Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 419

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Diagnostic Accuracy of 11C-Methionine PET for Differentiation of Recurrent Brain Tumors from Radiation Necrosis After Radiotherapy

Open access
Terakawa, Yuzo, Tsuyuguchi, Naohiro, Iwai, Yoshiyasu, Yamanaka, Kazuhiro, Higashiyama, Shigeaki, Takami, Toshihiro, Ohata, Kenji·2008·Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

UNLABELLED: We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of PET with l-methyl-(11)C-methionine ((11)C-MET) for the differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from radiation necrosis. METHODS: Seventy-seven patients who had been previously treated with radiotherapy after primary treatment for metastatic brain tumor (n=51) or glioma (n=26) were studied to clarify the diagnostic performance of (11)C-MET PET in differentiating between recurrent brain tumors and radiation necrosis. A total of 88 PET scans with (11)C-MET were obtained; sometimes more than one scan was obtained when there was an indication of recurrent brain tumor or radiation necrosis. A definitive diagnosis was made on the basis of pathologic examination for recurrent brain tumors and on the basis of pathologic examination or clinical course for radiation necrosis. Several indices characterizing the lesions were determined; these included mean and maximum standardized uptake values (SUV(mean) and SUV(max), respectively) and the ratios of lesion uptake to contralateral normal frontal-lobe gray matter uptake corresponding to the SUV(mean) and the SUV(max) (L/N(mean) and L/N(max), respectively). Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine the optimal index of (11)C-MET PET and cutoff values for the differential diagnosis of tumor recurrence and radiation necrosis. RESULTS: The values of each index of (11)C-MET PET tended to be higher for tumor recurrence than for radiation necrosis. There were significant differences between tumor recurrence and radiation necrosis in all of the indices except for the L/N(max) for glioma. ROC analysis indicated that the L/N(mean) was the most informative index for differentiating between tumor recurrence and radiation necrosis. An L/N(mean) of greater than 1.41 provided the best sensitivity and specificity for metastatic brain tumor (79% and 75%, respectively), and an L/N(mean) of greater than 1.58 provided the best sensitivity and specificity for glioma (75% and 75%, respectively). CONCLUSION: (11)C-MET PET can provide quantitative values to aid in the differentiation of tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis, although these values do not appear to be absolute indicators. Quantitative analysis of (11)C-MET PET data may be helpful in managing irradiated brain tumors.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2967/jnumed.107.048082

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 419

Metadata

Authors
Terakawa, Y., Tsuyuguchi, N., Iwai, Y., Yamanaka, K., Higashiyama, S., Takami, T., & Ohata, K.
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2008-04-15
Volume
49
Issue
5
Pages
694-699
ISSN
  • 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-662X
OpenAlex
W2163634369
Cited by
419
References
0
FWCI
14.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diagnostic Accuracy of 11C-Methionine PET for Differentiation of Recurrent Brain Tumors from Radiation Necrosis After Radiotherapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2967/jnumed.107.048082
The paper
Terakawa, Y., Tsuyuguchi, N., Iwai, Y., Yamanaka, K., Higashiyama, S., Takami, T., & Ohata, K. (2008). Diagnostic Accuracy of 11C-Methionine PET for Differentiation of Recurrent Brain Tumors from Radiation Necrosis After Radiotherapy. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.048082

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.