Esther Mena1, Maria Liza Lindenberg, Baris I Turkbey, Joanna Shih, Jean Logan, Stephen Adler, Karen Wong, Wyndham Wilson, Peter L Choyke, Karen A Kurdziel. 1. From the *Molecular Imaging Program, and †Biometric Research Branch, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; ‡Brookhaven National Laboratories, Upton, NY; and §SAIC Contractor to NCI, Fort Detrick Frederick, MD; and ¶Lymphoma Therapeutics Section, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite its success in diagnosing and staging lymphoma, F-FDG PET/CT can be falsely positive in areas of posttreatment inflammation. 3'-F-fluoro-3'-deoxy-l-thymidine (F-FLT) is a structural analog of the DNA constituent thymidine; its uptake correlates with cellular proliferation. This pilot study evaluates the ability of F-FLT PET/CT to distinguish viable lymphoma from posttreatment inflammatory changes in F-FDG avid residual masses. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with lymphoma with at least 1 F-FDG avid residual mass after therapy underwent F-FLT PET/CT imaging. F-FDG and F-FLT uptake values were compared, including quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters extracted from the F-FLT time activity curves generated from dynamic data using graphical and nonlinear compartmental modeling. RESULTS: The true nature of the residual mass was confirmed by biopsy in 12 patients (8 positive and 4 negative for viable lymphoma and by follow-up CT and/or repeat F-FDG PET/CT imaging over 1 year); among the remaining 9 patients, 7 lesions resolved or decreased and 2 showed growth indicative of lymphoma. F-FLT PET SUVest.max was significantly higher in tumors than in benign lesions (5.5 [2.2] vs 1.7 [0.6]; P < 0.0001), whereas the difference in F-FDG SUVs was not significant (malignant, 7.8 [3.8] vs benign, 5.4 [2.4]; P = 0.11). All of the benign lesions had an F-FLT SUVest.max of less than 3.0. CONCLUSIONS: F-FLT shows improved specificity over F-FDG in distinguishing residual lymphoma from posttreatment inflammation and may be useful in the evaluation of patients with residual F-FDG-positive masses after completing therapy.
BACKGROUND: Despite its success in diagnosing and staging lymphoma, F-FDG PET/CT can be falsely positive in areas of posttreatment inflammation. 3'-F-fluoro-3'-deoxy-l-thymidine (F-FLT) is a structural analog of the DNA constituent thymidine; its uptake correlates with cellular proliferation. This pilot study evaluates the ability of F-FLT PET/CT to distinguish viable lymphoma from posttreatment inflammatory changes in F-FDG avid residual masses. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with lymphoma with at least 1 F-FDG avid residual mass after therapy underwent F-FLT PET/CT imaging. F-FDG and F-FLT uptake values were compared, including quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters extracted from the F-FLT time activity curves generated from dynamic data using graphical and nonlinear compartmental modeling. RESULTS: The true nature of the residual mass was confirmed by biopsy in 12 patients (8 positive and 4 negative for viable lymphoma and by follow-up CT and/or repeat F-FDG PET/CT imaging over 1 year); among the remaining 9 patients, 7 lesions resolved or decreased and 2 showed growth indicative of lymphoma. F-FLT PET SUVest.max was significantly higher in tumors than in benign lesions (5.5 [2.2] vs 1.7 [0.6]; P < 0.0001), whereas the difference in F-FDG SUVs was not significant (malignant, 7.8 [3.8] vs benign, 5.4 [2.4]; P = 0.11). All of the benign lesions had an F-FLT SUVest.max of less than 3.0. CONCLUSIONS: F-FLT shows improved specificity over F-FDG in distinguishing residual lymphoma from posttreatment inflammation and may be useful in the evaluation of patients with residual F-FDG-positive masses after completing therapy.
Authors: Martin Wagner; Ulrike Seitz; Andreas Buck; Bernd Neumaier; Stefan Schultheiss; Markus Bangerter; Martin Bommer; Frank Leithäuser; Edgar Wawra; Gerd Munzert; Sven N Reske Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: R Naumann; A Vaic; B Beuthien-Baumann; J Bredow; J Kropp; T Kittner; W G Franke; G Ehninger Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 6.998
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: Aren van Waarde; David C P Cobben; Albert J H Suurmeijer; Bram Maas; Willem Vaalburg; Erik F J de Vries; Pieter L Jager; Harald J Hoekstra; Philip H Elsinga Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: D Visvikis; D Francis; R Mulligan; D C Costa; I Croasdale; S K Luthra; I Taylor; P J Ell Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ryogo Minamimoto; Luis Fayad; Ranjana Advani; Julie Vose; Homer Macapinlac; Jane Meza; Jordan Hankins; Felix Mottaghy; Malik Juweid; Andrew Quon Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anna M Brown; Maria L Lindenberg; Sandeep Sankineni; Joanna H Shih; Linda M Johnson; Suneha Pruthy; Karen A Kurdziel; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-10