR Permeability Imaging, and MRI-ADC—Preliminary Results

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Tsao MN,
   3. Mehta MP,
   4. Whelan TJ, et al

   . The American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based review of the role radiosurgery for malignant glioma. Int J Radiol Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:47–55 doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.05.024 pmid:16111571

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Wowra B,
   3. Muacevic A,
   4. Tonn JC

   . Cyber knife radiosurgery for brain metastasis. Prog Neurol Surg 2012;25:201–09 doi:10.1159/000331193 pmid:22236681

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Mehta MP,
   3. Tsao MN,
   4. Whelan TJ, et al

   . The American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based review of the role of radiosurgery for brain metastases. Int J Radiol Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:37–46 doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.05.023 pmid:16111570

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   2. Mohammadi AM,
   3. Schroeder JL,
   4. Angelov L, et al

   . Impact of the radiosurgery prescription dose on the local control of the small (2 cm or smaller) brain metastases. J Neurosurg 2017;126:735–743 doi:10.3171/2016.3.JNS153014 pmid:27231978

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Leeman JE,
   3. Clump DA,
   4. Flickinger JC, et al

   . Extent of perilesional edema differentiates radionecrosis from tumor recurrence following stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases. Neuro Oncol 2013;15:1732–38 doi:10.1093/neuonc/not130 pmid:24243914

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Fabiano AJ,
   3. Qiu J

   . Post-stereotactic radiosurgery brain metastases: a review. J Neurosurg Sci 2015;59:157–67 pmid:25600555

   PubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Chang SD,
   3. Lee E,
   4. Sakamoto GT, et al

   . Stereotactic radiosurgery in patients with multiple brain metastases. Neurosurg Focus 2000;9:e3 pmid:16836289

   PubMed
8. 8.↵
   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
9. 9.↵
   2. Verma N,
   3. Cowperthwaite MC,
   4. Burnett MG, et al

   . Differentiating tumor recurrence from treatment necrosis: a review of neuro-oncologic imaging strategies. Neuro Oncol 2013;15:515–34 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nos307 pmid:23325863

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    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 Neuroncol 2012;109:149–58 doi:10.1007/s11060-012-0881-9 pmid:22638727

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Ou SH,
    3. Klempner SJ,
    4. Azada MC, et al

    . Radiation necrosis presenting as pseudoprogression (PsP) during alectinib treatment of previously radiated brain metastases in ALK-positive NSCLC: implications for disease assessment and management. Lung Cancer 2015;88:355–59 doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.03.022 pmid:25882777

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Valk PE,
    3. Dillon WP

    . Radiation injury of the brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:45–62 pmid:7502957

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Chemov MF,
    3. Ono Y,
    4. Abe K, et al

    . Differentiation of tumor progression and radiation-induced effects after intracranial radiosurgery. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2013;116:193–210 doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-1376-9_29 pmid:23417479

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Chemov MF,
    3. Hayashi M,
    4. Izawa M, et al

    . Multivoxel proton differentiation of radiation-induced necrosis and tumor recurrence after gamma knife radiosurgery for brain metastases. Brain Tumor Pathol 2006;23:19–27 doi:10.1007/s10014-006-0194-9 pmid:18095115

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    2. Asao C,
    3. Korogi Y,
    4. Kitajima M, et al

    . Diffusion-weighted imaging of radiation-induced brain injury for differentiation from tumor recurrence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:1455–60 pmid:15956515

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    2. Wang S,
    3. Chen Y,
    4. Lal B, et al

    . Evaluation of radiation necrosis and malignant glioma in rat models using diffusion tensor imaging. J Neuroncol 2012;107:51–60 doi:10.1007/s11060-011-0719-x pmid:21948114

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Jain R,
    3. Narang J,
    4. Schultz L, et al

    . Permeability estimates in histopathology-proved treatment-induced necrosis using perfusion CT: can these add to other perfusion parameters in differentiating from recurrent/progressive tumors? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:658–63 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2378 pmid:21330392

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    2. Gómez-Río M,
    3. Martínez Del Valle Torres D,
    4. Rodríguez-Fernández A, et al

    . (201)Tl-SPECT in low-grade gliomas: diagnostic accuracy in differential diagnosis between tumour recurrence and radionecrosis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:1237–43 pmid:15133633

    PubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Le Jeune FP,
    3. Dubois F,
    4. Blonde S, et al

    . Sestamibi technetium-99m brain single-photon emission computed tomography to identify recurrent glioma in adults: 201 studies. J Neuroncol 2006;77:177–83 doi:10.1007/s11060-005-9018-8 pmid:6314957

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Samnick S,
    3. Bader JB,
    4. Hellwig D, et al

    . Clinical value of iodine-123-alpha-methyl-L-tyrosine single-photon emission tomography in the differential diagnosis of recurrent brain tumor in patients pretreated for glioma at follow-up. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:396–404 pmid:11786566

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    2. Galldiks N,
    3. Stoffels G,
    4. Filss C, et al

