Clinical impact of 11C-methionine PET on expected management of patients with brain neoplasm
- 347 Downloads
We retrospectively examined the clinical efficacy of 11C-methionine positron emission tomography (11C-MET PET) in patients with brain neoplasm, especially whether the 11C-MET PET changed the clinical management and whether the change was beneficial or detrimental.
This study reviewed 89 11C-MET PET scans for 80 patients (20 scans for initial diagnosis of brain tumor and 69 scans for differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis). Final diagnosis and the effect on the intended management were obtained from the questionnaire to the referring physicians or directly from the medical records. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the 11C-MET PET were evaluated. Regarding the management impact, the rate of scans that caused changes in intended management was also evaluated. Moreover, the occurrence of scans having detrimental diagnostic impact (DDI) and beneficial diagnostic impact (BDI) were evaluated.
Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 11C-MET PET was 87.8, 80.0, and 85.9%. The intended management was changed in 50.0% of the scans. DDI and BDI were observed in 4.3 and 36.2% of the total relevant scans, respectively.
11C-MET PET can provide useful information in initial diagnosis and differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis. The intended management was changed in half of the scans. Since a few cases did not receive the requisite treatment due to false-negative results of 11C-MET PET, management decision should be made carefully, especially in the case of a negative scan.
Keywords11C-Methionine Positron emission tomography (PET) Brain neoplasm Clinical impact
- 15.Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, Shields AF, Gareen IF, Hanna L, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2155–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Chatterton BE, Ho Shon I, Baldey A, Lenzo N, Patrikeos A, Kelley B, et al. Positron emission tomography changes management and prognostic stratification in patients with oesophageal cancer: results of a multicentre prospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:354–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Scott AM, Gunawardana DH, Wong J, Kirkwood I, Hicks RJ, Ho Shon I, et al. Positron emission tomography changes management, improves prognostic stratification and is superior to gallium scintigraphy in patients with low-grade lymphoma: results of a multicentre prospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:347–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Tomiguchi S, Shigematsu Y, Ikushima I, Kira T, et al. Posttherapeutic intraaxial brain tumor: the value of perfusion-sensitive contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiating tumor recurrence from nonneoplastic contrast-enhancing tissue. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21:901–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Croteau D, Scarpace L, Hearshen D, Gutierrez J, Fisher JL, Rock JP, et al. Correlation between magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and image-guided biopsies: semiquantitative and qualitative histopathological analyses of patients with untreated glioma. Neurosurgery. 2001;49:823–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar