UNLABELLED: PET with L-[1-11C]-tyrosine (TYR) was investigated in patients undergoing hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion (HILP) with recombinant tumor necrosis factor alpha (rTNF-alpha) and melphalan for locally advanced soft-tissue sarcoma and skin cancer of the lower limb. METHODS: Seventeen patients (5 women, 12 men; age range 24-75 y; mean age 52 y) were studied. TYR PET studies were performed before HILP and 2 and 8 wk afterwards. The protein synthesis rates (PSRs) in nanomoles per milliliter per minute were calculated. After final PET studies, tumors were resected and pathologically examined. Patients with pathologically complete responses (pCR) showed no viable tumors after treatment. Those with pathologically partial responses (pPR) showed various amounts of viable tumors in the resected tumor specimens. RESULTS: Six patients (35%) showed a pCR and 11 patients (65%) showed a pPR. All tumors were depicted as hot spots on PET studies before HILP. The PSR in the pCR group at 2 and 8 wk after perfusion had decreased significantly (P < 0.05) in comparison to the PSR before HILP. A significant difference was found in PSR between the pCR and pPR groups at 2 and at 8 wk (P < 0.05). Median PSR in nonviable tumor tissue was 0.62 and ranged from 0.22 to 0.91. With a threshold PSR of 0.91, sensitivity and specificity of TYR PET were 82% and 100%, respectively. The predictive value of a PSR > 0.91 for having viable tumor after HILP was 100%, whereas the predictive value of a PSR < or = 0.91 for having nonviable tumor tissue after HILP was 75%. The 2 patients in the pPR groups with a PSR < 0.91 showed microscopic islets of tumor cells surrounded by extensive necrosis on pathological examination. CONCLUSION: Based on the calculated PSR after HILP, TYR PET gave a good indication of the pathological outcome. Inflammatory tissue after treatment did not interfere with viable tumor on the images, suggesting that it may be worthwhile to pursue TYR PET in other therapy evaluation settings.
UNLABELLED: PET with L-[1-11C]-tyrosine (TYR) was investigated in patients undergoing hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion (HILP) with recombinant tumor necrosis factor alpha (rTNF-alpha) and melphalan for locally advanced soft-tissue sarcoma and skin cancer of the lower limb. METHODS: Seventeen patients (5 women, 12 men; age range 24-75 y; mean age 52 y) were studied. TYR PET studies were performed before HILP and 2 and 8 wk afterwards. The protein synthesis rates (PSRs) in nanomoles per milliliter per minute were calculated. After final PET studies, tumors were resected and pathologically examined. Patients with pathologically complete responses (pCR) showed no viable tumors after treatment. Those with pathologically partial responses (pPR) showed various amounts of viable tumors in the resected tumor specimens. RESULTS: Six patients (35%) showed a pCR and 11 patients (65%) showed a pPR. All tumors were depicted as hot spots on PET studies before HILP. The PSR in the pCR group at 2 and 8 wk after perfusion had decreased significantly (P < 0.05) in comparison to the PSR before HILP. A significant difference was found in PSR between the pCR and pPR groups at 2 and at 8 wk (P < 0.05). Median PSR in nonviable tumor tissue was 0.62 and ranged from 0.22 to 0.91. With a threshold PSR of 0.91, sensitivity and specificity of TYR PET were 82% and 100%, respectively. The predictive value of a PSR > 0.91 for having viable tumor after HILP was 100%, whereas the predictive value of a PSR < or = 0.91 for having nonviable tumor tissue after HILP was 75%. The 2 patients in the pPR groups with a PSR < 0.91 showed microscopic islets of tumor cells surrounded by extensive necrosis on pathological examination. CONCLUSION: Based on the calculated PSR after HILP, TYR PET gave a good indication of the pathological outcome. Inflammatory tissue after treatment did not interfere with viable tumor on the images, suggesting that it may be worthwhile to pursue TYR PET in other therapy evaluation settings.
Authors: Lukas B Been; Albert J H Suurmeijer; David C P Cobben; Pieter L Jager; Harald J Hoekstra; Philip H Elsinga Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Catherina S P van Rijswijk; Maartje J A Geirnaerdt; Pancras C W Hogendoorn; Johannes L Peterse; Frits van Coevorden; Antonie H M Taminiau; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Bin B R Kroon; Johan L Bloem Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-01-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Dimosthenis Andreou; Henrike Boldt; Daniel Pink; Björn Jobke; Mathias Werner; Markus Schuler; Peter Reichardt; Per-Ulf Tunn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: A C M van de Luijtgaarden; J W J de Rooy; L F de Geus-Oei; W T A van der Graaf; W J G Oyen Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2008-10-04 Impact factor: 3.909