Diagnostic Performance of PET and Perfusion-Weighted Imaging in Differentiating Tumor Recurrence or Progression from Radiation Necrosis in Posttreatment Gliomas: A Review of Literature

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Auffinger B,
   3. Thaci B,
   4. Nigam P, et al

   . New therapeutic approaches for malignant glioma: in search of the Rosetta stone. F1000 Med Rep 2012;4:18 doi:10.3410/M4-18 pmid:22991580

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Roy S,
   3. Lahiri D,
   4. Maji T, et al

   . Recurrent glioblastoma: where we stand. South Asian J Cancer 2015;4:163–73 doi:10.4103/2278-330X.175953 pmid:26981507

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Verma N,
   3. Cowperthwaite MC,
   4. Burnett MG, et al

   . Differentiating tumor recurrence from treatment necrosis: a review of neuro-oncologic imaging strategies. Neuro-oncology 2013;15:515–34 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nos307 pmid:23325863

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. van Dijken BRJ,
   3. van Laar PJ,
   4. Smits M, et al

   . Perfusion MRI in treatment evaluation of glioblastomas: clinical relevance of current and future techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;49:11–22 doi:10.1002/jmri.26306 pmid:30561164

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Zikou A,
   3. Sioka C,
   4. Alexiou GA, et al

   . Radiation necrosis, pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse, and tumor recurrence: imaging challenges for the evaluation of treated gliomas. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2018;2018:6828396 doi:10.1155/2018/6828396 pmid:30627060

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Abbasi AW,
   3. Westerlaan HE,
   4. Holtman GA, et al

   . Incidence of tumour progression and pseudoprogression in high-grade gliomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Neuroradiol 2018;28:401–11 doi:10.1007/s00062-017-0584-x pmid:28466127

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Bahrami N,
   3. Piccioni D,
   4. Karunamuni R, et al

   . Edge contrast of the FLAIR hyperintense region predicts survival in patients with high-grade gliomas following treatment with bevacizumab. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:1017–24 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5620 pmid:29622553

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Verger A,
   3. Arbizu J,
   4. Law I

   . Role of amino-acid PET in high-grade gliomas: limitations and perspectives. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018;62:254–66 doi:10.23736/S1824-4785.18.03092-3 pmid:29696948

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Kreth F,
   3. Muacevic A,
   4. Medele R, et al

   . The risk of haemorrhage after image guided stereotactic biopsy of intra-axial brain tumours: a prospective study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2001;143:539–46 doi:10.1007/s007010170058 pmid:11534670

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Gallego O

    . Nonsurgical treatment of recurrent glioblastoma. Curr Oncol 2015;22:e273–81 doi:10.3747/co.22.2436 pmid:26300678

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Essig M,
    3. Shiroishi MS,
    4. Nguyen TB, et al

    . Perfusion MRI: the five most frequently asked technical questions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:24–34 doi:10.2214/AJR.12.9543 pmid:23255738

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Welker K,
    3. Boxerman J,
    4. Kalnin A, et al

    . ASFNR recommendations for clinical performance of MR dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging of the brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:E41–51 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4341 pmid:25907520

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. la Fougère C,
    3. Suchorska B,
    4. Bartenstein P, et al

    . Molecular imaging of gliomas with PET: opportunities and limitations. Neuro Oncol 2011;13:806–19 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nor054 pmid:21757446

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Barajas RF, Jr..,
    3. Chang JS,
    4. Segal MR, et al

    . 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 doi:10.1148/radiol.2532090007 pmid:19789240

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    2. Young RJ,
    3. Gupta A,
    4. Shah AD, et al

    . MRI perfusion in determining pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma. Clin Imaging 2013;37:41–49 doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2012.02.016 pmid:23151413

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Di Costanzo A,
    3. Scarabino T,
    4. Trojsi F, et al

    . Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme versus radiation injury: a multiparametric 3-T MR approach. Radiol Med 2014;119:616–24 doi:10.1007/s11547-013-0371-y pmid:24408041

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Prager AJ,
    3. Martinez N,
    4. Beal K, et al

    . Diffusion and perfusion MRI to differentiate treatment-related changes including pseudoprogression from recurrent tumors in high-grade gliomas with histopathologic evidence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:877–85 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4218 pmid:25593202

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    2. Wang S,
    3. Martinez-Lage M,
    4. Sakai Y, et al

    . Differentiating tumor progression from pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastomas using diffusion tensor imaging and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:28–36 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4474 pmid:26450533

