Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

FLT-PET/CT diagnosis of primary and metastatic nodal lesions of gastric cancer: comparison with FDG-PET/CT

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the diagnostic performance of 18F-fluorothymidine (FLT)-PET/CT of primary and metastatic nodal lesions of gastric cancer by comparing with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET/CT.

Methods

The enrolled study population comprised 17 patients with 17 newly diagnosed gastric cancers who underwent surgery of the primary lesion and regional nodes after both FDG- and FLT-PET/CT scans. Visual detectability of the primary gastric lesions was correlated with pathological factors using the Fisher exact or Mann–Whitney U test. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in detecting nodal lesions were compared between both PET/CT scans using the McNemar exact or χ 2 test.

Results

Fourteen of 17 (82.4%) primary cancers were visualized by both FDG- and FLT-PET/CT scans. Although FDG or FLT visibility was not significantly associated with tumor size (p = 0.16) or histological type (p = 1.00), the 3 nonvisible lesions were pathologically early (T1) cancers. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for detecting nodal metastasis were 44.8% (13/29), 98.7% (164/166), and 90.8% (177/195) for FDG-PET/CT, and 31.0% (9/29), 100% (166/166), and 89.7% (175/195) for FLT-PET/CT, respectively. No significant difference was found between the two scans in sensitivity (p = 0.13), specificity (p = 0.48), or accuracy (p = 1.00).

Conclusion

FLT-PET/CT may have the same diagnostic value as FDG-PET/CT for detection of primary and nodal lesions of gastric cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al. (2008) Global cancer statics. CA Cancer J Clin 61:69–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kim HJ, Kim AH, Oh ST, et al. (2005) Gastric cancer staging at multi-detector CT gastrography: comparison of transverse and volumetric CT scanning. Radiology 236:879–885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, et al. (2008) Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 49:480–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Hany TF (2006) Integrated PET/CT: current applications and future directions. Radiology 238:405–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim EY, Lee WJ, Choi D, et al. (2011) The value of PET/CT for preoperative staging of advanced gastric cancer: comparison with contrast enhanced CT. Eur J Radiol 79:183–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yang QM, Kawamura T, Itoh H, et al. (2008) Is PET-CT suitable for detecting lymph node status for gastric cancer? Hepatogastroenterology 55:782–785

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lim JS, Kim MJ, Yun MJ, et al. (2006) Comparison of CT and 18F-FDG PET for detecting peritoneal metastasis on the evaluation for gastric carcinoma. Korean J Radiol 7:249–256

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Shields AF, Grierson JR, Dohmen BM, et al. (1998) Imaging proliferation in vivo with [F-18]FLT and positron emission tomography. Nat Med 4:1334–1336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rasey JS, Grierson JR, Wiens LW, Kolb PD, Schwartz JL (2002) Validation of FLT uptake as a measure of thymidine kinase-1 activity in A549 carcinoma cells. J Nucl Med 43:1210–1217

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bading JR, Shields AF (2008) Imaging of cell proliferation: status and prospects. J Nucl Med 49:64s–80s

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Herrmann K, Ott K, Buck AK, et al. (2007) Imaging gastric cancer with PET and the radiotracers 18F-FLT and 18F-FDG: a comparative analysis. J Nucl Med 48:1945–1950

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kameyama R, Yamamoto Y, Izuishi K, et al. (2009) Detection of gastric cancer using 18F-FLT PET: comparison with 18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36:382–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhou M, Wang C, Hu S, et al. (2013) 18F-FLT PET/CT imaging is not competent for the pretreatment evaluation of metastatic gastric cancer: a comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging. Nucl Med Commun 34:694–700

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Małkowski B, Staniuk T, Srutek E, et al. (2013) (18)F-FLT PET/CT in Patients with Gastric Carcinoma. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2013:696423

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Staniuk T, Zegarski W, Malkowski B, et al. (2013) Evaluation of FLT-PET/CT usefulness in diagnosis and qualification for surgical treatment of gastric cancer. Cotemp Oncol 17:165–170

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Oh SJ, Mosdzianowski C, Chi DY, et al. (2004) Fully automated synthesis system of 3′-deoxy-3′-[18F]fluorothymidine. Nucl Med Biol 31:803–809

