INTRODUCTION: The positron emission tomography (PET) tracers (18)F-fluoro-ethyl-L: -tyrosine (FET), (18)F-fluorocholine (N,N-dimethyl-N-[(18)F]fluoromethyl-2-hydroxyethylammonium (FCH]) and (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) are used in the diagnosis of brain tumours. The aim of this study was threefold: (a) to assess the uptake of the different tracers in the F98 rat glioma, (b) to evaluate the impact of blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption and microvessel density (MVD) on tracer uptake and (c) to compare the uptake in the tumours to that in the radiation injuries (induced by proton irradiation of healthy rats) of our previous study. METHODS: F98 gliomas were induced in 26 rats. The uptake of FET, FCH and FDG was measured using autoradiography and correlated with histology, disruption of the BBB and MVD. RESULTS: The mean FET, FCH and FDG standardised uptake values (SUVs) in the tumour and the contralateral normal cortex (in parentheses) were 4.19+/-0.86 (1.32+/-0.26), 2.98+/-0.58 (0.51+/-0.11) and 11.02+/-3.84 (4.76+/-1.77) respectively. MVD was significantly correlated only with FCH uptake. There was a trend towards a negative correlation between the degree of BBB disruption and FCH uptake and a trend towards a positive correlation with FET uptake. The ratio of the uptake in tumours to that in the radiation injuries was 1.97 (FCH), 2.71 (FET) and 2.37 (FDG). CONCLUSION: MVD displayed a significant effect only on FCH uptake. The degree of BBB disruption seems to affect the accumulation of FET and FCH, but not FDG. Mean tumour uptake for all tracers was significantly higher than the accumulation in radiation injuries.
INTRODUCTION: The positron emission tomography (PET) tracers (18)F-fluoro-ethyl-L: -tyrosine (FET), (18)F-fluorocholine (N,N-dimethyl-N-[(18)F]fluoromethyl-2-hydroxyethylammonium (FCH]) and (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) are used in the diagnosis of brain tumours. The aim of this study was threefold: (a) to assess the uptake of the different tracers in the F98 rat glioma, (b) to evaluate the impact of blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption and microvessel density (MVD) on tracer uptake and (c) to compare the uptake in the tumours to that in the radiation injuries (induced by proton irradiation of healthy rats) of our previous study. METHODS: F98 gliomas were induced in 26 rats. The uptake of FET, FCH and FDG was measured using autoradiography and correlated with histology, disruption of the BBB and MVD. RESULTS: The mean FET, FCH and FDG standardised uptake values (SUVs) in the tumour and the contralateral normal cortex (in parentheses) were 4.19+/-0.86 (1.32+/-0.26), 2.98+/-0.58 (0.51+/-0.11) and 11.02+/-3.84 (4.76+/-1.77) respectively. MVD was significantly correlated only with FCH uptake. There was a trend towards a negative correlation between the degree of BBB disruption and FCH uptake and a trend towards a positive correlation with FET uptake. The ratio of the uptake in tumours to that in the radiation injuries was 1.97 (FCH), 2.71 (FET) and 2.37 (FDG). CONCLUSION: MVD displayed a significant effect only on FCH uptake. The degree of BBB disruption seems to affect the accumulation of FET and FCH, but not FDG. Mean tumour uptake for all tracers was significantly higher than the accumulation in radiation injuries.
Authors: N Shinoura; M Nishijima; T Hara; T Haisa; H Yamamoto; K Fujii; I Mitsui; N Kosaka; T Kondo; T Hara Journal: Radiology Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: T R DeGrado; R E Coleman; S Wang; S W Baldwin; M D Orr; C N Robertson; T J Polascik; D T Price Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-01-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Ana Ramírez de Molina; Mónica Báñez-Coronel; Ruth Gutiérrez; Agustín Rodríguez-González; David Olmeda; Diego Megías; Juan Carlos Lacal Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Bálint Alkonyi; Harry T Chugani; Otto Muzik; Diane C Chugani; Senthil K Sundaram; William J Kupsky; Carlos E Batista; Csaba Juhász Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2011-01-11 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Andor W J M Glaudemans; Roelien H Enting; Mart A A M Heesters; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Ronald W J van Rheenen; Annemiek M E Walenkamp; Riemer H J A Slart Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Manuel Gómez-Río; Nathalie Testart Dardel; Alicia Santiago Chinchilla; Antonio Rodríguez-Fernández; Gonzalo Olivares Granados; Raquel Luque Caro; Mercedes Zurita Herrera; Clara E Chamorro Santos; Pablo Lardelli-Claret; José M Llamas-Elvira Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Manuel Gómez-Río; Antonio Rodríguez-Fernández; Carlos Ramos-Font; Escarlata López-Ramírez; José Manuel Llamas-Elvira Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-01-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sarah C Jost; Andrew Hope; Erich Kiehl; Arie Perry; Sarah Travers; Joel R Garbow Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Claire Vanpouille; Nathalie Le Jeune; David Kryza; Anthony Clotagatide; Marc Janier; Francis Dubois; Nathalie Perek Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-03-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Julie Bolcaen; Kelly Lybaert; Lieselotte Moerman; Benedicte Descamps; Karel Deblaere; Tom Boterberg; Jean-Pierre Kalala; Caroline Van den Broecke; Filip De Vos; Christian Vanhove; Ingeborg Goethals Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 3.240