Close
New

Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.

 

Radiation Necrosis Workup

  • Author: Michael J Schneck, MD, MBA; more...
 
Updated: Nov 18, 2015
 

Laboratory Studies

No specific tests of the serum or cerebrospinal fluid are indicated.

Next

Imaging Studies

A fundamental problem in diagnosis of radiation necrosis is that most imaging studies do not preclude the need for surgical brain biopsy or craniotomy for diagnosis. The typical appearance of brain radiation injury is similar to that of brain tumors, with a contrast-enhancing mass surrounded by edema and mass effect.

With conventional MRI, CT scan, positron emission tomography with [18 F]-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose (PET-FDG), and thallium 201 spectroscopy (single-photon emission CT [SPECT]), differentiating radiation necrosis from recurrent tumor is difficult.[10] Most of the research has been focused on recurrent astrocytoma. See the images below.

MRI of a patient with symptoms of gait unsteadines MRI of a patient with symptoms of gait unsteadiness 1 year after being diagnosed with a posterior fossa primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET). Treatment during the 1-year interval prior to this MRI consisted of surgical resection, craniospinal radiation of 2340 cGy, boost dose given to the posterior fossa for a total of 5500 cGy, chemotherapy (vincristine, cis-platinum, and cyclohexylchloroethylnitrosurea [CCNU]), and dexamethasone therapy.
Positron emission tomography with [18F]-labeled fl Positron emission tomography with [18F]-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose (PET-FDG) performed following the MRI of a patient with symptoms of gait unsteadiness 1 year after being diagnosed with a posterior fossa primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET). Treatment during the 1-year interval prior to these studies consisted of surgical resection, craniospinal radiation of 2340 cGy, boost dose given to the posterior fossa for a total of 5500 cGy, chemotherapy (vincristine, cis-platinum, and cyclohexylchloroethylnitrosurea [CCNU]), and dexamethasone therapy. PET-FDG demonstrates hypometabolism consistent with probable radiation necrosis. Four years later, the patient is stable and without evidence of tumor progression.

MRI

MRI signal changes in radiation necrosis cannot be differentiated from tumor-related changes.

In a study by Asao et al, diffusion-weighted MRI sequences of radiation necrosis were associated with marked and spotty hypointensity compared with recurrent tumors, with maximal apparent diffusion coefficient values in each lesion being smaller for recurrent tumors versus radiation necrosis.[11]

Dequesada et al noted that lesions containing radiation necrosis never displayed gyriform lesion/edema distribution, marginal enhancement, or solid enhancements.[12]

Dequesada et al reported that the lesion quotient (which is the ratio of the nodule as seen on T2 imaging as compared to the total enhancing area on T1 imaging) was associated with a quotient of 0.6 or greater in all cases of recurrent tumor and a quotient of 0.3 or less was seen in 4 of 5 cases of radiation necrosis.[12]

T1, T1 with gadolinium, T2, T2- fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), and proton density do not adequately enable differentiation of radiation necrosis from tumors.

Reddy el al concluded that enhancement patterns on MRI were just as accurate in predicting pathologic diagnosis as MR spectroscopy.[13]

Previously, radiation necrosis was believed to have greater peripheral than central enhancement with gadolinium. However, this peripheral enhancement pattern is not a consistent finding in radiation necrosis. Tumors also may display a greater peripheral than central enhancement.

MRI patterns that may signal but are not diagnostic for the possibility of radiation necrosis include the following:

  • Nonenhancing tumors prior to surgery that have enhancing foci that subsequently develop within and circumscribed to the tumor bed may represent necrosis rather than progression to higher-grade tumor.
  • Enhancing lesions that develop some distance from a primary glioma but within the radiation field may be indicative of radiation necrosis.
  • Enhancing focus in the periventricular white matter, particular within the corpus callosum or the top of the ventricles, may represent necrosis because the periventricular white matter is highly susceptible to radiation necrosis.
  • Consider radiation necrosis if a new MRI enhancing lesion has a soap-bubble or Swiss-cheese appearance.

CT scan

CT scan is not helpful in making the diagnosis of radiation necrosis.

It is most useful in the acute, clinical decline of a patient with brain tumor to differentiate acute hemorrhage from increased intracranial pressure, obstructive hydrocephalus, or a herniation syndrome.

Dynamic testing

Dynamic testing (eg, PET-FDG, SPECT) detects differences in tissue metabolism.

Tumors have greater metabolism (ie, increased uptake of PET-FDG and SPECT) than healthy brain parenchyma and areas of radiation necrosis.

Radiation necrosis is hypometabolic (ie, decreased uptake of FDG and thallium) compared to healthy brain parenchyma.

PET-FDG uses glucose transport and glycolysis as markers of metabolic activity.

Other PET imaging tracers have been proposed, including fluoride-labeled boronophenylalanine and other amino-acid tracers. These may be more useful in detection of tumors because the background protein metabolism activity is lower than sugar and the background activity of brain glucose metabolism may complicate interpretations of PET-FDG.[14]

13 N-NH3 PET may also be useful because this compound is associated with high uptake in even low-grade astrocytomas, thus possibly allowing clinicians to distinguish between recurrent astrocytoma and radiation necrosis.[15]

Thallium metabolic activity is due to its similarity to potassium.

Thallium SPECT reflects metabolic activity of sodium/potassium ATP-dependent membrane transport, chloride transport, and calcium channels.

In dynamic testing, a region of interest (ROI) is compared to a similar area of healthy brain. A ROI located in one hemisphere is compared to a similar area in the contralateral hemisphere.

For bihemispheric lesions, a ROI is compared to an equivalent region in the anterior-posterior or posterior-anterior areas of brain parenchyma.

Most medical centers use qualitative assessments of ROI rather than quantitative assessments.

Despite diagnostic benefits and limitations of dynamic testing, histology often demonstrates mixed findings of malignant cells and radiation necrosis.

Advantages of PET-FDG [16]

PET-FDG correlates with prognosis and survival for newly diagnosed astrocytoma. Astrocytoma research has demonstrated that increased FDG uptake correlates with decreased survival.

Increased FDG activity on PET is more indicative of higher-grade astrocytoma such as anaplastic astrocytoma or glioblastoma multiforme.

PET-FDG also has assisted in guiding brain biopsy sites. Since brain biopsies are subject to sampling error, PET-FDG can assist the surgeon in obtaining the most metabolically active tissue to allow more accurate tumor staging.

PET-FDG is diagnostically useful in evaluating a tumefactive lesion (ie, structural lesion on MRI that suggests tumor) when clinical history suggests another diagnosis (eg, stroke, demyelination, abscess).

Despite the potential of this tool in a newly diagnosed brain tumor, PET-FDG becomes problematic when differentiating radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence.

Disadvantages of PET-FDG

Its sensitivity and specificity in differentiating radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence are related to various factors. Overall, the sensitivity of FDG-PET has been reported as 80-90%, but the specificity is lower (50-90% depending on the series).[7]

A ROI less than 1.6 cm lowers sensitivity and specificity in the differentiation of radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence.[17]

A ROI located in the temporal lobes and brain stem may have poor resolution due to artifact from nearby bony structures.

Inflammatory cells in areas of radiation necrosis may show increased metabolic activity, which falsely can indicate tumor recurrence.

Tumor cells also may be present in areas of low glucose activity on PET-FDG.

Brain tissue used for comparison to the ROI can become depressed metabolically from radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy.

Carbon C 11–methionine PET scanning may be a complementary study to FDG-PET. In one series, 31 of 35 brain tumors showed increased11 C-methionine despite isometabolism or hypometabolism on FDG-PET scans, and 10 benign lesions (of which 2 were cases of radiation necrosis) showed decreased or normal uptake of11 C-methionine.[18]

Thallium single-photon emission CT scan

Except for being more readily available at more medical centers than PET-FDG, thallium SPECT has the same limitations in dynamic testing.

A thallium index greater than 1.5 generally correlates with an anaplastic astrocytoma, glioblastoma multiforme, primary CNS lymphoma, or metastasis.

Magnetic resonance spectroscopy

Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) offers a new, quantitative approach to help differentiate radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence.

A few studies with histologic confirmation demonstrate the potential of MRS in differentiating radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence.

Future studies will determine the usefulness of MRS in avoiding biopsy or craniotomy for definitive diagnosis. MRS measures various brain metabolic markers, as follows:

  • Creatine is indicative of cellular bioenergetics.
  • Choline (Cho) compounds reflect membrane metabolism.
  • Lactate (Lac) reflects anaerobic metabolism.
  • N -acetylaspartate (NAA) is an amino acid marker of neurons.
  • Gliomas have high peaks in Cho and even higher peaks in creatine when compared to healthy brain tissue.
  • Radiation necrosis has decreased peaks in Cho, NAA, and creatine compared to healthy brain tissue.
  • MRS may be of particular use in distinguishing pure tumor from pure necrosis. Knowledge of the choline/creatine and lipid-lactate/choline ratios may allow one to distinguish between tumor and necrosis; good correlation between MRS and lesion biopsy findings was reported from a study by Rock et al. [19]

Overall, imaging studies provide additional information, but they cannot provide a definitive diagnosis (ie, to avoid biopsy or craniotomy).

Previous
Next

Procedures

The similarities of radiation necrosis and tumor recurrence in clinical presentation and diagnostic imaging make performing a brain biopsy critical for diagnosis.

Diagnosing radiation necrosis is problematic. The diagnosis depends on obtaining adequate biopsy findings and is prone to sampling error.

A brain biopsy sample must be large enough to exclude tumor recurrence without causing clinically significant neurologic deficits. Areas to avoid include the deep central areas of the thalamus, the motor strip, occipital lobe, and speech centers.

Previous
Next

Histologic Findings

Radiation necrosis tissue samples demonstrate necrotic tissue without predominance of malignant cells.

Irradiated tumor may contain necrosis, which does not necessarily signify radiation necrosis.

Some biopsy findings of radiation necrosis show both malignant cells and radiation necrosis.

A hallmark of radiation necrosis is involvement of the white matter with demyelination and oligodendrocyte dropout.

In addition to necrotic tissue, biopsy findings of radiation necrosis may demonstrate thickened vessels with endothelial proliferation and/or hyalinization with fibrosis and moderate infiltration of lymphocytes and macrophages.

Previous
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Michael J Schneck, MD, MBA Vice Chair and Professor, Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Loyola University, Chicago Stritch School of Medicine; Associate Director, Stroke Program, Director, Neurology Intensive Care Program, Medical Director, Neurosciences ICU, Loyola University Medical Center

Michael J Schneck, MD, MBA is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Neurology, American Society of Neuroimaging, Stroke Council of the American Heart Association, Neurocritical Care Society

Disclosure: Received honoraria from Boehringer-Ingelheim for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from Sanofi/BMS for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from Pfizer for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from UCB Pharma for speaking and teaching; Received consulting fee from Talecris for other; Received grant/research funds from NMT Medical for independent contractor; Received grant/research funds from NIH for independent contractor; Received grant/research funds from Sanofi for independe.

Coauthor(s)

Anna Janss, MD, PhD Associate Professor of Pediatric Neuro-oncology, Emory University School of Medicine; Consulting Neuro-oncologist, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta

Anna Janss, MD, PhD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Neurology, American Association for Cancer Research, American Medical Association, International Association for the Study of Pain, Pennsylvania Medical Society, Society for Neuroscience, Children's Oncology Group, Society for Neuro-Oncology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Jorge C Kattah, MD Head, Associate Program Director, Professor, Department of Neurology, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria

Jorge C Kattah, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Neurology, American Neurological Association, New York Academy of Sciences

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

Frederick M Vincent, Sr, MD Clinical Professor, Department of Neurology and Ophthalmology, Michigan State University Colleges of Human and Osteopathic Medicine

Frederick M Vincent, Sr, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Neurology, American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, American College of Forensic Examiners Institute, American College of Legal Medicine, American College of Physicians

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

The authors and editors of Medscape Reference gratefully acknowledge the contributions of previous author Robert Wilson, MD to the development and writing of this article.

References
  1. Lai R, Abrey LE, Rosenblum MK, DeAngelis LM. Treatment-induced leukoencephalopathy in primary CNS lymphoma: a clinical and autopsy study. Neurology. 2004 Feb 10. 62(3):451-6. [Medline].

  2. Liu AK, Macy ME, Foreman NK. Bevacizumab as therapy for radiation necrosis in four children with pontine gliomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Nov 15. 75(4):1148-54. [Medline].

  3. Barajas RF Jr, Chang JS, Segal MR, Parsa AT, McDermott MW, Berger MS, et al. Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radiation therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology. 2009 Nov. 253(2):486-96. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  4. Levin VA, Bidaut L, Hou P, et al. Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of bevacizumab therapy for radiation necrosis of the central nervous system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Apr 1. 79(5):1487-95. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  5. Plimpton SR, Stence N, Hemenway M, Hankinson TC, Foreman N, Liu AK. Cerebral Radiation Necrosis in Pediatric Patients. Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2013 May 7. [Medline].

  6. Kureshi SA, Hofman FM, Schneider JH, Chin LS, Apuzzo ML, Hinton DR. Cytokine expression in radiation-induced delayed cerebral injury. Neurosurgery. 1994 Nov. 35(5):822-9; discussion 829-30. [Medline].

  7. Langleben DD, Segall GM. PET in differentiation of recurrent brain tumor from radiation injury. J Nucl Med. 2000 Nov. 41(11):1861-7. [Medline].

  8. Cheng KM, Chan CM, Fu YT, Ho LC, Cheung FC, Law CK. Acute hemorrhage in late radiation necrosis of the temporal lobe: report of five cases and review of the literature. J Neurooncol. 2001 Jan. 51(2):143-50. [Medline].

  9. Ruben JD, Dally M, Bailey M, Smith R, McLean CA, Fedele P. Cerebral radiation necrosis: incidence, outcomes, and risk factors with emphasis on radiation parameters and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jun 1. 65(2):499-508. [Medline].

  10. Shah R, Vattoth S, Jacob R, Manzil FF, O'Malley JP, Borghei P, et al. Radiation necrosis in the brain: imaging features and differentiation from tumor recurrence. Radiographics. 2012 Sep-Oct. 32(5):1343-59. [Medline].

  11. 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 Jun-Jul. 26(6):1455-60. [Medline].

  12. Dequesada IM, Quisling RG, Yachnis A, Friedman WA. Can standard magnetic resonance imaging reliably distinguish recurrent tumor from radiation necrosis after radiosurgery for brain metastases? A radiographic-pathological study. Neurosurgery. 2008 Nov. 63(5):898-903; discussion 904. [Medline].

  13. Reddy K, Westerly D, Chen C. MRI patterns of T1 enhancing radiation necrosis versus tumour recurrence in high-grade gliomas. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013 Jun. 57(3):349-55. [Medline].

  14. Miyashita M, Miyatake S, Imahori Y, Yokoyama K, Kawabata S, Kajimoto Y, et al. Evaluation of fluoride-labeled boronophenylalanine-PET imaging for the study of radiation effects in patients with glioblastomas. J Neurooncol. 2008 Sep. 89(2):239-46. [Medline].

  15. Xiangsong Z, Weian C. Differentiation of recurrent astrocytoma from radiation necrosis: a pilot study with 13N-NH3 PET. J Neurooncol. 2007 May. 82(3):305-11. [Medline].

  16. Mogard J, Kihlstrom L, Ericson K, Karlsson B, Guo WY, Stone-Elander S. Recurrent tumor vs radiation effects after gamma knife radiosurgery of intracerebral metastases: diagnosis with PET-FDG. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1994 Mar-Apr. 18(2):177-81. [Medline].

  17. Kahn D, Follett KA, Bushnell DL, et al. Diagnosis of recurrent brain tumor: value of 201Tl SPECT vs 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994 Dec. 163(6):1459-65. [Medline].

  18. Chung JK, Kim YK, Kim SK, et al. Usefulness of 11C-methionine PET in the evaluation of brain lesions that are hypo- or isometabolic on 18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002 Feb. 29(2):176-82. [Medline].

  19. 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 Oct. 51(4):912-9; discussion 919-20. [Medline].

  20. Chuba PJ, Aronin P, Bhambhani K, et al. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for radiation-induced brain injury in children. Cancer. 1997 Nov 15. 80(10):2005-12. [Medline].

  21. Ashamalla HL, Thom SR, Goldwein JW. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment of radiation-induced sequelae in children. The University of Pennsylvania experience. Cancer. 1996 Jun 1. 77(11):2407-12. [Medline].

  22. Levin VA, Bidaut L, Hou P, Kumar AJ, Wefel JS, Bekele BN, et al. Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of bevacizumab therapy for radiation necrosis of the central nervous system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Apr 1. 79 (5):1487-95. [Medline].

  23. Boothe D, Young R, Yamada Y, Prager A, Chan T, Beal K. Bevacizumab as a treatment for radiation necrosis of brain metastases post stereotactic radiosurgery. Neuro Oncol. 2013 Sep. 15 (9):1257-63. [Medline].

  24. Glantz MJ, Burger PC, Friedman AH, Radtke RA, Massey EW, Schold SC Jr. Treatment of radiation-induced nervous system injury with heparin and warfarin. Neurology. 1994 Nov. 44(11):2020-7. [Medline].

  25. Wong ET, Huberman M, Lu XQ, Mahadevan A. Bevacizumab reverses cerebral radiation necrosis. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Dec 1. 26(34):5649-50. [Medline].

  26. Gonzalez J, Kumar AJ, Conrad CA, Levin VA. Effect of bevacizumab on radiation necrosis of the brain. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Feb 1. 67(2):323-6. [Medline].

  27. Buchpiguel CA, Alavi JB, Alavi A, Kenyon LC. PET versus SPECT in distinguishing radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence in the brain. J Nucl Med. 1995 Jan. 36(1):159-64. [Medline].

  28. Cerghet M, Redman B, Junck L, Forman J, Rogers LR. Prolonged survival after multifocal brain radiation necrosis associated with whole brain radiation for brain metastases: case report. J Neurooncol. 2008 Oct. 90(1):85-8. [Medline].

  29. Chen W. Clinical applications of PET in brain tumors. J Nucl Med. 2007 Sep. 48(9):1468-81. [Medline].

  30. de Vries B, Taphoorn MJ, van Isselt JW, Terhaard CH, Jansen GH, Elsenburg PH. Bilateral temporal lobe necrosis after radiotherapy: confounding SPECT results. Neurology. 1998 Oct. 51(4):1183-4. [Medline].

  31. Deshmukh A, Scott JA, Palmer EL, Hochberg FH, Gruber M, Fischman AJ. Impact of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on the clinical management of patients with glioma. Clin Nucl Med. 1996 Sep. 21(9):720-5. [Medline].

  32. Ishikawa M, Kikuchi H, Miyatake S, Oda Y, Yonekura Y, Nishizawa S. Glucose consumption in recurrent gliomas. Neurosurgery. 1993 Jul. 33(1):28-33. [Medline].

  33. 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 Nov. 217(2):377-84. [Medline].

  34. Lee AW, Foo W, Chappell R, et al. Effect of time, dose, and fractionation on temporal lobe necrosis following radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998 Jan 1. 40(1):35-42. [Medline].

  35. McPherson CM, Warnick RE. Results of contemporary surgical management of radiation necrosis using frameless stereotaxis and intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurooncol. 2004 May. 68(1):41-7. [Medline].

  36. Nelson MD Jr, Soni D, Baram TZ. Necrosis in pontine gliomas: radiation induced or natural history?. Radiology. 1994 Apr. 191(1):279-82. [Medline].

  37. Nelson SJ, Huhn S, Vigneron DB, et al. Volume MRI and MRSI techniques for the quantitation of treatment response in brain tumors: presentation of a detailed case study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997 Nov-Dec. 7(6):1146-52. [Medline].

  38. Olivero WC, Dulebohn SC, Lister JR. The use of PET in evaluating patients with primary brain tumours: is it useful?. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1995 Feb. 58(2):250-2. [Medline].

  39. Omuro AM, Leite CC, Mokhtari K, Delattre JY. Pitfalls in the diagnosis of brain tumours. Lancet Neurol. 2006 Nov. 5(11):937-48. [Medline].

  40. Packer RJ, Zimmerman RA, Kaplan A, et al. Early cystic/necrotic changes after hyperfractionated radiation therapy in children with brain stem gliomas. Data from the Childrens Cancer Group. Cancer. 1993 Apr 15. 71(8):2666-74. [Medline].

  41. Peterson K, Clark HB, Hall WA, Truwit CL. Multifocal enhancing magnetic resonance imaging lesions following cranial irradiation. Ann Neurol. 1995 Aug. 38(2):237-44. [Medline].

  42. Posner JB. Side effects of radiation therapy. Neurologic Complications of Cancer. No. 54. Philadelphia, Pa: FA Davis; 1995. 311-37.

  43. Rizzoli HV, Pagnanelli DM. Treatment of delayed radiation necrosis of the brain. A clinical observation. J Neurosurg. 1984 Mar. 60(3):589-94. [Medline].

  44. Slizofski WJ, Krishna L, Katsetos CD, et al. Thallium imaging for brain tumors with results measured by a semiquantitative index and correlated with histopathology. Cancer. 1994 Dec 15. 74(12):3190-7. [Medline].

 
Previous
Next
 
MRI of a patient with symptoms of gait unsteadiness 1 year after being diagnosed with a posterior fossa primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET). Treatment during the 1-year interval prior to this MRI consisted of surgical resection, craniospinal radiation of 2340 cGy, boost dose given to the posterior fossa for a total of 5500 cGy, chemotherapy (vincristine, cis-platinum, and cyclohexylchloroethylnitrosurea [CCNU]), and dexamethasone therapy.
Positron emission tomography with [18F]-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose (PET-FDG) performed following the MRI of a patient with symptoms of gait unsteadiness 1 year after being diagnosed with a posterior fossa primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET). Treatment during the 1-year interval prior to these studies consisted of surgical resection, craniospinal radiation of 2340 cGy, boost dose given to the posterior fossa for a total of 5500 cGy, chemotherapy (vincristine, cis-platinum, and cyclohexylchloroethylnitrosurea [CCNU]), and dexamethasone therapy. PET-FDG demonstrates hypometabolism consistent with probable radiation necrosis. Four years later, the patient is stable and without evidence of tumor progression.
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.