UNLABELLED: The aims of the study were to compare the value of L-[1-11C]tyrosine (TYR) and [IBF]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) as tumor tracers in patients with breast cancer, to investigate the correlation between quantitative values and standardized uptake values (SUVs) and to estimate the value of SUVs for the evaluation of therapy. METHODS: Eleven patients with one or more malignant breast lesions and two patients with one or more benign breast tumors were studied with TYR and FDG. Doses of 300 MBq of TYR and 230 MBq of FDG were given intravenously. All PET sessions were performed using a Siemens ECAT 951/31 camera. Of 10 malignant tumors and the 3 benign lesions, glucose consumption and protein synthesis rate were quantified. All lesions were studied using SUVs based on body weight, body surface area and lean body mass, with and without correction for plasma glucose or tyrosine levels. RESULTS: All malignant tumors were visualized with both FDG and TYR, but the visual contrast was better with FDG. Increased uptake of the tracers was seen in patients with fibrocystic tissue and complicated the visual assessment and the outlining of tumor tissue. Uptake in fibrocystic disease was more prominent with FDG than with TYR. No difference in tumor/nontumor ratio between the two tracers could be established. FDG showed a false-positive result in one benign lesion. No major differences between the SUVs as defined above were found, although the best correlation between glucose consumption and the SUV was observed when the SUV was based on body surface area and corrected for plasma glucose level (r = 0.85-0.87). The SUV based on lean body mass was found to correlate best with protein synthesis rate (r = 0.83-0.94). CONCLUSION: In this group of patients, TYR appears to be a better tracer than FDG for breast cancer imaging, because of lower uptake in fibrocystic disease. SUVs correlate well with quantitative values, but future studies must determine whether treatment evaluation is also reliable with SUVs.
UNLABELLED: The aims of the study were to compare the value of L-[1-11C]tyrosine (TYR) and [IBF]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) as tumor tracers in patients with breast cancer, to investigate the correlation between quantitative values and standardized uptake values (SUVs) and to estimate the value of SUVs for the evaluation of therapy. METHODS: Eleven patients with one or more malignant breast lesions and two patients with one or more benign breast tumors were studied with TYR and FDG. Doses of 300 MBq of TYR and 230 MBq of FDG were given intravenously. All PET sessions were performed using a Siemens ECAT 951/31 camera. Of 10 malignant tumors and the 3 benign lesions, glucose consumption and protein synthesis rate were quantified. All lesions were studied using SUVs based on body weight, body surface area and lean body mass, with and without correction for plasma glucose or tyrosine levels. RESULTS: All malignant tumors were visualized with both FDG and TYR, but the visual contrast was better with FDG. Increased uptake of the tracers was seen in patients with fibrocystic tissue and complicated the visual assessment and the outlining of tumor tissue. Uptake in fibrocystic disease was more prominent with FDG than with TYR. No difference in tumor/nontumor ratio between the two tracers could be established. FDG showed a false-positive result in one benign lesion. No major differences between the SUVs as defined above were found, although the best correlation between glucose consumption and the SUV was observed when the SUV was based on body surface area and corrected for plasma glucose level (r = 0.85-0.87). The SUV based on lean body mass was found to correlate best with protein synthesis rate (r = 0.83-0.94). CONCLUSION: In this group of patients, TYR appears to be a better tracer than FDG for breast cancer imaging, because of lower uptake in fibrocystic disease. SUVs correlate well with quantitative values, but future studies must determine whether treatment evaluation is also reliable with SUVs.
Authors: Nanda C Krak; R Boellaard; Otto S Hoekstra; Jos W R Twisk; Corneline J Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-10-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Gianpiero Manca; Eleonora Vanzi; Domenico Rubello; Francesco Giammarile; Gaia Grassetto; Ka Kit Wong; Alan C Perkins; Patrick M Colletti; Duccio Volterrani Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Nanda C Krak; Jacobus J M van der Hoeven; Otto S Hoekstra; Jos W R Twisk; Elsken van der Wall; Adriaan A Lammertsma Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Fan-Lin Kong; Mohammad S Ali; Alex Rollo; Daniel L Smith; Yinhan Zhang; Dong-Fang Yu; David J Yang Journal: J Biomed Biotechnol Date: 2012-03-05
Authors: F Gallivanone; C Canevari; L Gianolli; C Salvatore; P A Della Rosa; M C Gilardi; I Castiglioni Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 3.411