Table 1 Diagnostic value of several imaging techniques in differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis after SRS for brain metastases
Study | Imaging modality | Number of patients (metastasis) | Treatment (n) | Interval SRS – Imaging (mo) | Number of recurrent metastasis / radiation-induced changes | Confirmation of diagnosis (n) | Sensitivity | Specificity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Histo | FU | ||||||||
Serizawa et al., 2005 [16] | 201Thallium SPECT | 70 (72) | SRS | 7 | 30/42 | 10 | 62 | 90% | 91% |
Tsuyuguchi et al., 2003 [12] | MET PET | 21 (21) | SRS | 12 | 9/12 | 11 | 10 | 78% | 100% |
Terakawa et al., 2008 [13] | MET PET | 51 (56) | SRS (47), EBI (4) | 17 | 24/32 | 56 | 0 | 79% | 75% |
Galldiks et al., 2012 [17] | FET PET | 31 (40) | SRS (16), SRS+WBRT (15) | 12 | 19/21 | 11 | 29 | 95% | 91% |
Horky et al., 2010 [18] | Dual phase FDG PET | 25 (27) | SRS/EBI (22), CTx (3) | 18,15 | n.r. | 16 | 11 | 95% | 100% |
Chao et al., 2001 [19] | FDG PET | 32 (36) | SRS | 6 | 18/18 | n.r. | n.r. | 65% | 80% |
FDG PET + MRI | 32 (36) | SRS | 6 | 18/18 | n.r. | n.r. | 86% | 80% | |
Belohlavek et al., 2003 [20] | FDG PET | 25 (57) | SRS | 8 | 8/49 | 3 | 54 | 75% | 94% |
Chernov et al., 2005 [21] | FDG PET | 9 (9) | SRS | 11 | 4/5 | 5 | 4 | 50% | 80% |
Single voxel MRS | 9 (9) | SRS | 11 | 4/5 | 5 | 4 | 50% | 100% | |
Multi voxel MRS | 9 (9) | SRS | 11 | 4/5 | 5 | 4 | 100% | 100% | |
Kimura et al., 2003 [22] | Single voxel MRS | 36 (43) | SRS | 6-12 | 0/6 | 5 | 1 | 100%* | |
Barajas et al., 2009 [23] | PWI | 27 (30) | SRS | 10 | 20/10 | 22 | 8 | 96% | 100% |
Hoefnagels et al., 2009 [4] | PWI | 31 (34) | SRS | 8/9 | 20/14 | 11 | 23 | 70% | 100% |
Mitsuya et al., 2010 [24] | PWI | 27 (28) | SRS | 12 | 7/21 | 2 | 26 | 100% | 95% |
Truong et al., 2006 [25] | PWI | 12** | SRS | 9 | 10/2 | 12 | 0 | PPV 80% | |
Multi voxel MRS | 9*** | SRS | 9 | 7/2 | 9 | 0 | PPV 83% | ||