% 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:844606,
      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 {O}-(2-18{F}-{F}luoroethyl)-{L}-{T}yrosine
                      {P}ositron {E}mission {T}omography and
                      {P}erfusion-{W}eighted {M}agnetic {R}esonance {I}maging in
                      the {D}iagnosis of {P}atients with {P}rogressive and
                      {R}ecurrent {G}lioma: {A} {H}ybrid {P}ositron {E}mission
                      {T}omography/{M}agnetic {R}esonance {S}tudy},
      journal      = {World neurosurgery},
      volume       = {113},
      issn         = {1878-8750},
      address      = {Amsterdam},
      publisher    = {Elsevier},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2018-02010},
      pages        = {e727-e737},
      year         = {2018},
      abstract     = {ObjectiveTo compare the diagnostic performance of
                      O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (18F-FET) positron emission
                      tomography (PET) and perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance
                      imaging (PWI) for the diagnosis of progressive or recurrent
                      glioma.MethodsThirty-two pretreated gliomas (25 progressive
                      or recurrent tumors, 7 treatment-related changes) were
                      investigated with 18F-FET PET and PWI via a hybrid
                      PET/magnetic resonance scanner. Volumes of interest with a
                      diameter of 16 mm were centered on the maximum of
                      abnormality in the tumor area in PET and PWI maps (relative
                      cerebral blood volume, relative cerebral blood flow, mean
                      transit time) and the contralateral unaffected hemisphere.
                      Mean and maximum tumor-to-brain ratios as well as dynamic
                      data for 18F-FET uptake were calculated. Diagnostic
                      accuracies were evaluated by receiver operating
                      characteristic analyses, calculating the area under the
                      curve.Results18F-FET PET showed a significant greater
                      sensitivity to detect abnormalities in pretreated gliomas
                      than PWI $(76\%$ vs. $52\%,$ P = 0.03). The maximum
                      tumor-to-brain ratio of 18F-FET PET was the only parameter
                      that discriminated treatment-related changes from
                      progressive or recurrent gliomas (area under the curve,
                      0.78; P = 0.03, best cut-off 2.61; sensitivity $80\%,$
                      specificity $86\%,$ accuracy $81\%).$ Among patients with
                      signal abnormality in both modalities, $75\%$ revealed
                      spatially incongruent local hot spots.ConclusionsThis pilot
                      study suggests that 18F-FET PET is superior to PWI to
                      diagnose progressive or recurrent glioma.},
      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:29510293},
      UT           = {WOS:000432942700088},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.wneu.2018.02.139},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/844606},
}