Prospective comparison of (4S)-4-(3-
FSPG
Liver metastases
Pancreatic cancer
Positron emission tomography
xC transporter system
Journal
European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging
ISSN: 1619-7089
Titre abrégé: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101140988
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2019
Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
12
10
2018
accepted:
26
12
2018
pubmed:
13
1
2019
medline:
19
5
2020
entrez:
13
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
(4S)-4-(3- The performance of FSPG in detecting PDAC metastases was compared with that of In the rodent model, FSPG PET consistently found more PDAC metastases earlier than FDG PET. FSPG PET showed a trend for a higher sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy than FDG PET in detecting PDAC metastases in a patient-based analysis: 95.0%, 100.0% and 95.7%, and 90.0%, 66.7% and 90.0%, respectively. In a lesion-based analysis, FSPG PET identified significantly more PDAC metastases, especially in the liver, than FDG PET (109 vs. 95; P = 0.0001, 95% CI 4.9-14.6). The tumour-to-background ratios for FSPG and FDG uptake on positive scans were similar (FSPG 4.2 ± 4.3, FDG 3.6 ± 3.0; P = 0.44, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.48), despite a lower tumour maximum standardized uptake value in FSPG-avid lesions (FSPG 4.2 + 2.3, FDG 7.7 + 5.7; P = 0.002, 95% CI 0.70-4.10). Because of the lower physiological activity of FSPG in the liver, FSPG PET images of the liver are more easy to interpret than FDG PET images, and therefore the use of FSPG improves the detection of liver metastasis. FSPG PET is superior to FDG PET in detecting metastasized PDAC, especially in the liver.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30635754
doi: 10.1007/s00259-018-4251-5
pii: 10.1007/s00259-018-4251-5
doi:
Substances chimiques
4-(3-fluoropropyl)glutamic acid
0
Glutamates
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
810-820Subventions
Organisme : National Taiwan University Hospital
ID : MOHW104-TD-B-111-04
Organisme : Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan
ID : MOST 103-2321-B-002-074
Organisme : Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan
ID : MOST 104-2321-B-002-075
Organisme : Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan
ID : MOST 104-2314-B-002-134
Références
J Biol Chem. 1999 Apr 23;274(17):11455-8
pubmed: 10206947
Pflugers Arch. 2001 May;442(2):286-96
pubmed: 11417227
Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Apr 15;11(8):2785-808
pubmed: 15837727
Ann Surg. 2005 Aug;242(2):235-43
pubmed: 16041214
Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2006;43(2):143-81
pubmed: 16517421
JAMA. 2007 Jan 17;297(3):267-77
pubmed: 17227978
Cancer Res. 2007 Oct 1;67(19):9463-71
pubmed: 17909056
Br J Cancer. 2008 Aug 5;99(3):464-72
pubmed: 18648370
Nutrition. 2009 Sep;25(9):932-9
pubmed: 19487108
Cancer Cell. 2011 Mar 8;19(3):387-400
pubmed: 21397861
Amino Acids. 2012 Jan;42(1):231-46
pubmed: 21409388
Ann Surg. 2011 Aug;254(2):311-9
pubmed: 21606835
Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Sep 15;17(18):6000-11
pubmed: 21750203
Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Oct 1;18(19):5427-37
pubmed: 22893629
J Nucl Med. 2013 Jan;54(1):117-23
pubmed: 23232273
J Nucl Med. 2013 Jun;54(6):861-6
pubmed: 23568366
Clin Nucl Med. 2013 Sep;38(9):703-8
pubmed: 23816944
Cancer Res. 2014 Mar 15;74(6):1778-88
pubmed: 24469230
Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2014 Jun;92(6):445-54
pubmed: 24826789
N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371(11):1039-49
pubmed: 25207767
CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jan-Feb;66(1):7-30
pubmed: 26742998
Radiology. 2016 Jun;279(3):898-905
pubmed: 26785040
Lancet. 2016 Jul 2;388(10039):73-85
pubmed: 26830752
Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2016;2016:1616781
pubmed: 26881012
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 18;11(2):e0148628
pubmed: 26890637
Mol Imaging Biol. 2016 Dec;18(6):924-934
pubmed: 27677886
J Clin Med. 2017 Mar 09;6(3):
pubmed: 28282928
Apoptosis. 2017 Nov;22(11):1321-1335
pubmed: 28936716
World J Surg. 1997 Feb;21(2):195-200
pubmed: 8995078