Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI and 18F-FDOPA PET-CT in recurrent glioma

  • Nuclear Medicine
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (Ce-MRI) and 18F-fluorodopa (18F-FDOPA) positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (CT) for detecting recurrent glioma.

Methods

In this prospective study, 35 patients (age, 36.62 ± 0.86 years; 80 % male) with histopathologically proven glioma with clinical suspicion of recurrence were evaluated using Ce-MRI and 18F-FDOPA PET-CT. 18F-FDOPA PET-CT images were evaluated qualitatively and semi-quantitatively. Combination of clinical follow-up (minimum 1 year), repeat imaging and/or biopsy (when available) was taken as the reference standard.

Results

Based on the reference standard, 26 patients were positive and nine were negative for recurrence. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of Ce-MRI were 92.3 %, 44.4 % and 80 % respectively, whereas those of 18F-FDOPA PET-CT were 100 %, 88.89 % and 97.1 % respectively. Results of Ce-MRI and 18F-FDOPA PET-CT were concordant in 74.3 % (29/35) and discordant in 17.1 % of patients (6/35). On McNemar analysis the difference was not statistically significant overall (P = 0.687), for high-grade tumour (P = 0.5) or low-grade tumours (P = 1.0). However, 18F-FDOPA PET-CT was more specific than Ce-MRI overall (P = 0.0002), for high-grade tumour (P = 0.006) and low-grade tumours (P = 0.004).

Conclusion

F-FDOPA PET-CT shows a high but comparable diagnostic accuracy to Ce-MRI for the detection of recurrent glioma. However, it is more specific than Ce-MRI.

Key Points

• Recurrent glioma in the postoperative site remains a diagnostic dilemma.

• 18 F-FDOPA PET-CT shows high diagnostic accuracy for detecting recurrent glioma.

• Diagnostic accuracies for 18 F-FDOPA PET-CT and contrast enhanced MRI are comparable.

• However, 18 F-FDOPA PET-CT is more specific than Ce-MRI for recurrent glioma.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ginsberg LE, Fuller GN, Hashmi M, Leeds NE, Schomer DF (1998) The significance of lack of MR contrast enhancement of supratentorial brain tumours in adults: histopathological evaluation of a series. Surg Neurol 49:436–440

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mihara F, Numaguchi Y, Rothman M, Kristt D, Fiandaca M, Swallow L (1995) Non-enhancing supratentorial malignant astrocytomas: MR features and possible mechanisms. Radiat Med 13:11–17

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Singhal T, Narayanan TK, Jain V, Mukherjee J, Mantil J (2008) 11C-L-methionine positron emission tomography in the clinical management of cerebral gliomas. Mol Imaging Biol 10:1–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Laverman P, Boerman OC, Corstens FH, Oyen WJ (2002) Fluorinated amino acids for tumour imaging with positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 29:681–690

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Weber WA, Wester HJ, Grosu AL et al (2000) O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine and L-[methyl-11C]methionine uptake in brain tumours: initial results of a comparative study. Eur J Nucl Med 27:542–549

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Becherer A, Karanikas G, Szabó M et al (2003) Brain tumour imaging with PET: a comparison between [18F]fluorodopa and [11C]methionine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:1561–1567

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen W, Silverman DH, Delaloye S et al (2006) 18F-FDOPA PET imaging of brain tumours: comparison study with 18F-FDG PET and evaluation of diagnostic accuracy. J Nucl Med 47:904–911

