Assessment of Gastrointestinal Tumors with PET

  • Ludwig G. Strauss
Part of the Developments in Nuclear Medicine book series (DNUM, volume 28)


Therapy management of colorectal tumors poses several problems. One of them is the differentiation between recurrent tumor and scar lesions in the follow up after potentially curative surgery. Morphologic methods like computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provide superior information about the size and location of a space occupying lesion, but are often not helpful in the classification of a mass. Positron emission tomography (PET) has been used for diagnosis of recurrent brain tumors since years [1–3]. Furthermore, DiChiro et al. showed that metabolic studies in brain tumors can be useful for noninvasive tumor grading [3]. Employing whole body positron emission tomography, PET can be used for the diagnosis of recurrent tumors. By application of multiple radiopharmaceuticals information about perfusion and metabolism of recurrent tumors can be obtained. Furthermore, radiolabeled fluorouracil (FU) can be used to evaluate the kinetic and accumulation of this cytostatic agent prior to therapy.


Positron Emission Tomography Standardize Uptake Value Compute Tomography Study Gastrointestinal Tumor Tumor Growth Rate 
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. 1.
    DiChiro G, Oldsfield E, Bairamian D, Brooks RA, Patronas NJ, Mansi L, Kornblith PL, Smith BH, Sank VJ, Margolin RA: In vivo glucose utilization of tumors of the brain stem and spinal cord. In: Greitz T, Ingvar DH, Widen L, eds. Positron emission tomography. New York: Raven Press, 1985; 351–361.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    DiChiro G: Positron emission tomography using [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in brain tumors. A powerful diagnostic and prognostic tool. Invest Radiol 1986; 22: 360–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DiChiro G, Hatazawa J, Katz DA, Rizzoli HV, DeMichele DJ: Glucose utilization by intracranial meningiomas as an index of tumor aggressivity and probability of recurrence: a PET study. Radiology 1987; 164: 521–526.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Strauss LG, Conti PS: The applications of PET in clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 1991; 32: 623–648PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grabbe E, Winkler R: Local recurrence after sphincter-saving resection for rectal and rectosigmoid carcinoma: value of various diagnostic methods. Radiology 1985; 155: 305–310.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson RJ, Jenkins JPR, Isherwood I, James D, Schofield PF: Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging in rectal carcinoma. Br J Radiol 1987; 60: 761–764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bischof-Delaloye A, Delaloye B, Buchegger F, Gilgien W, Studer A, Curchod S, Givel J-C, Mosimann F, Pettavel J, Mach J-P: Clinical value of immunoscintigraphy in colorectal carcinoma patients: a prospective study. J Nucl Med 1989; 30: 1646–1656.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Köhne-Wömper C-H, Schmoll HJ, Harstrick A, Rustum YM: Chemotherapeutic strategies in metastatic colorectal cancer: An overview of current clinical trials. Semin Oncol Suppl. 3, 1992; 19: 105–125.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abe Y, Fukuda H, Ishiwata K, Yoshioka S, Yamada K, Endo S, Kubota K, Sato T, Matsuzawa T, Takahashi T, Ido T: Studies on 18F-labeled pyrimidines. Tumor uptake of 18F-5-fluorouracil, 18F-5-fluorouridine, and 18F-fluorodeoxyuridine in animals. Eur J Nucl Med 1983; 8: 258–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Strauss LG, Heim M, Jaschke W, Wetzel E, Schulze B, Beyer-Enke S, Georgi M: Intraarterielle Chemotherapie von kolorektalen Tumoren and Rezidiven. Tumor Diagnostik 0000Therapie 1986; 7: 225–230.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Brauw LM, Marinelli A, van de Velde CJH, Hermans J, Tjaden UR, Erkelens C, de Bruijn EA: Pharmacological evalution of experimental isolated liver perfusion and hepatic artery infusion with 5-fluorouracil. Cancer Research 1991; 51: 1694–1700.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hull WE, Port RE, Herrmann R, Britsch B, Kunz W: Metabolites of 5-Fluorouracil in plasma and urine, as monitored by 19F nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, for patients receiving chemotherapy with or without methotrexate pretreatment. Cancer Res 1988; 48: 1680–1688.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shani J, Wolf W: A model for prediction of chemotherapy response to 5-fluorouracil based on the differential distribution of 5-[18F]Fluorouracil in sensitive versus resistant lymphocytic leukemia in mice. J Cancer Res 1977; 37: 2306–2308.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wolf W, Presant CA, Kenneth LS, El-Tahtawy A, Albright MJ, Baker PB, Ring III R, Atkinson D, Ong R, King M, Singh M, Ray M, Wiseman C, Blayney D, Shani J. Tumor trapping of 5-fluorouracil: In vivo 19FNMR spectroscopic pharmacokinetics in tumor-bearing humans and rabbits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990; 87: 492–496.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ludwig G. Strauss

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations