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

This Article Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend 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 Shields, A. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Shields, A. F.

PET Imaging with ¹⁸F-FLT and Thymidine Analogs: Promise and Pitfalls

Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan

Further development and validation of ¹⁸F-labeled 3'-deoxy-3'fluorothymidine (FLT) is presented by Buck et al. in this issue of The Journal of Nuclear Medicine (1). Although the use of PET has exploded within the last few years, this has primarily resulted from the application of ¹⁸F-FDG in oncology research and clinical practice. The study of Buck et al. further explores the use of ¹⁸F-FLT (Fig. 1) and begins a necessary comparison with ¹⁸F-FDG. ¹⁸F-FDG has found wide applicability in clinical oncology, since it is simple to use and can be distributed commercially. ¹⁸F-FDG is useful in the diagnosis, staging, and restaging of a wide variety of tumor types and in the evaluation of their treatment. Although ¹⁸F-FDG is the only PET tracer now routinely used in clinical oncology, many other tracers have been produced and tested by investigators. If PET is going to continue to expand, other tracers that complement the information provided by ¹⁸F-FDG will need to be found.

View larger version (10K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 1. Structures of thymidine, 18F-FLT, and related analogs.

¹⁸F-FLT was originally produced after investigators discovered the anti-HIV properties of azidothymidine. In the initial phase I trial in patients with AIDS, ¹⁸F-FLT was found to have higher toxicity at clinically useful doses (100 mg/d given for weeks) (6). Such pharmacologic studies of unlabeled ¹⁸F-FLT, however, demonstrate that it can safely be given at the tracer doses used by PET. The synthesis of ¹⁸F-labeled FLT has been worked out, and it can be made by a couple of different major routes using precursors that are now commercially available. Initial studies of ¹⁸F-FLT in animals and subsequent pilot patient studies have demonstrated that the tracer produces images of high contrast of both proliferating tissues and tumors (7,8). As predicted, it resists degradation but does undergo glucuronidation. Because the fluorine is placed in the 3'-position in the sugar, ¹⁸F-FLT, like its parent drug azidothymidine, works as a terminator of the growing DNA chain. Little ¹⁸F-FLT is actually accumulated in DNA; rather, it is retained intracellularly after phosphorylation by thymidine kinase 1 (9). Very much analogous is the imaging of the glucose use pathway with ¹⁸F-FDG after trapping by hexokinase (10). Both compounds therefore reflect accumulation by transport and subsequent activation by the first step in the utilization pathways. ¹⁸F-FLT does not reflect the whole of DNA synthesis, just as ¹⁸F-FDG does not reflect the whole of glucose use. This limitation may prove to be important in some situations, but so far, it has not been a problem. In cell lines, ¹⁸F-FLT retention correlated with ³H-thymidine uptake (r = 0.88, despite the fact that DNA incorporation was 0.2% and more than 90%, respectively, for the 2 tracers (11)). In a few studies, thymidine kinase 1 levels have been found to correlate with cell proliferation. The study of Buck et al. and a recent study of Vesselle et al. clearly add to this literature in demonstrating the ¹⁸F-FLT retention in lung cancer correlates with tumor proliferation (1,8). The average standardized uptake value (SUV) for ¹⁸F-FLT was found to correlate nicely with Ki-67 immunohistochemistry, with r = 0.92 and 0.84, in the studies of Buck et al. and Vesselle et al., respectively. Dynamic imaging was also performed in the study of Vesselle and improved the correlation slightly. S-phase fraction, measured by flow cytometry, also correlated with ¹⁸F-FLT retention. This correlation appears to be better than that between Ki-67 staining and the kinetic measurement of ¹¹C-thymidine retention (r = 0.58), although the latter was done on a mixed group of abdominal tumors (12). Although the data with ¹⁸F-FLT look promising, one still must prove that ¹⁸F-FLT will track proliferation in at least most situations. This issue is particularly important after therapy, since one could envision situations in which DNA synthesis might be impaired, while thymidine kinase 1 activity persisted for a time.

