Positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorothymidine for monitoring therapeutic effect after chemoradiation therapy

18F-氟胸苷正电子发射断层扫描用于监测放化疗后的疗效

基本信息

批准号：
18591342
负责人：
NAKAMOTO Yuji
金额：
$ 2.04万
依托单位：
Kyoto University
依托单位国家：
日本
项目类别：
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
财政年份：
2006
资助国家：
日本
起止时间：
2006 至 2007
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-18591342/
关键词：
FLT FDG PET therapeutic effect neoadjuvant chemotherapy 腫瘍核医学画像診断学

项目摘要

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of discrepancy and which yielded more accurate diagnoses in patients who underwent both FDG-PET and FLT-PET. Thirteen patients underwent both FDG-PET and FLT-PET scans after they have completed neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemo-radiation therapy. Of 38 lesions, 32 were true positive lesions. There were 10 lesions (26%) with discrepant findings. For these lesions, FDG-PET yielded 4 true-positives and 2 true-negatives, and FLT-PET showed 2 true-positives and 2 true-negatives. Overall, the lesion-based sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of FDG-PET were 50%, 33%, 80%, 11% and 47%, respectively, while those of FLT-PET were 38%, 67%, 86%, 17% and 42%, respectively. In addition, 13 patients had FDG-PET and FLT-PET scans for the purpose of differentiation, staging or restaging. Of 29 lesions, 26 were true positive lesions. There were 9 lesions (31%) with discrepant findings. For these lesions, FDG-PET yielded 5 true-positives and FLT-PET showed 2 true-positives and 2 true-negatives. Overall, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of FDG-PET were 62%, 33%, 89%, 9%, and 59%, respectively, while those of FLT-PET were 50%, 100%, 100%, 19%, and 50%, respectively. Based on these preliminary data, we concluded (i) FDG-PET tended to yield more false positive findings, while FLT-PET false negative findings, (ii) the diagnostic discrepancy occurred in one-fourth to one-third of the lesions, with the half accuracy of each study, and (iii) the positive predictive value of FLT-PET was reasonably high. FLT-PET could be helpful for detecting non-FDG-avid metastatic lesions.

这项研究的目的是评估差异的普遍性，并在接受FDG-PET和FLT-PET的患者中产生更准确的诊断。 13名患者完成新辅助化疗或化学辐射疗法后，接受了FDG-PET和FLT-PET扫描。在38个病变中，有32个是真正的阳性病变。有10个病变（26％），有差异发现。对于这些病变，FDG-PET产生了4种真实阳性和2个真实阴性，而FLT-PET显示了2种真实的阳性和2个真实阴性。总体而言，FDG-PET的基于病变的灵敏度，特异性，阳性预测价值，负预测价值和准确性分别为50％，33％，80％，11％和47％，而FLT-PET的PET分别为38％，67％，86％，17％和42％。此外，有13名患者进行了FDG-PET和FLT-PET扫描，以进行分化，分期或重新降低。在29个病变中，有26个是真正的阳性病变。有9个病变（31％），有差异发现。对于这些病变，FDG-PET产生了5种真实的阳性，而FLT-PET显示了2种真实阳性和2个真实阴性。总体而言，FDG-PET的灵敏度，特异性，正预测价值，负预测值和准确性分别为62％，33％，89％，9％和59％，而FLT-PET的灵敏度为50％，100％，100％，100％，19％和50％。基于这些初步数据，我们得出结论（i）FDG-PET倾向于产生更多的假阳性发现，而FLT-PET假阴性发现，（ii）诊断性差异发生在每项研究的一半中的四分之一到三分之一的病变中，每项研究的一半准确性，并且（iii）的积极预测值是FLT-PET的积极预测值。 FLT-PET可能有助于检测非FDG抗蛋白转移性病变。