BACKGROUND: This study sought to determine whether [(18)F]fluorothymidine (FLT) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) imaging allows assessment of tumor viability and proliferation in patients with soft tissue sarcomas who are treated with neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: Twenty patients with biopsy-proven, resectable, high-grade soft tissue sarcoma underwent [(18)F]FLT PET/CT imaging before and after neoadjuvant therapy. Histologic subtypes included sarcomas not otherwise specified (n = 5), malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (n = 3), gastrointestinal stromal tumors (n = 3), leiomyosarcomas (n = 3), angiosarcomas (n = 2), and others (n = 4). Changes in [(18)F]FLT peak standardized uptake value (SUVpeak) were correlated with percent necrosis in excised tissue, whereas posttreatment [(18)F]FLT tumor uptake was correlated with thymidine kinase 1 (TK1) expression and Ki-67 staining indices in excised tumor tissue. RESULTS: Tumor FLT SUVpeak averaged 7.1 ± 3.7 g/mL (range, 1.9-16.1 g/mL) at baseline and decreased significantly to 2.7 ± 1.6 g/mL (range, 0.8-6.0 g/mL) at follow-up (P < .001); however, marked reductions in SUV were not specific for histopathological response. The posttreatment SUVpeak did not correlate with TK1 (P = .27) or Ki-67 expression (P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: Marked reductions in [(18)F]FLT tumor uptake in response to neoadjuvant treatment were observed in most patients with sarcoma. However, these reductions were not specific for histopathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy. Furthermore, posttreatment [(18)F]FLT tumor uptake was unrelated to tumor proliferation by Ki-67 and TK1 staining. These results question the value of [(18)F]FLT PET imaging for treatment response assessments in patients with soft tissue sarcoma.
BACKGROUND: This study sought to determine whether [(18)F]fluorothymidine (FLT) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) imaging allows assessment of tumor viability and proliferation in patients with soft tissue sarcomas who are treated with neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: Twenty patients with biopsy-proven, resectable, high-grade soft tissue sarcoma underwent [(18)F]FLT PET/CT imaging before and after neoadjuvant therapy. Histologic subtypes included sarcomas not otherwise specified (n = 5), malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (n = 3), gastrointestinal stromal tumors (n = 3), leiomyosarcomas (n = 3), angiosarcomas (n = 2), and others (n = 4). Changes in [(18)F]FLT peak standardized uptake value (SUVpeak) were correlated with percent necrosis in excised tissue, whereas posttreatment [(18)F]FLTtumor uptake was correlated with thymidine kinase 1 (TK1) expression and Ki-67 staining indices in excised tumor tissue. RESULTS:TumorFLT SUVpeak averaged 7.1 ± 3.7 g/mL (range, 1.9-16.1 g/mL) at baseline and decreased significantly to 2.7 ± 1.6 g/mL (range, 0.8-6.0 g/mL) at follow-up (P < .001); however, marked reductions in SUV were not specific for histopathological response. The posttreatment SUVpeak did not correlate with TK1 (P = .27) or Ki-67 expression (P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: Marked reductions in [(18)F]FLTtumor uptake in response to neoadjuvant treatment were observed in most patients with sarcoma. However, these reductions were not specific for histopathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy. Furthermore, posttreatment [(18)F]FLTtumor uptake was unrelated to tumor proliferation by Ki-67 and TK1 staining. These results question the value of [(18)F]FLT PET imaging for treatment response assessments in patients with soft tissue sarcoma.
Authors: Hubert Vesselle; John Grierson; Mark Muzi; Jeffrey M Pugsley; Rodney A Schmidt; Peter Rabinowitz; Lanell M Peterson; Eric Vallières; Douglas E Wood Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Henryk Barthel; Marcel C Cleij; David R Collingridge; O Clyde Hutchinson; Safiye Osman; Qimin He; Sajinder K Luthra; Frank Brady; Pat M Price; Eric O Aboagye Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Thomas Beyer; Gerald Antoch; Stefan Müller; Thomas Egelhof; Lutz S Freudenberg; Jörg Debatin; Andreas Bockisch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Yanping Guo; Elena Kotova; Zhe-Sheng Chen; Kun Lee; Elizabeth Hopper-Borge; Martin G Belinsky; Gary D Kruh Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2003-05-22 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: David C P Cobben; Philip H Elsinga; Albert J H Suurmeijer; Wim Vaalburg; Bram Maas; Piet L Jager; Harald J Hoekstra Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-03-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Andreas K Buck; Holger Schirrmeister; Martin Hetzel; Mareike Von Der Heide; Gisela Halter; Gerhard Glatting; Torsten Mattfeldt; Florian Liewald; Sven N Reske; Bernd Neumaier Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-06-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Hinrich A Wieder; Hans Geinitz; Robert Rosenberg; Florian Lordick; Karen Becker; Alexander Stahl; Ernst Rummeny; Jörg R Siewert; Markus Schwaiger; Jens Stollfuss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-12-29 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Benjamin E Ueberroth; Jawana M Lawhorn-Crews; Lance K Heilbrun; Daryn W Smith; Janice Akoury; Rouba Ali-Fehmi; Nicole T Eiseler; Anthony F Shields Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Brenda F Kurland; Elizabeth R Gerstner; James M Mountz; Lawrence H Schwartz; Christopher W Ryan; Michael M Graham; John M Buatti; Fiona M Fennessy; Edward A Eikman; Virendra Kumar; Kenneth M Forster; Richard L Wahl; Frank S Lieberman Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Lars Stelter; Simon Fuchs; Achim A Jungbluth; Gerd Ritter; Valerie A Longo; Pat Zanzonico; Nathanael Raschzok; Igor M Sauer; John S Bomalaski; Steven M Larson Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Markus K Schuler; Stephan Richter; Bettina Beuthien-Baumann; Ivan Platzek; Jörg Kotzerke; Jörg van den Hoff; Gerhard Ehninger; Peter Reichardt Journal: Case Rep Oncol Med Date: 2013-07-01