14]. A decrease in uptake of 20–25% is greater than the reproducibility error [31] and can therefore be attributed to a decrease in proliferation. Imaging can be performed about 1 h after administration of the 18F-FLT, which is similar to the incubation period for imaging of 18F-FDG, the frequently used glucose analogue for PET imaging. Beyond 1 h of incubation, proliferation might be underestimated by leakage of the metabolite back into the blood [51].
Compared to FDG, FLT has a lower tumor uptake. For example, for contouring of the functional tumor volume, for FLT a threshold of 1.4 of the SUV results in a volume that is similar to the volume calculated with FDG with a 2.5 threshold [52]. When using imaging of proliferation for early response prediction, it should be considered that, although proliferation is a characteristic of the tumor, it is not exclusively a tumor cell characteristic. Not only do proliferating tumor cells accumulate 18F-FLT, but also, for example, proliferating B-lymphocytes in inflammatory lymph nodes [31] and in bone marrow [53]. Radiotherapy could increase uptake by inducing the proliferation of inflammatory cells in certain areas [31]. A relatively high background uptake in the liver and genitourinary system complicates the imaging of proliferation with 18F-FLT in these areas. This limits the specificity of this biomarker and makes 18F-FLT imaging better suited for the monitoring of treatment response than for staging [9, 14, 53].
For early response assessment, in head and neck cancer it was shown that already in the second week of treatment the decrease in 18F-FLT uptake is indicative of the treatment outcome [54]. This allows the treatment protocol to be changed, for example accelerated. Since the 18F-FLT uptake decreases at least during the first 4 weeks of therapy [31], the timing influences the outcome of the quantification.
The preparation of 18F-FLT is different from 18F-FDG. It requires, for example, a purification because of toxic side products. In contrast to the widely used FDG, in most institutes FLT is not easily available, which limits its use.
Perspective
Although 18F-FLT-PET proved to assess radiotherapy treatment response earlier than 18F-FDG-PET and CT tumor response [55], currently 18F-FLT-PET is only applied within clinical studies. Unfortunately, these studies are mostly single-center studies with a small sample size. Similar to studies applying 18F-FDG-PET, standardization of 18F-FLT-PET is required to enable the comparison and combination of clinical study results. Guidelines like the EANM guideline for 18F-FDG-PET should also become available for other tracers, such as 18F-FLT. This would stimulate harmonization and therefore increase the chance of success for these biomarkers.
The Future of Biomarker Imaging for Radiotherapy
Both hypoxia and the proliferation of imaging are illustrative for a more general challenge we face in the development of biomarker imaging for radiotherapy. Despite the many initiatives, based on many different biological characteristics, currently only a few biomarkers have the potency to enter clinical routine. These have to first overcome the challenge of nonuniformity in study designs, imaging, and quantification, which slows down further development by hampering the combination and comparison of results.
The value of the use of biomarkers lies in patient selection. The challenge of biomarker studies is to first select those patients that can demonstrate the working of the biomarker. By both biological and technical harmonization, biomarkers will further demonstrate their usefulness for radiotherapy. Biomarkers have the potency to be useful for both research and individual patients.
References
1West CM, Huddart RA: Biomarkers and imaging for precision radiotherapy. Clin Oncol 2015;27:545–546.
2Strimbu K, Tavel JA: What are biomarkers? Current Opin HIV AIDS 2010;5:463–466.
3Weller A, O’Brien ME, Ahmed M, Popat S, Bhosle J, McDonald F, et al: Mechanism and non-mechanism based imaging biomarkers for assessing biological response to treatment in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 2016;59:65–78.
4Desar IM, van Herpen CM, van Laarhoven HW, Barentsz JO, Oyen WJ, van der Graaf WT: Beyond RECIST: molecular and functional imaging techniques for evaluation of response to targeted therapy. Cancer Treat Rev 2009;35:309–321.
5Serkova NJ, Eckhardt SG: Metabolic imaging to assess treatment response to cytotoxic and cytostatic agents. Front Oncol 2016;6:152.
6Usmanij EA, de Geus-Oei LF, Troost EG, Peters-Bax L, van der Heijden EH, Kaanders JH, et al: 18F-FDG PET early response evaluation of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with concomitant chemoradiotherapy. J Nucl Med 2013;54:1528–1534.
7Grootjans W, de Geus-Oei LF, Troost EG, Visser EP, Oyen WJ, Bussink J: PET in the management of locally advanced and metastatic NSCLC. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2015;12:395–407.
8Prestwich RJ, Vaidyanathan S, Scarsbrook AF: Functional imaging biomarkers: potential to guide an individualised approach to radiotherapy. Clin Oncol 2015;27:588–600.
9Croteau E, Renaud JM, Richard MA, Ruddy TD, Benard F, deKemp RA: PET metabolic biomarkers for cancer. Biomark Cancer 2016;8(suppl 2):61–69.
10Fleming IN, Manavaki R, Blower PJ, West C, Williams KJ, Harris AL, et al: Imaging tumour hypoxia with positron emission tomography. Br J Cancer 2015;112:238–250.
11Laking G, Price P: Radionuclide imaging of perfusion and hypoxia. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37(suppl 1):S20–S29.
12Wahl RL, Herman JM, Ford E: The promise and pitfalls of positron emission tomography and single-photon emission computed tomography molecular imaging-guided radiation therapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2011;21:88–100.
13O’Connor JP, Aboagye EO, Adams JE, Aerts HJ, Barrington SF, Beer AJ, et al: Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2017;14:169–186.
14Bussink J, Kaanders JH, van der Graaf WT, Oyen WJ: PET-CT for radiotherapy treatment planning and response monitoring in solid tumors. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2011;8:233–242.