PURPOSE: Experimental data suggest that the accumulation of [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in malignant tumours is related to regional hypoxia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical potential of FDG positron emission tomography (PET) to assess tumour hypoxia in comparison with [(18)F]fluoromisonidazole (FMISO) PET and pO(2)-polarography. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with head and neck malignancies underwent FDG PET, FMISO PET, and pO(2)-polarography within 1 week. Parameters of pO(2)-polarography were the relative frequency of pO(2) readings <or=2.5 mmHg, <or=5 mmHg and <or=10 mmHg, respectively, as well as the mean and median pO(2). RESULTS: We observed a moderate correlation of the maximum standardised uptake value (SUV) of FDG with the tumour to blood ratio of FMISO at 2 h (R=0.53, p<0.05). However, SUV of FDG was similar in hypoxic and normoxic tumours as defined by pO(2)-polarography (6.9+/-3.2 vs 6.2+/-3.0, NS), and the FDG uptake was not correlated with the results of pO(2)-polarography. The retention of FMISO was significantly higher in hypoxic tumours than in normoxic tumours (tumour to muscle ratio at 2 h: 1.8+/-0.4 vs 1.4+/-0.1, p<0.05), and the FMISO tumour to muscle ratio showed a strong correlation with the frequency of pO(2) readings <or=5 mmHg (R=0.80, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: These results support the hypothesis that tumour hypoxia has an effect on glucose metabolism. However, other factors affecting FDG uptake may be more predominant in chronic hypoxia, and thus FDG PET cannot reliably differentiate hypoxic from normoxic tumours.
PURPOSE: Experimental data suggest that the accumulation of [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in malignant tumours is related to regional hypoxia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical potential of FDG positron emission tomography (PET) to assess tumour hypoxia in comparison with [(18)F]fluoromisonidazole (FMISO) PET and pO(2)-polarography. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with head and neck malignancies underwent FDG PET, FMISO PET, and pO(2)-polarography within 1 week. Parameters of pO(2)-polarography were the relative frequency of pO(2) readings <or=2.5 mmHg, <or=5 mmHg and <or=10 mmHg, respectively, as well as the mean and median pO(2). RESULTS: We observed a moderate correlation of the maximum standardised uptake value (SUV) of FDG with the tumour to blood ratio of FMISO at 2 h (R=0.53, p<0.05). However, SUV of FDG was similar in hypoxic and normoxic tumours as defined by pO(2)-polarography (6.9+/-3.2 vs 6.2+/-3.0, NS), and the FDG uptake was not correlated with the results of pO(2)-polarography. The retention of FMISO was significantly higher in hypoxic tumours than in normoxic tumours (tumour to muscle ratio at 2 h: 1.8+/-0.4 vs 1.4+/-0.1, p<0.05), and the FMISO tumour to muscle ratio showed a strong correlation with the frequency of pO(2) readings <or=5 mmHg (R=0.80, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: These results support the hypothesis that tumour hypoxia has an effect on glucose metabolism. However, other factors affecting FDG uptake may be more predominant in chronic hypoxia, and thus FDG PET cannot reliably differentiate hypoxic from normoxic tumours.
Authors: W J Koh; J S Rasey; M L Evans; J R Grierson; T K Lewellen; M M Graham; K A Krohn; T W Griffin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1992 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Rodney J Hicks; Danny Rischin; Richard Fisher; David Binns; Andrew M Scott; Lester J Peters Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-08-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: J S Rasey; W J Koh; M L Evans; L M Peterson; T K Lewellen; M M Graham; K A Krohn Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael Sørensen; Michael R Horsman; Paul Cumming; Ole Lajord Munk; Susanne Keiding Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Bernd Gagel; Patrick Reinartz; Ercole Dimartino; Michael Zimny; Michael Pinkawa; Payam Maneschi; Sven Stanzel; Kurt Hamacher; Heinz H Coenen; Michael Westhofen; Ulrich Büll; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: M Höckel; C Knoop; K Schlenger; B Vorndran; E Baussmann; M Mitze; P G Knapstein; P Vaupel Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1993-01 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: W J Koh; K S Bergman; J S Rasey; L M Peterson; M L Evans; M M Graham; J R Grierson; K L Lindsley; T K Lewellen; K A Krohn Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1995-09-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Quynh-Thu Le; Richard Fisher; Kelly S Oliner; Richard J Young; Hongbin Cao; Christina Kong; Edward Graves; Rodney J Hicks; Grant A McArthur; Lester Peters; Brian O'Sullivan; Amato Giaccia; Danny Rischin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Stéphanie Servagi-Vernat; Sarah Differding; Francois-Xavier Hanin; Daniel Labar; Anne Bol; John A Lee; Vincent Grégoire Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ludwig Dubois; Willy Landuyt; Lieselotte Cloetens; Anne Bol; Guy Bormans; Karin Haustermans; Daniel Labar; Johan Nuyts; Vincent Grégoire; Luc Mortelmans Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-08-09 Impact factor: 9.236