You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Review
  • Open Access

Radiological diagnosis of brain radiation necrosis after cranial irradiation for brain tumor: a systematic review

  • 1Email authorView ORCID ID profile,
  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 3,
  • 4,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1
Contributed equally
Radiation Oncology201914:28

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1228-x

  • Received: 23 March 2018
  • Accepted: 20 January 2019
  • Published:

Abstract

Introduction

This systematic review aims to elucidate the diagnostic accuracy of radiological examinations to distinguish between brain radiation necrosis (BRN) and tumor progression (TP).

Methods

We divided diagnostic approaches into two categories as follows—conventional radiological imaging [computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): review question (RQ) 1] and nuclear medicine studies [single photon emission CT (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET): RQ2]—and queried. Our librarians conducted a comprehensive systematic search on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Japan Medical Abstracts Society up to March 2015. We estimated summary statistics using the bivariate random effects model and performed subanalysis by dividing into tumor types—gliomas and metastatic brain tumors.

Results

Of 188 and 239 records extracted from the database, we included 20 and 26 studies in the analysis for RQ1 and RQ2, respectively. In RQ1, we used gadolinium (Gd)-enhanced MRI, diffusion-weighted image, MR spectroscopy, and perfusion CT/MRI to diagnose BRN in RQ1. In RQ2, 201Tl-, 99mTc-MIBI-, and 99mTc-GHA-SPECT, and 18F-FDG-, 11C-MET-, 18F-FET-, and 18F-BPA-PET were used. In meta-analysis, Gd-enhanced MRI exhibited the lowest sensitivity [63%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 28–89%] and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and combined multiple imaging studies displayed the highest sensitivity (96%; 95% CI: 83–99%) and DOR among all imaging studies. In subanalysis for gliomas, Gd-enhanced MRI and 18F-FDG-PET revealed low DOR. Conversely, we observed no difference in DOR among radiological imaging in metastatic brain tumors. However, diagnostic parameters and study subjects often differed among the same imaging studies. All studies enrolled a small number of patients, and only 10 were prospective studies without randomization.

Conclusions

Differentiating BRN from TP using Gd-enhanced MRI and 18F-FDG-PET is challenging for patients with glioma. Conversely, BRN could be diagnosed by any radiological imaging in metastatic brain tumors. This review suggests that combined multiparametric imaging, including lesional metabolism and blood flow, could enhance diagnostic accuracy, compared with a single imaging study. Nevertheless, a substantial risk of bias and indirectness of reviewed studies hindered drawing firm conclusion about the best imaging technique for diagnosing BRN.

Keywords

  • Brain tumor
  • Diagnosis
  • Radiation necrosis
  • Radiology
  • Recurrence

Introduction

The pathology of progressive brain radiation necrosis (BRN) primarily includes inflammation and angiogenesis in which cytokines, chemokines, and vascular endothelial growth factor are upregulated [17]. Inflammation and angiogenesis account for the breakdown of the blood–brain barrier, resulting in contrast-enhanced lesions and perilesional edema. Nevertheless, recurrent tumors also displayed these findings on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance image (MRI). Distinguish between BRN and tumor progression (TP) is rather challenging on conventional radiological imaging. In addition, surgical removal of tissue samples is invasive even in cases of stereotactic biopsies, although pathological diagnosis remains the gold standard. Moreover, needle biopsy poses a risk of misdiagnosis because BRN is typically a heterogeneous lesion, with coexisting radiation necrosis and tumor cells [8]. Ideally, BRN is diagnosed by relatively less-invasive radiological examinations that evaluate the whole lesion, compared with needle biopsy. Recently, bevacizumab was shown to markedly reduce brain edema and improve patients’ clinical statuses, and is a promising and novel treatment for BRN [912]. As bevacizumab delays the surgical wound healing, patients diagnosed with BRN by surgical biopsy need to wait for wound healing before the bevacizumab administration. However, bevacizumab could be administered immediately after the diagnosis of BRN by noninvasive radiological imaging studies.

The last several decades have witnessed an upsurge of various functional images and nuclear medicine studies that have developed and seem useful for differentiating between BRN and TP. For example, MR spectroscopy (MRS) and diffusion-weighted images (DWI) offer qualitative data without using contrast media. Perfusion images depict cerebral blood flow or volume (CBV) using contrast media. In addition, single photon emission CT (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET) display metabolic data using various tracers. Despite these radiological imaging studies being useful for differentiating between BRN and TP, it remains unclear which imaging study is preferable. Hence, this systematic review aims to illustrate the diagnostic accuracy of radiological imaging for differentiation between BRN and TP.

Methods

Search strategy

We conducted a systematic review based on the directives of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement (PRISMA) [13]. Our review question (RQ) was structured using the patient, exposure, comparison, and outcome (PECO) approach. Our RQ was, “Are radiological imaging studies useful for distinguishing BRN from TP in brain tumor patients treated with radiotherapy who exhibit clinical or radiological disease progression?” Regarding radiological examinations, although many hospitals own CT and MRI equipment, SPECT and PET are less common. Hence, we categorized the radiological examinations into the following two groups: CT and MRI as conventional radiological imaging (RQ1) and SPECT and PET as nuclear medicine imaging (RQ2). Our medical librarians conducted a comprehensive systematic search using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Japan Medical Abstracts Society databases, up to March 2015. Additional file 1 presents the keywords used to complete the search. Regarding PET, several new tracers have been developed in recent years; however, these are too early to assess the diagnostic ability of differentiation between BRN and TP because numerous studies are required for systematic review. Hence, “fluorodeoxyglucose”/“FDG” and “amino acid”/“methionine” were included in the keywords. These tracers have been used since long, and an adequate number of studies are expected to be identified for the systematic review. Two reviewers (MF and KY for RQ1, and NN and TS for RQ2) screened and determined studies to be included for each RQ. Eligible studies investigated the diagnostic accuracy of radiological imaging methods for differentiation between BRN and TP and were written in English or Japanese. Eligible participants were patients who underwent radiotherapy for brain tumors. However, we excluded case reports, letters to the editor, and conference abstracts, as well as studies without sufficient information for construction of a 2 × 2 table.

Quality assessment and data analysis

The reviewers assessed the quality of individual studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) checklist [14]. The QUADAS-2 tool comprises four domains as follows: patient selection; index test; reference standard; and flow and timing. QUADAS-2 segregates study quality into “risk of bias” and “applicability.” We judged the risk of bias using signaling questions and applicability by concerns that the study does not match the RQ. Each domain was assessed in terms of the risk of bias and, the first three domains were also assessed in terms of concerns about applicability. Furthermore, the risk of bias and applicability were assessed by reviewers in each RQ. Besides QUADAS-2 assessment, indirectness, inconsistency, and imprecision were also assessed for the body of evidence.

