We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Imaging gastric cancer with PET and the radiotracers 18F-FLT and 18F-FDG: a comparative analysis.
Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2007 December
UNLABELLED: In this pilot study, we evaluated 3'-deoxy-3'-(18)F-fluorothymidine (FLT) PET for the detection of gastric cancer and compared the diagnostic accuracy with that of (18)F-FDG PET.
METHODS: Forty-five patients (31 male and 14 female) with histologically proven locally advanced gastric cancer underwent attenuation-corrected whole-body (18)F-FLT PET and (18)F-FDG PET/CT (low-dose CT). (18)F-FLT emission images were acquired on a full-ring PET scanner 45 min after the injection of 270-340 MBq of (18)F-FLT. (18)F-FDG PET/CT was performed 60 min after the injection of 300-370 MBq of (18)F-FDG. Mean standardized uptake values for (18)F-FLT and (18)F-FDG were calculated using circular ROIs (diameter, 1.5 cm) in the primary tumor manifestation site, in a reference segment of the liver, and in the bone marrow and were compared on a lesion-by-lesion basis.
RESULTS: According to the Lauren classification, 15 tumors (33%) were of the intestinal subtype and 30 (67%) of the nonintestinal subtype. (18)F-FLT PET images showed high contrast for the primary tumor and proliferating bone marrow. In all patients (45/45), focal (18)F-FLT uptake could be detected in the primary tumor. In contrast, 14 primary tumors were negative for (18)F-FDG uptake, with lesional (18)F-FDG uptake lower than or similar to background activity. The mean standardized uptake value for (18)F-FLT in malignant primaries was 6.0 +/- 2.5 (range, 2.4-12.7). In the subgroup of (18)F-FDG-positive patients, the mean value for (18)F-FDG was 8.4 +/- 4.1 (range, 3.8/19.0), versus 6.8 +/- 2.6 for (18)F-FLT (Wilcoxon test: P = 0.03). Comparison of mean (18)F-FLT and (18)F-FDG uptake in tumors with signet ring cells revealed no statistically significant difference between the tracers (6.2 +/- 2.1 for (18)F-FLT vs. 6.4 +/- 2.8 for (18)F-FDG; Wilcoxon test: P = 0.94).
CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that imaging gastric cancer with the proliferation marker (18)F-FLT is feasible. (18)F-FLT PET was more sensitive than (18)F-FDG PET, especially in tumors frequently presenting without or with low (18)F-FDG uptake, and may improve early evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment.
METHODS: Forty-five patients (31 male and 14 female) with histologically proven locally advanced gastric cancer underwent attenuation-corrected whole-body (18)F-FLT PET and (18)F-FDG PET/CT (low-dose CT). (18)F-FLT emission images were acquired on a full-ring PET scanner 45 min after the injection of 270-340 MBq of (18)F-FLT. (18)F-FDG PET/CT was performed 60 min after the injection of 300-370 MBq of (18)F-FDG. Mean standardized uptake values for (18)F-FLT and (18)F-FDG were calculated using circular ROIs (diameter, 1.5 cm) in the primary tumor manifestation site, in a reference segment of the liver, and in the bone marrow and were compared on a lesion-by-lesion basis.
RESULTS: According to the Lauren classification, 15 tumors (33%) were of the intestinal subtype and 30 (67%) of the nonintestinal subtype. (18)F-FLT PET images showed high contrast for the primary tumor and proliferating bone marrow. In all patients (45/45), focal (18)F-FLT uptake could be detected in the primary tumor. In contrast, 14 primary tumors were negative for (18)F-FDG uptake, with lesional (18)F-FDG uptake lower than or similar to background activity. The mean standardized uptake value for (18)F-FLT in malignant primaries was 6.0 +/- 2.5 (range, 2.4-12.7). In the subgroup of (18)F-FDG-positive patients, the mean value for (18)F-FDG was 8.4 +/- 4.1 (range, 3.8/19.0), versus 6.8 +/- 2.6 for (18)F-FLT (Wilcoxon test: P = 0.03). Comparison of mean (18)F-FLT and (18)F-FDG uptake in tumors with signet ring cells revealed no statistically significant difference between the tracers (6.2 +/- 2.1 for (18)F-FLT vs. 6.4 +/- 2.8 for (18)F-FDG; Wilcoxon test: P = 0.94).
CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that imaging gastric cancer with the proliferation marker (18)F-FLT is feasible. (18)F-FLT PET was more sensitive than (18)F-FDG PET, especially in tumors frequently presenting without or with low (18)F-FDG uptake, and may improve early evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app