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    2. Blasel S,
    3. Zagorcic A,
    4. Jurcoane A, et al

    . Perfusion MRI in the evaluation of suspected glioblastoma recurrence. J Neuroimaging 2016;26:116–23 doi:10.1111/jon.12247 pmid:25907688

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Thomas AA,
    3. Arevalo-Perez J,
    4. Kaley T, et al

    . Dynamic contrast enhanced T1 MRI perfusion differentiates pseudoprogression from recurrent glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2015;125:183–90 doi:10.1007/s11060-015-1893-z pmid:26275367

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Yun TJ,
    3. Park CK,
    4. Kim TM, et al

    . Glioblastoma treated with concurrent radiation therapy and temozolomide chemotherapy: differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression with quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2015;274:830–40 doi:10.1148/radiol.14132632 pmid:25333475

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Nael K,
    3. Bauer AH,
    4. Hormigo A, et al

    . Multiparametric MRI for differentiation of radiation necrosis from recurrent tumor in patients with treated glioblastoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018;210:18–23 doi:10.2214/AJR.17.18003 pmid:28952810

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Zakhari N,
    3. Taccone MS,
    4. Torres CH, et al

    . Prospective comparative diagnostic accuracy evaluation of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) vs. dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MR perfusion in differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis in treated high-grade gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;50:573–82 doi:10.1002/jmri.26621 pmid:30614146

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Ye J,
    3. Bhagat SK,
    4. Li H, et al

    . Differentiation between recurrent gliomas and radiation necrosis using arterial spin labeling perfusion imaging. Exp Ther Med 2016;11:2432–36 doi:10.3892/etm.2016.3225 pmid:27284331

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Seeger A,
    3. Braun C,
    4. Skardelly M, et al

    . Comparison of three different MR perfusion techniques and MR spectroscopy for multiparametric assessment in distinguishing recurrent high-grade gliomas from stable disease. Acad Radiology 2013;20:1557–65 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2013.09.003 pmid:24200483

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Nyberg E,
    3. Honce J,
    4. Kleinschmidt-DeMasters BK, et al

    . Arterial spin labeling: pathologically proven superiority over conventional MRI for detection of high-grade glioma progression after treatment. Neuroradiol J 2016;29:377–83 doi:10.1177/1971400916665375 pmid:27542895

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Razek A,
    3. El-Serougy L,
    4. Abdelsalam M, et al

    . Differentiation of residual/recurrent gliomas from postradiation necrosis with arterial spin labeling and diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging-derived metrics. Neuroradiology 2018;60:169–77 doi:10.1007/s00234-017-1955-3 pmid:29218370

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Patel P,
    3. Baradaran H,
    4. Delgado D, et al

    . MR perfusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of high-grade gliomas after treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuro Oncol 2017;19:118–27 doi:10.1093/neuonc/now148 pmid:27502247

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. van Dijken BRJ,
    3. van Laar PJ,
    4. Holtman GA, et al

    . Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with high-grade glioma, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiology 2017;27:4129–44 doi:10.1007/s00330-017-4789-9 pmid:28332014

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Kim HS,
    3. Goh MJ,
    4. Kim N, et al

    . Which combination of MR imaging modalities is best for predicting recurrent glioblastoma? Study of diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility. Radiology 2014;273:831–43 doi:10.1148/radiol.14132868 pmid:24885857

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Shin KE,
    3. Ahn KJ,
    4. Choi HS, et al

    . DCE and DSC MR perfusion imaging in the differentiation of recurrent tumour from treatment-related changes in patients with glioma. Clin Radiol 2014;69:e264–72 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2014.01.016 pmid:24594379

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Takenaka S,
    3. Asano Y,
    4. Shinoda J, et al

    . 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;54:280–89 doi:10.2176/nmc.oa2013-0117 pmid:24305028

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Karunanithi S,
    3. Sharma P,
    4. Kumar A, et al

    . 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 doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2384-0 pmid:23525498

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Santra A,
    3. Kumar R,
    4. Sharma P, et al

    . F-18 FDG PET-CT in patients with recurrent glioma: comparison with contrast enhanced MRI. Eur J Radiology 2012;81:508–13 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.080 pmid:21353420

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Tan H,
    3. Chen L,
    4. Guan Y, et al

    . 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 doi:10.1097/RLU.0b013e31822f68a6 pmid:21975383

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. Kim YH,
    3. Oh SW,
    4. Lim YJ, et al

    . 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 doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2010.06.005 pmid:20619531

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. Gómez-Río M,
    3. Rodríguez-Fernández A,
    4. Ramos-Font C, et al

    . 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 doi:10.1007/s00259-007-0661-5 pmid:18172642

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Qiao Z,
    3. Zhao X,
    4. Wang K, et al

    . Utility of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion-weighted MR imaging and (11)C-methionine PET/CT for differentiation of tumor recurrence from radiation injury in patients with high-grade gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:253–59 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5952 pmid:30655259

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
39. 39.↵
    2. Deuschl C,
    3. Kirchner J,
    4. Poeppel TD, et al

    . 11C-MET PET/MRI for detection of recurrent glioma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018;45:593–601 doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3916-9 pmid:29282517

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    2. Minamimoto R,
    3. Saginoya T,
    4. Kondo C, et al

    . Differentiation of brain tumor recurrence from post-radiotherapy necrosis with 11C-methionine PET: visual assessment versus quantitative assessment. PLoS One 2015;10:e0132515 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132515 pmid:26167681

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    2. Okamoto S,
    3. Shiga T,
    4. Hattori N, et al

    . 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 doi:10.1007/s12149-010-0450-2 pmid:21188660

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    2. Terakawa Y,
    3. Tsuyuguchi N,
    4. Iwai Y, et al

    . Diagnostic accuracy of 11C-methionine PET for differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from radiation necrosis after radiotherapy. J Nucl Med 2008;49:694–99 doi:10.2967/jnumed.107.048082 pmid:18413375

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
43. 43.↵
    2. Karunanithi S,
    3. Sharma P,
    4. Kumar A, et al

    . Comparative diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI and 18F-FDOPA PET-CT in recurrent glioma. Eur Radiol 2013;23:2628–35 doi:10.1007/s00330-013-2838-6 pmid:23624623

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    2. Rossi Espagnet MC,
    3. Romano A,
    4. Mancuso V, et al

    . Multiparametric evaluation of low grade gliomas at follow-up: comparison between diffusion and perfusion MR with (18)F-FDOPA PET. Br J Radiol 2016;89:20160476 doi:10.1259/bjr.20160476 pmid:27505026

    CrossRefPubMed
45. 45.↵
    2. Herrmann K,
    3. Czernin J,
    4. Cloughesy T, et al

    . Comparison of visual and semiquantitative analysis of 18F-FDOPA-PET/CT for recurrence detection in glioblastoma patients. Neuro-Oncology 2014;16:603–09 doi:10.1093/neuonc/not166 pmid:24305722

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    2. Rachinger W,
    3. Goetz C,
    4. Pöpperl G, et al

    . 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 505-11 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000171642.49553.B0 pmid:16145529

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
47. 47.↵
    2. Pöpperl G,
    3. Götz C,
    4. Rachinger W, et al

    . 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 doi:10.1007/s00259-004-1590-1 pmid:15248032

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
48. 48.↵
    2. Galldiks N,
    3. Stoffels G,
    4. Filss C, et al

    . The use of dynamic O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine PET in the diagnosis of patients with progressive and recurrent glioma. Neuro-Oncology 2015;17:1293–1300 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov088 pmid:26008606

    CrossRefPubMed
49. 49.↵
    2. Grosu A-L,
    3. Astner ST,
    4. Riedel E, et al

    . An interindividual comparison of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET)- and L-[methyl-11C]methionine (MET)-PET in patients with brain gliomas and metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;81:1049–58 doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.07.002 pmid:21570201

    CrossRefPubMed
50. 50.↵
    2. Jeong SY,
    3. Lee TH,
    4. Rhee CH, et al

    . 3′-Deoxy-3′-[18F]fluorothymidine and O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET in patients with suspicious recurrence of glioma after multimodal treatment: initial results of a retrospective comparative study. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;44:45–54 doi:10.1007/s13139-009-0007-2 pmid:24899937

    CrossRefPubMed
51. 51.↵
    2. Jena A,
    3. Taneja S,
    4. Gambhir A, et al

    . 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 doi:10.1097/RLU.0000000000001152 pmid:26859208

    CrossRefPubMed
52. 52.↵
    2. Li Z,
    3. Yu Y,
    4. Zhang H, et al

    . A meta-analysis comparing 18F-FLT PET with 18F-FDG PET for assessment of brain tumor recurrence. Nucl Med Commun 2015;36:695–701 doi:10.1097/MNM.0000000000000302 pmid:25768337

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    2. Patronas N,
    3. Di Chiro G,
    4. Brooks R, et al

    . Work in progress: [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography in the evaluation of radiation necrosis of the brain. Radiology 1982;144:885–89 doi:10.1148/radiology.144.4.6981123 pmid:6981123

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
54. 54.↵
    2. Ozsunar Y,
    3. Mullins ME,
    4. Kwong K, et al

    . 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 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2009.10.024 pmid:20060750

    CrossRefPubMed
55. 55.↵
    2. Jena A,
    3. Taneja S,
    4. Jha A, et al

    . 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 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5124 pmid:28341716

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
56. 56.↵
    2. Nihashi T,
    3. Dahabreh IJ,
    4. Terasawa T

    . Diagnostic accuracy of PET for recurrent glioma diagnosis: a meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:944–950 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3324 pmid:23124638

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
57. 57.↵
    2. Yu J,
    3. Zheng J,
    4. Xu W, et al

    . Accuracy of (18)F-FDOPA positron emission tomography and (18)F-FET positron emission tomography for differentiating radiation necrosis from brain tumor recurrence. World Neurosurg 2018;114:e1211–24 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.03.179 pmid:29625311

    CrossRefPubMed
58. 58.↵
    2. Furuse M,
    3. Nonoguchi N,
    4. Yamada K, et al

    . Radiological diagnosis of brain radiation necrosis after cranial irradiation for brain tumor: a systematic review. Radiat Oncol 2019;14:28 doi:10.1186/s13014-019-1228-x pmid:30728041

    CrossRefPubMed
59. 59.↵
    2. Herholz K

    . Brain tumors: an update on clinical PET research in gliomas. Semin Nucl Med 2017;47:5–17 doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2016.09.004 pmid:27987557

    CrossRefPubMed
60. 60.↵
    2. Ullrich R,
    3. Backes H,
    4. Li H, et al

    . Glioma proliferation as assessed by 3'-fluoro-3'-deoxy-L-thymidine positron emission tomography in patients with newly diagnosed high-grade glioma. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:2049–55 doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1553 pmid:18381944

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
61. 61.↵
    2. Peck M,
    3. Pollack HA,
    4. Friesen A, et al

    . Applications of PET imaging with the proliferation marker [18F]-FLT. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015;59:95–104 pmid:4415691

    PubMed
62. 62.↵
    2. Zeisel SH

    . Dietary choline: biochemistry, physiology, and pharmacology. Annu Rev Nutr 1981;1:95–121 doi:10.1146/annurev.nu.01.070181.000523 pmid:6764726

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
63. 63.↵
    2. Gao L,
    3. Xu W,
    4. Li T, et al

    . Accuracy of 11C-choline positron emission tomography in differentiating glioma recurrence from radiation necrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e11556 doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000011556 pmid:30024551

    CrossRefPubMed
64. 64.↵
    2. Pyka T,
    3. Gempt J,
    4. Ringel F, et al

    . Prediction of glioma recurrence using dynamic ¹⁸F-fluoroethyltyrosine PET. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:1924–29 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3980 pmid:24924547

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
65. 65.↵
    2. Zhang Q,
    3. Gao X,
    4. Wei G, et al

    . Prognostic value of MTV, SUVmax and the T/N ratio of PET/CT in patients with glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer 2019;10:1707–16 doi:10.7150/jca.28605 pmid:31205526

    CrossRefPubMed
66. 66.↵
    2. Fleischmann DF,
    3. Unterrainer M,
    4. Corradini S, et al

    . Report of first recurrent glioma patients examined with PET-MRI prior to re-irradiation. PLoS One 2019;14:e0216111 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0216111 pmid:31339892

    CrossRefPubMed
67. 67.↵
    2. Prat R,
    3. Galeano I,
    4. Lucas A, et al

    . Relative value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy, magnetic resonance perfusion, and 2-(18F) fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography for detection of recurrence or grade increase in gliomas. J Clin Neurosci 2010;17:50–53 doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2009.02.035 pmid:19959364

    CrossRefPubMed
68. 68.↵
    2. Hatzoglou V,
    3. Yang TJ,
    4. Omuro A, et al

    . A prospective trial of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion and fluorine-18 FDG PET-CT in differentiating brain tumor progression from radiation injury after cranial irradiation. Neuro Oncol 2016;18:873–80 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov301 pmid:26688076

