BACKGROUND: To determine the usefulness of positron emission tomography (PET) with (11)C-acetate (AC) for imaging lung adenocarcinoma and evaluating its tumor aggressiveness, AC- and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET were compared. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-nine adenocarcinomas with clinical stage IA and 53 benign nodules were examined by both AC- and FDG-PET before surgery. The sensitivity and specificity for discriminating benign/adenocarcinoma were compared between AC- and FDG-PET. The AC and FDG uptakes were examined to determine the relationship with tumor aggressiveness, i.e., pathological tumor stage, lymphatic, vascular, or pleural involvement, and proliferative activity determined by Ki-67 staining score. RESULTS: While the sensitivity of AC-PET was significantly higher than FDG-PET for bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) and well-differentiated (W/D) adenocarcinoma (p < 0.001 and 0.006, respectively), there was no significant difference for moderately or poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma. The specificity was not different between them. While FDG uptakes were significantly higher in tumors with pathological advanced stages or those with lymphatic, vascular and/or pleural involvements than in tumors with pathological stage IA or those without these tumor involvements (p = 0.04 to p < 0.001), AC uptake did not show significant differences between the respective sub-groups except according to the tumor stage. While both AC and FDG uptakes showed a significant correlation with Ki-67 staining scores (p = 0.03 and p < 0.001, respectively), the correlation coefficient of former was lower than that of latter (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: While AC-PET can image BAC and W/D adenocarcinoma with a higher sensitivity than FDG-PET, it cannot evaluate tumor aggressiveness of clinical stage IA lung adenocarcinoma as well as FDG-PET.
BACKGROUND: To determine the usefulness of positron emission tomography (PET) with (11)C-acetate (AC) for imaging lung adenocarcinoma and evaluating its tumor aggressiveness, AC- and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET were compared. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-nine adenocarcinomas with clinical stage IA and 53 benign nodules were examined by both AC- and FDG-PET before surgery. The sensitivity and specificity for discriminating benign/adenocarcinoma were compared between AC- and FDG-PET. The AC and FDG uptakes were examined to determine the relationship with tumor aggressiveness, i.e., pathological tumor stage, lymphatic, vascular, or pleural involvement, and proliferative activity determined by Ki-67 staining score. RESULTS: While the sensitivity of AC-PET was significantly higher than FDG-PET for bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) and well-differentiated (W/D) adenocarcinoma (p < 0.001 and 0.006, respectively), there was no significant difference for moderately or poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma. The specificity was not different between them. While FDG uptakes were significantly higher in tumors with pathological advanced stages or those with lymphatic, vascular and/or pleural involvements than in tumors with pathological stage IA or those without these tumor involvements (p = 0.04 to p < 0.001), AC uptake did not show significant differences between the respective sub-groups except according to the tumor stage. While both AC and FDG uptakes showed a significant correlation with Ki-67 staining scores (p = 0.03 and p < 0.001, respectively), the correlation coefficient of former was lower than that of latter (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: While AC-PET can image BAC and W/D adenocarcinoma with a higher sensitivity than FDG-PET, it cannot evaluate tumor aggressiveness of clinical stage IA lung adenocarcinoma as well as FDG-PET.
Authors: Ilaria Grassi; Cristina Nanni; Vincenzo Allegri; Joshua James Morigi; Gian Carlo Montini; Paolo Castellucci; Stefano Fanti Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-12-15
Authors: Rafael Paez; Chirayu Shah; Angelina J Cords; Anel Muterspaugh; John E Helton; Sanja Antic; Rosana Eisenberg; Heidi Chen; Eric L Grogan; Henry C Manning; Ronald C Walker; Pierre P Massion Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 3.752