HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JNM Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tehrani, O. S. Articles by Shields, A. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tehrani, O. S. Articles by Shields, A. F.

Tumor Imaging Using 1-(2'-deoxy-2'-¹⁸F- Fluoro-ß-D-Arabinofuranosyl)Thymine and PET

¹ Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan; ² Department of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan; ³ Department of Pediatrics, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan; and ⁴ Department of Radiology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan

Correspondence: For correspondence or reprints contact: Anthony F. Shields, MD, PhD, Karmanos Cancer Institute, 4100 John R St., 4 HWCRC, Detroit, MI 48201-2013. E-mail: shieldsa{at}karmanos.org

The kinetics of 1-(2'-deoxy-2'-fluoro-ß-D-arabinofuranosyl)thymine (FMAU) were studied using PET to determine the most appropriate and simplest approach to image acquisition and analysis. The concept of tumor retention ratio (TRR) is introduced and validated. Methods: Ten patients with brain (n = 4) or prostate (n = 6) tumors were imaged using ¹⁸F-FMAU PET (mean dose, 369 MBq). Sixty-minute dynamic images were obtained; this was followed by whole-body images. Mean and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmean and SUVmax, respectively) of each tumor were determined as the mean over 3 planes of each time interval. For kinetic analyses, blood activity was measured in 18 samples over 60 min. Samples were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography at 3 selected times to determine tracer metabolites. FMAU kinetics were measured using a 3-compartment model yielding the flux (K1 x k3/(k2 + k3)) (K1, k2, and k3 are rate constants) and compared with TRR measurements. TRR was calculated as the tumor ¹⁸F-FMAU uptake area under the curve divided by the product of blood ¹⁸F-FMAU AUC and time. A similar analysis was performed using muscle to estimate ¹⁸F-FMAU delivery. Results: SUVmean measurements obtained from 5 to 11 min correlated with those obtained from 30 to 60 min (r² = 0.92, P < 0.0001) and 50 to 60 min (r² = 0.92, P < 0.0001) due to the rapid clearance of ¹⁸F-FMAU. Similar results were obtained using SUVmax measurements (r² = 0.93, P < 0.0001; r² = 0.88, P < 0.0001, respectively). The measurement of TRR using either blood or muscle activity over 11 min provided results comparable to those of 60-min dynamic imaging and a 3-compartment model. This analysis required only 5 blood samples drawn at 1, 2, 3, 5, and 11 min without metabolite correction to produce comparable results. Conclusion: Tissue retention ratio measurements obtained over 11 min can replace flux measurements in ¹⁸F-FMAU imaging. The SUVmean and the SUVmax in 5–11 min images correlated well with those of images obtained at 50–60 min. The quality of the images and tissue kinetics in 11 min of imaging makes it a desirable and shorter tumor imaging option.

Key Words: FMAU • PET • imaging • kinetic • metabolism

COPYRIGHT © 2007 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.

Related articles in JNM:

This Month in JNM

JNM 2007 48: 11A-12A. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. P.S. Dunphy and J. S. Lewis Radiopharmaceuticals in Preclinical and Clinical Development for Monitoring of Therapy with PET J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2009; 50(Suppl_1): 106S - 121S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Bading and A. F. Shields Imaging of Cell Proliferation: Status and Prospects J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2008; 49(Suppl_2): 64S - 80S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]