4.7 Article

Assessing tumor hypoxia in cervical cancer by PET with 60Cu-labeled diacetyl-bis(N4-methylthiosemicarbazone)

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 201-205

出版社

SOC NUCLEAR MEDICINE INC
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.107.048520

关键词

PET; Cu-60-ATSM; hypoxia; cervical cancer; survival

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA81525] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tumor hypoxia indicates a poor prognosis. This study was undertaken to confirm our prior pilot results showing that pretreatment tumor hypoxia demonstrated by PET with Cu-60-labeled diacetyl-bis(N-4-methylthiosemicarbazone) (Cu-60-ATSM) is a biomarker of poor prognosis in patients with cervical cancer. Thirty-eight women with biopsy-proved cervical cancer underwent Cu-60-ATSM PET before the initiation of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. 60Cu-ATSM uptake was evaluated semiquantitatively as the tumor-to-muscle activity ratio (T/M). A log-rank test was used to determine the cutoff uptake value that was strongly predictive of prognosis. All patients also underwent clinical PET with F-18-FDG before the institution of therapy. The PET results were correlated with clinical follow-up. Tumor 60Cu-ATSM uptake was inversely related to progression-free survival and cause-specific survival (P = 0.006 and P = 0.04, respectively, as determined by the log-rank test). We found that a T/M threshold of 3.5 best discriminated patients likely to develop a recurrence from those unlikely to develop a recurrence; the 3-y progression-free survival of patients with normoxic tumors (as defined by T/M of <= 3.5) was 71%, and that of patients with hypoxic tumors (T/M of >3.5) was 28% (P = 0.01). Tumor F-18-FDG uptake did not correlate with 60Cu-ATSM uptake, and there was no significant difference in tumor 18F-FDG uptake between patients with hypoxic tumors and those with normoxic tumors (P = 0.9). Pretherapy Cu-60-ATSM PET provides clinically relevant information about tumor oxygenation that is predictive of outcome in patients with cervical cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据