INTRODUCTION: Tumor hypoxia adversely affects treatment outcome, especially in squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs). Image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) based on PET-generated tumor hypoxia maps allows dose boosting to hypoxic sub-volumes and has received considerable interest. However, the combination of slow oxygenation-dependent tracer retention, slow clearance of unbound tracer from non-hypoxic tissue and the necessity to average signal over large non-homogenous tissue areas due to the low PET resolution remains problematic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To assess pitfalls inherent to low-resolution imaging we have analyzed the fine-scale distribution of a PET hypoxia tracer (autoradiograms) and tissue architecture (immunofluorescence microscopy) in sectioned experimental SCCs, and compared the results to those obtained when applying macroscopic averaging mimicking the resolution in clinical PET scanners. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We show that tumor areas that would be classified as non-hypoxic based on simple PET threshold identification, often contains foci of hypoxic cells, in particular in tumors where necrosis and severely hypoxic cells are intermixed. In contrast, in a non-necrotic tumor model we found that the risk of missing hypoxic cells was greatly reduced, however, its patchy hypoxic pattern made a clear delineation of a target to boost unfeasible. We discuss the implications of these and other complicating factors in PET hypoxia-imaging and outline future strategies to overcome or circumvent them.
INTRODUCTION:Tumor hypoxia adversely affects treatment outcome, especially in squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs). Image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) based on PET-generated tumor hypoxia maps allows dose boosting to hypoxic sub-volumes and has received considerable interest. However, the combination of slow oxygenation-dependent tracer retention, slow clearance of unbound tracer from non-hypoxic tissue and the necessity to average signal over large non-homogenous tissue areas due to the low PET resolution remains problematic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To assess pitfalls inherent to low-resolution imaging we have analyzed the fine-scale distribution of a PET hypoxia tracer (autoradiograms) and tissue architecture (immunofluorescence microscopy) in sectioned experimental SCCs, and compared the results to those obtained when applying macroscopic averaging mimicking the resolution in clinical PET scanners. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We show that tumor areas that would be classified as non-hypoxic based on simple PET threshold identification, often contains foci of hypoxic cells, in particular in tumors where necrosis and severely hypoxic cells are intermixed. In contrast, in a non-necrotic tumor model we found that the risk of missing hypoxic cells was greatly reduced, however, its patchy hypoxic pattern made a clear delineation of a target to boost unfeasible. We discuss the implications of these and other complicating factors in PET hypoxia-imaging and outline future strategies to overcome or circumvent them.
Authors: Olivia J Kelada; Sara Rockwell; Ming-Qiang Zheng; Yiyun Huang; Yanfeng Liu; Carmen J Booth; Roy H Decker; Uwe Oelfke; Richard E Carson; David J Carlson Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Marian Axente; Jun He; Christopher P Bass; Jerry I Hirsch; Gobalakrishnan Sundaresan; Jeffrey Williamson; Jamal Zweit; Andrei Pugachev Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-03-21 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Stine S Korreman; Silke Ulrich; Steve Bowen; Michael Deveau; Søren M Bentzen; Robert Jeraj Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Marian Axente; Jun He; Christopher P Bass; Gobalakrishnan Sundaresan; Jamal Zweit; Jeffrey F Williamson; Andrei Pugachev Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Xu Cao; Srinivasa Rao Allu; Shudong Jiang; Jason R Gunn Bs; Cuiping Yao PhD; Jing Xin PhD; Petr Bruza PhD; David J Gladstone ScD; Lesley A Jarvis Md PhD; Jie Tian PhD; Harold M Swartz Md Msph PhD; Sergei A Vinogradov PhD; Brian W Pogue PhD Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anders E Hansen; Annemarie T Kristensen; Jesper T Jørgensen; Fintan J McEvoy; Morten Busk; Albert J van der Kogel; Johan Bussink; Svend A Engelholm; Andreas Kjær Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 3.481