% 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{Verger:837081,
author = {Verger, Antoine and Filss, Christian and Lohmann, Philipp
and Stoffels, Gabriele and Sabel, Michael and Wittsack, Hans
J. and Rota Kops, Elena and Galldiks, Norbert and Fink,
Gereon R. and Shah, Nadim J. and Langen, Karl-Josef},
title = {{C}omparison of $^{18}${F}-{FET} {PET} and
perfusion-weighted {MRI} for glioma grading: a hybrid
{PET}/{MR} study},
journal = {European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging},
volume = {44},
number = {13},
issn = {1619-7089},
address = {Heidelberg [u.a.]},
publisher = {Springer-Verl.},
reportid = {FZJ-2017-06078},
pages = {2257–2265},
year = {2017},
abstract = {PurposeBoth perfusion-weighted MR imaging (PWI) and
O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET (18F–FET) provide
grading information in cerebral gliomas. The aim of this
study was to compare the diagnostic value of 18F–FET PET
and PWI for tumor grading in a series of patients with newly
diagnosed, untreated gliomas using an integrated PET/MR
scanner.MethodsSeventy-two patients with untreated gliomas
[22 low-grade gliomas (LGG), and 50 high-grade gliomas
(HGG)] were investigated with 18F–FET PET and PWI using a
hybrid PET/MR scanner. After visual inspection of PET and
PWI maps (rCBV, rCBF, MTT), volumes of interest (VOIs) with
a diameter of 16 mm were centered upon the maximum of
abnormality in the tumor area in each modality and the
contralateral unaffected hemisphere. Mean and maximum
tumor-to-brain ratios (TBRmean, TBRmax) were calculated. In
addition, Time-to-Peak (TTP) and slopes of time–activity
curves were calculated for 18F–FET PET. Diagnostic
accuracies of 18F–FET PET and PWI for differentiating
low-grade glioma (LGG) from high-grade glioma (HGG) were
evaluated by receiver operating characteristic analyses
(area under the curve; AUC).ResultsThe diagnostic accuracy
of 18F–FET PET and PWI to discriminate LGG from HGG was
similar with highest AUC values for TBRmean and TBRmax of
18F–FET PET uptake (0.80, 0.83) and for TBRmean and TBRmax
of rCBV (0.80, 0.81). In case of increased signal in the
tumor area with both methods (n = 32), local hot-spots were
incongruent in 25 patients $(78\%)$ with a mean distance of
10.6 ± 9.5 mm. Dynamic FET PET and combination of different
parameters did not further improve diagnostic
accuracy.ConclusionsBoth 18F–FET PET and PWI discriminate
LGG from HGG with similar diagnostic performance. Regional
abnormalities in the tumor area are usually not congruent
indicating that tumor grading by 18F–FET PET and PWI is
based on different pathophysiological phenomena.},
cin = {INM-3 / INM-4},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406 / I:(DE-Juel1)INM-4-20090406},
pnm = {572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:28831534},
UT = {WOS:000415085500013},
doi = {10.1007/s00259-017-3812-3},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/837081},
}