RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Imaging Gastric Cancer with PET and the Radiotracers <sup>18</sup>F-FLT and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG: A Comparative Analysis
JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine
JO J Nucl Med
FD Society of Nuclear Medicine
SP 1945
OP 1950
DO 10.2967/jnumed.107.044867
VO 48
IS 12
A1 Ken Herrmann
A1 Katja Ott
A1 Andreas K. Buck
A1 Florian Lordick
A1 Dirk Wilhelm
A1 Michael Souvatzoglou
A1 Karen Becker
A1 Tibor Schuster
A1 Hans-Jürgen Wester
A1 Jörg R. Siewert
A1 Markus Schwaiger
A1 Bernd J. Krause
YR 2007
UL http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/48/12/1945.abstract
AB In this pilot study, we evaluated 3′-deoxy-3′-18F-fluorothymidine (FLT) PET for the detection of gastric cancer and compared the diagnostic accuracy with that of 18F-FDG PET. Methods: Forty-five patients (31 male and 14 female) with histologically proven locally advanced gastric cancer underwent attenuation-corrected whole-body 18F-FLT PET and 18F-FDG PET/CT (low-dose CT). 18F-FLT emission images were acquired on a full-ring PET scanner 45 min after the injection of 270–340 MBq of 18F-FLT. 18F-FDG PET/CT was performed 60 min after the injection of 300–370 MBq of 18F-FDG. Mean standardized uptake values for 18F-FLT and 18F-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. 18F-FLT PET images showed high contrast for the primary tumor and proliferating bone marrow. In all patients (45/45), focal 18F-FLT uptake could be detected in the primary tumor. In contrast, 14 primary tumors were negative for 18F-FDG uptake, with lesional 18F-FDG uptake lower than or similar to background activity. The mean standardized uptake value for 18F-FLT in malignant primaries was 6.0 ± 2.5 (range, 2.4–12.7). In the subgroup of 18F-FDG–positive patients, the mean value for 18F-FDG was 8.4 ± 4.1 (range, 3.8/19.0), versus 6.8 ± 2.6 for 18F-FLT (Wilcoxon test: P = 0.03). Comparison of mean 18F-FLT and 18F-FDG uptake in tumors with signet ring cells revealed no statistically significant difference between the tracers (6.2 ± 2.1 for 18F-FLT vs. 6.4 ± 2.8 for 18F-FDG; Wilcoxon test: P = 0.94). Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that imaging gastric cancer with the proliferation marker 18F-FLT is feasible. 18F-FLT PET was more sensitive than 18F-FDG PET, especially in tumors frequently presenting without or with low 18F-FDG uptake, and may improve early evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment.