This title appears in the Scientific Report :
2005
PET with O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine in peripheral tumors: first clinical results
PET with O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine in peripheral tumors: first clinical results
O-(2-F-18-Fluoroethyl)-L-Tyrosine (F-18-FET) PET has shown promising results in brain tumor diagnosis. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate F-18-FET PET in comparison with F-18-FDG PET in patients with peripheral tumors. Methods: Forty-four consecutive patients with suspected malignant...
Saved in:
Personal Name(s): | Pauleit, D. |
---|---|
Stoffels, G. / Schaden, W. / Hamacher, K. / Bauer, D. / Tellmann, L. / Herzog, H. / Bröer, S. / Coenen, H. H. / Langen, K. J. | |
Contributing Institute: |
Institut für Medizin; IME Institut für Nuklearchemie; INC |
Published in: | Journal of nuclear medicine, 46 (2005) S. 411 - 416 |
Imprint: |
New York, NY
Society of Nuclear Medicine
2005
|
Physical Description: |
411 - 416 |
Document Type: |
Journal Article |
Research Program: |
Neurowissenschaften |
Series Title: |
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
46 |
Subject (ZB): | |
Publikationsportal JuSER |
O-(2-F-18-Fluoroethyl)-L-Tyrosine (F-18-FET) PET has shown promising results in brain tumor diagnosis. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate F-18-FET PET in comparison with F-18-FDG PET in patients with peripheral tumors. Methods: Forty-four consecutive patients with suspected malignant tumors underwent F-18-FET PET and F-18-FDG PET within 7 d. Whole-body PET studies were performed 1 h after intravenous injection of 370 MBq of F-18-FET or F-18-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), F-18-FET PET and F-18-FDG PET were compared. Results: F-18-FET was positive in only 13 of 38 patients (8 with head-neck cancer, 3 with breast cancer, and 2 with lung cancer), whereas F-18-FDG exhibited increased uptake in 37 of 38 patients. All squamous cell carcinomas were found to be F-18-FET-positive tumors (8 head-neck cancer and 2 lung cancer), whereas most adenocarcinomas were found to be F-18-FET-negative tumors. In patients with colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, prostatic cancer, and lymphomas, no increased F-18-FET uptake could be identified. All lesions that exhibited increased F-18-FET uptake also showed increased F-18-FDG uptake. No additional lesion was identified by F-18-FET PET but not by F-18-FDG PET. A subgroup analysis of patients with head-neck carcinomas allowed a better distinction between malignant and inflammatory tissues with F-18-FET than with F-18-FDG. Conclusion: F-18-FET is inferior to F-18-FDG as a PET tracer for general tumor diagnosis. Our preliminary results suggest rather selective uptake of F-18-FET in squamous cell carcinomas. Compared with F-18-FDG PET, F-18-FET PET may allow a better distinction between tumors and inflammatory tissues in patients with squamous cell carcinomas. |