Amy L Vāvere1, Jason S Lewis. 1. Division of Radiological Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with copper (II)-diacetyl-bis(N4-Methylthiosemicarbazone)(Cu-ATSM) for delineating hypoxia has provided valuable clinical information, but investigations in animal models of prostate cancer have shown some inconsistencies. As a defense mechanism in prostate cancer cells, the fatty acid synthesis pathway harnesses its oxidizing power for improving the redox balance despite conditions of extreme hypoxia, potentially altering Cu-ATSM hypoxia selectivity. METHODS: Human prostate tumor-cultured cell lines (PC-3, 22Rv1, LNCaP and LAPC-4), were treated with a fatty acid synthase (FAS) inhibitor (C75, 100 microM) under anoxia. The 64Cu-ATSM uptake in these treated cells and nontreated anoxic cells was then examined. Fatty acid synthase expression level in each cell line was subsequently quantified by ELISA. An additional study was performed in PC-3 cells to examine the relationship between the restoration of 64Cu-ATSM hypoxia selectivity and the concentration of C75 (100, 20, 4 or 0.8 microM) administered to the cells. RESULTS: Inhibition of fatty acid synthesis with C75 resulted in a significant increase in 64Cu-ATSM retention in prostate tumor cells in vitro under anoxia over 60 min. Inhibition studies demonstrated higher uptake values of 20.9+/-3.27%, 103.0+/-32.6%, 144.2+/-32.3% and 200.1+/-79.3% at 15 min over control values for LAPC-4, PC-3, LNCaP and 22Rv1 cells, respectively. A correlation was seen (R2=.911) with FAS expression plotted against percentage change in 64Cu-ATSM uptake with C75 treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although Cu-ATSM has clinical relevance in the PET imaging of hypoxia in many tumor types, its translation to the imaging of prostate cancer may be limited by the overexpression of FAS associated with prostatic malignancies.
INTRODUCTION: Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with copper (II)-diacetyl-bis(N4-Methylthiosemicarbazone)(Cu-ATSM) for delineating hypoxia has provided valuable clinical information, but investigations in animal models of prostate cancer have shown some inconsistencies. As a defense mechanism in prostate cancer cells, the fatty acid synthesis pathway harnesses its oxidizing power for improving the redox balance despite conditions of extreme hypoxia, potentially altering Cu-ATSMhypoxia selectivity. METHODS:Humanprostate tumor-cultured cell lines (PC-3, 22Rv1, LNCaP and LAPC-4), were treated with a fatty acid synthase (FAS) inhibitor (C75, 100 microM) under anoxia. The 64Cu-ATSM uptake in these treated cells and nontreated anoxic cells was then examined. Fatty acid synthase expression level in each cell line was subsequently quantified by ELISA. An additional study was performed in PC-3 cells to examine the relationship between the restoration of 64Cu-ATSM hypoxia selectivity and the concentration of C75 (100, 20, 4 or 0.8 microM) administered to the cells. RESULTS: Inhibition of fatty acid synthesis with C75 resulted in a significant increase in 64Cu-ATSM retention in prostate tumor cells in vitro under anoxia over 60 min. Inhibition studies demonstrated higher uptake values of 20.9+/-3.27%, 103.0+/-32.6%, 144.2+/-32.3% and 200.1+/-79.3% at 15 min over control values for LAPC-4, PC-3, LNCaP and 22Rv1 cells, respectively. A correlation was seen (R2=.911) with FAS expression plotted against percentage change in 64Cu-ATSM uptake with C75 treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although Cu-ATSM has clinical relevance in the PET imaging of hypoxia in many tumor types, its translation to the imaging of prostate cancer may be limited by the overexpression of FAS associated with prostatic malignancies.
Authors: James L Tatum; Gary J Kelloff; Robert J Gillies; Jeffrey M Arbeit; J Martin Brown; K S Clifford Chao; J Donald Chapman; William C Eckelman; Anthony W Fyles; Amato J Giaccia; Richard P Hill; Cameron J Koch; Murali Cherukuri Krishna; Kenneth A Krohn; Jason S Lewis; Ralph P Mason; Giovanni Melillo; Anwar R Padhani; Garth Powis; Joseph G Rajendran; Richard Reba; Simon P Robinson; Gregg L Semenza; Harold M Swartz; Peter Vaupel; David Yang; Barbara Croft; John Hoffman; Guoying Liu; Helen Stone; Daniel Sullivan Journal: Int J Radiat Biol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.694
Authors: R A Gatenby; H B Kessler; J S Rosenblum; L R Coia; P J Moldofsky; W H Hartz; G J Broder Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1988-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Morand Piert; Hans-Jürgen Machulla; Maria Picchio; Gerald Reischl; Sybille Ziegler; Piyush Kumar; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Roswitha Beck; Alexander J B McEwan; Leonard I Wiebe; Markus Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: D M Brizel; S P Scully; J M Harrelson; L J Layfield; J M Bean; L R Prosnitz; M W Dewhirst Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1996-03-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Keisha C McCall; John L Humm; Rachel Bartlett; Megan Reese; Sean Carlin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-06-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Douglas S MacPherson; Kimberly Fung; Brendon E Cook; Lynn C Francesconi; Brian M Zeglis Journal: Dalton Trans Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 4.390
Authors: Xingyu Nie; Gwendalyn J Randolph; Andrew Elvington; Nilantha Bandara; Alexander Zheleznyak; Robert J Gropler; Pamela K Woodard; Suzanne E Lapi Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2016-05-30 Impact factor: 2.408