PURPOSE: The suitability of the 18F-labelled fluoroquinolone antibiotic ciprofloxacin ([18F]ciprofloxacin) for imaging of bacterial infections with positron emission tomography (PET) was assessed in vitro and in vivo. METHODS: For the in vitro experiments, suspensions of various E. coli strains were incubated with different concentrations of [18F]ciprofloxacin (0.01-5.0 microg/ml) and radioactivity retention was measured in a gamma counter. For the in vivo experiments, 725 +/- 9 MBq [18F]ciprofloxacin was injected intravenously into four patients with microbiologically proven bacterial soft tissue infections of the lower extremities and time-radioactivity curves were recorded in infected and uninfected tissue for 5 h after tracer injection. RESULTS: Binding of [18F]ciprofloxacin to bacterial cells was rapid, non-saturable and readily reversible. Moreover, bacterial binding of the agent was similar in ciprofloxacin-resistant and ciprofloxacin-susceptible clinical isolates. These findings suggest that non-specific binding rather than specific binding to bacterial type II topoisomerase enzymes is the predominant mechanism of bacterial retention of the radiotracer. PET studies in the four patients with microbiologically proven bacterial soft tissue infections demonstrated locally increased radioactivity uptake in infected tissue, with peak ratios between infected and uninfected tissue ranging from 1.8 to 5.5. Radioactivity was not retained in infected tissue and appeared to wash out with a similar elimination half-life as in uninfected tissue, suggesting that the kinetics of [18F]ciprofloxacin in infected tissue are governed by increased blood flow and vascular permeability due to local infection rather than by a binding process. CONCLUSION: Taken together, our results indicate that [18F]ciprofloxacin is not suited as a bacteria-specific infection imaging agent for PET.
PURPOSE: The suitability of the 18F-labelled fluoroquinolone antibiotic ciprofloxacin ([18F]ciprofloxacin) for imaging of bacterial infections with positron emission tomography (PET) was assessed in vitro and in vivo. METHODS: For the in vitro experiments, suspensions of various E. coli strains were incubated with different concentrations of [18F]ciprofloxacin (0.01-5.0 microg/ml) and radioactivity retention was measured in a gamma counter. For the in vivo experiments, 725 +/- 9 MBq [18F]ciprofloxacin was injected intravenously into four patients with microbiologically proven bacterial soft tissue infections of the lower extremities and time-radioactivity curves were recorded in infected and uninfected tissue for 5 h after tracer injection. RESULTS: Binding of [18F]ciprofloxacin to bacterial cells was rapid, non-saturable and readily reversible. Moreover, bacterial binding of the agent was similar in ciprofloxacin-resistant and ciprofloxacin-susceptible clinical isolates. These findings suggest that non-specific binding rather than specific binding to bacterial type II topoisomerase enzymes is the predominant mechanism of bacterial retention of the radiotracer. PET studies in the four patients with microbiologically proven bacterial soft tissue infections demonstrated locally increased radioactivity uptake in infected tissue, with peak ratios between infected and uninfected tissue ranging from 1.8 to 5.5. Radioactivity was not retained in infected tissue and appeared to wash out with a similar elimination half-life as in uninfected tissue, suggesting that the kinetics of [18F]ciprofloxacin in infected tissue are governed by increased blood flow and vascular permeability due to local infection rather than by a binding process. CONCLUSION: Taken together, our results indicate that [18F]ciprofloxacin is not suited as a bacteria-specific infection imaging agent for PET.
Authors: S Vinjamuri; A V Hall; K K Solanki; J Bomanji; Q Siraj; E O'Shaughnessy; S S Das; K E Britton Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-01-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Martin Brunner; Oliver Langer; Georg Dobrozemsky; Ulrich Müller; Markus Zeitlinger; Markus Mitterhauser; Wolfgang Wadsak; Robert Dudczak; Kurt Kletter; Markus Müller Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Filip Gemmel; Hans Van den Wyngaert; Charito Love; M M Welling; Paul Gemmel; Christopher J Palestro Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jyri K Koort; Tatu J Mäkinen; Esa Suokas; Minna Veiranto; Jari Jalava; Juhani Knuuti; Pertti Törmälä; Hannu T Aro Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Anna-Maria Rolle; Mike Hasenberg; Christopher R Thornton; Djamschid Solouk-Saran; Linda Männ; Juliane Weski; Andreas Maurer; Eliane Fischer; Philipp R Spycher; Roger Schibli; Frederic Boschetti; Sabine Stegemann-Koniszewski; Dunja Bruder; Gregory W Severin; Stella E Autenrieth; Sven Krappmann; Genna Davies; Bernd J Pichler; Matthias Gunzer; Stefan Wiehr Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Xinghai Ning; Wonewoo Seo; Seungjun Lee; Kiyoko Takemiya; Mohammad Rafi; Xuli Feng; Daiana Weiss; Xiaojian Wang; Larry Williams; Vernon M Camp; Malveaux Eugene; W Robert Taylor; Mark Goodman; Niren Murthy Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Edward A Weinstein; Alvaro A Ordonez; Vincent P DeMarco; Allison M Murawski; Supriya Pokkali; Elizabeth M MacDonald; Mariah Klunk; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper; Sanjay K Jain Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Matthew F L Parker; Robert R Flavell; Justin M Luu; Oren S Rosenberg; Michael A Ohliger; David M Wilson Journal: ACS Infect Dis Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 5.084