We used Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager 5 (Review Manager. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014) to analyze the data of each study. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, as well as 95% confidence intervals (CI), were calculated and evaluated using visual inspection of forest plots. In the quantitative synthesis, we completed bivariate diagnostic random effect meta-analysis and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves with R Software version 3.4.3 (https://www.R-project.org/) using mada package including “reitsma” function (https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/mada/versions/0.5.8/topics/reitsma) to produce summary estimates for the sensitivity and specificity [15] and “madauni” (https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/mada/versions/0.5.8/topics/madauni) for diagnosis odds ratio (DOR), provided by CRAN (The Comprehensive R Archive Network; https://cran.r-project.org/). Furthermore, a subanalysis of the quantitative synthesis was performed, dividing into tumor types, gliomas and metastatic brain tumors.

Results

Search results

Our database search for RQ1 yielded 188 papers. In addition, 13 records were identified from literature reviews. Of 201 papers, we excluded 34 because of duplication and 141 because they were case reports, featured incompatible contents, or had inadequate information. In the first screening, we identified 26 papers for full-text assessment. In the second screening, six papers were excluded because we could not identify the numbers of patients with true/false positive and negative results, or papers where a 2 × 2 table could not be constructed. Finally, we included 20 studies in the qualitative synthesis (Fig. 1; Table 1). The database search for RQ2 yielded 239 papers. In addition, 16 papers were identified from review articles. Of 255 papers, we excluded 37 because of duplication and 154 because of case reports, incompatible contents, or inadequate information. We selected 64 papers for the full-text screening; of these, 38 papers were excluded because of the inability of a 2 × 2 table construction. Finally, we selected 26 studies in the RQ2 meta-analysis (Fig. 1; Table 2).
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Flow diagrams of the study selection for RQ1 (conventional radiological imaging) and RQ2 (nuclear medicine imaging)

Table 1

Summary of studies for CQ1 (conventional radiological imaging)

References

Study Design

Patient

Exposure

Comparison

Outcome

Reference Standard

Dequesada 2008 [16]

Retrospective case series

32 Mets treated with SRS

MRI lesion quotient ≤ 0.3 (retrospective) (blinded review)

AV shunt, enhancement pattern, etc.

Sensitivity: 80%

Specificity: 96.4%

Accuracy: 94%

Histology for all 32 lesions (blinded review)

Leeman 2013 [17]

Retrospective case series

49 Mets

52 lesions treated with SRS

MRI edema/lesion volume ratio ≥ 10 (retrospective) (blinded review)

None

Sensitivity: 84.6%

Specificity: 62.9%

Accuracy: 69%

Histology obtained by removal in all 52 lesions

Santra 2011 [18]

Prospective cohort study

85 gliomas (16 GIVs, 28 GIIIs, 37GIIs, 4 GIs)

MRI Gd-enhancement (blinded review)

99mTc-GHA-PET (blinded review)

Sensitivity: 24.1%

Specificity: 94.6%

Accuracy: 71%

5 Histological and 80 clinical diagnosis (repeat imaging, F/U ≥ 6 mos)

Tie 2008 [19]

Retrospective case series (consecutive)

19 gliomas (21 examinations) (7 GBMs, 7 AAs, 5 AOs)

MRI T1, T2, FLAIR, GdT1 Radiological report

201Tl-SPECT

Sensitivity: 75%

Specificity: 64.7%

Accuracy: 67%

9 Histological and 12 clinical diagnosis (clinical course)

Di Costanzo 2014 [20]

Retrospective case series (consecutive)

29 GBMs

DWI ADC alone (higher)

 

Sensitivity: 87.5%

Specificity: 81.0%

Accuracy: 83%

Clinical diagnosis (≥4 F/U MRI, 2–6-mo interval) in all 29 cases

  

MRS Cho/Crn alone (lower)

 

Sensitivity: 75.0%

Specificity: 81.0%

Accuracy: 79%

 
  

PWI rCBV alone (lower)

 

Sensitivity: 87.5%

Specificity: 85.7%

Accuracy: 86%

 
  

MRS, DWI, and MRP Cho/Chon, ADC, CBV

 

Sensitivity: 100%

Specificity: 95.2%

Accuracy: 97%

 

Cha 2013 [21]

Retrospective case series (consecutive)

16 Mets treated with SRS

DWI 3 layer pattern of ADC

 

Sensitivity: 100%

Specificity: 87.5%

Accuracy: 94%

Histological diagnosis by removal in all 16 cases

  

MRP rCBV ≤ 4.1 (retrospective)

 

Sensitivity: 100%

Specificity: 71.4%

Accuracy: 88%

 
  

DWI and perfusion MRI

3 layer pattern ADC

with rCBV ≤ 2.6 or rCBV ≤ 4.1 (retrospective)

 

Sensitivity: 100%

Specificity: 100%

Accuracy: 100%

 

Amin 2012 [22]

Retrospective case series

24 primary brain tumors (7 GBMs, 12 AAs, 5 GI-IIAs)

MRS Cho/Cr < 1.5 and Cho/NAA < 1 (prospective)

99mTc-DMSA-PET

Sensitivity: 100%

Specificity: 61.1%

Accuracy: 71%

5 Histological (5B) and 19 clinical diagnosis (clinical course and F/U image)

Ando 2004 [23]

Retrospective case series

20 gliomas (10 GBMs, 2 AAs, 1 OD, 7 GI-IIAs)

MRS Cho/Cr < 1.5 (retrospective)

None

Sensitivity: 83.3%

Specificity: 64.3%

Accuracy: 70%

7 Histological and 13 clinical diagnosis (MRI F/U ≥ 1 year)

Elias 2011 [24]

Retrospective case series

27 intracranial neoplasms

MRS Cho/NAA < 0.92 (Retrospective)

MRS Higher NAA/Cr, lower Cho/nNAA

Sensitivity: 90%

Specificity: 86.7%

Accuracy: 88%

10 Histology and15 clinical diagnosis (3–6-mo F/U imaging)

Huang 2011 [25]

Retrospective case series

33 metastatic lesions

MRS 24 multivoxel MRS Cho/nCho ≤ 1.2 (retrospective)

 

Sensitivity: 100%

Specificity: 33.3%

Accuracy: 48%

4 Histological and 29 clinical diagnosis (F/U image)

  

MRP rCBV ≤ 2 (retrospective)

 

Sensitivity: 100%

Specificity: 55.6%

Accuracy: 70%

 

Nakajima T 2009 [26]

Retrospective case series

18 gliomas (8 GBMs, 6AAs, 4 DAs)

MRS Lac/Cho > 1.05 (retrospective)

MET-PET

Sensitivity: 88.9%

Specificity: 100%

Accuracy: 94%

14 Histological and 4 clinical diagnosis (clinical course and F/U image ≥6 mos)

Peca 2009 [27]

Retrospective case series

15 GBMs after Stupp protocol

MRS neither increased Cho nor decreased NAA

None

Sensitivity: 25%

Specificity: 100%

Accuracy: 80%

10 Histological and 5 clinical diagnosis (clinical and 3-mo interval MRI F/U)

Zeng IJROBP 2007 [28]

Prospective cohort study

55 HGGs (36 GIIIs, 19 GIVs)

MRS

Lower Cho/Cr and lower Cho/NAA

 

Sensitivity: 100%

Specificity: 93.8%

Accuracy: 96%

39 Histological (10B, 29R) and 16 clinical diagnosis (MRI F/U ≤ 22 mos)

  

Proton MRS and DWI

combination of Cho/Cr, Cho/NAA, ADC ratio (higher)

 

Sensitivity: 100%

Specificity: 93.8%

Accuracy: 96%

 

Zeng JNO 2007 [29]

Prospective cohort study

28 HGGs

(20 GIIIs, 8 GIVs)

proton MRS

Cho/Cr < 1.71, Cho/NAA < 1.71 (retrospective)

None

Sensitivity: 100%

Specificity: 94.1%

Accuracy: 96%

21 Histological (5B, 16R) and 7 clinical diagnosis (F/U MRI)

Jain 2011 [30]

Retrospective case series

38 brain tumors

PCT

rCBV ≤ 1.5

PS ≤ 2.5 (retrospective)

None

Sensitivity: 90.9, 81.8%

Specificity: 81.5, 81.5%

Accuracy: 84, 82%

Histological diagnosis in all 38 cases

Barajas 2009 [31]

Retrospective case series

57 GBMs (66 examinations)

MRP rPH < 1.38 (retrospective) (blinded review)

None

Sensitivity: 80%

Specificity: 89.1%

Accuracy: 86%

64 Histological (62R, 2B) and 2 clinical diagnosis (MRI F/U ≥ 22 mos)

Bisdas 2011 [32]

Prospective cohort study

18 HGGs

MRP

Ktrans ≤ 0.19

(retrospective)

None

Sensitivity: 83.3%

Specificity: 100%

Accuracy: 94%

5 Histological and 13 clinical diagnosis (MRI F/U ≥ 6 mos)

Bobek-Billewicz 2011 [33]

Retrospective case series

8 gliomas (11 lesions) (2 GBMs, 5 AAs, 1 DA)

MRP

Normalized CBVmean ≤ 1.25 (retrospective)

DWI

Sensitivity: 100%

Specificity: 60%

Accuracy: 82%

8 Histological and 3 clinical diagnosis (F/U image)

Kim 2010 [34]

Retrospective case series

10 HGGs

(5 GBMs, 3 AAs, 2 AOs)

MRP

normalized rCBV ≤ 3.69

(retrospective)

18F-FDG-PET, 11C-MET-PET

Sensitivity: 100%

Specificity: 100%

Accuracy: 100

3 Histological (3 R) and 7 clinical diagnosis (3-mo interval MRI F/U of 28 mos)

Narang J 2011 [35]

Retrospective case series

29 brain tumors (24 PBTs, 5 Mets)

MRP

nMSIVP < 0.031

(MSIVP ≤ 9.5)

(retrospective)

None

Sensitivity: 77.8%

Specificity: 95%

Accuracy: 90%

20 Histological and 9 clinical diagnosis (imaging and clinical F/U 13 mos)

Table 2

Summary of studies for CQ2 (nuclear medicine imaging)

References

Study Design

Patient

Exposure

Comparison

Outcome

Reference standard

Tie 2008 [19]

Retrospective case series (consecutive)

19 HGGs (7 GBMs, 7 AAs, 5 AOs) (21 exams)

201Tl-SPECT Visual assessment

MRI

Sensitivity 100.0%

Specificity 82.4%

Accuracy 85.7%

9 Histological and12 clinical diagnosis (clinical and MRI F/U 6 mos)

Gomez-Rio 2008 [36]

Prospective cohort study

Gliomas (44 HGGs, 32 LGGs)

201Tl-SPECT

Visual assessment

(blind review)

Tl-SPECT + MRI vs

FDG-PET + MRI

Sensitivity 85.7%

Specificity 92.7%

Accuracy 90.8%

23 Histological and 53 clinical diagnosis (F/U image)

Kahn 1994 [37]

Prospective cohort study

17 Gliomas, 1 Met, 1 esthesioblastoma

201Tl-SPECT Tl index

 

Sensitivity 40.0%

Specificity 68.8%

Accuracy 61.9%

5 Histological and 14 clinical diagnosis (clinical F/U) (blinded review)

  

18F-FDG-PET

PET grade (visual assessment)

 

Sensitivity 40.0%

Specificity 81.3%

Accuracy 71.4%

 

Matsunaga 2013 [38]

Retrospective case series

27 Gliomas, 48 Mets (107 lesions)

201Tl-SPECT

Retention index ≤0.775 (retrospective)

None

Sensitivity 83.3%

Specificity 83.1%

Accuracy 83.2%

19 Histological and 88 clinical diagnosis (clinical and MRI F/U)

Stokkel 1999 [39]

Prospective cohort study

16 Gliomas

201Tl-SPECT

Tl uptake index

 

Sensitivity 100.0%

Specificity 100.0%

Accuracy 100.0%

2 Histological and14 clinical diagnosis (clinical and imaging F/U of 12 mos)

  

18F-FDG-PET

FDG grade (5-point scale)

 

Sensitivity 100.0%

Specificity 66.7%

Accuracy 75.0%

 

Yamamoto 2002 [40]

Retrospective case series

14 Gliomas, 4 Mets, 1 ML, 1 MM, 1 HPC

201Tl-SPECT

L/N <  2.4

(retrospective)

 

Sensitivity 83.3%

Specificity 93.3%

Accuracy 90.5%

10 Histological and 11 clinical diagnosis (F/U MRI for 10 mos)

  

Tc-MIBI –SPECT

L/N < 5.89

(retrospective)

 

Sensitivity 83.3%

Specificity 93.3%

Accuracy 90.5%

 

Le Jeune 2006 [41]

Retrospective case series

81 Gliomas

Tc-MIBI –SPECT

L/N <  2.0 (retrospective)

None

Sensitivity 93.2%

Specificity 90.3%

Accuracy 91.5%

14 Histological (14 B) and 67 clinical diagnosis (clinical and image F/U ≥ 6 mos)

Barai 2004 [42]

Retrospective case series (consecutive)

73 Glioma

99mTc-GHA-SPECT

GHA index (L/N)

< 2.0 (retrospective) (blind review)

None

Sensitivity 81.0%

Specificity 98.1%

Accuracy 93.2%

Clinical diagnosis (clinical F/U) in all 73 patients

Belohlávek 2003 [43]

Retrospective case series (consecutive)

25 Mets

(57 lesions)

18F-FDG-PET

Visual assessment

(blind review)

MRI

Sensitivity 93.9%

Specificity 75.0%

Accuracy 92.2%

3 Histological and 54 clinical diagnosis (clinical and imaging F/U ≤ 26 weeks)

Chao 2001 [44]

Retrospective case series

15 Glioma, 32 Mets

44 lesions (8 glioma, 36 Mets)

18F-FDG-PET

Visual assessment

None

Sensitivity 81.3%

Specificity 75.0%

Accuracy 77.3%

17 Histological and 27 clinical diagnosis (imaging F/U of 5.6 mos)

Horky 2011 [45]

Retrospective case series (consecutive)

32 Mets

25 patients with 27 lesions, 28 scans

18F-FDG-PET

L/N SUVmax change over time (ROC cutoff ≤ 0.19) (retrospective)

