% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Cicone:189737,
      author       = {Cicone, Francesco and Filss, Christian and Minniti,
                      Giuseppe and Rossi-Espagnet, Camilla and Papa, Annalisa and
                      Scaringi, Claudia and Galldiks, Norbert and Bozzao,
                      Alessandro and Shah, N. J. and Scopinaro, Francesco and
                      Langen, Karl-Josef},
      title        = {{V}olumetric assessment of recurrent or progressive
                      gliomas: comparison between {F}-{DOPA} {PET} and
                      perfusion-weighted {MRI}},
      journal      = {European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging},
      volume       = {42},
      number       = {6},
      issn         = {1619-7089},
      address      = {Heidelberg [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Springer-Verl.},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2015-02769},
      pages        = {905 - 915},
      year         = {2015},
      abstract     = {PurposeTo compare the diagnostic information obtained with
                      6-[18F]-fluoro-l-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine (F-DOPA) PET and
                      relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) maps in recurrent or
                      progressive glioma.MethodsAll patients with recurrent or
                      progressive glioma referred for F-DOPA imaging at our
                      institution between May 2010 and May 2014 were
                      retrospectively included, provided that macroscopic disease
                      was visible on conventional MRI images and that rCBV maps
                      were available for comparison. The final analysis included
                      50 paired studies (44 patients). After image registration,
                      automatic tumour segmentation of both sets of images was
                      performed using the average signal in a large reference VOI
                      including grey and white matter multiplied by 1.6. Tumour
                      volumes identified by both modalities were compared and
                      their spatial congruence calculated. The distances between
                      F-DOPA uptake and rCBV hot spots, tumour-to-brain ratios
                      (TBRs) and normalized histograms were also
                      computed.ResultsOn visual inspection, 49 of the 50 F-DOPA
                      and 45 of the 50 rCBV studies were classified as positive.
                      The tumour volume delineated using F-DOPA (F-DOPAvol 1.6)
                      greatly exceeded that of rCBV maps (rCBVvol 1.6). The median
                      F-DOPAvol 1.6 and rCBVvol 1.6 were 11.44 ml (range 0 –
                      220.95 ml) and 1.04 ml (range 0 – 26.30 ml), respectively
                      (p < 0.00001). Overall, the median overlapping volume
                      was 0.27 ml, resulting in a spatial congruence of 1.38 $\%$
                      (range 0 – 39.22 $\%).$ The mean hot spot distance was
                      27.17 mm (±16.92 mm). F-DOPA uptake TBR was significantly
                      higher than rCBV TBR (1.76 ± 0.60 vs. 1.15 ± 0.52,
                      respectively; p < 0.0001). The histogram analysis showed
                      that F-DOPA provided better separation of tumour from
                      background. In 6 of the 50 studies (12 $\%),$ however,
                      physiological uptake in the striatum interfered with tumour
                      delineation.ConclusionThe information provided by F-DOPA PET
                      and rCBV maps are substantially different. Image
                      interpretation is easier and a larger tumour extent is
                      identified on F-DOPA PET images than on rCBV maps. The
                      clinical impact of such differences needs to be explored in
                      future studies.},
      cin          = {INM-4 / INM-3},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-4-20090406 / I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406},
      pnm          = {573 - Neuroimaging (POF3-573)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-573},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000352232900012},
      doi          = {10.1007/s00259-015-3018-5},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/189737},
}