4.7 Article

Characterising 18F-fluciclovine uptake in breast cancer through the use of dynamic PET/CT imaging

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 126, 期 4, 页码 598-605

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01623-3

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. CRUK
  2. EPSCRC Cancer Imaging Centre in Oxford [C5255/A16466]
  3. Blue Earth Diagnostics Ltd
  4. Breast Cancer Research Foundation
  5. Translational Histopathology Lab

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the uptake of F-18-fluciclovine in breast cancer was evaluated using dynamic PET/CT imaging, with a reversible one-tissue compartment model found to best describe tracer uptake. No significant differences were observed in kinetic or static parameters for different breast cancer receptor subtypes or tumor grades. There was a good correlation between kinetic and static parameters.
Background F-18-fluciclovine is a synthetic amino acid positron emission tomography (PET) radiotracer that is approved for use in prostate cancer. In this clinical study, we characterised the kinetic model best describing the uptake of F-18-fluciclovine in breast cancer and assessed differences in tracer kinetics and static parameters for different breast cancer receptor subtypes and tumour grades. Methods Thirty-nine patients with pathologically proven breast cancer underwent 20-min dynamic PET/computed tomography imaging following the administration of F-18-fluciclovine. Uptake into primary breast tumours was evaluated using one- and two-tissue reversible compartmental kinetic models and static parameters. Results A reversible one-tissue compartment model was shown to best describe tracer uptake in breast cancer. No significant differences were seen in kinetic or static parameters for different tumour receptor subtypes or grades. Kinetic and static parameters showed a good correlation. Conclusions F-18-fluciclovine has potential in the imaging of primary breast cancer, but kinetic analysis may not have additional value over static measures of tracer uptake.

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