None

Sensitivity 100.0%

Specificity 94.7%

Accuracy 96.7%

17 Histological and 13 clinical diagnosis (MRI F/U ≥ 6 mos)

Karunanithi 2013 [46]

Prospective cohort study

28 Gliomas

18F-FDG-PET

Visual assessment (T/W ratio ≤ 0.9) (retrospective) (blind review)

18F-DOPA-PET

Sensitivity 100.0%

Specificity 47.6%

Accuracy 60.7%

4 Histological and 24 clinical diagnosis (clinical and imaging F/U)

Ozsunar 2010 [47]

Prospective cohort study

30 Gliomas

26 PET evaluations

18F-FDG-PET

Visual assessment

(blind review)

ASL imaging, DSCE-CBV imaging

Sensitivity 90.0%

Specificity 81.3%

Accuracy 84.6%

Histological diagnosis in all 35 evaluations

Takenaka 2014 [48]

Retrospective case series

(consecutive)

50 Gliomas

18F-FDG-PET

L/N ratio ≤ 1.26

(retrospective)

11C-Cho-PET

Sensitivity 75.0%

Specificity 76.5%

Accuracy 76.0%

Histological diagnosis in all 50 patients

  

11C-MET-PET

L/N ratio ≤ 2.51 (retrospective)

11C-Cho-PET

Sensitivity 87.5%

Specificity 91.2%

Accuracy 90.0%

 

Tan 2011 [49]

Retrospective

case series

37 Gliomas, 15 Mets,

1 neuroblastoma,

1 lymphoma,

1 germinoma

18F-FDG-PET

visual assessment

11C-Cho-PET

Sensitivity 62.5%

Specificity 76.9%

Accuracy 72.7%

17 Histological and 38 clinical diagnosis (3-m interval MRI F/U ≥ 11 mos)

Okamoto 2011 [50]

Retrospective case series

29 Gliomas and Mets

33 lesions

11C-MET-PET

L/N ratio ≤ 1.4

(retrospective)

None

Sensitivity 90.0%

Specificity 91.3%

Accuracy 90.9%

14 Histological and 19 clinical diagnosis (MRI over 2 yrs)

Tsuyuguchi 2004 [51]

Retrospective case series

11 HGGs (8 GBMs, 3 AAs)

11C-MET-PET

Visual assessment

Health volunteers

Sensitivity 100.0%

Specificity 60.0%

Accuracy 81.8%

8 Histological and 3 clinical diagnosis (clinical and MRI F/U ≥ 5 mos)

Yamane 2010 [52]

Retrospective case series (consecutive)

80 brain neoplasms (47scans)

11C-MET-PET visual assessment

None

Sensitivity 100.0%

Specificity 88.1%

Accuracy 89.4%

30 Histological and 34 clinical diagnosis (clinical and imaging F/U of 435 days)

Terakawa 2008 [53]

Retrospective

case series

26 Gliomas, 51 Mets

88 PETs

11C-MET-PET

L/Nmean ratio

Met ≤ 1.41

Glioma ≤ 1.58

(retrospective)

None

Sensitivity 75.0%

Specificity 77.5%

Accuracy 76.1%

44 Histological and 44 clinical diagnosis (MRI F/U ≥ 6mos)

Saginoya 2012 [54]

Retrospective case series

14 gliomas, 23 Mets, 2 lymphoma (49 scans)

11C-MET-PET

L/N ratio ≤ 1.33

(retrospective)

None

Sensitivity 100.0%

Specificity 72.0%

Accuracy 85.7%

Histological and clinical diagnosis (imaging F/U ≥ 6 mos)

Kawai 2008 [55]

Retrospective case series

11 HGGs (13 scans), 14 Mets (15 scans)

11C-MET-PET

SUVmax ≤ 2.5 (glioma) (retrospective)

18F-FLT-PET

Sensitivity 77.8%

Specificity 76.9%

Accuracy 77.3%

12 histological and 10 clinical diagnosis (MRI F/U ≥ 1 yr)

Sunada 2001 [56]

Retrospective case series

26 Mets (33 lesions)

11C-MET-PET visual assessment, T/N ratio

None

Sensitivity 83.3%

Specificity 100.0%

Accuracy 90.9%

7 histological and 26 clinical diagnosis (imaging F/U ≥ 6 mos)

Pӧpperl 2004 [57]

Retrospective case series

53 Gliomas (27 GIVs, 16 GIIIs, 9 GIIs, 1 GI)

18F-FET-PET

SUVmax/BG ratio ≤ 2.0 (retrospective)

None

Sensitivity 100.0%

Specificity 100.0%

Accuracy 100.0%

27 histological and 26 clinical diagnosis (clinical F/U of 34 mos)

Rachinger 2005 [58]

Retrospective case series (consecutive)

45 Gliomas (22 GIVs, 12 GIIIs, 10 GIIs, 1 GI)

18F-FET-PET

SUV MAX ≤ 2.2 (prospective)

MRI

Sensitivity 92.9%

Specificity 100.0%

Accuracy 97.8%

32 histological and 13 clinical diagnosis (clinical F/U)

Galldiks 2012 [59]

Retrospective case series (consecutive)

31 Mets (40 lesions)

18F-FET-PET

TBR(tumor-to-brain ratio) mean ≤ 1.95 (retrospective)

None

Sensitivity 90.5%

Specificity 73.7%

Accuracy 82.5%

11 histological and 29 clinical diagnosis (clinical and MRI F/U of 12 mos)

Miyashita 2008 [60]

Retrospective case series

38 Gliomas, 2 Mets, 2 Head and Neck cancers (49 scans)

18F-BPA-PET

L/Nmean ratio ≤ 2.5 (retrospective)

None

Sensitivity 100.0%

Specificity 97.2%

Accuracy 98.0%

44 histological and 5 clinical diagnosis (MRI F/U > 4 mos)

Meta-analysis

For RQ1, gadolinium (Gd)-enhanced MRI, DWI, MRS, and CT/MR perfusion were identified as methods to diagnose BRN. The Gd-MRI analysis was included four studies [1619], the DWI analysis was included in two studies [20, 21], and the MRS analysis was included nine studies [20, 2229]. The CT and MRI perfusion analyses were included in 1 [30] and eight studies [20, 21, 25, 3135]. In these studies, the combination of multiple imaging (DWI and MRS, DWI and perfusion MRI, or DWI, MRS, and perfusion MRI) was also evaluated in three studies [20, 21, 28]. Additional file 2 describes the characteristics of studies included in the analysis of each modality. Figure 2 shows forest plots of each study in RQ1. In 26 studies for RQ2, SPECT, with a tracer of 201Tl, 99mTc-methoxyisobutylisonitrile (MIBI), and 99mTc-glucoheptonate (GHA), and PET, with a tracer of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), 11C-methionine (MET), 18F-fluoroethyltyrosine (FET), and 18F-boronophenylalanine (BPA), were used to differentiate between BRN and TP. The analyses of 201Tl-, 99mTc- MIBI-, and 99mTc- GHA-SPECT included six studies [19, 3640], two studies [40, 41], and one study [42], respectively. The analyses of 18F-FDG-, 11C-MET-, 18F-FET-, and 18F-BPA-PET included nine studies [37, 39, 4349], eight studies [48, 5056], three studies [5759], and one study [60], respectively. Additional file 2 describes information about each study. Figure 3 shows forest plots of RQ2 study.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