As the PET community continues to validate the use of ¹⁸F-FLT, the determination of how it compares with ¹⁸F-FDG will be critical. Are there situations in which ¹⁸F-FLT might be more accurate in diagnosis, staging, and the assessment of treatment response? The study of Buck et al. (1) begins to address this issue. Their study demonstrated that ¹⁸F-FDG produces higher-contrast images (mean SUV, 4.1) than does ¹⁸F-FLT (mean SUV, 1.8). Although ¹⁸F-FLT can miss slowly proliferative tumors, its specificity was 100% in their study. On the other hand, ¹⁸F-FLT has not always been 100% specific. In our dog studies we found that ¹⁸F-FLT is taken up in some normal lymph nodes, and in a patient with sarcoidosis we have seen increased ¹⁸F-FLT retention in involved lymph nodes. It is important to realize that the inflammatory reaction can involve proliferation of some cellular elements. At this point, it will be important to determine which clinical situations merit the use of ¹⁸F-FLT, rather than ¹⁸F-FDG. This determination will require careful study, taking into account the strengths and limitations of each tracer. ¹⁸F-FLT has lower background activity in the brain and thorax. On the other hand, ¹⁸F-FLT is limited in its ability to image in the bone marrow because of normal cellular proliferation and in the liver because of glucuronidation. The most demanding use of PET in oncology may be the early assessment of treatment response. If one can document that PET reliably demonstrates treatment failure, then a switch to second-line therapy may be indicated. ¹⁸F-FDG has been studied for this use in a few trials. Further trials with both ¹⁸F-FDG and ¹⁸F-FLT are clearly needed before oncologic physicians will be comfortable with this application.

Finally, ¹⁸F-FLT is not the only pyrimidine analog that can be used to measure proliferation. FMAU (1-(2'-deoxy-2'-fluoro-ß-D-arabinofurano-syl)thy- mine) and FBAU (1-(2'-deoxy-2'-fluoro-ß-D-arabinofuranosyl)-5-bromouracil) were initially labeled with ¹¹C and ⁷⁶Br, respectively, and more recently, both have been labeled with ¹⁸F (13–15). These compounds are incorporated into DNA, which offers theoretic advantages (16). Further studies will be needed to determine whether such tracers offer practical improvements over ¹⁸F-FLT. Differences in metabolism may be more important in determining which tracer may best be used for different tumors or areas of the body. For example, the high retention of FMAU in the liver may impair imaging in the upper abdomen compared with ¹⁸F-FLT, while FMAU is less readily cleared into the bladder than ¹⁸F-FLT, leading to improved FMAU imaging of the pelvis.

In summary, the development of PET will require new tracers that track different cellular pathways for use in oncology. ¹⁸F-FLT offers a promising approach to imaging cellular growth and has now been used at several centers around the world. The recent studies are an important step in validating and determining the best way to use this tracer.

	FOOTNOTES

 
Received May 12, 2003; revision accepted May 20, 2003.

For correspondence or reprints contact: Anthony F. Shields, MD, PhD, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Harper Hospital, 5-Hudson, 3990 John R. St., Detroit MI 48201.

E-mail: shieldsa{at}karmanos.org

	REFERENCES

TOP REFERENCES

 

1. Buck AK, Halter G, Schirrmeister H, et al. Imaging proliferation in lung tumors with PET: ¹⁸F-FLT versus ¹⁸F-FDG. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1426–1431.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Vander Borght T, Labar D, Pauwels S, Lambotte L. Production of [2-¹¹C]thymidine for quantification of cellular proliferation with PET. Int J Rad Appl Instrum [A]. 1991;42:103–104.
3. Sundoro-Wu BM, Schmall B, Conti PS, Dahl JR, Drumm P, Jacobsen JK. Selective alkylation of pyramidaldianions: synthesis and purification of ¹¹C labeled thymidine for tumor visualization using positron emission tomography. Int J Applied Radiat Isot. 1984;35:705–708.
4. Blasberg RG, Roelcke U, Weinreich R, et al. Imaging brain tumor proliferative activity with [¹²⁴I]iododeoxyuridine. Cancer Res. 2000;60:624–635.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Gardelle O, Roelcke U, Vontobel P, et al. [⁷⁶Br]Bromodeoxyuridine PET in tumor-bearing animals. Nucl Med Biol. 2001;28:51–57.[Medline]
6. Flexner C, van der Horst C, Jacobson MA, et al. Relationship between plasma concentrations of 3'-deoxy-3'-fluorothymidine (alovudine) and antiretroviral activity in two concentration-controlled trials. J Infect Dis. 1994;170:1394–1403.[Medline]
7. Shields AF, Grierson JR, Dohmen BM, et al. Imaging proliferation in vivo with [F-18]FLT and positron emission tomography. Nat Med. 1998;4:1334–1336.[Medline]
8. Vesselle H, Grierson J, Muzi M, et al. In vivo validation of 3'deoxy-3'-[(18)F]fluorothymidine ([(18)F]FLT) as a proliferation imaging tracer in humans: correlation of [(18)F]FLT uptake by positron emission tomography with Ki-67 immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry in human lung tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:3315–3323.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Rasey JS, Grierson JR, Wiens LW, Kolb PD, Schwartz JL. Validation of FLT uptake as a measure of thymidine kinase-1 activity in A549 carcinoma cells. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1210–1217.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Shields A, Grierson JR, Muzik O, et al. Kinetics of 3'-deoxy-3'-[F-18]fluorothymidine uptake and retention in dogs. Mol Imaging Biol. 2002;4:83–89.[Medline]
11. Toyohara J, Waki A, Takamatsu S, Yonekura Y, Magata Y, Fujibayashi Y. Basis of FLT as a cell proliferation marker: comparative uptake studies with [³H]thymidine and [³H]arabinothymidine, and cell-analysis in 22 asynchronously growing tumor cell lines. Nucl Med Biol. 2002;29:281–287.[Medline]
12. Wells P, Gunn RN, Alison M, et al. Assessment of proliferation in vivo using 2-[(11)C]thymidine positron emission tomography in advanced intra-abdominal malignancies. Cancer Res. 2002;62:5698–5702.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Bergstrom M, Lu L, Fasth KJ, et al. In vitro and animal validation of bromine-76-bromodeoxyuridine as a proliferation marker. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:1273–1279.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Conti PS, Alauddin MM, Fissekis JR, Schmall B, Watanabe KA. Synthesis of 2'-fluoro-5-[¹¹C]-methyl-1-beta-D-arabinofuranosyluracil ([¹¹C]- FMAU): a potential nucleoside analog for in vivo study of cellular proliferation with PET. Nucl Med Biol. 1995;22:783–789.[Medline]
15. Mangner TJ, Klecker RW, Anderson L, Shields AF. Synthesis of 2'-deoxy-2'-[(18)F]fluoro-beta-D-arabinofuranosyl nucleosides, [(18)F]FAU, [(18)F]FMAU, [(18)F]FBAU and [(18)F]FIAU, as potential PET agents for imaging cellular proliferation. Nucl Med Biol. 2003;30:215–224.[Medline]
16. Lu L, Samuelsson L, Bergstrom M, Sato K, Fasth KJ, Langstrom B. Rat studies comparing ¹¹C-FMAU, ¹⁸F-FLT, and ⁷⁶Br-BFU as proliferation markers. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1688–1698.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Schoder, M. Fury, N. Lee, and D. Kraus PET Monitoring of Therapy Response in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2009; 50(Suppl_1): 74S - 88S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. M. Larson Molecular Imaging In Tumor Treatment Response Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. Educ. Book, April 18, 2009; 2009(1): 261 - 264. [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Zhao, L. H. Schwartz, and S. M. Larson Imaging Surrogates of Tumor Response to Therapy: Anatomic and Functional Biomarkers J. Nucl. Med., February 1, 2009; 50(2): 239 - 249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Morgenroth, S. Deisenhofer, G. Glatting, F. H-G. Kunkel, C. Dinger, B. Zlatopolskiy, A. T.J. Vogg, T. Kull, and S. N. Reske Preferential Tumor Targeting and Selective Tumor Cell Cytotoxicity of 5-[131/125I]Iodo-4'-Thio-2'-Deoxyuridine Clin. Cancer Res., November 15, 2008; 14(22): 7311 - 7319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P S MURPHY, T J McCARTHY, and A S K DZIK-JURASZ The role of clinical imaging in oncological drug development Br. J. Radiol., September 1, 2008; 81(969): 685 - 692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. S. El-Deiry, C. C. Sigman, and G. J. Kelloff Imaging and Oncologic Drug Development J. Clin. Oncol., July 10, 2006; 24(20): 3261 - 3273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Rowland, Z. Tu, J. Xu, D. Ponde, R. H. Mach, and M. J. Welch Synthesis and In Vivo Evaluation of 2 High-Affinity 76Br-Labeled {sigma}2-Receptor Ligands J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2006; 47(6): 1041 - 1048. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. J. Kelloff, K. A. Krohn, S. M. Larson, R. Weissleder, D. A. Mankoff, J. M. Hoffman, J. M. Link, K. Z. Guyton, W. C. Eckelman, H. I. Scher, et al. The Progress and Promise of Molecular Imaging Probes in Oncologic Drug Development Clin. Cancer Res., November 15, 2005; 11(22): 7967 - 7985. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend 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 Shields, A. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Shields, A. F.