PET and PET/CT in Kidney Cancer

  • Christiaan Schiepers
Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)

6.5 Conclusion

Renal cell carcinoma comprises about 3% of all malignancies. FDG has a modest affinity for RCC related to a lower expression of GLUT-1 than other cancers. Metabolic imaging using FDG and PET has a modest accuracy for primary lesions and local recurrence. The data for staging and restaging of RCC is similar: low sensitivity and high specificity. Possible interpretation problems related to the excreted FDG can be overcome by fusion of anatomic and metabolic images (PET/CT). Newer-generation scanners have improved spatial resolution, which will reduce false negatives. To date, there are no series available about the utility of this emerging dual-modality imaging technique in RCC. The modality is also suitable for therapy monitoring, but again there is insufficient data to assess the contribution of PET or PET/CT.


Renal Cell Carcinoma Standardize Uptake Value Brown Adipose Tissue Renal Cell Cancer Kidney Cancer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bachor R, Kotzerke J, Gottfried HW, Brandle E, Reske SN, Hautmann R (1996) Positron emission tomography in diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma. Urologe A 35:146–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown RS, Wahl RL (1993) Overexpression of Glut-1 glucose transporter in human breast cancer. An immunohisto-chemical study. Cancer 72:2979–2985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL (2003a) Direct comparison of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 44:1797–1803PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohade C, Osman M, Pannu HK, Wahl RL (2003b) Uptake in supraclavicular area fat (“USA-Fat”): description on 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 44:170–176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Coleman RE (2002) Value of FDG-PET scanning in management of lung cancer. Lancet 359:1361–1362PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahlbom M, Hoffman EJ, Hoh CK, Schiepers C, Rosenqvist G, Hawkins RA, Phelps ME (1992) Whole-body positron emission tomography. 1. Methods and performance characteristics. J Nucl Med 33:1191–1199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dwamena BA, Sonnad SS, Angobaldo JO, Wahl RL (1999) Metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: mediastinal staging in the 1990s: meta-analytic comparison of PET and CT. Radiology 213:530–536PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Figlin RA, Thompson JA, Bukowski RM, Vogelzang NJ, Novick AC, Lange P, Steinberg GD, Belldegrun AS (1999) Multi-center, randomized, phase III trial of CD8(+) tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in combination with recombinant interleukin-2 in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 17:2521–2529PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldberg MA, Mayo-Smith WW, Papanicolaou N, Fischman AJ, Lee MJ (1997) FDG PET characterization of renal masses: preliminary experience. Clin Radiol 52:510–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Owens DK (2001) Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc 285:914–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hain SF, Maisey MN (2003) Positron emission tomography for urological tumours. BJU Int 92:159–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofer C, Kubler H, Hartung R, Breul J, Avril N (2001) Diagnosis and monitoring of urological tumors using positron emission tomography. Eur Urol 40:481–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoh CK, Hawkins RA, Glaspy JA, Dahlbom M, Tse NY, Hoffman EJ et al. (1993) Cancer detection with whole-body PET using 2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. J Comput Assist Tomogr 17:582–589PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoh CK, Schiepers C, Seltzer MA, Gambhir SS, Silverman DH, Czernin J, Maddahi J, Phelps ME (1997) PET in oncology: Will it replace the other modalities? Semin Nucl Med 272:94–106Google Scholar
  15. Hoh CK, Seltzer MA, Franklin J, deKernion JB, Phelps ME, Belldegrun A (1998) Positron emission tomography in urological oncology. J Urol 159:347–356PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jadvar H, Kherbache HM, Pinski JK, Conti PS (2003) Diagnostic role of [F-18]-FDG positron emission tomography in restaging renal cell carcinoma. Clin Nephrol 60:395–400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, Ghafoor A, Samuels A, Ward E, Feuer EJ, Thun MJ; American Cancer Society (2004) Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 54:8–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kang DE, White RL Jr, Zuger JH, Sasser HC, Teigland CM (2004) Clinical use of fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography for detection of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 171:1806–1809PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Keyes JW Jr (1995) SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med 36:1836–1839PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kocher F, Grimmel S, Hautmann R (1994) Positron emission tomography. Introduction of a new procedure in diagnosis of urologic tumors and initial clinical results. J Nucl Med 35: 223PGoogle Scholar
  21. Kubota K, Ishiwata K, Kubota R, Yamada S, Tada M, Sato T, Ido T (1991) Tracer feasibility for monitoring tumor radiotherapy: a quadruple tracer study with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose or fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyuridine, L-[methyl-14C]methionine, [ 6-3H]thymidine, and gallium-67. J Nucl Med 32:2118–2123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kubota K, Kubota R, Yamada S (1993) FDG accumulation in tumor tissue. J Nucl Med 34:419–421PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kubota R, Yamada S, Kubota K, Ishiwata K, Tamahashi N, Ido T (1992) Intratumoral distribution of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in vivo: high accumulation in macrophages and granulation tissues studied by microautoradiography. J Nucl Med 33:1972–1980PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, Kamel EM, Korom S, Seifert B, Schulthess GK von, Steinert HC (2003) Staging of nonsmall-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med 348:2500–2507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Majhail NS, Urbain JL, Albani JM, Kanvinde MH, Rice TW, Novick AC, Mekhail TM, Olencki TE, Elson P, Bukowski RM (2003) F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of distant metastases from renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 21:3995–4000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miyakita H, Tokunaga M, Onda H, Usui Y, Kinoshita H, Kawamura N, Yasuda S (2002) Significance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for detection of renal cell carcinoma and immunohisto-chemical glucose transporter 1 (GLUT-1) expression in the cancer. Int J Urol 9:15–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miyauchi T, Wahl RL (1996) Regional 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake varies in normal lung. Eur J Nucl Med 23:517–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miyauchi T, Brown R, Grossman H, Wojno K (1996) Correlation between visualization of primary renal cancer by FDG-PET. J Nucl Med 37 (Suppl):64PGoogle Scholar
  29. Montravers F, Grahek D, Kerrou K, Younsi N, Beco V de, Talbot JN (2002) Sensitivity of FDG CDET (2D dual-head coincidence gamma camera) for the detection of occult or doubtful recurrences of colorectal cancer. Histopathological correlation. Clin Positron Imaging 3:169Google Scholar
  30. Phelps ME (ed) (2004) PET: molecular imaging and its biological applications. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Ramdave S, Thomas GW, Berlangieri SU, Bolton DM, Davis I, Danguy HT, Macgregor D, Scott AM (2001) Clinical role of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for detection and management of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 166:825–830PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Safaei A, Figlin R, Hoh CK, Silverman DH, Seltzer M, Phelps ME, Czernin J (2002) The usefulness of F-18 deoxyglucose whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) for restaging of renal cell cancer. Clin Nephrol 57:56–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Schiepers C (2003) PET/CT in colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 44:1804–1805PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Townsend DW, Cherry SR (2001) Combining anatomy and function: the path to true image fusion. Eur Radiol 11:1968–1974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Valk PE (1996) Sense and sensitivity: issues in technology assessment. J Nucl Med 37:1436–1437PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Valk P (ed) (2003) Positron emission tomography: basic science and clinical practice. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Wahl RL (1996) Targeting glucose transporters for tumor imaging: “sweet” idea, “sour” result. J Nucl Med 37:1038–1041PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wahl RL (1999) Positron emission tomography in cancer patient management. Cancer J Sci Am 5:205–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Wahl RL (2004) Why nearly all PET of abdominal and pelvic cancers will be performed as PET/CT. J Nucl Med 45(Suppl 1):82S–95SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Warburg O (1956) On the origin of cancer cells. Science 123:309–314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Warburg O, Posener K, Negelein E (1924) The metabolism of cancer cells. Biochem Zeitschr 152:129–169Google Scholar
  42. Zasadny KR, Wahl RL (1993) Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology 189:847–850PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christiaan Schiepers
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Molecular and Medical PharmacologyDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiological SciencesDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations