% 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{Maurer:865195,
author = {Maurer, Gabriele D and Brucker, Daniel P and Stoffels,
Gabriele and Filipski, Katharina and Filss, Christian P and
Mottaghy, Felix M. and Galldiks, Norbert and Steinbach,
Joachim P and Hattingen, Elke and Langen, Karl-Josef},
title = {18 {F}-{FET} {PET} imaging in differentiating glioma
progression from treatment-related changes – a
single-center experience},
journal = {Journal of nuclear medicine},
volume = {61},
number = {4},
issn = {2159-662X},
address = {New York, NY},
publisher = {Soc.},
reportid = {FZJ-2019-04731},
pages = {505-511},
year = {2020},
abstract = {In glioma patients, differentiation between tumor
progression (TP) and treatment-related changes (TRCs)
remains challenging. Difficulties in classifying imaging
alterations may result in a delay or an unnecessary
discontinuation of treatment. PET using
O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine (18F-FET) has been shown to
be a useful tool for detecting TP and TRCs. Methods: We
retrospectively evaluated 127 consecutive patients with
World Health Organization grade II–IV glioma who underwent
18F-FET PET imaging to distinguish between TP and TRCs.
18F-FET PET findings were verified by neuropathology (40
patients) or clinicoradiologic follow-up (87 patients).
Maximum tumor-to-brain ratios (TBRmax) of 18F-FET uptake and
the slope of the time–activity curves (20–50 min after
injection) were determined. The diagnostic accuracy of
18F-FET PET parameters was evaluated by
receiver-operating-characteristic analysis and χ2 testing.
The prognostic value of 18F-FET PET was estimated using the
Kaplan–Meier method. Results: TP was diagnosed in 94
patients $(74\%)$ and TRCs in 33 $(26\%).$ For
differentiating TP from TRCs,
receiver-operating-characteristic analysis yielded an
optimal 18F-FET TBRmax cutoff of 1.95 (sensitivity, $70\%;$
specificity, $71\%;$ accuracy, $70\%;$ area under the curve,
0.75 ± 0.05). The highest accuracy was achieved by a
combination of TBRmax and slope (sensitivity, $86\%;$
specificity, $67\%;$ accuracy, $81\%).$ However, accuracy
was poorer when tumors harbored isocitrate dehydrogenase
(IDH) mutations $(91\%$ in IDH-wild-type tumors, $67\%$ in
IDH-mutant tumors, P < 0.001). 18F-FET PET results
correlated with overall survival (P < 0.001). Conclusion: In
our neurooncology department, the diagnostic performance of
18F-FET PET was convincing but slightly inferior to that of
previous reports.},
cin = {INM-3 / INM-4 / INM-11},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406 / I:(DE-Juel1)INM-4-20090406 /
I:(DE-Juel1)INM-11-20170113},
pnm = {572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:31519802},
UT = {WOS:000530831100030},
doi = {10.2967/jnumed.119.234757},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/865195},
}