K A Miles1, M R Griffiths, C J Keith. 1. Division of Clinical and Laboratory Sciences, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN7 3PB, UK. k.a.miles@bsms.ac.uk
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to undertake dual assessment of tumour blood flow and glucose metabolism in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in order to assess how the relationships between these parameters vary with tumour size and stage. METHODS: Tumour blood flow and glucose metabolism were assessed in 18 NSCLCs using quantitative CE-CT and FDG-PET respectively. Contrast enhancement and FDG uptake were both normalised to injected dose and patient weight to yield correspondingly the standardised perfusion value (SPV) and standardised uptake value (SUV). Tumour area was measured from conventional CT images. RESULTS: The ratio of SUV to SVP and the metabolic-flow difference (SUV-SVP) correlated with tumour size (r=0.56, p=0.015 and r=0.60 and p=0.008 respectively). A metabolic-flow difference of greater than 4 was more common amongst tumours of stages III and IV (odds ratio 10.5; 95% confidence limits 0.24-32.1). A significant correlation between SUV and SPV was found only for tumours smaller than 4.5 cm2 (r=0.85, p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Blood flow-metabolic relationships are not consistent in NSCLC but depend upon tumour size and stage. Quantitative CE-CT as an adjunct to an FDG study undertaken using integrated PET-CT offers an efficient way to augment the assessment of tumour biology with possible future application as part of clinical care.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to undertake dual assessment of tumour blood flow and glucose metabolism in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in order to assess how the relationships between these parameters vary with tumour size and stage. METHODS:Tumour blood flow and glucose metabolism were assessed in 18 NSCLCs using quantitative CE-CT and FDG-PET respectively. Contrast enhancement and FDG uptake were both normalised to injected dose and patient weight to yield correspondingly the standardised perfusion value (SPV) and standardised uptake value (SUV). Tumour area was measured from conventional CT images. RESULTS: The ratio of SUV to SVP and the metabolic-flow difference (SUV-SVP) correlated with tumour size (r=0.56, p=0.015 and r=0.60 and p=0.008 respectively). A metabolic-flow difference of greater than 4 was more common amongst tumours of stages III and IV (odds ratio 10.5; 95% confidence limits 0.24-32.1). A significant correlation between SUV and SPV was found only for tumours smaller than 4.5 cm2 (r=0.85, p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Blood flow-metabolic relationships are not consistent in NSCLC but depend upon tumour size and stage. Quantitative CE-CT as an adjunct to an FDG study undertaken using integrated PET-CT offers an efficient way to augment the assessment of tumour biology with possible future application as part of clinical care.
Authors: Janet C Miller; Homer H Pien; Dushyant Sahani; A Gregory Sorensen; James H Thrall Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Didier Lardinois; Walter Weder; Thomas F Hany; Ehab M Kamel; Stephan Korom; Burkhardt Seifert; Gustav K von Schulthess; Hans C Steinert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christopher G Willett; Yves Boucher; Emmanuelle di Tomaso; Dan G Duda; Lance L Munn; Ricky T Tong; Daniel C Chung; Dushyant V Sahani; Sanjeeva P Kalva; Sergey V Kozin; Mari Mino; Kenneth S Cohen; David T Scadden; Alan C Hartford; Alan J Fischman; Jeffrey W Clark; David P Ryan; Andrew X Zhu; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Helen X Chen; Paul C Shellito; Gregory Y Lauwers; Rakesh K Jain Journal: Nat Med Date: 2004-01-25 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: A Giatromanolaki; M I Koukourakis; E Sivridis; H Turley; K Talks; F Pezzella; K C Gatter; A L Harris Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2001-09-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Cornelius von Morze; Peder E Z Larson; Simon Hu; Hikari A I Yoshihara; Robert A Bok; Andrei Goga; Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen; Daniel B Vigneron Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Patrick Veit-Haibach; Daniel Schmid; Klaus Strobel; Jan D Soyka; Niklaus G Schaefer; Stephan K Haerle; Gerhard Huber; Gabriele Studer; Burkhardt Seifert; Thomas F Hany Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michael A Fischer; Bart Vrugt; Hatem Alkadhi; Dieter Hahnloser; Thomas F Hany; Patrick Veit-Haibach Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: P Veit-Haibach; D De Ruysscher; W van Elmpt; M Das; Martin Hüllner; H Sharifi; K Zegers; B Reymen; P Lambin; J E Wildberger; E G C Troost Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-09-14 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: S W Harders; H H Madsen; K Hjorthaug; M Rehling; T R Rasmussen; U Pedersen; H K Pilegaard; P Meldgaard; U T Baandrup; F Rasmussen Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.039