4.2 Article

Comparison of Amino Acid Positron Emission Tomographic Radiotracers for Molecular Imaging of Primary and Metastatic Brain Tumors

Journal

MOLECULAR IMAGING
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.2310/7290.2014.00015

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [R01 CA123451]
  2. Fund for Medical Research and Education, Wayne State University School of Medicine
  3. Strategic Research Initiative Grant from the Karmanos Cancer Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Positron emission tomography (PET) is an imaging technology that can detect and characterize tumors based on their molecular and biochemical properties, such as altered glucose, nucleoside, or amino acid metabolism. PET plays a significant role in the diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment of various cancers, including brain tumors. In this article, we compare uptake mechanisms and the clinical performance of the amino acid PET radiotracers (L-[methyl-C-11]methionine [MET], F-18-fluoroethyl-tyrosine [FET], F-18-fluoro-L-dihydroxy-phenylalanine [FDOPA], and C-11-alpha-methyl-L-tryptophan [AMT]) most commonly used for brain tumor imaging. First, we discuss and compare the mechanisms of tumoral transport and accumulation, the basis of differential performance of these radioligands in clinical studies. Then we summarize studies that provided direct comparisons among these amino acid tracers and to clinically used 2-deoxy-2[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose [FDG] PET imaging. We also discuss how tracer kinetic analysis can enhance the clinical information obtained from amino acid PET images. We discuss both similarities and differences in potential clinical value for each radioligand. This comparative review can guide which radiotracer to favor in future clinical trials aimed at defining the role of these molecular imaging modalities in the clinical management of brain tumor patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available