RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 PET with <em>O</em>-(2-<sup>18</sup>F-Fluoroethyl)-<span class="sc">l</span>-Tyrosine in Peripheral Tumors: First Clinical Results
JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine
JO J Nucl Med
FD Society of Nuclear Medicine
SP 411
OP 416
VO 46
IS 3
A1 Pauleit, Dirk
A1 Stoffels, Gabriele
A1 Schaden, Winfried
A1 Hamacher, Kurt
A1 Bauer, Dagmar
A1 Tellmann, Lutz
A1 Herzog, Hans
A1 Bröer, Stefan
A1 Coenen, Heinz H.
A1 Langen, Karl-Josef
YR 2005
UL http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/46/3/411.abstract
AB O-(2-18F-Fluoroethyl)-l-Tyrosine (18F-FET) PET has shown promising results in brain tumor diagnosis. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate 18F-FET PET in comparison with 18F-FDG PET in patients with peripheral tumors. Methods: Forty-four consecutive patients with suspected malignant tumors underwent 18F-FET PET and 18F-FDG PET within 7 d. Whole-body PET studies were performed 1 h after intravenous injection of 370 MBq of 18F-FET or 18F-FDG. Six patients were excluded from the analysis because a malignant tumor could not be verified. In 38 patients (7 with colorectal cancer, 6 with pancreatic cancer, 9 with head-neck cancer, 4 with lymphomas, 3 with lung cancer, 3 with ovarian cancer, 4 with breast cancer, and 2 with prostatic cancer), 18F-FET PET and 18F-FDG PET were compared. Results: 18F-FET was positive in only 13 of 38 patients (8 with head-neck cancer, 3 with breast cancer, and 2 with lung cancer), whereas 18F-FDG exhibited increased uptake in 37 of 38 patients. All squamous cell carcinomas were found to be 18F-FET-positive tumors (8 head-neck cancer and 2 lung cancer), whereas most adenocarcinomas were found to be 18F-FET-negative tumors. In patients with colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, prostatic cancer, and lymphomas, no increased 18F-FET uptake could be identified. All lesions that exhibited increased 18F-FET uptake also showed increased 18F-FDG uptake. No additional lesion was identified by 18F-FET PET but not by 18F-FDG PET. A subgroup analysis of patients with head-neck carcinomas allowed a better distinction between malignant and inflammatory tissues with 18F-FET than with 18F-FDG. Conclusion: 18F-FET is inferior to 18F-FDG as a PET tracer for general tumor diagnosis. Our preliminary results suggest rather selective uptake of 18F-FET in squamous cell carcinomas. Compared with 18F-FDG PET, 18F-FET PET may allow a better distinction between tumors and inflammatory tissues in patients with squamous cell carcinomas.