Literature DB >> 18006614

Imaging gastric cancer with PET and the radiotracers 18F-FLT and 18F-FDG: a comparative analysis.

Ken Herrmann1, Katja Ott, Andreas K Buck, Florian Lordick, Dirk Wilhelm, Michael Souvatzoglou, Karen Becker, Tibor Schuster, Hans-Jürgen Wester, Jörg R Siewert, Markus Schwaiger, Bernd J Krause.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: In this pilot study, we evaluated 3'-deoxy-3'-(18)F-fluorothymidine (FLT) PET for the detection of gastric cancer and compared the diagnostic accuracy with that of (18)F-FDG PET.
METHODS: Forty-five patients (31 male and 14 female) with histologically proven locally advanced gastric cancer underwent attenuation-corrected whole-body (18)F-FLT PET and (18)F-FDG PET/CT (low-dose CT). (18)F-FLT emission images were acquired on a full-ring PET scanner 45 min after the injection of 270-340 MBq of (18)F-FLT. (18)F-FDG PET/CT was performed 60 min after the injection of 300-370 MBq of (18)F-FDG. Mean standardized uptake values for (18)F-FLT and (18)F-FDG were calculated using circular ROIs (diameter, 1.5 cm) in the primary tumor manifestation site, in a reference segment of the liver, and in the bone marrow and were compared on a lesion-by-lesion basis.
RESULTS: According to the Lauren classification, 15 tumors (33%) were of the intestinal subtype and 30 (67%) of the nonintestinal subtype. (18)F-FLT PET images showed high contrast for the primary tumor and proliferating bone marrow. In all patients (45/45), focal (18)F-FLT uptake could be detected in the primary tumor. In contrast, 14 primary tumors were negative for (18)F-FDG uptake, with lesional (18)F-FDG uptake lower than or similar to background activity. The mean standardized uptake value for (18)F-FLT in malignant primaries was 6.0 +/- 2.5 (range, 2.4-12.7). In the subgroup of (18)F-FDG-positive patients, the mean value for (18)F-FDG was 8.4 +/- 4.1 (range, 3.8/19.0), versus 6.8 +/- 2.6 for (18)F-FLT (Wilcoxon test: P = 0.03). Comparison of mean (18)F-FLT and (18)F-FDG uptake in tumors with signet ring cells revealed no statistically significant difference between the tracers (6.2 +/- 2.1 for (18)F-FLT vs. 6.4 +/- 2.8 for (18)F-FDG; Wilcoxon test: P = 0.94).
CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that imaging gastric cancer with the proliferation marker (18)F-FLT is feasible. (18)F-FLT PET was more sensitive than (18)F-FDG PET, especially in tumors frequently presenting without or with low (18)F-FDG uptake, and may improve early evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18006614     DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.107.044867

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  42 in total

1.  Positron emission tomography with [(18)F]-3'-deoxy-3'fluorothymidine (FLT) as a predictor of outcome in patients with locally advanced resectable rectal cancer: a pilot study.

Authors:  Farrokh Dehdashti; Perry W Grigsby; Robert J Myerson; Ilke Nalbantoglu; Changqing Ma; Barry A Siegel
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 2.  Computerized PET/CT image analysis in the evaluation of tumour response to therapy.

Authors:  W Lu; J Wang; H H Zhang
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  Imaging of Gastric Cancer Metabolism Using 18 F-FDG PET/CT.

Authors:  Mijin Yun
Journal:  J Gastric Cancer       Date:  2014-03-31       Impact factor: 3.720

Review 4.  Redefining early gastric cancer.

Authors:  Savio G Barreto; John A Windsor
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Molecular imaging with FLT: a case of Cassandra's curse?

Authors:  Rodney J Hicks
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-08       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 6.  Preoperative staging of nodal status in gastric cancer.

Authors:  Felix Berlth; Seung-Hun Chon; Mickael Chevallay; Minoa Karin Jung; Stefan Paul Mönig
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2017-02-07

Review 7.  Multimodal treatment of gastric cancer in the west: Where are we going?

Authors:  Daniele Marrelli; Karol Polom; Giovanni de Manzoni; Paolo Morgagni; Gian Luca Baiocchi; Franco Roviello
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 8.  Role of imaging in predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer.

Authors:  Robert Michael Kwee; Thomas Christian Kwee
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Uptake decrease of proliferative PET tracer 18FLT in bone marrow after carbon ion therapy in lung cancer.

Authors:  Mitsuru Koizumi; Tsuneo Saga; Masayuki Inubushi; Toshimitsu Fukumura; Kyosan Yoshikawa; Naoyoshi Yamamoto; Mio Nakajima; Toshio Sugane; Masayuki Baba
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.488

10.  Detection of gastric cancer using 18F-FLT PET: comparison with 18F-FDG PET.

Authors:  Reiko Kameyama; Yuka Yamamoto; Kunihiko Izuishi; Ryusuke Takebayashi; Masanobu Hagiike; Makiko Murota; Masato Kaji; Reiji Haba; Yoshihiro Nishiyama
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-11-05       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.