Highlights of articles published in annals of nuclear medicine 2016

Review Article


This article is the first installment of highlights of selected articles published during 2016 in the Annals of Nuclear Medicine, an official peer-reviewed journal of the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine. A companion article highlighting selected articles published during 2016 in the European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, which is the official peer-reviewed journal of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine, will also appear in the Annals Nuclear Medicine. This new initiative by the respective journals will continue as an annual endeavor and is anticipated to not only enhance the scientific collaboration between Europe and Japan but also facilitate global partnership in the field of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging.


TSPO 99mTc-TRODAT-1 123I–BMIPP Anti-18F-FACBC 68Ga-DOTA-TRP PET/CT PET/MR Radioembolization Systematic review Meta-analysis Choline 


Compliance with ethical standards


National Institutes of Health grants R01-CA111613, R21-CA142426, R21-EB017568, and P30-CA014089 supported this article.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.


  1. 1.
    Carrio I, Kinuya S. New section in EJNMMI and annals of nuclear medicine. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:593.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Graeber MB, Li W, Rodriguez ML, et al. Role of microglia in CNS inflammation. FEBS Lett. 2011;585:3798–805.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Perry VH, Nicoll JA, Holmes C. Migroglia in neurodegenerative disease. Nat Rev Neurol. 2010;6:193–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Papadopoulos V, Baraldi M, Guilarte TR, et al. Transloactor protein (18kDa): new nomenclature for the peripheral-type benzodiazepine receptor based on its structure and molecular function. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2006;27:402–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Toyohara J, Sakata M, Hatano K, et al. Preclinical and first-in-human studies of [11C]CB184 for imaging the 18-kDa translocator protein by positron emission tomography. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:534–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guo Q, Colasanti A, Owen DR, et al. Quantification of the specific translocator protein signal of 18F-PBR111 in healthy humans: a genetic polymorphism effect on in vivo binding. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1915–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Suridjan I, Rusjan PM, Voineskos AN, et al. Neuroinflammation in healthy aging: a PET study using a novel translocator protein 18kDa (TSPO) radioligand, [(18)F]-FEPPA. NeuroImage. 2014;84:868–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fallahi B, Esmaeili A, Beiki D, et al. Evaluation of 99mTc-TRODAT-1 SPECT in the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease versus other progressive movement disorders. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:153–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shih MC, Hoexter MQ, Andrade LA, et al. Parkinson’s disease and dopamine transporter neuroimaging: a critical review. Sao Paulo Med J. 2006;124:168–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Swanson RL, Newberg AB, Acton PD, et al. Differences in [99mTc]TRODAT-1 SPECT binding to dopamine transporters in patients with multiple system atrophy and Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:302–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hwang WJ, Yao WJ, Wey SP, Ting G. Reproducibility of 99mTc-TRODAT-1 SPECT measurement of dopamine transporters in Parkinson’s disease. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:207–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang WS, Lee MS, Lin JC, et al. Usefulness of brain 99mTc-TRODAT-1 SPET for the evaluation of Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:155–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manolio TA, Baughman KL, Rodeheffer R, et al. Prevalence and etiology of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (summary of a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop). Am J Cardiol. 1992;69:1458–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abraham WT, Hayes DL. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure. Circulation. 2003;108:2596–603.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hellawell JL, Margulies KB. Myocardial reverse remodeling. Cardiovasc Ther. 2012;30:172–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carita P, Corrado E, Pontone G, et al. Non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy: insights from multimodality imaging and electrocardiography. A brief review. Int J Cardiol. 2016;225:402–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zavadovsky KV, Gulya MO, Lishmanov YB, et al. Perfusion and metabolic scintigraphy with (123)I-BMIPP in prognosis of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:325–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reni M, Mazza E, Zanon S, et al. Central nervous system gliomas. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2017;113:213–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Puttick S, Bell C, Dowson N, et al. PET, MRI, and simultaneous PET/MRI n the development of diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for glioma. Drug Discov Today. 2015;20:306–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kondo A, Ishii H, Aoki S, et al. Phase IIa clinical study of [18F]fluciclovine: efficacy and safety of a new PET tracer for brain tumors. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:608–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    FDA approves new diagnostic imaging agent to detect recurrent prostate cancer. https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm503920.htm. Accessed 1 July 2017.
  22. 22.
    Fekete M, Wittliff JL, Schally AV. Characteristics and distribution of receptors for [D-TRP6]-luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone, somatostatin, epidermal growth factor, and sex steroids in 500 biopsy samples of human breast cancer. J Clin Lab Anal. 1998;3:137–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Imai A, Ohno T, Ohsuye K, et al. Expression of gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor in human epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Ann Clin Biochem. 1994;31(Pt 6):550–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Imai A, Ohno T, Iida K, et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor in gynecological tumors. Frequent expression in adenocarcinoma histologic types. Cancer. 1994;74:2555–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zoghi M, Jalilian AR, Niazi A, et al. Development of a 68Ga-peptide tracer for GnRH1-imaging. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:400–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Olberg DE, Andressen KW, Levy FO, et al. Synthesis and in vitro evaluation of small-molecule [18F] labeled gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonists as potential PET imaging agents for GnRH receptor expression. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2014;24:1846–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Singnurkar A, Poon R, Metser U. Comparison of 18F-FDG-PET/CT and 18F-FDG-PET/MR imaging in oncology: a systematic review. Ann Nucl Med. 2017;31:366–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eiber M, Takei T, Souvatzoglou M, et al. Performance of whole-body integrated 18FFDG PET/MR in comparison to PET/CT for evaluation of malignant bone lesions. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:191–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huellner MW, Appenzeller P, Kuhn FP, et al. Whole-body nonenhanced PET/MR versus PET/CT in the staging and restaging of cancers: preliminary observations. Radiology. 2014;273:859–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, et al. First clinical experience with integrated whole-body PET/MR: comparison to PET/CT in patients with oncologic diagnoses. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:845–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Catalano OA, Rosen BR, Sahani DV, et al. Clinical impact of PET/MR imaging in patients with cancer undergoing same-day PET/CT: initial experience in 134 patients—a hypothesis-generating exploratory study. Radiology. 2013;269:857–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ishii S, Shimao D, Hara T, et al. Comparison of integrated whole-body PET/MR and PET/CT: is PET/MR alternative to PET/CT in routine clinical oncology. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:225–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhuang H, Pourdehnad M, Lambright ES, et al. Dual time point 18F-FDG PET imaging for differentiating malignant from inflammatory processes. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1412–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Buchbender C, et al. Evaluation of the outcome of lung nodules missed on 18F-FDG PET/MRI compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with known malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:15–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Schlemmer HP, et al. Comparison of PET/CT and PET/MRI hybrid systems using a 68 Ga-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer: initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:887–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Boss A, Bisdas S, Kolb A, et al. Hybrid PET/MRI of intracranial masses: initial experiences and comparison to PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1198–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chandarana H, Heacock L, Rakheja R, et al. Pulmonary nodules in patients with primary malignancy: comparison of hybrid PET/MR and PET/CT imaging. Radiology. 2013;268:874–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jadvar H, Colletti PM. Competitive advantage of PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:84–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Czernin J, Ta L, Herrmann K. Does PET/MR imaging improve cancer assessments? Literature evidence from more than 900 patients. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(Supplement 2):59S–62S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bozkurt MF, Salanci BV, Ugur O. Intra-arterial radionuclide therapies for liver tumors. Semin Nucl Med. 2016;46:324–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gulec SA. Y-90 radiomicrosphere therapy for colorectal cancer liver metastases. Semin Nucl Med. 2016;46:126–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Uliel L, Royal HD, Darcy MD, et al. From the angio suite to the g camera: vascular mapping and 99mTc-MAA liver radioembolization – a comprehensive pictorial review. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1736–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Soydal C, Kucuk ON, Bilgic S, et al. Radioembolization with 90Y resin microspheres for intrahepatic chollangiocellular carcinoma: prognostic factors. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:29–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Liberati A, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:W65–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Li P, Liu Q, Wang C, et al. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to evaluate recurrent gastric cancer after surgical resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:179–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wu CW, Lo SS, Shen KH, et al. Incidence and factors associated with recurrence patterns after intended curative surgery for gastric cancer. World J Surg. 2003;27:153–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yoo CH, Noh SH, Shin DW, et al. Recurrence following curative resection for gastric carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2000;87:236–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wu LM, Hu JN, Hua J, et al. 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to evaluate recurrent gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;27:472–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Von Eyben F, Kairemo K. Acquisition with 11C-choline and 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT for patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:385–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Freedland SJ, Sutter ME, Dorey F, et al. Defining the ideal cutpoint for determining PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Prostate-specific antigen Urology. 2003;61:365–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Roach M 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H Jr, et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO phoenix consensus conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:965–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Evangelista L, Zattoni F, Guttilla A, et al. Choline PET or PET/CT and biochemical relapse of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38(5):305–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    von Eyben FE, Kairemo K. Meta-analysis of (11)C-choline and (18)F-choline PET/CT for management of patients with prostate cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2014;35:221–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Treglia G, Ceriani L, Sadeghi R, et al. Relationship between prostate-specific antigen kinetics and detection rate of radiolabelled choline PET/CT in restaging prostate cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2014;52(5):725–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fanti S, Minozzi S, Castellucci P, et al. PET/CT with (11)C-choline for evaluation of prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence: meta-analysis and critical review of available data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:55–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jadvar H. Positron emission tomography in prostate cancer: summary of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Tomography. 2015;1:18–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yu CY, Desai B, Ji L, et al. Comparative performance of PET radiotracers in biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of literature. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;4:580–601.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Buchegger F, Garibotto V, Zilli T, et al. First imaging results of an intraindividual comparison of (11)C-acetate and (18)F-fluorocholine PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer at early biochemical first or second relapse after prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:68–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Watanabe H, Ishii K, Hosono M, et al. Report of a nationwide survey on actual administered radioactivities of radiopharmaceuticals for diagnostic reference levels in Japan. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:433–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Keck School of MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations