Differentiating tumor recurrence from treatment necrosis: A review of neuro-oncologic imaging strategies

Neuro-Oncology

Volumn 15, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 515-534

  Verma, Nishant ^a,b   Cowperthwaite, Matthew C ^b   Burnett, Mark G ^b   Markey, Mia K ^a,c  

^a The University of Texas at Austin   (United States)

^b NeuroTexas Institute   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

functional imaging; neuro oncology; pseudoprogression; treatment necrosis; tumor recurrence

Indexed keywords

6 FLUORODOPA F 18; CHOLINE; CONTRAST MEDIUM; CREATINE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE; FLUOROETHYLTYROSINE F 18; GLUCEPTATE TC 99M; IODINATED CONTRAST MEDIUM; LACTIC ACID; LIPID; METHIONINE C 11; METHOXY ISOBUTYL ISONITRILE TECHNETIUM TC 99M; METHYLTYROSINE I 123; N ACETYLASPARTIC ACID; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT; TEMOZOLOMIDE; TETROFOSMIN TC 99M; THALLIUM 201; TRACER; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VASCULAR TARGETING AGENT;

APOPTOSIS; APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER; BRAIN BLOOD VOLUME; BRAIN TUMOR; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CEREBROSPINAL FLUID; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; DIFFUSION TENSOR IMAGING; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG HALF LIFE; DRUG METABOLISM; DRUG SAFETY; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; FOLLOW UP; FRACTIONAL ANISOTROPY; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FUNCTIONAL NEUROIMAGING; HEMODYNAMICS; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROTON NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; RADIATION NECROSIS; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY; SUSCEPTIBILITY WEIGHTED IMAGING; TREATMENT PLANNING; TUMOR NECROSIS; TUMOR RECURRENCE; TUMOR VOLUME; VOXEL BASED MORPHOMETRY;

BRAIN NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMANS; NECROSIS; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; RADIATION INJURIES;

EID: 84877148427     PISSN: 15228517     EISSN: 15235866     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nos307     Document Type: Review

References (146)

1. Kumar AJ, Leeds NE, Fuller GN, et al. Malignant gliomas: MR imaging spectrum of radiation therapy- and chemotherapy-induced necrosis of the brain after treatment. Radiology. 2000; 217(2): 377-384.
2. Mullins ME, Barest GD, Schaefer PW, et al. Radiation necrosis versus glioma recurrence: conventional MR imaging clues to diagnosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005; 26(8): 1967-1972.
3. Curnes J, Laster D, Ball M, et al. MRI of radiation injury to the brain. Am J Roentgenol. 1986; 147(1): 119-124.
4. Brismar J, Roberson GH, Davis KR. Radiation necrosis of the brain. Neuroradiological considerations with computed tomography. Neuroradiology. 1976; 12(2): 109-113.
5. Mikhael M. Radiation necrosis of the brain: correlation between computed tomography, pathology, and dose distribution. J comput Assist Tomogr. 1978; 2(1): 71-80.
6. Dellen Jv, Danzinger A. Failure of computerized tomography to differentiate between radiation necrosis and cerebral tumor. S Afr Med J. 1978; 53(5): 171-172.
7. Kingsley D, Kendall B. CT of the adverse effects of therapeutic radiation of the central nervous system. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1981; 2(5): 453-460.
8. Leibel S, Sheline G. Tolerance of the brain and spinal cord to conventional irradiation. Radiation Injury to the Nervous system. Gutin P, Leibel S, Sheline G (Eds), Raven Press, New York, 1991, p. 239.
9. Wong CS, Van der Kogel AJ. Mechanisms of radiation injury to the central nervous system: implications for neuroprotection. Molecular interventions. 2004; 4(5): 273.
10. Lyubimova N, Hopewell JW. Experimental evidence to support the hypothesis that damage to vascular endothelium plays the primary role in the development of late radiation-induced CNS injury. Br J Radiol. 2004; 77(918): 488-492.
11. Schultheiss TE, Stephens LC. Permanent radiation myelopathy. British Journal of Radiology. 1992; 65(777): 737-753.
12. Brandsma D, Stalpers L, Taal W, et al. Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. The Lancet Oncology. 2008; 9(5): 453-461.
13. Marks JE, Baglan RJ, Prassad SC, et al. Cerebral radionecrosis: incidence and risk in relation to dose, time, fractionation and volume. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 1981; 7(2): 243-252.
14. Sheline GE, Wara WM, Smith V. Therapeutic irradiation and brain injury. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 1980; 6(9): 1215-1228.
15. Leibel SA, Sheline GE. Radiation therapy for neoplasms of the brain. Journal of Neurosurgery. 1987; 66(1): 1-22.
16. Chamberlain MC, Glantz MJ, Chalmers L, et al. Early necrosis following concurrent Temodar and radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma. Journal of Neuro-oncology. 2007; 82(1): 81-83.
17. Byme T. Imaging of gliomas. Semin Oncol. 1994; 21: 162-171.
18. Leeds N, Jackson E. Current imaging techniques for the evaluation of brain neoplasms. Curr Opin Oncol. 1994; 6: 254-261.
19. Chan Y-l, Leung S-f, King AD, et al. Late radiation injury to the temporal lobes: morphologic evaluation at MR imaging1. Radiology. 1999; 213(3): 800-807.
20. Brennan KM, Roos MS, Budinger TF, et al. A study of radiation necrosis and edema in the canine brain using positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Radiation Research. 1993; 134(1): 43-53.
21. Frytak S, Earnest F, O'Neill B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for neurotoxicity in long-term survivors of carcinoma. Mayo Clin., Proc. 1985; 60(12): 803-812.
22. Tsuruda J, Kortman K, BradleyW, et al. Radiation effects on cerebral white matter: MR evaluation. Am J Roentgenol. 1987; 149(1): 165-171.
23. Kato T, Yutaka S, Tada M, et al. Long term evaluation of Radiationinduced brain damage by serial magnetic resonance imaging. Neurologia Medico-Chirurgica. 1996; 36(12): 870-876.
24. Moody D, Bell M, Challa V. Features of the cerebral vascular pattern that predict vulnerability to perfusion or oxygenation deficiency: an anatomic study. Am J Neuroradiol. 1990; 11(3): 431-439.
25. Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold SC, et al. Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1990; 8(7): 1277-1280.
26. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neurooncology working group. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2010; 28(11): 1963-1972.
27. Sorensen AG, Batchelor TT, Wen PY, et al. Response criteria for glioma. Nat Clin Prac Oncol. 2008; 5(11): 634-644.
28. Jain R, Scarpace L, Ellika S, et al. Imaging response criteria for recurrent gliomas treated with bevacizumab: Role of diffusion weighted imaging as an imaging biomarker. Journal ofNeuro-Oncology. 2010; 96(3): 423-431.
29. Zuniga R, Torcuator R, Jain R, et al. Efficacy, safety and patterns of response and recurrence in patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab plus irinotecan. Journal of Neuro-Oncology. 2009; 91(3): 329-336.
30. Henson JW, Ulmer S, Harris GJ. Brain tumor imaging in clinical trials. Am J Neuroradiol. 2008; 29(3): 419-424.
31. Hein PA, Eskey CJ, Dunn JF, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in the follow-up of treated high-grade gliomas: tumor recurrence versus radiation injury. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004; 25(2): 201-209.
32. Rock JP, Scarpace L, Hearshen D, et al. Associations among magnetic resonance spectroscopy, apparent diffusion coefficients, and imageguided histopathology with special attention to radiation necrosis. Neurosurgery. 2004; 54(5): 1111.
33. Lam WWM, Poon WS, Metreweli C. Diffusion MR imaging in glioma: does it have any role in the pre-operation determination of grading of glioma? Clinical Radiology. 2002; 57(3): 219-225.
34. Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M, et al. Usefulness of diffusionweighted MRI with echo-planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 1999; 9(1): 53-60.
35. Sinha S, Bastin ME, Whittle IR, et al. Diffusion tensor MR imaging of high-grade cerebral gliomas. Am J Neuroradiol. 2002; 23(4): 520-527.
36. Provenzale JM, McGraw P, Mhatre P, et al. Peritumoral brain regions in gliomas and meningiomas: investigation with isotropic diffusionweighted MR Imaging and diffusion-tensor MR imaging1. Radiology. 2004; 232(2): 451-460.
37. Xu J-L, Li Y-L, Lian J-M, et al. Distinction between postoperative recurrent glioma and radiation injury using MR diffusion tensor imaging. Neuroradiology. 2010; 52(12): 1193-1199.
38. Asao C, Korogi Y, Kitajima M, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of radiation-induced brain injury for differentiation from tumor recurrence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005; 26(6): 1455-1460.
39. Zeng Q-S, Li C-F, Liu H, et al. Distinction between recurrent glioma and radiation injury using magnetic resonance spectroscopy in combination with diffusion-weighted imaging. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2007; 68(1): 151-158.
40. Al Sayyari A, Buckley R, McHenery C, et al. Distinguishing recurrent primary brain tumor from radiation injury: a preliminary study using a susceptibility-weighted MR imaging-guided apparent diffusion coefficient analysis strategy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010; 31(6): 1049-1054.
41. Biousse V, Newman NJ, Hunter SB, et al. Diffusion weighted imaging in radiation necrosis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 2003; 74(3): 382-384.
42. Sundgren PC, Fan X, Weybright P, et al. Differentiation of recurrent brain tumor versus radiation injury using diffusion tensor imaging in patients with new contrast-enhancing lesions. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2006; 24(9): 1131-1142.
43. Lu S, Ahn D, Johnson G, et al. Diffusion-tensor MR imaging of intracranial neoplasia and associated peritumoral edema: introduction of the tumor infiltration index1. Radiology. 2004; 232(1): 221-228.
44. Price SJ, Pena A, Burnet NG, et al. Tissue signature characterisation of diffusion tensor abnormalities in cerebral gliomas. European Radiology. 2004; 14(10): 1909-1917.
45. Inoue T, Ogasawara K, Beppu T, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging for preoperative evaluation of tumor grade in gliomas. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery. 2005; 107(3): 174-180.
46. Kitahara S, Nakasu S, Murata K, et al. Evaluation of treatment-induced cerebral white matter injury by using diffusion-tensor MR imaging: initial experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005; 26(9): 2200-2206.
47. Kashimura H, Inoue T, Beppu T, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging for differentiation of recurrent brain tumor and radiation necrosis after radiotherapy- Three case reports. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery. 2007; 109(1): 106-110.
48. Witwer BP, Moftakhar R, Hasan KM, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging of white matter tracts in patients with cerebral neoplasm. J Neurosurg 2002; 97(3): 568-575.
49. Melhem ER, Mori S, Mukundan G, et al. Diffusion tensor MR imaging of the brain and white matter tractography. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2002; 178(1): 3-16.
50. Koh DM, Amoozadeh Y, Blackledge M, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging: Applications in the Body: Medical Radiology, Springer, Heidelberg; (2010).
51. Folsted Kallehauge J, Tanderup K, Muren LP, et al. Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) as a quantitative parameter in diffusion weighted MR imaging in gynecologic cancer: Dependence on b-values used. Acta Oncologica (Stockholm)(online). 2010; 49(7): 1017-1022.
52. Yoshiura T, Wu O, Zaheer A, et al. Highly diffusion-sensitized MRI of brain: Dissociation of gray and white matter. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2001; 45(5): 734-740.
53. Matsusue E, Fink J, Rockhill J, et al. Distinction between glioma progression and post-radiation change by combined physiologic MR imaging. Neuroradiology. 2010; 52(4): 297-306.
54. Kim YH, Oh SW, 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. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery. 2010; 112(9): 758-765.
55. Barajas RF, Chang JS, 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 imaging1. Radiology. 2009; 253(2): 486-496.
56. Barajas RF, Chang JS, Sneed PK, et al. Distinguishing recurrent intra-axial metastatic tumor from radiation necrosis following gamma knife radiosurgery using dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009; 30(2): 367-372.
57. Mitsuya K, Nakasu Y, Horiguchi S, et al. Perfusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging to distinguish the recurrence of metastatic brain tumors from radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery. Journal of Neuro-Oncology. 2010; 99(1): 81-88.
58. Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Tomiguchi S, et al. Posttherapeutic intraaxial brain tumor: the value of perfusion-sensitive contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiating tumor recurrence fromnonneoplastic contrastenhancing tissue. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000; 21(5): 901-909.
59. Hazle JD, Jackson EF, Schomer DF, et al. Dynamic imaging of intracranial lesions using fast spin-echo imaging: Differentiation of brain tumors and treatment effects. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 1997; 7(6): 1084-1093.
60. Covarrubias DJ, Rosen BR, Lev MH. Dynamic magnetic resonance perfusion imaging of brain tumors. The Oncologist. 2004; 9(5): 528-537.
61. Lupo JM, Cha S, Chang SM, et al. Dynamic susceptibility-weighted perfusion imaging of high-grade gliomas: characterization of spatial heterogeneity. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005; 26(6): 1446-1454.
62. Cha S, Lu S, Johnson G, Knopp EA. Dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging: Correlation of signal intensity changes with cerebral blood volume measurements. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2000; 11(2): 114-119.
63. Ozsunar Y, Mullins ME, 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. Academic Radiology. 2010; 17(3): 282-290.
64. Nakajima T, Kumabe T, Kanamori M, et al. Differential diagnosis between radiation necrosis and glioma progression using sequential proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy and methionine positron emission tomography. Neurologia Medico-Chirurgica. 2009; 49(9): 394-401.
65. Prat R, Galeano I, 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. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 2010; 17(1): 50-53.
66. Kamiryo T, Lopes MB, Kassell NF, et al. Radiosurgery-induced microvascular alterations precede necrosis of the brain neuropil. Neurosurgery. 2001; 49(2): 409-415.
67. Hou L, Yang Y, Mattay VS, et al. Optimization of fast acquisition methods for whole-brain relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) mapping with susceptibility contrast agents. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 1999; 9(2): 233-239.
68. Bisdas S, Naegele T, Ritz R, et al. Distinguishing recurrent high-grade gliomas from radiation injury: a pilot study using dynamic contrastenhanced MR imaging. Academic Radiology. 2011; 18(5): 575-583.
69. Narang J, Jain R, Arbab AS, et al. 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(9): 1037-1046.
70. Chih-Feng C, Ling-Wei H, Chun-Chung L, et al. In vivo correlation between semi-quantitative hemodynamic parameters and Ktrans derived from DCE-MRI of brain tumors. International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology. 2012; 22(2): 132-136.
71. Buckley DL. Uncertainty in the analysis of tracer kinetics using dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2002; 47(3): 601-606.
72. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T 1-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 1999; 10(3): 223-232.
73. Choyke PL, Dwyer AJ, Knopp MV. Functional tumor imaging with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2003; 17(5): 509-520.
74. Evelhoch JL. Key factors in the acquisition of contrast kinetic data for oncology. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 1999; 10(3): 254-259.
75. Taylor JS, Tofts PS, Port R, et al. MR imaging of tumor microcirculation: promise for the new millenium. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 1999; 10(6): 903-907.
76. Jain R, Ellika SK, Scarpace L, et al. Quantitative estimation of permeability surface-area product in astroglial brain tumors using perfusion CT and correlation with histopathologic grade. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008; 29(4): 694-700.
77. Ellika SK, Jain R, Patel SC, et al. Role of perfusion CT in glioma grading and comparison with conventional MR imaging features. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007; 28(10): 1981-1987.
78. Jain R, Scarpace L, Ellika S, et al. First-pass perfusion computed tomography: initial experience in differentiating recurrent brain tumors from radiation effects and radiation necrosis. Neurosurgery. 2007; 61(4): 778.
79. Rock JP, Hearshen D, Scarpace L, et al. Correlations between magnetic resonance spectroscopy and image-guided histopathology, with special attention to radiation necrosis. Neurosurgery. 2002; 51(4): 912-920.
80. Croteau D, Scarpace L, Hearshen D, et al. Correlation between magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and image-guided biopsies: semiquantitative and qualitative histopathological analyses of patients with untreated glioma. Neurosurgery. 2001; 49(4): 823-829.
81. Dowling C, Bollen AW, Noworolski SM, et al. Preoperative proton MR spectroscopic imaging of brain tumors: correlation with histopathologic analysis of resection specimens. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001; 22(4): 604-612.
82. Delorme S, Weber M. Applications of MRS in the evaluation of focal malignant brain lesions. Cancer Imaging. 2006; 6(1): 95-99.
83. Doganay S, Altinok T, Alkan A, et al. The role of MRS in the differentiation of benign and malignant soft tissue and bone tumors. European Journal of Radiology. 2011; 79(2): e33-e37.
84. Lampert PW, Davis RL. Delayed effects of radiation on the human central nervous system. Early and late delayed reactions. Neurology. 1964; 14: 912-917.
85. Schlemmer HP, Bachert P, Henze M, et al. Differentiation of radiation necrosis from tumor progression using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Neuroradiology. 2002; 44(3): 216-222.
86. Schlemmer H-P, Bachert P, Herfarth KK, et al. Proton MR spectroscopic evaluation of suspicious brain lesions after stereotactic radiotherapy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001; 22(7): 1316-1324.
87. Chong VFH, Rumpel H, Fan YF, et al. Temporal lobe changes following radiation therapy: imaging and proton MR spectroscopic findings. European Radiology. 2001; 11(2): 317-324.
88. Chong VFH, Rumpel H, Aw Y-S, et al. Temporal lobe necrosis following radiation therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: 1H MR spectroscopic findings. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 1999; 45(3): 699-705.
89. Zeng Q-S, Li C-F, Zhang K, et al. Multivoxel 3D proton MR spectroscopy in the distinction of recurrent glioma from radiation injury. Journal of Neuro-Oncology. 2007; 84(1): 63-69.
90. McKnight TR, von dem Bussche MH, Vigneron DB, et al. Histopathological validation of a three-dimensional magnetic resonance spectroscopy index as a predictor of tumor presence. Journal of Neurosurgery. 2002; 97(4): 794-802.
91. Weybright P, Sundgren PC, Maly P, et al. Differentiation between brain tumor recurrence and radiation injury using MR spectroscopy. Am. J Roentgenol. 2005; 185(6): 1471-1476.
92. Yang I, Huh NG, Smith ZA, et al. Distinguishing glioma recurrence from treatment effect after radiochemotherapy and immunotherapy. Neurosurgery Clinics of North America. 2010; 21(1): 181-186.
93. Smith EA, Carlos RC, Junck LR, et al. Developing a clinical decision model: MR spectroscopy to differentiate between recurrent tumor and radiation change in patients with new contrast-enhancing lesions. Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 192(2): W45-52.
94. Plotkin M, Eisenacher J, Bruhn H, et al. I-IMT SPECT and HMR-spectroscopy at 3.0T in the differential diagnosis of recurrent or residual gliomas: a comparative study. Journal of Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 70(1): 49-58.
95. Kyousuke K, Kiyohiro H, Hiroshi A, et al. Differentiation of cerebral radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Neurologia Medico-Chirurgica. 1997; 37(3): 250-256.
96. Sundgren PC. MR Spectroscopy in Radiation Injury. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009; 30(8): 1469-1476.
97. Rabinov JD, Lee PL, Barker FG, et al. In Vivo 3-T MR spectroscopy in the distinction of recurrent glioma versus radiation effects: initial experience1. Radiology. 2002; 225(3): 871-879.
98. Esteve F, Rubin C, Grand S, et al. Transient metabolic changes observed with proton MR spectroscopy in normal human brain after radiation therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology* Physics. 1998; 40(2): 279-286.
99. Kaminaga T, Shirai K. Radiation-induced brain metabolic changes in the acute and early delayed phase detected with quantitative proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography. 2005; 29(3): 293-297.
100. .Wald L, Nelson S, Day M, et al. Serial proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging of glioblastoma multiforme after brachytherapy. J Neurosurg. 1997; 87(4): 525-534.
101. Tzika AA, Zarifi MK, Goumnerova L, et al. Neuroimaging in Pediatric Brain Tumors: Gd-DTPA-enhanced, Hemodynamic, and Diffusion MR Imaging Compared with MR Spectroscopic Imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002; 23(2): 322-333.
102. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS (2004)). Decision memo for magnetic resonance spectroscopy for brain tumors (CAG-00141N). Baltimore, MD: CMS2004. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/ details/nca-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=52&fromdb=true.
103. Ricci P, Karis J, Heiserman J, et al. Differentiating recurrent tumor from radiation necrosis: time for re- evaluation of positron emission tomography? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1998; 19(3): 407-413.
104. Di Chiro G, Oldfield E, Wright D, et al. Cerebral necrosis after radiotherapy and/or intraarterial chemotherapy for brain tumors: PET and neuropathologic studies. Am J Roentgenol. 1988; 150(1): 189-197.
105. Valk PE, Budinger TF, Levin VA, et al. PET of malignant cerebral tumors after interstitial brachytherapy : Demonstration of metabolic activity and correlation with clinical outcome. Journal of Neurosurgery. 1988; 69(6): 830-838.
106. Kim EE, Chung SK, Haynie TP, et al. Differentiation of residual or recurrent tumors from post-treatment changes with F-18 FDG PET. Radiographics. 1992; 12(2): 269-279.
107. Gómez-Río M, Rodríguez-Fernández A, Ramos-Font C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Thallium-SPECT and F-FDG-PET in the clinical assessment of glioma recurrence. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2008; 35(5): 966-975.
108. Janus T, Kim E, Tilbury R, et al. Use of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with primary malignant brain tumors. Ann Neurol. 1993; 33(5): 540-548.
109. Meyer MA, Frey KA, Schwaiger M. Discordance between F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and contrast enhancement in a brain abscess. Clin Nucl Med. 1993; 18(8): 682-684.
110. Witte OD, Goldberg I, Wikler D, et al. Positron emission tomography with injection of methionine as a prognostic factor in glioma. J Neurosurg. 2001; 95(5): 746-750.
111. Li Dong-li XY-k, Wang Quan-shi, WU Hu-bing, et al. 11C-methionine and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT in the evaluation of patients with suspected primary and residual/recurrent gliomas. Chinese Medical Journal. 2012; Vol 125: 091-096.
112. Van Laere K, Ceyssens S, Van Calenbergh F, et al. Direct comparison of 18F-FDG and 11C-methionine PET in suspected recurrence of glioma: sensitivity, inter-observer variability and prognostic value. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2005; 32(1): 39-51.
113. June-Key Chung YK, Seok-ki Kim, Yong Lee, et al. Usefulness of 11C-methionine PET in the evaluation of brain lesions that are hypoor isometabolic on 18F-FDG PET. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2002; 29(2): 176-182.
114. Chen W, Silverman DHS, Delaloye S, et al. 18F-FDOPA PET imaging of brain tumors: comparison study with 18F-FDG PET and evaluation of diagnostic accuracy. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2006; 47(6): 904-911.
115. Yoshii Y, Satou M, Yamamoto T, et al. The role of thallium-201 single photon emission tomography in the investigation and characterisation of brain tumours in man and their response to treatment. Eur J Nucl Med. 1993; 20(1): 39-45.
116. Tie J, Gunawardana DH, Rosenthal MA. Differentiation of tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis in high-grade gliomas using 201Tl-SPECT. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 2008; 15(12): 1327-1334.
117. Vos M, Tony B, Hoekstra O, et al. Systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of 201Tl single photon emission computed tomography in the detection of recurrent glioma. Nucl Med Commun. 2007; 28(6): 431-439.
118. Lamy-Lhullier C, Dubois F, Blond S. Lecouffe P, Steinling M. Importance of cerebral tomoscintigraphy using technetium-labeled sestamibi in the differential diagnosis of current tumor vs. radiation necrosis in subtentorial glial tumors in the adult. Neurochirurgie. 1999; 45(2): 110-117.
119. Henze M, Mohammed A, Schlemmer H, et al. Detection of tumour progression in the follow-up of irradiated low-grade astrocytomas: comparison of 3-iodo-a-methyl-tyrosine and 99mTc-MIBI SPET. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2002; 29(11): 1455-1461.
120. Palumbo B, Lupattelli M, Pelliccioli G, et al. Association of 99mTc-MIBI brain SPECT and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) to assess glioma recurrence after radiotherapy. The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2006; 50(1): 88-93.
121. Jeune F, Dubois F, Blond S, Steinling M. Sestamibi technetium-99m brain single-photon emission computed tomography to identify recurrent glioma in adults: 201 studies. Journal of Neuro-Oncology. 2006; 77(2): 177-183.
122. Mountz J, Rosenfeld S, Li Y. Utility of T1-201 and Tc-99m-sestamibi SPECT for early determination of malignant tumor chemotherapy efficacy. J NucI Med. 1993; 34: 89.
123. Sukanta B, Bandopadhayaya GP, Julka PK, et al. Imaging using Tc99m-tetrofosmin for the detection of the recurrence of brain tumour: A comparative study with Tc99m-glucoheptonate. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine. 2004; 50(2): 89-93.
124. Alexiou G, Fotopoulos A, Papadopoulos A, et al. Evaluation of brain tumor recurrence by (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin SPECT: a prospective pilot study. Annals of Nuclear Medicine. 2007; 21(5): 293-298.
125. Barai S, Rajkamal, Bandopadhayaya GP, et al. Thallium-201 versus Tc99m-glucoheptonate SPECT for evaluation of recurrent brain tumours: a within-subject comparison with pathological correlation. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 2005; 12(1): 27-31.
126. Samnick S, Bader JB, Hellwig D, et al. Clinical value of iodine-123-alpha-methyl-L-tyrosine single-photon emission tomography in the differential diagnosis of recurrent brain tumor in patients pretreated for glioma at follow-up. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2002; 20(2): 396-404.
127. Kuwert T, Woesler B, Morgenroth C, et al. Diagnosis of recurrent glioma with SPECT and Iodine-123-a-Methyl tyrosine. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 1998; 39(1): 23-27.
128. Floeth F, Pauleit D, Wittsack H, et al. Multimodal metabolic imaging of cerebral gliomas: positron emission tomography with [18F]fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine and magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Neurosurg. 2005; 102(2): 318-327.
129. Verma R, Zacharaki EI, Ou Y, et al. Multiparametric tissue characterization of brain neoplasms and their recurrence using pattern classification of MR images. Academic Radiology. 2008; 15(8): 966-977.
130. Hu X, Wong KK, Young GS, et al. Support vector machine multiparametric MRI identification of pseudoprogression from tumor recurrence in patients with resected glioblastoma. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2011; 33(2): 296-305.
131. Blanchet L, Krooshof PWT, Postma GJ, et al. Discrimination between metastasis and glioblastoma multiforme based on morphometric analysis of MR images. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2011; 32(1): 67-73.
132. Georgiadis P, Cavouras D, Kalatzis I, et al. Improving brain tumor characterization on MRI by probabilistic neural networks and non-linear transformation of textural features. Comput Methods Prog. Biomed. 2008; 89(1): 24-32.
133. Georgiadis P, Cavouras D, Kalatzis I, et al. Enhancing the discrimination accuracy between metastases, gliomas and meningiomas on brain MRI by volumetric textural features and ensemble pattern recognition methods. Magnetic resonance imaging. 2009; 27(1): 120-130.
134. Zacharaki EI, Wang S, Chawla S, et al. Classification of brain tumor type and grade using MRI texture and shape in a machine learning scheme. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2009; 62(6): 1609-1618.
135. Joshi DM, Rana NK, Misra VM. Classification of Brain Cancer using Artificial Neural Network. Paper presented at: Electronic Computer Technology (ICECT), 2010 International Conference on; 7-10 May 2010, 2010.
136. Kassner A, Thornhill RE. Texture analysis: a review of neurologic MR imaging applications. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2010; 31(5): 809-816.
137. Huang J, Wang A-M, Shetty A, et al. 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. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2011; 29(7): 993-1001.
138. Ando K, Ishikura R, Nagami Y, et al. Usefulness of Cho/Cr ratio in proton MR spectroscopy for differentiating residual/recurrent glioma from non-neoplastic lesions. Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi. 2004; 64(3): 121-126.
139. Elias AE, Carlos RC, Smith EA, et al.MR spectroscopy using normalized and non-normalized metabolite ratios for differentiating recurrent brain tumor from radiation injury. Academic Radiology. 2011; 18(9): 1101-1108.
140. Traber F, Block W, Flacke S, et al. 1H-MR Spectroscopy of brain tumors in the course of radiation therapy: Use of fast spectroscopic imaging and single-voxel spectroscopy for diagnosing recurrence. Rofo. 2002; 174(1): 33-42.
141. Popperl G, Gotz C, RachingerW, et al. Value of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)- L-tyrosine PET for the diagnosis of recurrent glioma. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2004; 31(11): 1464-1470.
142. Rachinger W, Goetz C, Popperl 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(3): 505-511.
143. Terakawa Y, Tsuyuguchi N, Iwai Y, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 11C-Methionine PET for differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from radiation necrosis after radiotherapy. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2008; 49(5): 694-699.
144. Tsuyuguchi N, Takami T, Sunada I, 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(4): 291-296.
145. Kline J, Noto R, Glantz M. Single-photon emission CT in the evaluation of recurrent brain tumor in patients treated with gamma knife radiosurgery or conventional radiation therapy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996; 17(9): 1681-1686.
146. Yamamoto Y, Nishiyama Y, Toyama Y, et al. 99mTc-MIBI and 201Tl SPET in the detection of recurrent brain tumours after radiation therapy. Nucl Med Commun. 2002; 23(12): 1183-1190.