The forest plot of each study for RQ1 (conventional radiological imaging)

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

The forest plot of each study in RQ2 (nuclear medicine imaging)

Figure 4 shows the pooled estimates of the diagnostic accuracy and SROC curves of the radiological imaging techniques. Combined imaging (DWI and MRS, DWI and perfusion MRI, or DWI, MRS, and perfusion MRI) exhibited the highest sensitivity (96%; 95% CI: 83–99%), and 18F-FET-PET exhibited the highest specificity (95%; 95% CI: 61–99%), resulting in high DORs. Conversely, the sensitivity of Gd-enhanced MRI was the lowest (63%; 95% CI: 28–89%), and the specificity of 18F-FDG-PET was the lowest (72%; 95% CI: 64–79%), which contributed to low DORs. Although the DOR of combined imaging (DWI and MRS, DWI and perfusion MRI, or DWI, MRS, and perfusion MRI) was the highest among all radiological imaging techniques, the DORs of perfusion MRI, DWI, and MRS were not high (MRP: 3.5, DWI: 3.4, and MRS: 3.0; Fig. 4).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Pooled estimates of the diagnostic accuracy and summary receiver operating characteristic curves of the radiological imaging in all included studies

In the subanalysis dividing into tumor types, gliomas and metastatic brain tumors, 23 studies included only gliomas and eight studies included only metastatic brain tumors. In addition, 14 studies included patients with various brain tumors; of these, 9 studies could be categorized into patients with glioma and patients with metastatic brain tumors. Excluding radiological imaging with a single study, Gd-enhanced MRI, MRS, perfusion, MRI, combined imaging (DWI and MRS, DWI and perfusion MRI, or DWI, MRS, and perfusion MRI), SPECT with 201Tl and 99mTc, and PET with 18F-FDG, 11C-MET, and 18F-FET were quantitatively synthesized in the subanalysis for gliomas (Fig. 5). Combined imaging (DWI and MRS, DWI and perfusion MRI, or DWI, MRS, and perfusion MRI) exhibited the highest sensitivity (97%; 95% CI: 80–100%), and 18F-FET-PET exhibited the highest specificity (99%; 95% CI: 91–100%), which resulted in higher DORs among radiological imaging for gliomas. Conversely, Gd-enhanced MRI and 18F-FDG-PET exhibited the lowest sensitivity (48%; 95% CI: 8–90%) and specificity (70%; 95% CI: 58–81%), respectively, among imaging for gliomas; these 2 studies had low DORs. In the subanalysis of metastatic brain tumors, Gd-enhanced MRI, perfusion MRI, 201Tl-SPECT, 18F-FDG-, and 11C-MET-PET were included in the meta-analysis (Fig. 6). Perfusion MRI exhibited the highest sensitivity (95%; 95% CI: 72–99%) but the lowest specificity (59%; 95% CI: 40–76%) among imaging for metastatic brain tumors. Thus, DORs were almost the same among these 5 imaging methods. Comparing between gliomas and metastatic brain tumors, Gd-enhanced MRI and 18F-FDG-PET declined the diagnostic accuracy of differentiating between BRN and TP in patients with glioma than that in patients with metastatic brain tumors. However, we observed no difference in the diagnostic accuracy between gliomas and metastatic brain tumors in perfusion MRI, 201Tl-SPECT, and 11C-MET-PET.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Pooled estimates of the diagnostic accuracy and summary receiver operating characteristic curves of the radiological imaging in studies for gliomas

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Pooled estimates of the diagnostic accuracy and summary receiver operating characteristic curves of the radiological imaging in studies for metastatic brain tumors

Quality assessment

In this study, we assessed the risk of bias in accordance with QUADAS-2 (Fig. 7). Regarding patient selection, no randomized studies were included in our research results. While nine prospective cohort studies were identified [18, 28, 29, 32, 36, 37, 39, 46, 47], the remaining 36 studies were retrospective. Of 36 retrospective studies, patients were consecutively enrolled in 10 studies [1921, 42, 43, 45, 48, 52, 58, 59]. In the index testing, the cutoff values of diagnostic parameters were preset and prospectively assessed in two studies but without blinding [22, 58]. In addition, cutoff values of diagnostic parameters were retrospectively exhibited with the diagnostic accuracy in other 28 studies; of these 28 studies, the cutoff values of diagnostic parameters were blindly measured in only five studies [16, 17, 31, 42, 46]. Only six studies used histopathology as the reference standard for all patients [16, 17, 21, 30, 47, 48], while two studies adopted clinical diagnosis as the reference standard [20, 42]. The remaining studies used the clinical diagnosis as the reference standard for some patients; in these studies, the clinical diagnosis was obtained from clinical and imaging follow-up. Of note, radiation necrosis was diagnosed if the clinical course was stable, and/or if the tumor was stable or shrunk or disappeared on a follow-up image. In most studies, the follow-up period was > 6 months. Only one study blindly reviewed the reference standard [16]. Regarding the applicability, patient selection was applicable to the RQ, but a nonblinded review of index tests and retrospectively-set cutoff values were not applicable to the RQ because of a high risk of bias-favoring index tests. Furthermore, studies that included clinical diagnosis as the reference standard had a high risk of bias and were not applicable to the RQ because radiological imaging data were usually included for clinical diagnosis.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Clustered bar graphs of quality results on the QUADAS-2 criteria tool

Several factors were associated with indirectness. As mentioned in the subanalysis, various brain tumors were included in the studies. Regarding the index test, parameters and cutoff values were different among studies with the same imaging modality. Notably, six different parameters were used among studies for MRS, and four different parameters were used among studies for perfusion MRI. Regarding cutoff values, the L/N ratio was mostly used in four studies with 11C-MET-PET; however, cutoff values were different among these studies. Studies with Gd-MRI, MRS, 201Tl-SPECT, and 18F-FDG-PET reported inconsistency in the sensitivity. In these imaging studies, one study revealed low sensitivity unlike the remaining studies reporting high sensitivity. In this review, most of the included studies had a large 95% CI as imprecision because of the small sample size. Notably, 33 (71.7%) studies included patients/lesions/scans < 50, and only one study included lesions > 100. The small sample size could be a bias to include specific patients only.

Discussion

The meta-analysis revealed a trend that the sensitivity was generally higher than the specificity in all radiological imaging methods; that is, TP was occasionally misdiagnosed as BRN by these imaging methods. 18F-FET-PET and 99mTc-MIBI-SPECT exhibited a high DOR. These nuclear medicine imaging techniques reflect cellular metabolism like amino acid transportation and transportation by P-glycoprotein; however, these were difficult to gain widespread use because of expensive specific apparatus and facilities. Conversely, the combination of DWI, MRS, and perfusion imaging exhibited the highest DOR among all imaging studies. Even with MRI, combined information with multiple parameters, including lesional metabolism and blood flow, enhanced the diagnostic accuracy, facilitating the differentiation between BRN and TP in conventional radiological imaging. In the subanalysis, Gd-enhanced MRI and 18F-FDG-PET revealed a low DOR and were useless to differentiate between BRN and TP in patients with glioma. In metastatic brain tumors, however, no difference was noted in the DORs among all radiological imaging methods. Hence, BRN could be diagnosed using any radiological imaging, such as Gd-enhanced MRI in metastatic brain tumors, and it is imperative to use specific imaging modality like combined imaging or new nuclear medicine for the diagnosis of BRN in gliomas.

