% 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:825820,
      author       = {Cicone, Francesco and Galldiks, Norbert and Minniti,
                      Giuseppe and Filss, Christian and Scopinaro, Francesco and
                      Prior, John O. and Albert, Nathalie L. and Langen,
                      Karl-Josef},
      title        = {{C}omment on {H}atzoglou et al: {D}ynamic contrast-enhanced
                      {MRI} perfusion versus $^{18}$ {FDG} {PET}/{CT} in
                      differentiating brain tumor progression from radiation
                      injury},
      journal      = {Neuro-Oncology},
      volume       = {19},
      number       = {2},
      issn         = {1523-5866},
      address      = {Oxford},
      publisher    = {Oxford Univ. Press},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2017-00122},
      pages        = {300-301},
      year         = {2017},
      abstract     = {We read with great interest the paper by Hatzoglou et al,
                      recently published in Neuro-Oncology,1 concerning the
                      discrimination between progressive disease and
                      radiotherapy-induced changes in brain tumors, which is a
                      clinical challenge of paramount importance. To address this
                      diagnostic problem, the authors compared dynamic contrast
                      enhanced (DCE) MRI and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)
                      PET/CT in a total of 53 patients with primary brain tumors
                      (n = 29) or brain metastases (n = 26). They found that the
                      DCE MRI–derived plasma volume ratio (Vpratio) and transfer
                      coefficient ratio (Ktransratio), as well as the FDG
                      PET–derived standardized uptake value ratio (SUVratio)
                      were useful in distinguishing between progression and
                      radiation injury, both in the overall cohort and in the 2
                      main subgroups (primary and secondary brain tumors). They
                      concluded, however, that DCE MRI–derived Vpratio was the
                      “most robust” predictor of progression after showing a
                      trend toward higher performances for Vpratio with respect to
                      SUVratio (sensitivity and specificity = $92\%$ and $77\%$ vs
                      $68\%$ and $82\%;$ AUC = 0.87 vs 0.75, P = .061, for Vpratio
                      and SUVratio, respectively).},
      cin          = {INM-3 / INM-4 / JARA-BRAIN},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406 / I:(DE-Juel1)INM-4-20090406 /
                      $I:(DE-82)080010_20140620$},
      pnm          = {573 - Neuroimaging (POF3-573)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-573},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000397280500019},
      doi          = {10.1093/neuonc/now283},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/825820},
}