| Popis: |
Abstract Background To evaluate and compare the diagnostic power of [18F]FLT-PET with ceMRI in patients with brain tumours or other focal lesions. Methods 121 patients with suspected brain tumour or those after brain tumour surgery were enroled in this retrospective study (61 females, 60 males, mean age 37.3 years, range 1–80 years). All patients underwent [18F]FLT-PET/MRI with gadolinium contrast agent application. In 118 of these patients, a final diagnosis was made, verified by histopathology or by follow-up. Agreement between ceMRI and [18F]FLT-PET of the whole study group was established. Further, sensitivity and specificity of ceMRI and [18F]FLT-PET were calculated for differentiation of high-grade vs. low-grade tumours, high-grade vs. low-grade tumours together with non-tumour lesions and for differentiation of high-grade tumours from all other verified lesions. Results [18F]FLT-PET and ceMRI findings were concordant in 119 cases (98%). On closer analysis of a subset of 64 patients with verified gliomas, the sensitivity and specificity of both PET and ceMRI were identical (90% and 84%, respectively) for differentiating low-grade from high-grade tumours, if the contrast enhancement and [18F]FLT uptake were considered as hallmarks of high-grade tumour. For differentiation of high-grade tumours from low-grade tumours and lesions of nontumorous aetiology (e.g., inflammatory lesions or post-therapeutic changes) in a subgroup of 93 patients by visual evaluation, the sensitivity of both PET and ceMRI was 90%, whereas the specificity of PET was slightly higher (61%) compared to ceMRI (57%). By receiver operating characteristic analysis, the sensitivity and specificity were 82% and 74%, respectively, when the threshold of SUVmax in the tumour was set to 0.9 g/ml. Conclusion We demonstrated a generally very high correlation of [18F]FLT accumulation with contrast enhancement visible on ceMRI and a comparable diagnostic yield in both modalities for differentiating high-grade tumours from low-grade tumours and lesions of other aetiology. |
Full text from SpringerLink