Distinguishing Recurrent Tumor and Radiation Necrosis with Positron Emission Tomography versus Stereotactic BiopsyThompson T.P. · Lunsford L.D. · Kondziolka D.
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and The Center for Image Guided Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa., USA
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
With the recent approval of reimbursement for positron emission tomography (PET), it has become important to clarify the utility of this diagnostic study. We evaluated the utility of PET to distinguish radiation necrosis from recurrent tumor in a retrospective review of patients with primary glial neoplasms. Fifteen patients had preoperative contrast-enhanced MRI and PET images followed by stereotactic biopsy or craniotomy and histological confirmation. The sensitivity of PET was 43% (6/14) and the specificity was 100% (1/1). We examined the sensitivity of PET as a function of volumetric contrast enhancement on MRI. Eighty percent of true-positive PET studies occurred with volume enhancement greater than 10 cm3. Seventy-five percent of false negatives occurred with volume enhancement less than 6 cm3. Given the clinical significance of distinguishing tumor progression from radiation necrosis, we believe that PET is insufficient to resolve radiation necrosis versus tumor progression.
© 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.