In this review, many studies had a risk of bias. We included no randomized controlled trial, and only nine prospective cohort studies had a low risk of patient selection [18, 28, 29, 32, 36, 37, 39, 46, 47]. In addition, 26 (56.5%) studies were retrospective and had a bias to enroll a particular population of patients. In only two studies, a cutoff value for the best discrimination between BRN and TP was preset [22, 58]. Of note, retrospectively-set cutoff values could be overestimated and should be prospectively validated in future studies. Regarding the reference standard, histology was taken from all patients in only six studies (13%) [16, 17, 21, 30, 47, 48]. In studies using the clinical diagnosis as the reference standard, BRN was primarily if the clinical status and radiologically identified lesions were stable > 6 months. Hence, there was a possibility of confounding between the index test and the reference.

Regarding indirectness, various brain tumors were included. Reportedly, the development of radiation necrosis correlated with the total radiation dose, fraction size, treatment duration, and irradiated volume [61]; these factors of radiotherapy are different in applied radiotherapy between glioma and metastatic brain tumors. In addition, variable tumor cells and necrosis usually coexist in glioma after radiotherapy. Mixed lesions with tumor cells and necrosis render distinguishing between BRN and TP challenging even by histological examination. Thus, it is ideal to analyze the diagnostic accuracy of radiological imaging, dividing into glioma and metastatic brain tumors in the systematic review. Notably, diagnostic parameters were different among studies using the same imaging method. Moreover, when the same parameters were used for the same imaging method, the cutoff values were different among the studies, similar to those with L/N ratios for 11C-MET-PET. This, imprecision should be considered when assessing study results. In this review, strong evidence could not be obtained owing to the quantitative synthesis of studies with small sample size. We focused on PET with glucose and amino acid tracers as PET studies because several studies with these PET were published, which could be suitable for the meta-analysis. However, recent PET studies with new tracers, like 18F-DOPA, reported good results of differentiation between BRN and TP [62, 63]. In the near future, PET with new tracers would be investigated for the diagnostic accuracy in a meta-analysis after the adequate accumulation of studies. Recently, a PET/MRI study reported that FDG-PET/MRI could predict the local tumor control after stereotactic radiosurgery in patients with brain metastases [64]. Moreover, Jena et al. used PET/MRI for differentiating between BRN and TP in patients with glioma [65, 66]. Notably, PET/MRI can simultaneously evaluate lesions with several parameters including not only the tracer uptake but also ADC, chemical shifts, and CBV. Like the highest diagnostic accuracy of combination imaging with DWI, MRS, and/or perfusion MRI in this review, PET/MRI could exhibit high diagnostic accuracy in a future systematic review.

Conclusions

In the systematic review for diagnosing BRN, 20 studies for conventional radiological imaging and 26 studies for nuclear medicine studies were identified. All studies had small sample size, and many carried a risk of bias and indirectness. This review reveals that it is difficult to draw a firm conclusion as to which is the best imaging study for the BRN diagnosis. In patients with glioma, Gd-enhanced MRI and 18F-FDG-PET were unlikely to diagnose BRN, although the diagnostic ability was almost the same among included imaging in metastatic brain tumors. Combined imaging methods that include metabolic and blood flow imaging methods demonstrated the highest DOR among all imaging studies. The development of multiparametric imaging techniques could enhance the diagnostic accuracy for differentiating between BRN and TP in the future.

Notes

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mr. Miyamoto and Mses Matsumoto, Tajima, and Murakami from the Osaka Medical College Library for the comprehensive systematic search.

Funding

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP17K10911 given to MF from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

S-IM developed the search strategy. MF and KY performed the literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment for RQ1. NN and TS performed the literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment for RQ2. J-DC analyzed data. NK and SK prepared figures and tables. MF and NN drafted the manuscript. S-IM and TK supervised and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Neurosurgery, Osaka Medical College, 2-7, Daigakumachi, Takatsuki, Osaka 569-8686, Japan
(2)
Department of Radiology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
(3)
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
(4)
Infections and Cancer Epidemiology Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France

References

  1. Nordal RA, Nagy A, Pintilie M, Wong CS. Hypoxia and hypoxia-inducible factor-1 target genes in central nervous system radiation injury: a role for vascular endothelial growth factor. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:3342–53.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Kureshi SA, Hofman FM, Schneider JH, Chin LS, Apuzzo ML, Hinton DR. Cytokine expression in radiation-induced delayed cerebral injury. Neurosurgery. 1994;35:822–9 discussion 829-830.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Nonoguchi N, Miyatake S, Fukumoto M, Furuse M, Hiramatsu R, Kawabata S, Kuroiwa T, Tsuji M, Ono K. The distribution of vascular endothelial growth factor-producing cells in clinical radiation necrosis of the brain: pathological consideration of their potential roles. J Neuro-Oncol. 2011;105:423–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Yoritsune E, Furuse M, Kuwabara H, Miyata T, Nonoguchi N, Kawabata S, Hayasaki H, Kuroiwa T, Ono K, Shibayama Y, Miyatake S. Inflammation as well as angiogenesis may participate in the pathophysiology of brain radiation necrosis. J Radiat Res. 2014;55:803–11.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Miyata T, Toho T, Nonoguchi N, Furuse M, Kuwabara H, Yoritsune E, Kawabata S, Kuroiwa T, Miyatake S. The roles of platelet-derived growth factors and their receptors in brain radiation necrosis. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9:51.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Li YQ, Ballinger JR, Nordal RA, Su ZF, Wong CS. Hypoxia in radiation-induced blood-spinal cord barrier breakdown. Cancer Res. 2001;61:3348–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Martins AN, Johnston JS, Henry JM, Stoffel TJ, Di Chiro G. Delayed radiation necrosis of the brain. J Neurosurg. 1977;47:336–45.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehrenfeld CE, Maschke M, Dorfler A, Reinhardt V, Koeppen S. Is stereotactic biopsy a reliable method to differentiate tumor from radiation necrosis? Clin Neuropathol. 2002;21:9–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gonzalez J, Kumar AJ, Conrad CA, Levin VA. Effect of bevacizumab on radiation necrosis of the brain. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:323–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Levin VA, Bidaut L, Hou P, Kumar AJ, Wefel JS, Bekele BN, Grewal J, Prabhu S, Loghin M, Gilbert MR, Jackson EF. Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of bevacizumab therapy for radiation necrosis of the central nervous system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79:1487–95.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Furuse M, Kawabata S, Kuroiwa T, Miyatake S. Repeated treatments with bevacizumab for recurrent radiation necrosis in patients with malignant brain tumors: a report of 2 cases. J Neuro-Oncol. 2011;102:471–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Furuse M, Nonoguchi N, Kuroiwa T, Miyamoto S, Arakawa Y, Shinoda J, Miwa K, Iuchi T, Tsuboi K, Houkin K, et al. A prospective, multicentre, single-arm clinical trial of bevacizumab for patients with surgically untreatable, symptomatic brain radiation necrosisdagger. Neurooncol Pract. 2016;3:272–80.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:982–90.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Dequesada IM, Quisling RG, Yachnis A, Friedman WA. Can standard magnetic resonance imaging reliably distinguish recurrent tumor from radiation necrosis after radiosurgery for brain metastases? A radiographic-pathological study. Neurosurgery. 2008;63:898–903 discussion 904.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Leeman JE, Clump DA, Flickinger JC, Mintz AH, Burton SA, Heron DE. Extent of perilesional edema differentiates radionecrosis from tumor recurrence following stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases. Neuro-Oncology. 2013;15:1732–8.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Santra A, Sharma P, Kumar R, Bal C, Kumar A, Julka PK, Malhotra A. Comparison of glucoheptonate single photon emission computed tomography and contrast-enhanced MRI in detection of recurrent glioma. Nucl Med Commun. 2011;32:206–11.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Tie J, Gunawardana DH, Rosenthal MA. Differentiation of tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis in high-grade gliomas using 201Tl-SPECT. J Clin Neurosci. 2008;15:1327–34.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Di Costanzo A, Scarabino T, Trojsi F, Popolizio T, Bonavita S, de Cristofaro M, Conforti R, Cristofano A, Colonnese C, Salvolini U, Tedeschi G. Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme versus radiation injury: a multiparametric 3-T MR approach. Radiol Med. 2014;119:616–24.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Cha J, Kim ST, Kim HJ, Kim BJ, Jeon P, Kim KH, Byun HS. Analysis of the layering pattern of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for differentiation of radiation necrosis from tumour progression. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:879–86.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Amin A, Moustafa H, Ahmed E, El-Toukhy M. Glioma residual or recurrence versus radiation necrosis: accuracy of pentavalent technetium-99m-dimercaptosuccinic acid [Tc-99m (V) DMSA] brain SPECT compared to proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS): initial results. J Neuro-Oncol. 2012;106:579–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Ando K, Ishikura R, Nagami Y, Morikawa T, Takada Y, Ikeda J, Nakao N, Matsumoto T, Arita N. Usefulmess of Cho/Cr ratio in proton MR spectroscopy for differentiating residual/recurrent glioma from non-neoplastic lesions. Nippon. Acta Radiol. 2004;64:121–6.Google Scholar
  24. Elias AE, Carlos RC, Smith EA, Frechtling D, George B, Maly P, Sundgren PC. MR spectroscopy using normalized and non-normalized metabolite ratios for differentiating recurrent brain tumor from radiation injury. Acad Radiol. 2011;18:1101–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Huang J, Wang AM, Shetty A, Maitz AH, Yan D, Doyle D, Richey K, Park S, Pieper DR, Chen PY, Grills IS. Differentiation between intra-axial metastatic tumor progression and radiation injury following fractionated radiation therapy or stereotactic radiosurgery using MR spectroscopy, perfusion MR imaging or volume progression modeling. Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;29:993–1001.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Nakajima T, Kumabe T, Kanamori M, Saito R, Tashiro M, Watanabe M, Tominaga T. Differential diagnosis between radiation necrosis and glioma progression using sequential proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy and methionine positron emission tomography. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2009;49:394–401.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Peca C, Pacelli R, Elefante A, Del Basso De Caro ML, Vergara P, Mariniello G, Giamundo A, Maiuri F. Early clinical and neuroradiological worsening after radiotherapy and concomitant temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma: tumour progression or radionecrosis? Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2009;111:331–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Zeng QS, Li CF, Liu H, Zhen JH, Feng DC. Distinction between recurrent glioma and radiation injury using magnetic resonance spectroscopy in combination with diffusion-weighted imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68:151–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Zeng QS, Li CF, Zhang K, Liu H, Kang XS, Zhen JH. Multivoxel 3D proton MR spectroscopy in the distinction of recurrent glioma from radiation injury. J Neuro-Oncol. 2007;84:63–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Jain R, Narang J, Schultz L, Scarpace L, Saksena S, Brown S, Rock JP, Rosenblum M, Gutierrez J, Mikkelsen T. Permeability estimates in histopathology-proved treatment-induced necrosis using perfusion CT: can these add to other perfusion parameters in differentiating from recurrent/progressive tumors? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32:658–63.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Barajas RF Jr, Chang JS, Segal MR, Parsa AT, McDermott MW, Berger MS, Cha S. Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radiation therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology. 2009;253:486–96.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Bisdas S, Naegele T, Ritz R, Dimostheni A, Pfannenberg C, Reimold M, Koh TS, Ernemann U. Distinguishing recurrent high-grade gliomas from radiation injury: a pilot study using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Acad Radiol. 2011;18:575–83.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Bobek-Billewicz B, Stasik-Pres G, Majchrzak H, Zarudzki L. Differentiation between brain tumor recurrence and radiation injury using perfusion, diffusion-weighted imaging and MR spectroscopy. Folia Neuropathol. 2010;48:81–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim YH, Oh SW, Lim YJ, Park CK, Lee SH, Kang KW, Jung HW, Chang KH. Differentiating radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence in high-grade gliomas: assessing the efficacy of 18F-FDG PET, 11C-methionine PET and perfusion MRI. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2010;112:758–65.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Narang J, Jain R, Arbab AS, Mikkelsen T, Scarpace L, Rosenblum ML, Hearshen D, Babajani-Feremi A. Differentiating treatment-induced necrosis from recurrent/progressive brain tumor using nonmodel-based semiquantitative indices derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR perfusion. Neuro-Oncology. 2011;13:1037–46.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Gomez-Rio M, Rodriguez-Fernandez A, Ramos-Font C, Lopez-Ramirez E, Llamas-Elvira JM. Diagnostic accuracy of 201Thallium-SPECT and 18F-FDG-PET in the clinical assessment of glioma recurrence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:966–75.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Kahn D, Follett KA, Bushnell DL, Nathan MA, Piper JG, Madsen M, Kirchner PT. Diagnosis of recurrent brain tumor: value of 201Tl SPECT vs 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;163:1459–65.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Matsunaga S, Shuto T, Takase H, Ohtake M, Tomura N, Tanaka T, Sonoda M. Semiquantitative analysis using thallium-201 SPECT for differential diagnosis between tumor recurrence and radiation necrosis after gamma knife surgery for malignant brain tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:47–52.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Stokkel M, Stevens H, Taphoorn M, Van Rijk P. Differentiation between recurrent brain tumour and post-radiation necrosis: the value of 201Tl SPET versus 18F-FDG PET using a dual-headed coincidence camera--a pilot study. Nucl Med Commun. 1999;20:411–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Yamamoto Y, Nishiyama Y, Toyama Y, Kunishio K, Satoh K, Ohkawa M. 99mTc-MIBI and 201Tl SPET in the detection of recurrent brain tumours after radiation therapy. Nucl Med Commun. 2002;23:1183–90.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Le Jeune FP, Dubois F, Blond S, Steinling M. Sestamibi technetium-99m brain single-photon emission computed tomography to identify recurrent glioma in adults: 201 studies. J Neuro-Oncol. 2006;77:177–83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Barai S, Bandopadhayaya GP, Julka PK, Naik KK, Haloi AK, Kumar R, Seith A, Malhotra A. Role of Tc-glucoheptonic acid brain single photon emission computed tomography in differentiation of recurrent brain tumour and post-radiation gliosis. Australas Radiol. 2004;48:296–301.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Belohlavek O, Simonova G, Kantorova I, Novotny J Jr, Liscak R. Brain metastases after stereotactic radiosurgery using the Leksell gamma knife: can FDG PET help to differentiate radionecrosis from tumour progression? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:96–100.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Chao ST, Suh JH, Raja S, Lee SY, Barnett G. The sensitivity and specificity of FDG PET in distinguishing recurrent brain tumor from radionecrosis in patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Cancer. 2001;96:191–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Horky LL, Hsiao EM, Weiss SE, Drappatz J, Gerbaudo VH. Dual phase FDG-PET imaging of brain metastases provides superior assessment of recurrence versus post-treatment necrosis. J Neuro-Oncol. 2011;103:137–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Karunanithi S, Sharma P, Kumar A, Khangembam BC, Bandopadhyaya GP, Kumar R, Gupta DK, Malhotra A, Bal C. 18F-FDOPA PET/CT for detection of recurrence in patients with glioma: prospective comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1025–35.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Ozsunar Y, Mullins ME, Kwong K, Hochberg FH, Ament C, Schaefer PW, Gonzalez RG, Lev MH. Glioma recurrence versus radiation necrosis? A pilot comparison of arterial spin-labeled, dynamic susceptibility contrast enhanced MRI, and FDG-PET imaging. Acad Radiol. 2010;17:282–90.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Takenaka S, Asano Y, Shinoda J, Nomura Y, Yonezawa S, Miwa K, Yano H, Iwama T. Comparison of (11)C-methionine, (11)C-choline, and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET for distinguishing glioma recurrence from radiation necrosis. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2014;54:280–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Tan H, Chen L, Guan Y, Lin X. Comparison of MRI, F-18 FDG, and 11C-choline PET/CT for their potentials in differentiating brain tumor recurrence from brain tumor necrosis following radiotherapy. Clin Nucl Med. 2011;36:978–81.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Okamoto S, Shiga T, Hattori N, Kubo N, Takei T, Katoh N, Sawamura Y, Nishijima K, Kuge Y, Tamaki N. Semiquantitative analysis of C-11 methionine PET may distinguish brain tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis even in small lesions. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:213–20.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Tsuyuguchi N, Takami T, Sunada I, Iwai Y, Yamanaka K, Tanaka K, Nishikawa M, Ohata K, Torii K, Morino M, et al. Methionine positron emission tomography for differentiation of recurrent brain tumor and radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery--in malignant glioma. Ann Nucl Med. 2004;18:291–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Yamane T, Sakamoto S, Senda M. Clinical impact of (11)C-methionine PET on expected management of patients with brain neoplasm. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:685–90.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Terakawa Y, Tsuyuguchi N, Iwai Y, Yamanaka K, Higashiyama S, Takami T, Ohata K. Diagnostic accuracy of 11C-methionine PET for differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from radiation necrosis after radiotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:694–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Saginoya T, Tomura N, Mizuno Y, Kikuchi Y, Watanabe K. Differentiation between tumor recurrence and radiation necrosis using 11C-methionine PET/CT. Eizojoho Med. 2012;44:669–73.Google Scholar
  55. Kawai N, Hatakeyama T, Tamiya T, Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto Y, Ichikawa T, Nagao S. Is it possible to differentiate between radiation necrosis and recurrence of brain tumors using positron emission tomography? Prog Comput Imaging. 2008;30:1–11.Google Scholar
  56. Sunada I, Tsuyuguchi N, Hara M, Ochi H. Utility of positron emission tomography using 11C-methionine in differentiating recurrent metastatic brain tumor from radiation necrosis. J Osaka Med Assoc. 2001;35:72–5.Google Scholar
  57. Popperl G, Gotz C, Rachinger W, Gildehaus FJ, Tonn JC, Tatsch K. Value of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)- L-tyrosine PET for the diagnosis of recurrent glioma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:1464–70.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Rachinger W, Goetz C, Popperl G, Gildehaus FJ, Kreth FW, Holtmannspotter M, Herms J, Koch W, Tatsch K, Tonn JC. Positron emission tomography with O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of recurrent gliomas. Neurosurgery. 2005;57:505–11 discussion 505-511.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Galldiks N, Stoffels G, Filss CP, Piroth MD, Sabel M, Ruge MI, Herzog H, Shah NJ, Fink GR, Coenen HH, Langen KJ. Role of O-(2-(18)F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET for differentiation of local recurrent brain metastasis from radiation necrosis. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1367–74.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Miyashita M, Miyatake S, Imahori Y, Yokoyama K, Kawabata S, Kajimoto Y, Shibata MA, Otsuki Y, Kirihata M, Ono K, Kuroiwa T. Evaluation of fluoride-labeled boronophenylalanine-PET imaging for the study of radiation effects in patients with glioblastomas. J Neuro-Oncol. 2008;89:239–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Ruben JD, Dally M, Bailey M, Smith R, McLean CA, Fedele P. Cerebral radiation necrosis: incidence, outcomes, and risk factors with emphasis on radiation parameters and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:499–508.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Cicone F, Minniti G, Romano A, Papa A, Scaringi C, Tavanti F, Bozzao A, Maurizi Enrici R, Scopinaro F. Accuracy of F-DOPA PET and perfusion-MRI for differentiating radionecrotic from progressive brain metastases after radiosurgery. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:103–11.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Lizarraga KJ, Allen-Auerbach M, Czernin J, DeSalles AA, Yong WH, Phelps ME, Chen W. (18)F-FDOPA PET for differentiating recurrent or progressive brain metastatic tumors from late or delayed radiation injury after radiation treatment. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:30–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Leiva-Salinas C, Muttikkal TJE, Flors L, Puig J, Wintermark M, Patrie JT, Rehm PK, Sheehan JP, Schiff D. FDG PET/MRI coregistration helps predict response to gamma knife radiosurgery in patients with brain metastases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;212:1–6.Google Scholar
  65. Jena A, Taneja S, Gambhir A, Mishra AK, D'Souza MM, Verma SM, Hazari PP, Negi P, Jhadav GK, Sogani SK. Glioma recurrence versus radiation necrosis: single-session multiparametric approach using simultaneous O-(2-18F-Fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET/MRI. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:e228–36.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Jena A, Taneja S, Jha A, Damesha NK, Negi P, Jadhav GK, Verma SM, Sogani SK. Multiparametric evaluation in differentiating glioma recurrence from treatment-induced necrosis using simultaneous (18)F-FDG-PET/MRI: a single-institution retrospective study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017;38:899–907.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2019

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Advertisement