    CrossRefPubMed
69. 69.↵
    2. Hojjati M,
    3. Badve C,
    4. Garg V, et al

    . Role of FDG-PET/MRI, FDG-PET/CT, and dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MRI in differentiating radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence in glioblastomas. J Neuroimaging 2018;28:118–25 doi:10.1111/jon.12460 pmid:28718993

    CrossRefPubMed
70. 70.↵
    2. Seligman L,
    3. Kovanlikaya I,
    4. Pisapia DJ, et al

    . Integrated PET-MRI for glioma surveillance: perfusion-metabolism discordance rate and association with molecular profiling. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019;212:883–91 doi:10.2214/AJR.18.20531 pmid:30779663

    CrossRefPubMed
71. 71.↵
    2. Sogani SK,
    3. Jena A,
    4. Taneja S, et al

    . Potential for differentiation of glioma recurrence from radionecrosis using integrated (18)F-fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine (FET) positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective evaluation. Neurol India 2017;65:293–301 doi:10.4103/neuroindia.NI_101_16 pmid:28290392

    CrossRefPubMed
72. 72.↵
    2. Pyka T,
    3. Hiob D,
    4. Preibisch C, et al

    . Diagnosis of glioma recurrence using multiparametric dynamic 18F-fluoroethyl-tyrosine PET-MRI. Eur J Radiol 2018;103:32–37 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.04.003 pmid:29803382

    CrossRefPubMed
73. 73.↵
    2. Verger A,
    3. Filss CP,
    4. Lohmann P, et al

    . Comparison of O-(2-(18)F-Fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine positron emission tomography and perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of patients with progressive and recurrent glioma: a hybrid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance study. World Neurosurg 2018;113:e727–37 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.02.139 pmid:29510293

    CrossRefPubMed
74. 74.↵
    2. D'Souza MM,
    3. Sharma R,
    4. Jaimini A, et al

    . 11C-MET PET/CT and advanced MRI in the evaluation of tumor recurrence in high-grade gliomas. Clin Nucl Med 2014;39:791–98 doi:10.1097/RLU.0000000000000532 pmid:25036022

    CrossRefPubMed
75. 75.↵
    2. Cicone F,
    3. Filss CP,
    4. Minniti G, et al

    . Volumetric assessment of recurrent or progressive gliomas: comparison between F-DOPA PET and perfusion-weighted MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015;42:905–15 doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3018-5 pmid:25750084

    CrossRefPubMed
76. 76.↵
    2. Yang Y,
    3. He MZ,
    4. Li T, et al

    . MRI combined with PET-CT of different tracers to improve the accuracy of glioma diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev 2019;42:185–95 doi:10.1007/s10143-017-0906-0 pmid:28918564

    CrossRefPubMed
77. 77.↵
    2. Lundemann M,
    3. Munck Af Rosenschold P,
    4. Muhic A, et al

    . Feasibility of multi-parametric PET and MRI for prediction of tumour recurrence in patients with glioblastoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019;46:603–13 doi:10.1007/s00259-018-4180-3 pmid:30276440

    CrossRefPubMed
78. 78.↵
    2. Ladefoged CN,
    3. Andersen FL,
    4. Kjaer A, et al

    . RESOLUTE PET/MRI attenuation correction for O-(2-(18)F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) in brain tumor patients with metal implants. Front Neurosci 2017;11:453 doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00453 pmid:28848379

    CrossRefPubMed
79. 79.↵
    2. Marner L,
    3. Henriksen OM,
    4. Lundemann M, et al

    . Clinical PET/MRI in neurooncology: opportunities and challenges from a single-institution perspective. Clin Transl Imaging 2017;5:135–49 doi:10.1007/s40336-016-0213-8 pmid:28936429

    CrossRefPubMed
80. 80.↵
    2. Jung JH,
    3. Ahn BC

    . Current radiopharmaceuticals for positron emission tomography of brain tumors. Brain Tumor Res Treat 2018;6:47–53 doi:10.14791/btrt.2018.6.e13 pmid:30381916

    CrossRefPubMed
81. 81.↵
    2. Bailly C,
    3. Vidal A,
    4. Bonnemaire C, et al

    . Potential for nuclear medicine therapy for glioblastoma treatment. Front Pharmacol 2019;10:772–72 doi:10.3389/fphar.2019.00772 pmid:31354487

    CrossRefPubMed