Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1.
Relationship of SUVmax between 18F-FMISO and 18F-FDG PET. There was weak significant correlation in SUVmax between 18F-FMISO and 18F-FDG PET by Spearman correlation coefficient (P = 0.02, r = 0.48). Median SUVmax of 18F-FMISO and 18F-FDG PET was 1.83 and 16.5, respectively. ○ = results of cases without 18F-FMISO uptake.
- FIGURE 2.
Clinical findings, 18F-FMISO and 18F-FDG PET images, and immunohistochemical staining of HIF-1α for patient 2. (A) Case of left upper gingival squamous cell carcinoma. Tumor can be seen in left upper maxillary region. (B) For 18F-FMISO PET, definite uptake was detected in left maxillary primary site of cancer (SUVmax, 1.57). (C) For 18F-FDG PET, definite uptake was also seen in left maxillary primary site of cancer (SUVmax, 12.2). (D) HIF-1α expression was detected in nucleus and cytoplasm of cancer cells by immunohistochemical analysis.
- FIGURE 3.
Clinical findings, 18F-FMISO and 18F-FDG PET images, and immunohistochemical staining of HIF-1α for patient 1. (A) Case of left upper gingival SCC. Tumor can be seen in left upper maxillary region. (B) For 18F-FMISO PET, definite uptake was not detected in primary site of cancer (SUVmax, 1.39). (C) For 18F-FDG PET, definite uptake was detected in primary site of cancer (SUVmax, 30.1). (D) Weak HIF-1α expression was observed in cancer cells by immunohistochemical analysis.
- FIGURE 4.
Relationship between 18F-FMISO SUVmax and HIF-1α expression. SUVmax of 18F-FMISO was significantly higher in HIF-1α–positive cases than in HIF-1α–negative cases (P = 0.002, Mann–Whitney U test). Bars indicate median of SUVmax.
- FIGURE 5.
Relationship between 18F-FDG SUVmax and HIF-1α expression. There was no significant correlation between 18F-FDG PET SUVmax and HIF-1α expression (P = 0.06, Mann–Whitney U test). Bars indicate median of SUVmax.
- FIGURE 6.
Relationship between 18F-FMISO SUV max and T-classification. There was no significant correlation between 18F-FMISO PET SUVmax and T-classification (P > 0.99, Mann–Whitney U test). Bars indicate median of SUVmax.
Tables
Classification Patient no. Age (y) Sex T N Primary site 18F-FMISO uptake 18F-FMISO PET SUVmax 18F-FDG PET SUVmax HIF-1α 1 65 M 4a 1 Upper gingiva − 1.39 30.05 − 2 62 M 4a 0 Upper gingiva + 1.57 12.20 + 3 62 M 3 2 Tongue + 2.06 17.90 + 4 79 F 2 0 Lower gingiva − 1.46 5.90 − 5 72 M 4a 0 Upper gingiva + 1.32 2.99 − 6 56 F 4a 0 Upper gingiva − 1.74 9.40 − 7 65 M 2 1 Lower gingiva + 2.10 21.43 + 8 73 F 2 2 Lower gingiva − 1.64 4.00 − 9 57 M 4a 0 Oral floor + 1.98 32.20 − 10 59 M 4a 2 Oral floor + 2.19 29.10 + 11 83 F 2 0 Lower gingiva + 2.16 7.70 + 12 70 F 2 0 Lower gingiva − 1.72 9.90 + 13 59 F 4a 1 Tongue + 2.40 21.80 + 14 67 M 4a 0 Lower gingiva + 1.59 16.60 − 15 64 M 4a 0 Lower gingiva + 2.02 13.10 − 16 70 M 2 1 Tongue + 2.06 25.50 + 17 59 F 3 0 Tongue + 1.53 16.50 − 18 79 F 1 0 Upper gingiva − 0.84 6.50 − 19 79 F 4a 2 Upper gingiva + 2.73 23.40 + 20 74 M 2 0 Buccal mucosa − 1.83 7.40 − 21 42 M 2 2 Tongue − 1.83 1.00 − 22 71 M 4a 1 Lower gingiva + 2.40 22.90 + 23 84 M 2 1 Lower gingiva + 1.82 12.60 + Cases Uptake HIF-1α positivity HIF-1α negativity Total 18F-FMISO (positive) 10 4 14 18F-FMISO (negative) 1 8 9 Total 11 12 23 10/14 vs. 1/9; χ2 = 8.0; P < 0.005.
