Advertisement

Current Urology Reports

, 20:56 | Cite as

Role of Positron Emission Tomography Imaging in Metabolically Active Renal Cell Carcinoma

  • Vidhya Karivedu
  • Amit L. Jain
  • Thomas J. Eluvathingal
  • Abhinav SidanaEmail author
New Imaging Techniques (S Rais-Bahrami and K Porter, Section Editors)
  • 64 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on New Imaging Techniques

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The clinical role of fluorine-18 fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is still evolving. Use of FDG PET in RCC is currently not a standard investigation in the diagnosis and staging of RCC due to its renal excretion. This review focuses on the clinical role and current status of FDG PET and PET/CT in RCC.

Recent Findings

Studies investigating the role of FDG PET in localized RCC were largely disappointing. Several studies have demonstrated that the use of hybrid imaging PET/CT is feasible in evaluating the extra-renal disease. A current review of the literature determines PET/CT to be a valuable tool both in treatment decision-making and monitoring and in predicting the survival in recurrent and metastatic RCC.

Summary

PET/CT might be a viable option in the evaluation of RCC, especially recurrent and metastatic disease. PET/CT has also shown to play a role in predicting survival and monitoring therapy response.

Keywords

Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) Metabolically active renal cell carcinoma Restaging Metastases Therapy monitoring 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Vidhya Karivedu, Amit L Jain, Thomas J. Eluvathingal, and Abhinav Sidana each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cronin KA, Lake AJ, Scott S, Sherman RL, Noone AM, Howlader N, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part I: national cancer statistics. Cancer. 2018;124(13):2785–800.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leibovich BC, Lohse CM, Crispen PL, Boorjian SA, Thompson RH, Blute ML, et al. Histological subtype is an independent predictor of outcome for patients with renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2010;183(4):1309–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.035.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeCastro GJ, McKiernan JM. Epidemiology, clinical staging, and presentation of renal cell carcinoma. Urol Clin N Am. 2008;35(4):581–92.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rathmell WK, Rathmell JC, Linehan WM. Metabolic pathways in kidney cancer: current therapies and future directions. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(36):3540–6.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nickerson ML, Jaeger E, Shi Y, Durocher JA, Mahurkar S, Zaridze D, et al. Improved identification of von Hippel-Lindau gene alterations in clear cell renal tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(15):4726–34.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brooks SA, Rathmell WK. Uniting Molecular Biomarkers to Advance the Science and Care of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma. Journal of OncoPathology. 2013;1(4).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petrella BL, Lohi J, Brinckerhoff CE. Identification of membrane type-1 matrix metalloproteinase as a target of hypoxia-inducible factor-2α in von Hippel–Lindau renal cell carcinoma. Oncogene. 2005;24(6):1043–52.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shen C, Kaelin Jr WG, editors. The VHL/HIF axis in clear cell renal carcinoma. Seminars in cancer biology; 2013: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Network CGAR. Comprehensive molecular characterization of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Nature. 2013;499(7456):43.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Srinivasan R, George AK, Linehan WM. The metabolic basis of kidney cancer. Kidney cancer. Springer; 2015. p. 89–102.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vanharanta S, Buchta M, McWhinney SR, Virta SK, Peçzkowska M, Morrison CD, et al. Early-onset renal cell carcinoma as a novel extraparaganglial component of SDHB-associated heritable paraganglioma. Am J Hum Genet. 2004;74(1):153–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sourbier C, Valera-Romero V, Giubellino A, Yang Y, Sudarshan S, Neckers L, et al. Increasing reactive oxygen species as a therapeutic approach to treat hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma. Cell Cycle. 2010;9(20):4183–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. Journal of nuclear medicine: official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2008;49(3):480–508.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.047787.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology. 2004;231(2):305–32.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2312021185.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zarzour JG, Galgano S, McConathy J, Thomas JV, Rais-Bahrami S. Lymph node imaging in initial staging of prostate cancer: an overview and update. World journal of radiology. 2017;9(10):389–99.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miyakita H, Tokunaga M, Onda H, Usui Y, Kinoshita H, Kawamura N, et al. Significance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for detection of renal cell carcinoma and immunohistochemical glucose transporter 1 (GLUT-1) expression in the cancer. Int J Urol. 2002;9(1):15–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aide N, Cappele O, Bottet P, Bensadoun H, Regeasse A, Comoz F, et al. Efficiency of [18 F] FDG PET in characterising renal cancer and detecting distant metastases: a comparison with CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(9):1236–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Majhail NS, Urbain J-L, Albani JM, Kanvinde MH, Rice TW, Novick AC, et al. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of distant metastases from renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(21):3995–4000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kotzerke J, Linné C, Meinhardt M, Steinbach J, Wirth M, Baretton G, et al. [1-11 C]Acetate uptake is not increased in renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34(6):884–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lawrentschuk N, Poon AM, Scott AM. Fluorine-18 fluorothymidine: a new positron emission radioisotope for renal tumors. Clin Nucl Med. 2006;31(12):788–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schuster DM, Nye JA, Nieh PT, Votaw JR, Halkar RK, Issa MM, et al. Initial experience with the radiotracer anti-1-amino-3-[18 F] fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid (anti-[18 F] FACBC) with PET in renal carcinoma. Mol Imaging Biol. 2009;11(6):434–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Divgi CR, Pandit-Taskar N, Jungbluth AA, Reuter VE, Gönen M, Ruan S, et al. Preoperative characterisation of clear-cell renal carcinoma using iodine-124-labelled antibody chimeric G250 (124I-cG250) and PET in patients with renal masses: a phase I trial. The lancet oncology. 2007;8(4):304–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Es SC, Brouwers AH, Mahesh SVK, Leliveld-Kors AM, de Jong IJ, Lub-de Hooge MN, et al. (89)Zr-bevacizumab PET: potential early Indicator of everolimus efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(6):905–10.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.183475.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kamel EM, Jichlinski P, Prior JO, Meuwly JY, Delaloye JF, Vaucher L, et al. Forced diuresis improves the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET in abdominopelvic malignancies. Journal of nuclear medicine: official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2006;47(11):1803–7.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang H-Y, Ding H-J, Chen J-H, Chao C-H, Lu Y-Y, Lin W-Y, et al. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of [18F]FDG-PET and PET/CT in renal cell carcinoma. Cancer imaging: the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society. 2012;12(3):464–74.  https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2012.0042.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bachor R, Kotzerke J, Gottfried HW, Brandle E, Reske SN, Hautmann R. Positron emission tomography in diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma. Der Urologe Ausg A. 1996;35(2):146–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aide N, Cappele O, Bottet P, Bensadoun H, Regeasse A, Comoz F, et al. Efficiency of [18F] FDG PET in characterising renal cancer and detecting distant metastases: a comparison with CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(9):1236–45.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-003-1211-4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kumar R, Chauhan A, Lakhani P, Xiu Y, Zhuang H, Alavi A. 2-Deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography in characterization of solid renal masses. Molecular imaging and biology: MIB: the official publication of the Academy of Molecular Imaging. 2005;7(6):431–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-005-0026-z.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ozulker T, Ozulker F, Ozbek E, Ozpacaci T. A prospective diagnostic accuracy study of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the evaluation of indeterminate renal masses. Nucl Med Commun. 2011;32(4):265–72.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e3283442e3b.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nakhoda Z, Torigian DA, Saboury B, Hofheinz F, Alavi A. Assessment of the diagnostic performance of (18)F-FDG-PET/CT for detection and characterization of solid renal malignancies. Hellenic journal of nuclear medicine. 2013;16(1):19–24.  https://doi.org/10.1967/s002449910067.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Takahashi M, Kume H, Koyama K, Nakagawa T, Fujimura T, Morikawa T, et al. Preoperative evaluation of renal cell carcinoma by using 18F-FDG PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40(12):936–40.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000000875.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Miyauchi T. Correlation between visualization of primary renal cancer by FDG-PET and histopathological findings. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:64.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nagase Y, Takata K, Moriyama N, Aso Y, Murakami T, Hirano H. Investigative Urology: Immunohistochemical Localization of Glucose Transporters in Human Renal Cell Carcinoma. Journal of Urology. 1995;153(3):798–801.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)67725-5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ramdave S, Thomas GW, Berlangieri SU, Bolton DM, Davis I, Danguy HT, et al. Clinical role of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for detection and management of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2001;166(3):825–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kang DE, White RL Jr, Zuger JH, Sasser HC, Teigland CM. Clinical use of fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography for detection of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2004;171(5):1806–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000120241.50061.e4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Flanigan RC, Campbell SC, Clark JI, Picken MM. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Curr Treat Options in Oncol. 2003;4(5):385–90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-003-0039-2.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Briganti A, Montorsi F, Bianchi M, Sun M, Tian Z, Jeldres C, et al. Distribution of metastatic sites in renal cell carcinoma: a population-based analysis. Ann Oncol. 2011;23(4):973–80.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr362.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brouwers AH, Dorr U, Lang O, Boerman OC, Oyen WJ, Steffens MG, et al. 131 I-cG250 monoclonal antibody immunoscintigraphy versus [18 F]FDG-PET imaging in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a comparative study. Nucl Med Commun. 2002;23(3):229–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Safaei A, Figlin R, Hoh CK, Silverman DH, Seltzer M, Phelps ME, et al. The usefulness of F-18 deoxyglucose whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) for re-staging of renal cell cancer. Clin Nephrol. 2002;57(1):56–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nakatani K, Nakamoto Y, Saga T, Higashi T, Togashi K. The potential clinical value of FDG-PET for recurrent renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2011;79(1):29–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fuccio C, Ceci F, Castellucci P, Spinapolice EG, Palumbo R, D'Ambrosio D, et al. Restaging clear cell renal carcinoma with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2014;39(6):e320–4.  https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000000382.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bertagna F, Motta F, Bertoli M, Bosio G, Fisogni S, Tardanico R, et al. Role of F18-FDG-PET/CT in restaging patients affected by renal carcinoma. Nuclear medicine review Central & Eastern Europe. 2013;16(1):3–8.  https://doi.org/10.5603/nmr.2013.0002.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    • Alongi P, Picchio M, Zattoni F, Spallino M, Gianolli L, Saladini G, et al. Recurrent renal cell carcinoma: clinical and prognostic value of FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(3):464–73.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3159-6 A retrospective study assessed 104 RCC patients who had post-surgical FDG PET/CT. Positive FDG PET/CT correlated with a lower 3-year PFS rate and was associated with higher risk of progression. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    •• Ma H, Shen G, Liu B, Yang Y, Ren P, Kuang A. Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT in restaging renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nucl Med Commun. 2017;38(2):156–63.  https://doi.org/10.1097/mnm.0000000000000618 A metaanalysis of 15 studies involving 1168 patients evaluating diagnostic performance for detecting metastatic or recurrent lesions in patients with RCC. Pooled sensitivity was 86% and specificity of 88%, suggesting FDG-PET or PET/CT is a valuable tool in detecting metastatic or recurrent lesions in RCC patients. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wu HC, Yen RF, Shen YY, Kao CH, Lin CC, Lee CC. Comparing whole body 18F-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography and technetium-99m methylene diphosphate bone scan to detect bone metastases in patients with renal cell carcinomas - a preliminary report. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2002;128(9):503–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-002-0370-1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    • Elahmadawy MA, Elazab MSS, Ahmed S, Salama M. Diagnostic value of F-18 FDG PET/CT for local and distant disease relapse surveillance in surgically treated RCC patients: can it aid in establishing consensus follow up strategy? Nuclear medicine review Central & Eastern Europe. 2018;21(2):85–91.  https://doi.org/10.5603/nmr.2018.0024 A retrospective study evaluating ninety-six patients who underwent FDG PET/CT followed immediately by CT in post-surgical follow-up. FDG PET/CT demonstrated higher specificity in identifying local recurrence and distant metastases and appears to be a very efficient tool in post-surgical surveillance. Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rodríguez Martínez de Llano S, Jiménez-Vicioso A, Mahmood S, Carreras-Delgado JL. Clinical impact of 18F-FDG PET in management of patients with renal cell carcinoma. Revista Española de Medicina Nuclear. 2010;29(1):12–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.remn.2009.11.008.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kumar R, Shandal V, Shamim SA, Jeph S, Singh H, Malhotra A. Role of FDG PET-CT in recurrent renal cell carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2010;31(10):844–50.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e32833d6882.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Park JW, Jo MK, Lee HM. Significance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography for the postoperative surveillance of advanced renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2009;103(5):615–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08150.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Win AZ, Aparici CM. Clinical effectiveness of (18)f-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in management of renal cell carcinoma: a single institution experience. World journal of nuclear medicine. 2015;14(1):36–40.  https://doi.org/10.4103/1450-1147.150535.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Avril N, Sassen S, Schmalfeldt B, Naehrig J, Rutke S, Weber WA, et al. Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by sequential F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7445–53.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.06.965.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Schwarz-Dose J, Untch M, Tiling R, Sassen S, Mahner S, Kahlert S, et al. Monitoring primary systemic therapy of large and locally advanced breast cancer by using sequential positron emission tomography imaging with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(4):535–41.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2008.17.2650.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kayani I, Avril N, Bomanji J, Chowdhury S, Rockall A, Sahdev A, et al. Sequential FDG-PET/CT as a biomarker of response to sunitinib in metastatic clear cell renal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(18):6021–8.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-10-3309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Chen JL, Appelbaum DE, Kocherginsky M, Cowey CL, Rathmell WK, McDermott DF, et al. FDG-PET as a predictive biomarker for therapy with everolimus in metastatic renal cell cancer. Cancer medicine. 2013;2(4):545–52.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.102.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Caldarella C, Muoio B, Isgrò MA, Porfiri E, Treglia G, Giovanella L. The role of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluating the response to tyrosine-kinase inhibitors in patients with metastatic primary renal cell carcinoma. Radiol Oncol. 2014;48(3):219–27.  https://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2013-0067.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lyrdal D, Boijsen M, Suurkula M, Lundstam S, Stierner U. Evaluation of sorafenib treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma with 2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Nucl Med Commun. 2009;30(7):519–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ueno D, Yao M, Tateishi U, Minamimoto R, Makiyama K, Hayashi N, et al. Early assessment by FDG-PET/CT of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors is predictive of disease course. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:162.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-162.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kakizoe M, Yao M, Tateishi U, Minamimoto R, Ueno D, Namura K, et al. The early response of renal cell carcinoma to tyrosine kinase inhibitors evaluated by FDG PET/CT was not influenced by metastatic organ. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:390.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-14-390.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    •• Nakaigawa N, Kondo K, Kaneta T, Tateishi U, Minamimoto R, Namura K, et al. FDG PET/CT after first molecular targeted therapy predicts survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma. Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology. 2018;81(4):739–44.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-018-3542-7 A prospective study assessing 81 patients receiving single targeted therapy using FDG PET/CT. Patients with high SUVmax had a poor progonsis and is an independent predictor of survival. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    • Tabei T, Nakaigawa N, Kaneta T, Ikeda I, Kondo K, Makiyama K, et al. Early assessment with (18)F-2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography to predict short-term outcome in clear cell renal carcinoma treated with nivolumab. BMC cancer. 