SNM Annual Meeting Abstracts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     



J Nucl Med. 2008; 49 (Supplement 1):350P
This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cheze, C.
Right arrow Articles by Visvikis, D.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Cheze, C.
Right arrow Articles by Visvikis, D.

Oncology-Clinical Diagnosis: Solid Tumors

Clinical Diagnosis-Solid Tumors Posters

Comparison of FDG and FMISO in outcome prediction of patients with esophageal cancer undergoing combined radiochemotherapy

Catherine Cheze1, Jean-Philippe Metges2, Olivier Pradier2, Jean-Pierre Codet2, Veronique Le Tallec2 and Dimitris Visvikis1

1 LaTIM, INSERM U650, Brest, France; 2 Department of Oncology, CHU MORVAN, Brest, France

1482

Objectives: The use of FDG PET for prediction of therapy response in esophageal cancer (EC) is not yet widely accepted. FMISO targeting hypoxia may help in this context. Since hypoxia and angiogenesis are related, we designed a feasibility study combining functional imaging with FMISO and FDG with biological markers of angiogenesis in esophageal cancer.

Methods: At present, 8 patients with newly diagnosed EC have been included (7 patients with squamous cell and one with adenocarcinoma). All had advanced disease and were considered for exclusive radiochemotherapy. Before treatment all patients underwent an FDG and FMISO PET study (mean interval between the two studies of 7days). A dynamic FMISO PET protocol over the area of interest was used between 0-60 min with additional whole body acquisitions 2 and 3 hours after injection of a mean activity of 292 MBq. A standard whole body FDG acquisition was performed 60 min post-injection. Maximum SUVs and tumor to background ratios were calculated for all primary lesions. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expressions were assessed on blood samples before treatment. Response to therapy was evaluated using RECIST criteria by conventional imaging performed one month after treatment.

Results: Five patients have been classified as responders (R) and 3 as non responders (NR). SUVmax was 8.6 ± 3 using FDG (7 ± 2 vs. 11.2 ± 2.9 in R and NR respectively). FMISO uptake was low in the primary lesion for all patients with a SUVmax of 0.7 ± 0.2. (0.8 ± 0.3 for NR and 0.6 ± for R).

Conclusions: These preliminary results show that both tracers provide similar information concerning discrimination of responders and non responders to radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer.





This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cheze, C.
Right arrow Articles by Visvikis, D.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Cheze, C.
Right arrow Articles by Visvikis, D.