Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 17, Issue 12, pp 3181–3186 | Cite as

18F-FAMT-PET Is Useful for the Diagnosis of Lymph Node Metastasis in Operable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

  • Makoto Sohda
  • Hiroyuki Kato
  • Shigemasa Suzuki
  • Naritaka Tanaka
  • Akihiko Sano
  • Makoto Sakai
  • Takanori Inose
  • Masanobu Nakajima
  • Tatsuya Miyazaki
  • Minoru Fukuchi
  • Noboru Oriuchi
  • Keigo Endo
  • Hiroyuki Kuwano
Gastrointestinal Oncology

Abstract

Background

The role and potential usefulness of positron emission tomography (PET) scanning in certain tumors has been widely investigated in recent years. 18F-FAMT (L-[3-18F]-α-methyltyrosine) is an amino acid tracer for PET. This study investigated whether PET/CT with 18F-FAMT provides additional information for preoperative diagnostic workup of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma compared with that obtained by 18F-FDG (fluorodeoxyglucose) PET or CT.

Methods

PET/CT studies with 18F-FAMT and 18F-FDG were performed as a part of the preoperative workup in 21 patients with histologically confirmed esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Results

For the detection of primary esophageal cancer, 18F-FAMT-PET exhibited a sensitivity of 76.2%, whereas the sensitivity for 18F-FDG-PET was 90.5% (P = 0.214). 18F-FAMT uptake in primary tumors showed significant correlation with depth of invasion (P = 0.005), lymph node metastasis (P = 0.045), stage (P = 0.031), and lymphatic invasion (P = 0.029). In the evaluation of individual lymph node groups, 18F-FAMT-PET exhibited 18.2% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 71.9% accuracy, 100% positive predictive value, and 70.0% negative predictive value, compared with 24.2%, 93.7%, 69.8%, 66.6%, and 70.2%, respectively, for 18F FDG-PET. CT exhibited 39.4% sensitivity, 85.7% specificity, 69.8% accuracy, 59.1% positive predictive value, and 73.0% negative predictive value. The specificity of 18F-FAMT-PET is significantly higher than that of 18F-FDG-PET (P = 0.042) and CT (P = 0.002). 18F-FAMT-PET did not have any false-positive findings compared to those with 18F-FDG-PET.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that the addition of 18F-FAMT-PET to 18F-FDG-PET and CT would permit more precise staging of esophageal cancer.

References

  1. 1.
    Daly JM, Karnell LH, Menck HR. National Cancer Data Base report on esophageal carcinoma. Cancer. 1996;78:1820–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wobst A, Audisio RA, Colleoni M, Geraghty JG. Oesophageal cancer treatment: studies, strategies and facts. Ann Oncol. 1998;9:951–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kato H, Kuwano H, Nakajima M, et al. Comparison between positron emission tomography and computed tomography in the use of the assessment of esophageal carcinoma. Cancer. 2002;94:921–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brock CS, Meikle SR, Price P. Does fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose metabolic imaging of tumours benefit oncology? Eur J Nucl Med. 1997;24:691–705.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kato H, Takita J, Miyazaki T, et al. Correlation of 18-F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) accumulation with glucose transporter (Glut-1) expression in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Anticancer Res. 2003;23:3263–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kato H, Nakajima M, Sohda M, et al. The clinical application of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to predict survival in patients with operable esophageal cancer. Cancer. 2009;115:3196–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tomiyoshi K, Amed K, Muhammad S, et al. Synthesis of isomers of 18F-labelled amino acid radiopharmaceutical: position 2- and 3-L-18F-alpha-methyltyrosine using a separation and purification system. Nucl Med Commun. 1997;18:169–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Inoue T, Tomiyoshi K, Higuichi T, et al. Biodistribution studies on L-3-[fluorine-18]fluoro-alpha-methyl tyrosine: a potential tumor-detecting agent. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:663–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amano S, Inoue T, Tomiyoshi K, Ando T, Endo K. In vivo comparison of PET and SPECT radiopharmaceuticals in detecting breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:1424–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Uchino H, Kanai Y, Kim DK, et al. Transport of amino acid-related compounds mediated by L-type amino acid transporter 1 (LAT1): insights into the mechanisms of substrate recognition. Mol Pharmacol. 2002;61:729–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim DK, Kanai Y, Choi HW, et al. Characterization of the system L amino acid transporter in T24 human bladder carcinoma cells. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2002;1565:112–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaira K, Oriuchi N, Otani Y, et al. Diagnostic usefulness of fluorine-18-alpha-methyltyrosine positron emission tomography in combination with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in sarcoidosis patients. Chest. 2007;131:1019–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaira K, Oriuchi N, Otani Y, et al. Fluorine-18-alpha-methyltyrosine positron emission tomography for diagnosis and staging of lung cancer: a clinicopathologic study. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:6369–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaira K, Oriuchi N, Shimizu K, et al. Evaluation of thoracic tumors with 18F-FMT and 18F-FDG PET-CT: a clinicopathological study. Int J Cancer. 2009;124:1152–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Japanese Society for Esophageal Disease. Guidelines for the clinical and pathological studies on carcinoma of the esophagus. 10th ed. Tokyo: Kanehara; 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamacher K, Coenen HH, Stöcklin G. Efficient stereospecific synthesis of no-carrier-added 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d.-glucose using aminopolyether supported nucleophilic substitution. J Nucl Med. 1986;27:235–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beck JR. Likelihood ratios. Another enhancement of sensitivity and specificity. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1986;110:685–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuwano H, Sumiyoshi K, Sonoda K, et al. Relationship between preoperative assessment of organ function and postoperative morbidity in patients with oesophageal cancer. Eur J Surg. 1998;164:581–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bar-Shalom R, Valdivia AY, Blaufox MD. PET imaging in oncology. Semin Nucl Med. 2000;30:150–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meltzer CC, Luketich JD, Friedman D, et al. Whole-body FDG positron emission tomographic imaging for staging esophageal cancer comparison with computed tomography. Clin Nucl Med. 2000;25:882–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Flamen P, Lerut A, Van Cutsem E, et al. Utility of positron emission tomography for the staging of patients with potentially operable esophageal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3202–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Makoto Sohda
    • 1
  • Hiroyuki Kato
    • 2
  • Shigemasa Suzuki
    • 1
  • Naritaka Tanaka
    • 1
  • Akihiko Sano
    • 1
  • Makoto Sakai
    • 1
  • Takanori Inose
    • 1
  • Masanobu Nakajima
    • 1
  • Tatsuya Miyazaki
    • 1
  • Minoru Fukuchi
    • 1
  • Noboru Oriuchi
    • 3
  • Keigo Endo
    • 3
  • Hiroyuki Kuwano
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General Surgical ScienceGunma University Graduate School of MedicineMaebashiJapan
  2. 2.Department of Surgical OncologyDokkyo Medical UniversityMibuJapan
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear MedicineGunma University Graduate School of MedicineMaebashiJapan

Personalised recommendations