2019;19(1):298.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5510-y A phase II pilot study assessing FDG PET/CT in predicting short-term outcome in RCC patients treated with nivolumab. This study included 9 patients with 30 leisons and findings suggested that early assessement using PET/CT can be effective in predicting response to nivolumab. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Linehan WM. Genetic basis of kidney cancer: role of genomics for the development of disease-based therapeutics. Genome Res. 2012;22(11):2089–100.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Shuch B, Vourganti S, Ricketts CJ, Middleton L, Peterson J, Merino MJ, et al. Defining early-onset kidney cancer: implications for germline and somatic mutation testing and clinical management. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(5):431–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sidana A, Srinivasan R. Therapeutic strategies for hereditary kidney cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2016;18(8):50.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-016-0537-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Linehan WM, Srinivasan R, Schmidt LS. The genetic basis of kidney cancer: a metabolic disease. Nature reviews urology. 2010;7(5):277–85.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Linehan WM, Ricketts CJ, editors. The metabolic basis of kidney cancer. Seminars in cancer biology; 2013: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wang H-Y, Ding H-J, Chen J-H, Chao C-H, Lu Y-Y, Lin W-Y, et al. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of [18F] FDG-PET and PET/CT in renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Imaging. 2012;12(3):464–74.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Harrison MR, George DJ. Better late than early: FDG-PET imaging in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(18):5841–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Consortium ML. Germline mutations in FH predispose to dominantly inherited uterine fibroids, skin leiomyomata and papillary renal cell cancer. Nat Genet. 2002;30(4):406–10.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Launonen V, Vierimaa O, Kiuru M, Isola J, Roth S, Pukkala E, et al. Inherited susceptibility to uterine leiomyomas and renal cell cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2001;98(6):3387–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Yang Y, Valera V, Sourbier C, Vocke CD, Wei M, Pike L, et al. A novel fumarate hydratase-deficient HLRCC kidney cancer cell line, UOK268: a model of the Warburg effect in cancer. Cancer genetics. 2012;205(7–8):377–90.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Isaacs JS, Jung YJ, Mole DR, Lee S, Torres-Cabala C, Chung Y-L, et al. HIF overexpression correlates with biallelic loss of fumarate hydratase in renal cancer: novel role of fumarate in regulation of HIF stability. Cancer Cell. 2005;8(2):143–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Shuch B, Asher KP, Chen C, Lin K, Bratslavsky G, Linehan WM, et al. Clinical evaluation of 2-(18F) fluoro-2 deoxy-D-glucose PET/CT in hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma. American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2013.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Shuch B, Stamatakis L, Chen C, Gautam R, Merino M, Choyke PL, et al. Utility of 2-(18F) fluoro-2 deoxy-D-glucose PET/CT in advanced papillary renal cell carcinoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2014;32(4_suppl):419.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2014.32.4_suppl.419.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Yamasaki T, Tran TAT, Oz OK, Raj GV, Schwarz RE, DeBerardinis RJ, et al. Exploring a glycolytic inhibitor for the treatment of an FH-deficient type-2 papillary RCC. Nature Reviews Urology. 2011;8(3):165–71.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kwee SA, Coel MN. Detection of synchronous primary breast and prostate cancer by F-18 fluorocholine PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2010;35(2):128–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Jadvar H. Prostate cancer: PET with 18F-FDG, 18F-or 11C-acetate, and 18F-or 11C-choline. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(1):81–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    •• Nakanishi Y, Kitajima K, Yamada Y, Hashimoto T, Suzuki T, Go S, et al. Diagnostic performance of 11C-choline PET/CT and FDG PET/CT for staging and restaging of renal cell cancer. Annals of Nuclear Medicine. 2018;32(10):658–68.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-018-1287-3 A prospective study assessing twenty-eight RCC patients who underwent both 11C-choline and FDG PET/CT before and after treatments and demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity compared with FDG PET/CT.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Grassi I, Nanni C, Allegri V, Morigi JJ, Montini GC, Castellucci P, et al. The clinical use of PET with (11)C-acetate. American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2011;2(1):33–47.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Oyama N, Ito H, Takahara N, Miwa Y, Akino H, Kudo T, et al. Diagnosis of complex renal cystic masses and solid renal lesions using PET imaging: comparison of 11C-acetate and 18F-FDG PET imaging. Clin Nucl Med. 2014;39(3):e208–14.  https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000000287.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hugonnet F, Fournier L, Medioni J, Smadja C, Hindié E, Huchet V, et al. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma: relationship between initial metastasis hypoxia, change after 1 month's sunitinib, and therapeutic response: an 18F-fluoromisonidazole PET/CT study. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(7):1048–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Wong PK, Lee ST, Murone C, Eng J, Lawrentschuk N, Berlangieri SU, et al. In vivo imaging of cellular proliferation in renal cell carcinoma using 18F-fluorothymidine PET. Asia Oceania Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Biology. 2014;2(1):3.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Horn KP, Yap JT, Agarwal N, Morton KA, Kadrmas DJ, Beardmore B, et al. FDG and FLT-PET for early measurement of response to 37.5 mg daily sunitinib therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Imaging. 2015;15(1):15.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Desar IM, Stillebroer AB, Oosterwijk E, Leenders WP, van Herpen CM, van der Graaf WT, et al. 111In-bevacizumab imaging of renal cell cancer and evaluation of neoadjuvant treatment with the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor sorafenib. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(11):1707–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Nakamoto Y, Ishimori T, Shimizu Y, Sano K, Togashi K. Clinical utility of 68Ga-DOTATOC positron emission tomography/computed tomography for recurrent renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:1524–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04298-4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hekman MCH, Rijpkema M, Aarntzen EH, Mulder SF, Langenhuijsen JF, Oosterwijk E, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography with (89)Zr-girentuximab can aid in diagnostic dilemmas of clear cell renal cell carcinoma suspicion. Eur Urol. 2018;74(3):257–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.04.026.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Gerety EL, Lawrence EM, Wason J, Yan H, Hilborne S, Buscombe J, et al. Prospective study evaluating the relative sensitivity of 18F-NaF PET/CT for detecting skeletal metastases from renal cell carcinoma in comparison to multidetector CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy, using an adaptive trial design. Annals of oncology: official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2015;26(10):2113–8.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv289.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Rhee H, Blazak J, Tham CM, Ng KL, Shepherd B, Lawson M, et al. Pilot study: use of gallium-68 PSMA PET for detection of metastatic lesions in patients with renal tumour. EJNMMI research. 2016;6(1):76.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-016-0231-6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Liu G, Jeraj R, Vanderhoek M, Perlman S, Kolesar J, Harrison M, et al. Pharmacodynamic study using FLT PET/CT in patients with renal cell cancer and other solid malignancies treated with sunitinib malate. Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2011;17(24):7634–44.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-1677.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Lawrentschuk N, Poon AM, Foo SS, Putra LGJ, Murone C, Davis ID, et al. Assessing regional hypoxia in human renal tumours using 18F-fluoromisonidazole positron emission tomography. BJU Int. 2005;96(4):540–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    • Kelly-Morland C, Rudman S, Nathan P, Mallett S, Montana G, Cook G, et al. Evaluation of treatment response and resistance in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) using integrated (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI); the REMAP study. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):392.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3371-9 An observational prospective study evaluating patients with metastatic RCC with FDG PET-MRI suggest that it will provide superior sensitivity and specificity in early response/non-response compared with standard CT. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vidhya Karivedu
    • 1
  • Amit L. Jain
    • 2
  • Thomas J. Eluvathingal
    • 3
  • Abhinav Sidana
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical OncologyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of Tennessee Health Science CenterMemphisUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  4. 4.Division of UrologyUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  5. 5.Division of Urology, University of Cincinnati Cancer InstituteUniversity of Cincinnati College of MedicineCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations