Reproducibility of quantitative F-18-3'-deoxy-3'-fluorothymidine measurements using positron emission tomography

Positron emission tomography (PET) using F-18-3'-deoxy-3'-fluorothymidine ([F-18]FLT) allows noninvasive monitoring of tumour proliferation. For serial imaging in individual patients, good reproducibility is essential. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the reproducibility of quantitative [F-18]FLT measurements. Nine patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and six with head-and-neck cancer (HNC) underwent [F-18]FLT PET twice within 7 days prior to therapy. The maximum pixel value (SUVmax) and a threshold defined volume (SUV41%) were defined for all delineated lesions. The plasma to tumour transfer constant (K-i) was estimated using both Patlak graphical analysis and nonlinear regression (NLR). NLR was also used to estimate k(3), which, at least in theory, selectively reflects thymidine kinase 1 activity. The level of agreement between test and retest values was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. All primary tumours and > 90% of clinically suspected locoregional metastases could be delineated. In total, 24 lesions were defined. NLR-derived K-i, Patlak-derived K-i, SUV41% and SUVmax showed excellent reproducibility with ICCs of 0.92, 0.95, 0.98 and 0.93, and SDs of 16%, 12%, 7% and 11%, respectively. Reproducibility was poor for k(3) with an ICC of 0.43 and SD of 38%. Quantitative [F-18]FLT measurements are reproducible in both NSCLC and HNC patients. When monitoring response in individual patients, changes of more than 15% in SUV41%, 20-25% in SUVmax and Patlak-derived K-i, and 32% in NLR3k-derived K-i are likely to represent treatment effect

Measuring proliferation in breast cancer: practicalities and applications

Various methods are available for the measurement of proliferation rates in tumours, including mitotic counts, estimation of the fraction of cells in S-phase of the cell cycle and immunohistochemistry of proliferation-associated antigens. The evidence, advantages and disadvantages for each of these methods along with other novel approaches is reviewed in relation to breast cancer. The potential clinical applications of proliferative indices are discussed, including their use as prognostic indicators and predictors of response to systemic therapy