Comparison of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose and carbon-11-methionine PET in detection of malignant tumors

Tomio Inoue, E. Edmund Kim, Franklin C.L. Wong, David J. Yang, Pedro Bassa, Wai-Hoi Wong, Meliha Korkmaz, Wayne Tansey, Keri Hicks, Donald A Podoloff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

73 Scopus citations

Abstract

Two commonly used tumor-seeking agents for PET are 2-deoxy-2-18F- fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) and L-methyl-11C-methionine (Met). This study compared FDG and Met in detecting residual or recurrent malignant tumors in the same patients. Methods: Thirty-four lesions in 24 patients with clinically suspected recurrent or residual tumors were studied with PET using Met as well as FDG. FDG scans were conducted 1 hr after the completion of PET with Met. The color-coded superimposed images of standardized uptake values (SUVs) and transmission data were produced, and the peak SUVs in the lesions were then evaluated. Lesions above 2.5 SUV were interpreted as positive results for active tumor. Results: The sensitivity of FDG-PET and Met-PET were 64.5% (20/31 lesions) and 61.3% (19/31 lesions), respectively. The mean SUV of FDG in residual or recurrent malignant tumors (n = 31) was significantly higher than that of Met but there was a significant correlation (r = 0.788, p < 0.01) between FDG and Met SUVs in all lesions (n = 34). Conclusion: PET using FDG and Met appear equally effective in detecting residual or recurrent malignant tumors although FDG uptakes were slightly higher than Met uptakes. Both showed a limited diagnostic sensitivity for small (<1.5 cm) tumors.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1472-1476
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Nuclear Medicine
Volume37
Issue number9
StatePublished - Sep 1996

Keywords

  • PET
  • carbon-11-methionine
  • fluorine-18-FDG
  • recurrent tumor

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose and carbon-11-methionine PET in detection of malignant tumors'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this