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ledezma CJ, Chen W, Sai V et al (2009) 18F-FDOPA PET/MRI fusion in patients with primary/recurrent gliomas: initial experience. Eur J Radiol 71:242–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fueger BJ, Czernin J, Cloughesy T et al (2010) Correlation of 6-18F-fluoro-L-dopa PET uptake with proliferation and tumour grade in newly diagnosed and recurrent gliomas. J Nucl Med 51:1532–1538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Füchtner F, Angelberger P, Kvaternik H, Hammerschmidt F, Simovc BP, Steinbach J (2002) Aspects of 6-[18F]fluoro-L-DOPA preparation: precursor synthesis, preparative HPLC purification and determination of radiochemical purity. Nucl Med Biol 29:477–481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sharma P, Kumar R, Jeph S et al (2011) 18F-FDG PET-CT in the diagnosis of tumor thrombus: can it be differentiated from benign thrombus? Nucl Med Commun 32:782–788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Herholz K, Langen KJ, Schiepers C, Mountz JM (2012) Brain tumours. Semin Nucl Med 42:356–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van Dellen JR, Danziger A (1978) Failure of computerized tomography to differentiate between radiation necrosis and cerebral tumour. S Afr Med J 53:171–172

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dooms GC, Hecht S, Brant-Zawadzki M, Berthiaume Y, Norman D, Newton TH (1986) Brain radiation lesions: MR imaging. Radiology 158:149–155

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ostergaard L, Hochberg FH, Rabinov JD et al (1999) Early changes measured by magnetic resonance imaging in cerebral blood flow, blood volume, and blood–brain barrier permeability following dexamethasone treatment in patients with brain tumours. J Neurosurg 90:300–305

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Doyle WK, Budinger TF, Valk PE, Levin VA, Gutin PH (1987) Differentiation of cerebral radiation necrosis from tumour recurrence by [18F]FDG and 82Rb positron emission tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 11:563–570

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Belohlávek O, Klener J, Vymazal J, Dbalý V, Tovarys F (2002) The diagnostics of recurrent gliomas using FDG-PET: still questionable? Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur 5:127–130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yee RE, Cheng DW, Huang SC, Namavari M, Satyamurthy N, Barrio JR (2001) Blood–brain barrier and neuronal membrane transport of 6-[18F]fluoro-L-DOPA. Biochem Pharmacol 62:1409–1415

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Stout DB, Huang SC, Melega WP, Raleigh MJ, Phelps ME, Barrio JR (1998) Effects of large neutral amino acid concentrations on 6-[F-18]Fluoro-L-DOPA kinetics. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 18:43–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Luxen A, Guillaume M, Melega WP, Pike VW, Solin O, Wagner R (1992) Production of 6-[18F]fluoro-L-dopa and its metabolism in vivo—a critical review. Int J Rad Appl Instrum B 19:149–158

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Beuthien-Baumann B, Bredow J, Burchert W et al (2003) 3-O-Methyl-6-[18F]fluoro- L-DOPA and its evaluation in brain tumour imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:1004–1008

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Oldendorf WH, Szabo J (1976) Amino acid assignment to one of the three blood–brain barrier amino acid carriers. Am J Physiol 230:94–98

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rose S, Fay M, Thomas P et al (2012) Correlation of MRI-derived apparent diffusion coefficients in newly diagnosed gliomas with [18F]-Fluoro-L-Dopa PET: what are we really measuring with minimum ADC? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3315

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Holodny AI, Makeyev S, Beattie BJ, Riad S, Blasberg RG (2010) Apparent diffusion coefficient of glial neoplasms: correlation with fluorodeoxyglucose-positron-emission tomography and gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31:1042–1048

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India

    Sellam Karunanithi, Punit Sharma, Abhishek Kumar, Bangkim Chandra Khangembam, Guru Pada Bandopadhyaya, Rakesh Kumar, Arun Malhotra & Chandrasekhar Bal

  2. Department of Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

    Ajit Goenka

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

    Deepak Kumar Gupta

Authors
  1. Sellam Karunanithi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Punit Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abhishek Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bangkim Chandra Khangembam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Guru Pada Bandopadhyaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rakesh Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ajit Goenka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Deepak Kumar Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Arun Malhotra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Chandrasekhar Bal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chandrasekhar Bal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Karunanithi, S., Sharma, P., Kumar, A. et al. Comparative diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI and 18F-FDOPA PET-CT in recurrent glioma. Eur Radiol 23, 2628–2635 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2838-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2838-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation