Mei-Fang Cheng1, Ya-Yao Huang1, Bing-Ying Ho2,3, Ting-Chun Kuo2, Ling-Wei Hsin4,5,6, Chyng-Yann Shiue1,5, Hsun-Chuan Kuo2, Yung-Ming Jeng7, Rouh-Fang Yen1, Yu-Wen Tien8. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan. 2. Department of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University College of Medicine, 7 Chung-Shan South Rd., Taipei, 10002, Taiwan, Republic of China. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Wang Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. 4. School of Pharmacy, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. 5. Molecular Imaging Center, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. 6. Center for Innovative Therapeutics Discovery, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. 7. Department of Pathology, National Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan. 8. Department of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University College of Medicine, 7 Chung-Shan South Rd., Taipei, 10002, Taiwan, Republic of China. ywtien5106@ntu.edu.tw.
Abstract
PURPOSE: (4S)-4-(3-18F-Fluoropropyl)-L-glutamate (FSPG) positron emission tomography (PET) reflects system xC- transporter (xCT) expression. FSPG PET has been used to detect brain, lung, breast and liver cancer with only modest success. There is no report on the use of FSPG PET in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), presumably because of normal xCT expression in the pancreas. Nonetheless, the tissue-specific expression of xCT in the pancreas suggests that FSPG PET may be ideal for identifying metastasized PDAC. METHODS: The performance of FSPG in detecting PDAC metastases was compared with that of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in small-animal PET studies in seven PDAC tumour-bearing mice and in prospective PET/computed tomography (CT) studies in 23 patients with tissue-confirmed PDAC of stage III or stage IV. All PET/CT results were correlated with the results of histopathology or contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) performed 3 and 6 months later. RESULTS: In the rodent model, FSPG PET consistently found more PDAC metastases earlier than FDG PET. FSPG PET showed a trend for a higher sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy than FDG PET in detecting PDAC metastases in a patient-based analysis: 95.0%, 100.0% and 95.7%, and 90.0%, 66.7% and 90.0%, respectively. In a lesion-based analysis, FSPG PET identified significantly more PDAC metastases, especially in the liver, than FDG PET (109 vs. 95; P = 0.0001, 95% CI 4.9-14.6). The tumour-to-background ratios for FSPG and FDG uptake on positive scans were similar (FSPG 4.2 ± 4.3, FDG 3.6 ± 3.0; P = 0.44, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.48), despite a lower tumour maximum standardized uptake value in FSPG-avid lesions (FSPG 4.2 + 2.3, FDG 7.7 + 5.7; P = 0.002, 95% CI 0.70-4.10). Because of the lower physiological activity of FSPG in the liver, FSPG PET images of the liver are more easy to interpret than FDG PET images, and therefore the use of FSPG improves the detection of liver metastasis. CONCLUSION: FSPG PET is superior to FDG PET in detecting metastasized PDAC, especially in the liver.
PURPOSE:(4S)-4-(3-18F-Fluoropropyl)-L-glutamate (FSPG) positron emission tomography (PET) reflects system xC- transporter (xCT) expression. FSPG PET has been used to detect brain, lung, breast and liver cancer with only modest success. There is no report on the use of FSPG PET in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), presumably because of normal xCT expression in the pancreas. Nonetheless, the tissue-specific expression of xCT in the pancreas suggests that FSPG PET may be ideal for identifying metastasized PDAC. METHODS: The performance of FSPG in detecting PDACmetastases was compared with that of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in small-animal PET studies in seven PDACtumour-bearing mice and in prospective PET/computed tomography (CT) studies in 23 patients with tissue-confirmed PDAC of stage III or stage IV. All PET/CT results were correlated with the results of histopathology or contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) performed 3 and 6 months later. RESULTS: In the rodent model, FSPG PET consistently found more PDACmetastases earlier than FDG PET. FSPG PET showed a trend for a higher sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy than FDG PET in detecting PDACmetastases in a patient-based analysis: 95.0%, 100.0% and 95.7%, and 90.0%, 66.7% and 90.0%, respectively. In a lesion-based analysis, FSPG PET identified significantly more PDACmetastases, especially in the liver, than FDG PET (109 vs. 95; P = 0.0001, 95% CI 4.9-14.6). The tumour-to-background ratios for FSPG and FDG uptake on positive scans were similar (FSPG 4.2 ± 4.3, FDG 3.6 ± 3.0; P = 0.44, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.48), despite a lower tumour maximum standardized uptake value in FSPG-avid lesions (FSPG 4.2 + 2.3, FDG 7.7 + 5.7; P = 0.002, 95% CI 0.70-4.10). Because of the lower physiological activity of FSPG in the liver, FSPG PET images of the liver are more easy to interpret than FDG PET images, and therefore the use of FSPG improves the detection of liver metastasis. CONCLUSION: FSPG PET is superior to FDG PET in detecting metastasized PDAC, especially in the liver.
Authors: Helmut Oettle; Stefan Post; Peter Neuhaus; Klaus Gellert; Jan Langrehr; Karsten Ridwelski; Harald Schramm; Joerg Fahlke; Carl Zuelke; Christof Burkart; Klaus Gutberlet; Erika Kettner; Harald Schmalenberg; Karin Weigang-Koehler; Wolf-Otto Bechstein; Marco Niedergethmann; Ingo Schmidt-Wolf; Lars Roll; Bernd Doerken; Hanno Riess Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stefan Heinrich; Gerhard W Goerres; Markus Schäfer; Markus Sagmeister; Peter Bauerfeind; Bernhard C Pestalozzi; Thomas F Hany; Gustav K von Schulthess; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Gary J Kelloff; John M Hoffman; Bruce Johnson; Howard I Scher; Barry A Siegel; Edward Y Cheng; Bruce D Cheson; Joyce O'shaughnessy; Kathryn Z Guyton; David A Mankoff; Lalitha Shankar; Steven M Larson; Caroline C Sigman; Richard L Schilsky; Daniel C Sullivan Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-04-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: M T Bassi; E Gasol; M Manzoni; M Pineda; M Riboni; R Martín; A Zorzano; G Borsani; M Palacín Journal: Pflugers Arch Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 3.657
Authors: Mirwais Wardak; Ida Sonni; Audrey P Fan; Ryogo Minamimoto; Mehran Jamali; Negin Hatami; Greg Zaharchuk; Nancy Fischbein; Seema Nagpal; Gordon Li; Norman Koglin; Mathias Berndt; Santiago Bullich; Andrew W Stephens; Ludger M Dinkelborg; Ty Abel; H Charles Manning; Jarrett Rosenberg; Frederick T Chin; Sanjiv Sam Gambhir; Erik S Mittra Journal: Radiology Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Yongzhu Pu; Chun Wang; Sheng Zhao; Ran Xie; Lei Zhao; Kun Li; Conghui Yang; Rui Zhang; Yadong Tian; Lixian Tan; Jindan Li; Shujuan Li; Long Chen; Hua Sun Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 1.241