    . Role of O-(2-(18)F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET for differentiation of local recurrent brain metastasis from radiation necrosis. J Nucl Med 2012;53:1367–74 doi:10.2967/jnumed.112.103325 pmid:22872742

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    2. Ceccon G,
    3. Lohmann P,
    4. Stoffels G, et al

    . Dynamic O-(2–18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine positron emission tomography differentiates brain metastasis recurrence from radiation injury after radiotherapy. Neuro Oncol 2017;19:281–288 doi:10.1093/neuonc/now149 pmid:27471107

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Lizarraga KJ,
    3. Allen-Auerbach M,
    4. Czernin J, et al

    . (18)F-FDOPA PET for differentiating recurrent or progressive brain metastatic tumors from late or delayed radiation injury after treatment. J Nucl Med 2014;55:30–36 doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.121418 pmid:24167081

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    2. Kim EE,
    3. Chung SK,
    4. Haynie TP, et al

    . Differentiation of residual or recurrent tumors from post-treatment changes with F-18 FDG PET. Radiographics 1992;12:269–79 doi:10.1148/radiographics.12.2.1561416 pmid:1561416

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Di Chiro G,
    3. Oldfield E,
    4. Wright DC, et al

    . Cerebral necrosis after radiotherapy and/or intraarterial chemotherapy for brain tumors: PET and neuropathologic studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988;150:189–97 doi:10.2214/ajr.150.1.189 pmid:3257119

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    2. Mogard J,
    3. Kihlström L,
    4. Ericson K, et al

    . Recurrent tumor vs radiation effects after gamma knife radiosurgery of intracerebral metastases: diagnosis with PET-FDG. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1994;18:177–81 doi:10.1097/00004728-199403000-00002 pmid:8126264

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Sonoda Y,
    3. Kumabe T,
    4. Takahashi T, et al

    . Clinical usefulness of 11C-MET PET and 201Tl-SPECT for differentiation of recurrent glioma from radiation necrosis. Neuro Med Chir (Tokyo) 1998;38:342–47 doi:10.2176/nmc.38.342 pmid:9689817

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Tsuyuguchi N,
    3. Sunada I,
    4. Iwai Y, et al

    . Methionine positron emission tomography of recurrent metastatic brain tumor and radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery: is a differential diagnosis possible? J Neurosurg 2003;98:1056–64 doi:10.3171/jns.2003.98.5.1056 pmid:12744366

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    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 doi:10.1007/BF02984466 pmid:15359921

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    2. Takenaka S,
    3. Asano Y,
    4. Shinoda J, et al

    . Comparison of (11)C-methionine, (11)C-choline, and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET for distinguishing glioma recurrence from radiation necrosis. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2014;54:280–89 doi:10.2176/nmc.oa2013-0117 pmid:24305028

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Terakawa Y,
    3. Tsuyuguchi N,
    4. Iwai Y, et al

    . Diagnostic accuracy of 11C-methionie PET for differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from radiation necrosis after radiotherapy. J Nucl Med 2008;49:694–99 doi:10.2967/jnumed.107.048082 pmid:18413375

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
32. 32.↵
    2. Barrett T,
    3. Brechbiel M,
    4. Bernardo M, et al

    . MRI of tumor angiogenesis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26:235–49 doi:10.1002/jmri.20991 pmid:17623889

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Pauliah M,
    3. Saxena V,
    4. Haris M, et al

    . Improved T(1)-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to probe microvascularity and heterogeneity of human glioma. Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25:1292–99 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2007.03.027 pmid:17490844

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
34. 34.↵
    2. Wu S,
    3. Thornhill RE,
    4. Chen S, et al

    . Relative recirculation: a fast, model-free surrogate for the measurement of blood-brain barrier permeability and the prediction of hemorrhagic transformation in acute ischemic stroke. Invest Radiol 2009;44:662–68 doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181ae9c40 pmid:19724234

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Tofts PS,
    3. Brix G,
    4. Buckley DL, et al

    . Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusible tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:223–32 pmid:10508281

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
36. 36.↵
    2. Vidarsson L,
    3. Thornhill RE,
    4. Liu F, et al

    . Quantitative permeability magnetic resonance imaging in acute ischemic stroke: how long do we need to scan? Magn Reson Imaging 2009;27:1216–22 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2009.01.019 pmid:19695816

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. Yang S,
    3. Law M,
    4. Zagzag D, et al

    . Dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging measurements of endothelial permeability: differentiation between atypical and typical meningiomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:1554–59 pmid:13679270

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
38. 38.↵
    2. Cha S,
    3. Yang L,
    4. Johnson G, et al

    . Comparison of microvascular permeability measurements, K(trans), determined with conventional steady-state T1-weighted and first-pass T2*-weighted MR imaging methods in gliomas and meningiomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:409–17 pmid:16484420

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
39. 39.↵
    2. Lee SK,
    3. Kim E,
    4. Choi H

    . Glioma grading: comparison of parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and fractional anisotropy (FA). Proc Intl Soc Mag Reson Med 2011;19:4266
40. 40.↵
    2. Zheng D,
    3. Chen Y,
    4. Chen Y, et al

    . Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a preliminary study of the correlations between quantitative parameters and clinical stage. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;39:940–48 doi:10.1002/jmri.24249 pmid:24108569

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    2. Huang B,
    3. Wong CS,
    4. Whitcher B, et al

    . Dynamic contrast-enhanced resonance imaging for characterising nasopharyngeal carcinoma: comparison of semiquantitative and quantitative parameters and correlation with tumour stage. Eur Radiol 2013;23:1495–502 doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2740-7 pmid:23377545

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    2. Kim YE,
    3. Lim JS,
    4. Choi J, et al

    . Perfusion parameters of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in patients with rectal cancer: correlation with microvascular density and vascular endothelial growth factor expression. Korean J Radiol 2013;14:878–85 doi:10.3348/kjr.2013.14.6.878 pmid:24265562

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    2. Verma S,
    3. Turkbey B,
    4. Muradyan N, et al

    . Overview of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:1277–88 doi:10.2214/AJR.12.8510 pmid:22623539

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
44. 44.↵
    2. Narang J,
    3. Jain R,
    4. Arbab AS, et al

    . Differentiating treatment-induced necrosis from recurrent/progressive brain tumor using nonmodel-based semiquantitative indices derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR perfusion. Neuro Oncol 2011;13:1037–46 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nor075 pmid:21803763

    CrossRefPubMed
45. 45.↵
    2. Tomura N,
    3. Ito Y,
    4. Matsuoka H, et al

    . PET findings of intramedullary tumors of the spinal cord using [18F]FDG and [11C]methionine. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1278–83 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3374 pmid:23275592

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
46. 46.↵
    2. Nuñez R,
    3. Macapinlac HA,
    4. Yeung HWD, et al

    . Combined ¹⁸F-FDG and ¹¹C-methionine PET scans in patients with newly progressive metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2002;43:46–55 pmid:11801702

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
47. 47.↵
    2. Pirotte B,
    3. Goldman S,
    4. Massager N, et al

    . Combined use of ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose and ¹¹C-methionine in 45 positron emission tomography-guided stereotactic brain biopsies. J Neurosurg 2004;101:476–83 doi:10.3171/jns.2004.101.3.0476 pmid:15352606

    CrossRefPubMed
48. 48.↵
    2. Levivier M,
    3. Massager N,
    4. Wikler D, et al

    . Use of stereotactic PET images in dosimetry planning of radiosurgery for brain tumors: clinical experience and proposed classification. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1146–54 pmid:15235060

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
49. 49.↵
    2. Pirotte B,
    3. Goldman S,
    4. Massager N, et al

    . Comparison of ¹⁸F-FDG and ¹¹C-methionine for PET-guided stereotactic brain biopsy of gliomas. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1293–98 pmid:15299051

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
50. 50.↵
    2. Mitumoto T,
    3. Kubota K,
    4. Sato T, et al

    . Validation for performing ¹¹C-methionine and ¹⁸F-FDG-PET studies on the same day. Nucl Med Commun 2012;33:297–304 doi:10.1097/MNM.0b013e32834dfa38 pmid:22107999

    CrossRefPubMed
51. 51.↵
    2. Barajas RF Jr.,
    3. Chang JS,
    4. Segal MR, et al

    . Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radiation therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2009;253:486–96 doi:10.1148/radiol.2532090007 pmid:19789240

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
52. 52.↵
    2. Bisdas S,
    3. Naegele T,
    4. Ritz R, et al

    . Distinguishing recurrent high-grade gliomas from radiation injury: a pilot study using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Acta Radiol 2011;18:575–83 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2011.01.018 pmid:21419671

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    2. Fatterpekar GM,
    3. Galheigo D,
    4. Narayana A, et al

    . Treatment-related change versus tumor recurrence in high-grade gliomas: a diagnostic conundrum—use of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced (DSC) perfusion MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:19–26 doi:10.2214/AJR.11.7417 pmid:22194475

    CrossRefPubMed
54. 54.↵
    2. Guo AC,
    3. Cummings TJ,
    4. Dash RC, et al

    . Lymphomas and high-grade astrocytomas: comparison of water diffusibility and histologic characteristics. Radiology 2002;224:177–83 doi:10.1148/radiol.2241010637 pmid:12091680

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
55. 55.↵
    2. Conti PS,
    3. Lilien DL,
    4. Hawley K, et al

    . PET and [¹⁸F]-FDG in oncology: a clinical update. Nucl Med Biol 1996;23:717–35 doi:10.1016/0969-8051(96)00074-1 pmid:8940714

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
56. 56.↵
    2. Hoh CK,
    3. Schiepers C,
    4. Seltzer MA, et al

    . PET in oncology: will it replace the other modalities? Semin Nucl Med 1997;27:94–106 doi:10.1016/S0001-2998(97)80042-6 pmid:9144854

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science