• David J. Yang
  • Tomio Inoue
  • E. Edmund Kim


Several imaging modalities including computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, optical imaging, and gamma scintigraphy have been used to diagnose cancer. Although CT and MRI provide considerable anatomic information about the location and the extent of tumors, they do not adequately differentiate residual or recurrent tumors from edema, radiation necrosis, or gliosis. Ultrasound images provide information about local and regional morphology with blood flow. Although optical imaging showed promising results, its ability to detect deep tissue penetration was not well demonstrated. Radionuclide imaging modalities such as positron emission tomography (PET) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) are diagnostic cross-sectional imaging techniques that map the location and concentration of radionuclide-labeled compounds (Bar-Shalom et al. Semin Nucl Med 30:150–185, 2000; Plowman et al. Br J Neurosurg 11:525–532, 1997; Weber et al. Strahlenther Onkol 175:356, 1999). Beyond showing precisely where a tumor is and its size, shape, and viability, PET and SPECT are making it possible to “see” the molecular makeup of the tumor and its metabolic activity. Whereas PET and SPECT can provide a very accurate picture of metabolically active areas, their ability to show anatomic features is limited. As a result, new imaging modalities have begun to combine PET and SPECT images with CT scans for treatment planning. PET/CT and SPECT/CT scanners combine anatomic and functional images taken during a single procedure without having to reposition the patient between scans. To improve the diagnosis, prognosis, planning, and monitoring of cancer treatment, characterization of tumor tissue is extensively determined by development of more tumor-specific pharmaceuticals. Radiolabeled ligands as well as radiolabeled antibodies have opened a new era in scintigraphic detection of tumors and have undergone extensive preclinical development and evaluation.


Positron Emission Tomography Single Photon Emission Compute Tomography Positron Emission Tomography Image Positron Emission Tomography Study Single Photon Emission Compute Tomography Image 
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.



The animal research reported here is supported by a Cancer Center Core grant, NIH-NCI CA-16672.


  1. 1.
    Bar-Shalom R, Valdivia AY, Blaufox MD. PET imaging in oncology. Semin Nucl Med. 2000;30:150–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Plowman PN, Saunders CA, Maisey M. On the usefulness of brain PET scanning to the paediatric neuro-oncologist. Br J Neurosurg. 1997;11:525–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weber WA, Avril N, Schwaiger M. Relevance of positron emission tomography (PET) in oncology. Strahlenther Onkol. 1999;175:356.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lau CL, Harpole DH, Patz E. Staging techniques for lung cancer. Chest Surg Clin North Am. 2000;10(4): 781–801.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schulte M, Brecht-Krauss D, Heymer B, et al. Grading of tumors and tumor like lesions of bone: evaluation by FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2000;41(10):1695–701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yutani K, Shiba E, Kusuoka H, et al. Comparison of FDG-PET with MIBI-SPECT in the detection of breast cancer and axillary lymph node metastasis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24(2):274–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Franzius C, Sciuk J, Daldrup-Link HE, et al. FDG-PET for detection of osseous metastases from malignant primary bone tumors: comparison with bone scintigraphy. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27(9):1305–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Folpe AL, Lyles RH, Sprouse JT, et al. (F-18) fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as a predictor of pathologic grade and other prognostic variables in bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6(4):1279–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meyer PT, Spetzger U, Mueller HD, et al. High F-18 FDG uptake in a low-grade supratentorial ganglioma: a positron emission tomography case report. Clin Nucl Med. 2000;25(9):694–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Franzius C, Sciuk J, Brinkschmidt C, et al. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in primary bone tumors with F-18 FDG positron emission tomography compared with histologically assessed tumor necrosis. Clin Nucl Med. 2000;25(11):874–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carretta A, Landoni C, Melloni G, et al. 18-FDG positron emission tomography in the evaluation of malignant pleural diseases – a pilot study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2000;17(4):377–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Torre W, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Galbis J, et al. FDG-PET detection of primary lung cancer in a patient with an isolated cerebral metastasis. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;41(3):503–5.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brunelle F. Noninvasive diagnosis of brain tumors in children. Childs Nerv Syst. 2000;16(10–11):731–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mankoff DA, Dehdashti F, Shields AF. Characterizing tumors using metabolic imaging: PET imaging of cellular proliferation and steroid receptors. Neoplasia. 2000;2:71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fitzgerald J, Parker JA, Danias PG. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose SPECT for assessment of myocardial viability. J Nucl Cardiol. 2000;7(4):382–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schwarz A, Kuwert T. Nuclear medicine diagnosis in diseases of the central nervous system. Radiology. 2000;40(10):858–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roelcke U, Leenders KL. PET in neuro-oncology. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2001;127(1):2–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brock CS, Meikle SR, Price P. Does 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose metabolic imaging of tumors benefit oncology? Eur J Nucl Med. 1997;24:691–705.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Syrota A, Comar D, Cerf M, et al. [11]C-methionine pancreatic scanning with positron emission computed tomography. J Nucl Med. 1979;20:778–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Syrota A, Duquesnoy N, Dasaf A, et al. The role of positron emission tomography in the detection of pancreatic disease. Radiology. 1982;143:249–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kubota K, Yamada K, Fukuda H, et al. Tumor detection with carbon-11 labeled amino acid. Eur J Nucl Med. 1984;9:136–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hagenfeldt L, Venizelos N, Bjerkenstedt L, et al. Decreased tyrosine transport in fibroblasts from schizophrenic patients. Life Sci. 1987;41:2749–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tisljar U, Kloster G, Stocklin G. Accumulation of radioiodinated L-alpha-methyltyrosine in pancreas of mice: concise communication. J Nucl Med. 1979;20:973–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kloss G, Leven M. Accumulation of radioiodinated tyrosine derivatives in the adrenal medulla and in melanomas. Eur J Nucl Med. 1979;4:179–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Langen KJ, Coenen HH, Roosen N, et al. SPECT studies of brain tumors with L-3-[123I]-Iodo-alpha-methyl tyrosine: comparison with PET, 124IMT and first clinical results. J Nucl Med. 1990;31:281–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tomiyoshi K, Hirano T, Inoue T, et al. Positron emission tomography for evaluation of dopaminergic function using a neurotransmitter analog L-18F-m-tyrosine in monkey brain. Bioimages. 1996;4(1):1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wienhard K, Herholz K, Coenen HH, et al. Increased amino acid transport into brain tumors measured by PET of L-(2-18F)fluorotyrosine. J Nucl Med. 1991;32:1338–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Coenen HH, Kling P, Stocklin G, et al. Metabolism of L2-18F-fluorotyrosine, new PET tracer for protein synthesis. J Nucl Med. 1989;301:367–1372.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ishiwata K, Valvurg W, Elsigna PH, et al. Metabolic studies with L-11C-tyrosine for the investigation of a kinetic model of measuring protein synthesis rate with PET. J Nucl Med. 1988;29:524–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bolster JM, Valburg W, Paans AMJ, et al. Carbon-11 labeled tyrosine to study tumor metabolism by positron emission tomography (PET). Eur J Nucl Med. 1986;12:321–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dejesus OT, Sunderland JJ, Nicles R, et al. Synthesis of radiofluorinated analogs of m-tyrosine as potential l-dopa tracers via direct reaction with acetylhypofluorite. Appl Radiat Isot. 1990;41(5):433–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tang G, Wang M, Tang X, et al. Pharmacokinetics and radiation dosimetry estimation of O-(2-[18 F]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine as oncologic PET tracer. Appl Radiat Isot. 2003;58(2):219–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hamacher K, Coenen HH. Efficient routine production of the 18F-labelled amino acid O-2-18F fluoroethyl-l-tyrosine. Appl Radiat Isot. 2002;57(6):853–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rau FC, Weber WA, Wester HJ, et al. O-(2-[(18)F]Fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine (FET): a tracer for differentiation of tumour from inflammation in murine lymph nodes. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29(8):1039–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fernandez MD, Burn JI, Sauven PD, et al. Activated estrogen receptors in breast cancer and response to endocrine therapy. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1984;20:41–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McGuire AH, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, et al. Positron tomographic assessment of 16-alpha-[18F]fluoro-17-beta-estradiol uptake in metastatic breast carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 1991;32:1526–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McManaway ME, Jagoda EM, Kasid A, et al. [125I]17-beta-iodovinyl-11-beta-methoxyestradiol: interaction in vivo with ERS in hormone independent MCF-7 human breast cancer transfected with V-ras H oncogene. Cancer Res. 1987;47:2945–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jagoda EM, Gibson RE, Goodgold H, et al. [125I]17-Iodovinyl-11-beta-methoxyestradiol: in vivo and in vitro properties of a high affinity estrogen-receptor radiopharmaceutical. J Nucl Med. 1984;25:472–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hamm JT, Allegra JC. Hormonal therapy for cancer. In: Witts RE, editor. Manual of oncologic therapeutics. New York: Lippincott; 1991. p. 122–6.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wittliff JL. Steroid-hormone receptor in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1984;53:630–43.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rasey JS, Nelson NJ, Chin L, et al. Characterization of the binding of labeled fluoromisonidazole in cells in vitro. Radiat Res. 1990;122:301–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cherif A, Yang DJ, Tansey W, et al. Synthesis of [18F]fluoromisonidazole. Pharm Res. 1994;11:466–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hwang DR, Dence CS, Bonasera TA, et al. No-carrier-added synthesis of 3-[18F]fluoro-1-(2-nitro-1-imidazolyl)-2-propanol. A potential PET agent for detecting hypoxic but viable tissues. Int J Radiat Appl Instrum A. 1989;40:117–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jerabeck PA, Patrick TB, Kilbourn D, et al. Synthesis and biodistribution of 18F-labeled fluoronitroimidazoles: potential in vivo markers of hypoxic tissue. Appl Radiat Isot. 1986;37:599–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Parliament MB, Chapman JD, Urtasun RC, et al. Noninvasive assessment of tumor hypoxia with 123I-iodoazomycin arabinoside: preliminary report of a clinical study. Br J Cancer. 1992;65:90–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Valk PET, Mathis CA, Prados MD, et al. Hypoxia in human gliomas: demonstration by PET with [18F]fluoromisonidazole. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:2133–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Martin GV, Caldwell JH, Rasey JS, et al. Enhanced binding of the hypoxic cell marker [18F]fluoromisonidazole in ischemic myocardium. Nucl Med. 1989;30:194–201.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Martin GV, Cardwell JH, Graham MM, et al. Nonivasive detection of hypoxic myocardium using [18F]fluoromisonidazole and PET. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:2202–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yeh SH, Liu RS, Hu HH, et al. Ischemic penumbra in acute stroke: demonstration by PET with fluorine-18 fluoromisonidazole. J Nucl Med. 1994;35(5):205. abst.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yeh SH, Liu RS, Wu LC, et al. Fluorine-18 fluoromisonidazole tumour to muscle retention ratio for the detection of hypoxia in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med. 1996;23(10):1378–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Liu RS, Yeh SH, Chang CP, et al. Detection of odontogenic infections by [F-18]fluoromisonidazole. J Nucl Med. 1994;35(5):113. abst.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yang DJ, Wallace S, Cherif A, et al. Development of F-18-labeled fluoroerythronitroimidazole as a PET agent for imaging tumor hypoxia. Radiology. 1995;194:795–800.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Cherif A, Wallace S, Yang DJ, et al. Development of new markers for hypoxic cells: [131I]iodomisonidazole and [131I]iodoerythronitroimidazole. J Drug Target. 1996;4(1):31–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Inoue T, Yang DJ, Wallace S, et al. Evaluation of [131I]iodoerythronitroimidazole as a predictor for the ­radiosensitizing effect. Anticancer Drugs. 1996;7(8):858–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Podo F. Tumor phospholipid metabolism. NMR Biomed. 1999;12:413–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hara T, Kosaka N, Kishi H. PET imaging of prostate cancer using carbon-11-choline. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:990–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hara T, Kosaka N, Shinoura N, et al. PET imaging of brain tumor with [methyl-11C]choline. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:842–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hara T, Kosaka N, Kishi H, et al. Imaging of brain tumor, lung cancer, esophagus cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, and bladder cancer with [C-11]choline. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:250P.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kotzerke J, Prang J, Neumaier B, et al. Experience with carbon-11 choline positron emission tomography in prostate carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:1415–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    DeGrado TR, Baldwin SW, Wang S, et al. Synthesis and evaluation of (18)F-labeled choline analogs as oncologic PET tracers. J Nucl Med. 2001;42(12):1805–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Price DT, Coleman RE, Liao RP, et al. Comparison of [18F]fluorocholine and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose for positron emission tomography of androgen dependent and androgen independent prostate cancer. J Urol. 2002;168(1):273–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    DeGrado TR, Reiman RE, Price DT, et al. Pharmacokinetics and radiation dosimetry of 18 F-fluorocholine. J Nucl Med. 2002;43(1):92–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Haberkorn U, Khazaie K, Morr I, et al. Ganciclovir uptake in human mammary carcinoma cells expressing herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase. Nucl Med Biol. 1998;25:367–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gambhir SS, Barrio JR, Wu L, et al. Imaging of adenoviral-directed herpes simplex virus type 1 thymidine kinase reporter gene expression in mice with radiolabeled ganciclovir. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:2003–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gambhir SS, Barrio JR, Phelps ME, et al. Imaging adenoviral-directed reporter gene expression in living animals with positron emission tomography. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:2333–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Namavari M, Barrio JR, Toyokuni T, et al. Synthesis of 8-[18F]fluoroguanine derivatives: in vivo probes for imaging gene expression with positron emission tomography. Nucl Med Biol. 2000;27:157–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gambhir SS, Bauer E, Black ME, et al. A mutant herpes simplex virus type 1 thymidine kinase reporter gene shows improved sensitivity for imaging reporter gene expression with positron emission tomography. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97:2785–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Iyer M, Barrio JR, Namavari M, et al. 8-[18F]Fluoropenciclovir: an improved reporter probe for imaging HSV1-tk reporter gene expression in vivo using PET. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:96–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Alauddin MM, Conti PS, Mazza SM, et al. 9-[(3-[18F]-Fluoro-1-hydroxy-2-propoxy)methyl]guanine ([18F]-FHPG): a potential imaging agent of viral infection and gene therapy using PET. Nucl Med Biol. 1996;23:787–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Alauddin MM, Shahinian A, Kundu RK, et al. Evaluation of 9-[(3-18F- fluoro-1-hydroxy-2-propoxy)methyl]guanine ([18F]-FHPG) in vitro and in vivo as a probe for PET imaging of gene incorporation and expression in tumors. Nucl Med Biol. 1999;26:371–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Alauddin MM, Conti PS. Synthesis and preliminary evaluation of 9-(4-[18F]-fluoro-3-hydroxymethylbutyl)guanine ([18F]FHBG): a new potential imaging agent for viral infection and gene therapy using PET. Nucl Med Biol. 1998;25:175–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Yaghoubi S, Barrio JR, Dahlbom M, et al. Human pharmacokinetic and dosimetry studies of [18F]FHBG: a reporter probe for imaging herpes simplex virus type-1 thymidine kinase reporter gene expression. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1225–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yang DJ, Cherif A, Tansey W, et al. N, N-diethylfluoromethyltamoxifen: synthesis assignment of 1H and 13C spectra and receptor assay. Eur J Med Chem. 1992;27:919–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Yang D, Tewson T, Tansey W, et al. Halogenated ­analogs of tamoxifen: synthesis, receptor assay and inhibition of MCF7 cells. J Pharm Sci. 1992;81: 622–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Kim CG, Yang DJ, Kim EE, et al. Assessment of tumor cell proliferation using [18F]fluorode-oxyadenosine and [18F]fluoroethyluracil. J Pharm Sci. 1996;85(3):339–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Cherif A, Yang DJ, Tansey W, et al. Radiosynthesis and biodistribution studies of [F-18]fluoroadenosine and [I-131]-5-iodo-2′-O-methyl-uridine for the assessment of tumor proliferation rate. Pharm Res. 1995;12(9):128.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Yang D, Wallace S. High affinity tamoxifen derivatives and uses thereof. U.S. Patent no 5,192,525; 1993.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Yang D, Wallace S, Wright KC, et al. Imaging of estrogen receptors with PET using 18F-fluoro analogue of tamoxifen. Radiology. 1992;182:185–6.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Yang DJ, Kuang L-R, Cherif A, et al. Synthesis of 18F-alanine and 18F-tamoxifen for breast tumor imaging. J Drug Target. 1993;1:259–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Yang DJ, Li C, Kuang L-R, et al. Imaging, biodistribution and therapy potential of halogenated tamoxifen analogues. Life Sci. 1994;55(1):53–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Yang DJ, Wallace S. High affinity halogenated tamoxifen derivatives and uses thereof. U.S. Patent no 5,219,548; 1993.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Inoue T, Kim EE, Wallace S, et al. Positron emission tomography using [18F]fluorotamoxifen to evaluate therapeutic responses in patients with breast cancer: preliminary study. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 1996;11(4):235–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Inoue T, Kim EE, Wallace S, et al. Preliminary study of cardiac accumulation of F-18 fluorotamoxifen in patients with breast cancer. Clin Imaging. 1997;21(5):332–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Hanson RN, Seitz DE. Tissue distribution of the radiolabeled antiestrogen [125I]iodotamoxifen. Int J Nucl Med Biol. 1982;9:105–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Ram S, Spicer LD. Radioiodination of tamoxifen. J Label Compd Radiopharm. 1989;27:661–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Kangas L, Nieminen A-L, Blanco G, et al. A new triphenylethylene, FC-1157a, antitumor effects. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1986;17:109–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kallio S, Kangas L, Blanco G, et al. A new triphenylethylene, FC-1157a, hormonal effects. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1986;17:103–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Kawai G, Yamamoto Y, Kamimura T, et al. Conformational rigidity of specific pyrimidine residues in tRNA arises from posttranscriptional modifications that enhance steric interaction between the base and the 2′-hydroxyl group. Biochemistry. 1992;31:1040–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Uesugi S, Kaneyasu T, Ikehara M. Synthesis and properties of ApU analogues containing 2′-halo-2′-deoxyadenosine. Effect of 2′ substituents on oligonucleotide conformation. Biochemistry. 1982;21: 5870–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Ikehara M, Miki H. Studies of nucleosides and nucleotides. Cyclonucleosides. Synthesis and properties of 2′-halogeno-2′-deoxyadenosines. Chem Pharm Bull. 1978;26:2449–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Inubushi M, Wu JC, Gambhir SS, et al. Positron-emission tomography reporter gene expression imaging in rat myocardium. Circulation. 2003;107(2):326–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Tjuvajev JG, Doubrovin M, Akhurst T, et al. Comparison of radiolabeled nucleoside probes (FIAU, FHBG, and FHPG) for PET imaging of HSV1-tk gene expression. J Nucl Med. 2002;43(8): 1072–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Experimental Diagnostic ImagingThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyYokohama City University Graduate School of MedicineYokohamaJapan
  3. 3.Departments of Nuclear Medicine and Diagnostic RadiologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Medical SchoolHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Graduate School of Convergence Science and TechnologySeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations