BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Review
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Clin Oncol. Oct 24, 2026; 17(10): 124285
Published online Oct 24, 2026. doi: 10.5306/wjco.124285
Table 2 Comparison of different imaging modalities in brain metastases target delineation
Imaging modality
Advantages
Limitations
Clinical applications in BM radiotherapy
T1WI + CStandard reference; excellent for enhancing lesions; widely availableVascular enhancement can obscure cortical/CSF-adjacent lesions; signal interference from blood vesselsPrimary sequence for GTV delineation; standard for response assessment
T2-FLAIRSuppresses CSF signal; excellent for edema visualization; detects non-enhancing tumorNo contrast enhancement; may miss small lesionsAssessing peritumoral edema; visualizing non-enhancing tumor components
T2-FLAIR + CCSF suppression; superior detection of cortical/meningeal lesions; high sensitivity to low-dose contrast; reduces vascular interferenceVariable availability; technical standardization lacking; limited evidence base for target delineationDelineating lesions near CSF/cortex; detecting leptomeningeal disease; possible role in target delineation
CTFast; widely available; excellent for bone anatomy; essential for dose calculationPoor soft tissue contrast; low sensitivity for small metastasesSimulation and localization; electron density mapping for dose calculation
PET-CTMetabolic information; distinguishes active tumor from necrosis/edemaLimited spatial resolution; higher cost; radiation exposureProblem-solving in equivocal cases; detecting active disease
DCE-MRIAssesses vascular permeability; biological informationLonger acquisition; specialized processing; not standard in routine practiceResearch applications; understanding tumor biology
DSC-MRIAssesses perfusion and angiogenesis; helps differentiate RN from TPRequires specialized software; prone to artifactsDifferentiating radiation necrosis from tumor progression


Write to the Help Desk