UNLABELLED: The feasibility of (18)F-3'-fluoro-3'-deoxy-L-thymidine PET (FLT PET) for detecting laryngeal cancer was investigated and compared with (18)F-FDG PET. METHODS: Eleven patients diagnosed with or strongly suspected of having recurrent laryngeal cancer and 10 patients with histologically proven primary laryngeal cancer underwent attenuation-corrected (18)F-FLT PET imaging 60 min after injection of a median of 213 MBq (range, 175-400 MBq) (18)F-FLT and attenuation-corrected (18)F-FDG PET imaging 90 min after injection of a median of 340 MBq (range, 165-650 MBq) (18)F-FDG. All patients were staged by endoscopy and CT according to the Union Internationale Contre la Cancer TNM staging system. All patients underwent biopsy of the laryngeal area after imaging. Lesions seen on (18)F-FDG PET and (18)F-FLT PET were compared with histopathologic results. Mean SUVs, maximum SUVs, and tumor-to-nontumor (TNT) ratios were calculated for (18)F-FLT and (18)F-FDG. Wilcoxon nonparametric testing was used for comparison of (18)F-FDG with (18)F-FLT uptake. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to correlate mean SUVs, maximum SUVs, and TNT ratios of (18)F-FDG PET and (18)F-FLT PET. Two-tailed P values < 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: (18)F-FDG PET and (18)F-FLT PET detected laryngeal cancer correctly in 15 of 17 patients. One lesion judged as positive on (18)F-FDG PET turned out to be normal tissue. Of 2 lesions judged as positive on (18)F-FLT PET, 1 turned out to be inflammation and the other to be normal tissue. Maximum SUVs were 3.3 (range, 1.9-8.5) for (18)F-FDG and 1.6 (range, 1.0-5.7) for (18)F-FLT (P < 0.001). Mean SUVs were 2.7 (range, 1.5-6.5) for (18)F-FDG and 1.2 (range, 0.8-3.8) for (18)F-FLT (P < 0.001). TNT was 1.9 (range, 1.3-4.7) for (18)F-FDG and 1.5 (range, 1.1-3.5) for (18)F-FLT (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The numbers of laryngeal cancers detected with (18)F-FLT PET and (18)F-FDG PET were equal. In laryngeal cancer, the uptake of (18)F-FDG is higher than that of (18)F-FLT.
UNLABELLED: The feasibility of (18)F-3'-fluoro-3'-deoxy-L-thymidine PET (FLT PET) for detecting laryngeal cancer was investigated and compared with (18)F-FDG PET. METHODS: Eleven patients diagnosed with or strongly suspected of having recurrent laryngeal cancer and 10 patients with histologically proven primary laryngeal cancer underwent attenuation-corrected (18)F-FLT PET imaging 60 min after injection of a median of 213 MBq (range, 175-400 MBq) (18)F-FLT and attenuation-corrected (18)F-FDG PET imaging 90 min after injection of a median of 340 MBq (range, 165-650 MBq) (18)F-FDG. All patients were staged by endoscopy and CT according to the Union Internationale Contre la Cancer TNM staging system. All patients underwent biopsy of the laryngeal area after imaging. Lesions seen on (18)F-FDG PET and (18)F-FLT PET were compared with histopathologic results. Mean SUVs, maximum SUVs, and tumor-to-nontumor (TNT) ratios were calculated for (18)F-FLT and (18)F-FDG. Wilcoxon nonparametric testing was used for comparison of (18)F-FDG with (18)F-FLT uptake. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to correlate mean SUVs, maximum SUVs, and TNT ratios of (18)F-FDG PET and (18)F-FLT PET. Two-tailed P values < 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: (18)F-FDG PET and (18)F-FLT PET detected laryngeal cancer correctly in 15 of 17 patients. One lesion judged as positive on (18)F-FDG PET turned out to be normal tissue. Of 2 lesions judged as positive on (18)F-FLT PET, 1 turned out to be inflammation and the other to be normal tissue. Maximum SUVs were 3.3 (range, 1.9-8.5) for (18)F-FDG and 1.6 (range, 1.0-5.7) for (18)F-FLT (P < 0.001). Mean SUVs were 2.7 (range, 1.5-6.5) for (18)F-FDG and 1.2 (range, 0.8-3.8) for (18)F-FLT (P < 0.001). TNT was 1.9 (range, 1.3-4.7) for (18)F-FDG and 1.5 (range, 1.1-3.5) for (18)F-FLT (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The numbers of laryngeal cancers detected with (18)F-FLT PET and (18)F-FDG PET were equal. In laryngeal cancer, the uptake of (18)F-FDG is higher than that of (18)F-FLT.
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: Yuka Yamamoto; Terence Z Wong; Timothy G Turkington; Thomas C Hawk; David A Reardon; R Edward Coleman Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2006 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.488