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. (eds) (2010) American joint committee on cancer. AJCC cancer staging handbook, 7th edn. New York: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  18. Stahl A, Ott K, Weber WA, et al. (2013) FDG PET imaging of locally advanced gastric carcinomas: correlation with endoscopic and histopathological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:288–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hamilton SR, Aaltonen LA (2000) Tumors of the stomach. WHO classification of tumors. In: Hamilton SR, Aaltonen LA (eds) Pathology and genetics of tumors of the digestive system. Lyon: IARC Press, pp 38–52

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tian J, Yang X, Yu L, et al. (2008) A multicenter clinical trial on the diagnostic value of dual-tracer PET/CT in pulmonary lesions using 3′-deoxy-3′-18F-fluorothymidine and 18F-FDG. J Nucl Med 49:186–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Smyth EC, Shah MA (2011) Role of 18F 2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in upper gastrointestinal malignancies. World J Gastroenterol 17:5059–5074

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Wu CX, Zhu ZH (2014) Diagnosis and evaluation of gastric cancer by positron emission tomography. World J Gastroenterol 20:4574–4585

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Filik M, Kir KM, Aksel B, et al. (2015) The Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the primary staging of gastric cancer. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther 24:15–20

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ha TK, Choi YY, Song SY, Kwon SJ (2011) F18-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography and computed tomography is not accurate in preoperative staging of gastric cancer. J Korean Surg Soc 81:104–110

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Alakus H, Batur M, Schmidt M, et al. (2010) Variable 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in gastric cancer is associated with different levels of GLUT-1 expression. Nucl Med Commun 31:532–538

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Takebayashi R, Izuishi K, Yamamoto Y, et al. (2013) [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose accumulation as a biological marker of hypoxic status but not glucose transport ability in gastric cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 32:34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Nakajo M, Nakajo M, Kajiya Y, et al. (2013) Diagnostic performance of 18F-fluorothymidine PET/CT for primary colorectal cancer and its lymph node metastasis: comparison with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:1223–1232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Been LB, Suurmeijer AJ, Cobben DC, et al. (2004) [18F]FLT-PET in oncology: current status and opportunities. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:1659–1672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kubota K, Kubota R, Yamada S (1993) FDG accumulation in tumor tissue. J Nucl Med 34:419–421

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Higashi K, Clavo AC, Wahl RL (1993) Does FDG uptake measure proliferative activity of human cancer cells? In vitro comparison with DNA flow cytometry and tritiated thymidine uptake. J Nucl Med 34:414–419

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. van Westreenen HL, Cobben DC, Jager PL, et al. (2005) Comparison of 18F-FLT PET and 18F-FDG PET in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med 46:400–404

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Herrmann K, Erkan M, Dobritz M, et al. (2012) Comparison of 3′-deoxy-3′-[18F]fluorothymidine positron emission tomography (FLT PET) and FDG PET/CT for the detection and characterization of pancreatic tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39:846–851

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ott K, Herrmann K, Schuster T, et al. (2011) Molecular imaging of proliferation and glucose utilization: utility for monitoring response and prognosis after neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 18:3316–3323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pio BS, Park CK, Pietras R, et al. (2006) Usefulness of 3′-[F-18]fluoro-3′-deoxythymidine with positron emission tomography in predicting breast cancer response to therapy. Mol Imaging Biol 8:36–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kishino T, Hoshikawa H, Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto Y, Mori N (2012) Usefulness of 3′-deoxy-3′- 18F-fluorothymidine PET for predicting early response to chemoradiotherapy in head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med 53:1521–1527

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Graf N, Herrmann K, Numberger B, et al. (2013) [18F]FLT is superior to [18F]FDG for predicting early response to antiproliferative treatment in high-grade lymphoma in a dose-dependent manner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:34–43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Kagoshima University, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8544, Japan

    Masatoyo Nakajo, Megumi Jinguji & Takashi Yoshiura

  2. Department of Radiology, Nanpuh Hospital, 14-3 Nagata, Kagoshima, 892-8512, Japan

    Masatoyo Nakajo, Yoriko Kajiya, Atushi Tani & Masayuki Nakajo

Authors
  1. Masatoyo Nakajo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yoriko Kajiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Atushi Tani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Megumi Jinguji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Masayuki Nakajo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Takashi Yoshiura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masatoyo Nakajo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict interest.

Animal rights statements

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individuals participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nakajo, M., Kajiya, Y., Tani, A. et al. FLT-PET/CT diagnosis of primary and metastatic nodal lesions of gastric cancer: comparison with FDG-PET/CT. Abdom Radiol 41, 1891–1898 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0788-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0788-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation