UNLABELLED: O-(2-18F-Fluoroethyl)-L-Tyrosine (18F-FET) PET has shown promising results in brain tumor diagnosis. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate 18F-FET PET in comparison with 18F-FDG PET in patients with peripheral tumors. METHODS: Forty-four consecutive patients with suspected malignant tumors underwent 18F-FET PET and 18F-FDG PET within 7 d. Whole-body PET studies were performed 1 h after intravenous injection of 370 MBq of 18F-FET or 18F-FDG. Six patients were excluded from the analysis because a malignant tumor could not be verified. In 38 patients (7 with colorectal cancer, 6 with pancreatic cancer, 9 with head-neck cancer, 4 with lymphomas, 3 with lung cancer, 3 with ovarian cancer, 4 with breast cancer, and 2 with prostatic cancer), 18F-FET PET and 18F-FDG PET were compared. RESULTS: 18F-FET was positive in only 13 of 38 patients (8 with head-neck cancer, 3 with breast cancer, and 2 with lung cancer), whereas 18F-FDG exhibited increased uptake in 37 of 38 patients. All squamous cell carcinomas were found to be 18F-FET-positive tumors (8 head-neck cancer and 2 lung cancer), whereas most adenocarcinomas were found to be 18F-FET-negative tumors. In patients with colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, prostatic cancer, and lymphomas, no increased 18F-FET uptake could be identified. All lesions that exhibited increased 18F-FET uptake also showed increased 18F-FDG uptake. No additional lesion was identified by 18F-FET PET but not by 18F-FDG PET. A subgroup analysis of patients with head-neck carcinomas allowed a better distinction between malignant and inflammatory tissues with 18F-FET than with 18F-FDG. CONCLUSION: 18F-FET is inferior to 18F-FDG as a PET tracer for general tumor diagnosis. Our preliminary results suggest rather selective uptake of 18F-FET in squamous cell carcinomas. Compared with 18F-FDG PET, 18F-FET PET may allow a better distinction between tumors and inflammatory tissues in patients with squamous cell carcinomas.
UNLABELLED: O-(2-18F-Fluoroethyl)-L-Tyrosine (18F-FET) PET has shown promising results in brain tumor diagnosis. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate 18F-FET PET in comparison with 18F-FDG PET in patients with peripheral tumors. METHODS: Forty-four consecutive patients with suspected malignant tumors underwent 18F-FET PET and 18F-FDG PET within 7 d. Whole-body PET studies were performed 1 h after intravenous injection of 370 MBq of 18F-FET or 18F-FDG. Six patients were excluded from the analysis because a malignant tumor could not be verified. In 38 patients (7 with colorectal cancer, 6 with pancreatic cancer, 9 with head-neck cancer, 4 with lymphomas, 3 with lung cancer, 3 with ovarian cancer, 4 with breast cancer, and 2 with prostatic cancer), 18F-FET PET and 18F-FDG PET were compared. RESULTS: 18F-FET was positive in only 13 of 38 patients (8 with head-neck cancer, 3 with breast cancer, and 2 with lung cancer), whereas 18F-FDG exhibited increased uptake in 37 of 38 patients. All squamous cell carcinomas were found to be 18F-FET-positive tumors (8 head-neck cancer and 2 lung cancer), whereas most adenocarcinomas were found to be 18F-FET-negative tumors. In patients with colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, prostatic cancer, and lymphomas, no increased 18F-FET uptake could be identified. All lesions that exhibited increased 18F-FET uptake also showed increased 18F-FDG uptake. No additional lesion was identified by 18F-FET PET but not by 18F-FDG PET. A subgroup analysis of patients with head-neck carcinomas allowed a better distinction between malignant and inflammatory tissues with 18F-FET than with 18F-FDG. CONCLUSION: 18F-FET is inferior to 18F-FDG as a PET tracer for general tumor diagnosis. Our preliminary results suggest rather selective uptake of 18F-FET in squamous cell carcinomas. Compared with 18F-FDG PET, 18F-FET PET may allow a better distinction between tumors and inflammatory tissues in patients with squamous cell carcinomas.
Authors: Willem Grootjans; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Esther G C Troost; Eric P Visser; Wim J G Oyen; Johan Bussink Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: S Balogova; S Périé; K Kerrou; D Grahek; F Montravers; B Angelard; B Susini; P El Chater; J Lacau St Guily; J N Talbot Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2008-07-31 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Markus Hutterer; Martha Nowosielski; Daniel Putzer; Nathalie L Jansen; Marcel Seiz; Michael Schocke; Mark McCoy; Georg Göbel; Christian la Fougère; Irene J Virgolini; Eugen Trinka; Andreas H Jacobs; Günther Stockhammer Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 12.300