It is hoped that in the not too distant future, noninvasive imagingbased molecular interrogation and characterization of tumors can improve our fundamental understanding of the dynamic biologic behavior of cancer. For example, the new dimension of diagnostic information that is provided by 18 F-FDG PET has led to improved clinical decision making and management changes in a substantial number of patients with cancer. In this context, the aim of this review is to bring together and summarize the current data on the correlation between the underlying molecular biology and the clinical observations of tumor 18 F-FDG accumulation in 3 major human cancers: lung, breast, and colon.Key Words: molecular biology; molecular imaging; oncology; PET; PET/CT; breast cancer; colon cancer; 18 F-FDG; lung cancer Theemergenceoft he central role of PET with 18 F-FDG for the imaging evaluation of patients with cancer is undeniable. The development of hybrid PET/CT systems, regional distribution centers for 18 F-FDG, rapidly accumulating clinical experience, and improved reimbursement have all contributed to this phenomenal success. 18 F-FDG PET has been used for diagnosis, initial staging, restaging, prediction, and monitoring of treatment response, surveillance, and prognostication in a variety of cancers. The new dimension of diagnostic information that is provided by 18 F-FDG PET has also led to improved clinical decision making and management changes in a substantial number of patients (1-3).18 F-FDG PET is a molecular imaging technique that monitors tissue glucose metabolism. It has long been known that most tumors are hypermetabolic, with increased glucose metabolism (Warburg effect). The underlying mechanism and reason for elevated glucose metabolism in cancers is multifactorial and more complex than it may appear at first glance (4). These factors include but are not limited to tumor-related components (e.g., type and histologic differentiation), biochemical and molecular alterations (e.g., glucose metabolic pathway, hypoxia), and nontumor-related constituents (e.g., inflammation) (5-8). The 2 recent excellent reviews by Gillies et al. and Plathow et al. summarized the current understanding of the phenotype of elevated glucose metabolism in cancers (9,10). In simple terms, it was postulated that the relationship between tumor growth and glucose metabolism may be explained in terms of adaptation to hypoxia through upregulation of glucose transporters (GLUTs) and translocation and increased enzymatic activity of hexokinase. However, energy production by glycolysis is relatively inefficient (2 adenosine triphosphates produced per glucose with glycolysis rather than 30 ATPs produced with complete oxidation) and produces a toxic acidic microenvironment (9,10). It has been proposed that the increased extracellular acid production may be the underlying basis for promoting tumor survival and spread in the context of the 6 hallmarks of cancer-self-sufficiency in growth signals, insensitivity to antigrowth signals, evasion of apopt...