Imaging biomarkers must demonstrate their value in monitoring treatment. Two PET tracers, the caspase-3/7–specific isatin-5-sulfonamide 18F-ICMT-11 (18F-(S)-1-((1-(2-fluoroethyl)-1H-[1,2,3]-triazol-4-yl)methyl)-5-(2(2,4-difluoro-phenoxymethyl)-pyrrolidine-1-sulfonyl)isatin) and 18F-FLT (3′-deoxy-3′-18F-fluorothymidine), were used to detect early treatment-induced changes in tumor biology and determine whether any of these changes indicate a response to cetuximab, administered as monotherapy or combination therapy with gemcitabine. Methods: In mice bearing cetuximab-sensitive H1975 tumors (non–small lung cancer), the effects of single or repeated doses of the antiepidermal growth factor receptor antibody cetuximab (10 mg/kg on day 1 only or on days 1 and 2) or a single dose of gemcitabine (125 mg/kg on day 2) were investigated by 18F-ICMT-11 or 18F-FLT on day 3. Imaging was also performed after 2 doses of cetuximab (days 1 and 2) in mice bearing cetuximab-insensitive HCT116 tumors (colorectal cancer). For imaging–histology comparison, tumors were evaluated for proliferation (Ki-67 and thymidine kinase 1 [TK1]), cell death (cleaved caspase-3 and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase–mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate nick-end labeling [TUNEL]), and target engagement (epidermal growth factor receptor expression) by immunohistochemistry, immunofluorescence, and immunoblotting, respectively. Tumor and plasma were analyzed for thymidine and gemcitabine metabolites by liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. Results: Retention of both tracers was sensitive to cetuximab in H1975 tumors. 18F-ICMT-11 uptake and ex vivo cleaved caspase-3 staining notably increased in tumors treated with repeated doses of cetuximab (75%) and combination treatment (46%). Although a single dose of cetuximab was insufficient to induce apoptosis, it did affect proliferation. Significant reductions in tumor 18F-FLT uptake (44%–50%; P < 0.001) induced by cetuximab monotherapy and combination therapy were paralleled by a clear decrease in proliferation (Ki-67 decrease, 72%–95%; P < 0.0001), followed by a marked tumor growth delay. TK1 expression and tumor thymidine concentrations were profoundly reduced. Neither imaging tracer depicted the gemcitabine-induced tumor changes. However, cleaved caspase-3 and Ki-67 staining did not significantly differ after gemcitabine treatment whereas TK1 expression and thymidine concentrations increased. No cetuximab-induced modulation of the imaging tracers or other response markers was detected in the insensitive model of HCT116. Conclusion: 18F-ICMT-11 and 18F-FLT are valuable tools to assess cetuximab sensitivity depicting distinct and time-variant aspects of treatment response.