This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Our findings illustrate that [(18)F]-FLT-PET reflects tumor proliferation as a function of thymidine salvage pathway utilization. Unlike more general proliferation markers, such as Ki67, [(18)F]-FLT PET reflects proliferative indices to variable and potentially unreliable extents. [(18)F]-FLT-PET cannot discriminate moderately proliferative, thymidine salvage-driven tumors from those of high proliferative index that rely primarily upon de novo thymidine synthesis. Accordingly, the magnitude of [(18)F]-FLT uptake should not be considered a surrogate of proliferative index. These data rationalize the diversity of [(18)F]-FLT-PET correlative results previously reported and suggest future best-practices when [(18)F]-FLT-PET is employed in oncology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McKinley et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: