OBJECTIVE: The 4.2-day half-life of (124)I favors its use for positron emission tomography (PET) of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). However, high positron energy and beta(+) -associated cascade gamma rays pose image resolution and background noise problems for (124)I. This study evaluated quantitative PET of an (124)I mAb in tumor-bearing mice. METHODS: An R4 microPETtrade mark (Siemens/CTIMI, Knoxville, TN) was used with standard energy and coincidence timing windows (350-750 keV and 6 ns, respectively), delayed random coincidence subtraction, iterative image reconstruction, and no attenuation or scatter correction. Image resolution, contrast, and response linearity were compared for (124)I and (18)F, using phantoms. Nude mice bearing human colon tumors (LS-174T) were injected intravenously with a chimeric (124)I anti-CEA mAb (cT84.66) and imaged serially 1 hour to 7 days postinjection. Venous blood was sampled to validate image-derived blood curves. Mice were sacrificed after the final scan, and the biodistribution of (124)I was measured by direct tissue assay. Images were converted to units of kBq/g for each tissue of interest by comparing the final scans with the direct assays. RESULTS: Measured resolution (FWHM) 0-16 mm from the scanner axis was 2.3-2.7 mm for (124)I versus 1.9-2.0 mm for (18)F. Due to true coincidence events between annihilation photons and cascade gamma rays, background was greater for (124)I than (18)F, but the signal-to-background ratio was still more than 20, and (124)I image intensities varied linearly with activity concentration. Tissue-based calibration worked well (i.e., PET blood curves agreed with direct measurements within 12% at all time points), while calibration, based on a cylindrical phantom approximating the mouse body, yielded tumor quantitation that was 46%-66% low, compared with direct assay. CONCLUSIONS: Images of quantitative accuracy sufficient for biodistribution measurements can be obtained from tumor-bearing mice by using (124)I anti-CEA mAbs with standard microPET acquisition and processing techniques, provided the calibration is based on the direct assay of excised tissue samples.
OBJECTIVE: The 4.2-day half-life of (124)I favors its use for positron emission tomography (PET) of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). However, high positron energy and beta(+) -associated cascade gamma rays pose image resolution and background noise problems for (124)I. This study evaluated quantitative PET of an (124)I mAb in tumor-bearing mice. METHODS: An R4 microPETtrade mark (Siemens/CTIMI, Knoxville, TN) was used with standard energy and coincidence timing windows (350-750 keV and 6 ns, respectively), delayed random coincidence subtraction, iterative image reconstruction, and no attenuation or scatter correction. Image resolution, contrast, and response linearity were compared for (124)I and (18)F, using phantoms. Nude mice bearing humancolon tumors (LS-174T) were injected intravenously with a chimeric (124)I anti-CEA mAb (cT84.66) and imaged serially 1 hour to 7 days postinjection. Venous blood was sampled to validate image-derived blood curves. Mice were sacrificed after the final scan, and the biodistribution of (124)I was measured by direct tissue assay. Images were converted to units of kBq/g for each tissue of interest by comparing the final scans with the direct assays. RESULTS: Measured resolution (FWHM) 0-16 mm from the scanner axis was 2.3-2.7 mm for (124)I versus 1.9-2.0 mm for (18)F. Due to true coincidence events between annihilation photons and cascade gamma rays, background was greater for (124)I than (18)F, but the signal-to-background ratio was still more than 20, and (124)I image intensities varied linearly with activity concentration. Tissue-based calibration worked well (i.e., PET blood curves agreed with direct measurements within 12% at all time points), while calibration, based on a cylindrical phantom approximating the mouse body, yielded tumor quantitation that was 46%-66% low, compared with direct assay. CONCLUSIONS: Images of quantitative accuracy sufficient for biodistribution measurements can be obtained from tumor-bearing mice by using (124)I anti-CEA mAbs with standard microPET acquisition and processing techniques, provided the calibration is based on the direct assay of excised tissue samples.
Authors: M Neumaier; L Shively; F S Chen; F J Gaida; C Ilgen; R J Paxton; J E Shively; A D Riggs Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1990-04-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Jeffrey N Bryan; Fang Jia; Huma Mohsin; Geethapriya Sivaguru; William H Miller; Carolyn J Anderson; Carolyn J Henry; Michael R Lewis Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: David R Collingridge; Veronica A Carroll; Mathias Glaser; Eric O Aboagye; Safiye Osman; Oliver C Hutchinson; Henryk Barthel; Sajinder K Luthra; Frank Brady; Roy Bicknell; Pat Price; Adrian L Harris Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-10-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Matthew K Robinson; Mohan Doss; Calvin Shaller; Deepa Narayanan; James D Marks; Lee P Adler; Dinko E González Trotter; Gregory P Adams Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Lin Li; James Bading; Paul J Yazaki; Amitkumar H Ahuja; Desiree Crow; David Colcher; Lawrence E Williams; Jeffrey Y C Wong; Andrew Raubitschek; John E Shively Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Pat Zanzonico; Joseph O'Donoghue; J Donald Chapman; Richard Schneider; Shangde Cai; Steven Larson; Bixiu Wen; Yuchun Chen; Ronald Finn; Shutian Ruan; Leo Gerweck; John Humm; Clifton Ling Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-10-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Henrik H El-Ali; Martin Eckerwall; Dorthe Skovgaard; Erik Larsson; Sven-Erik Strand; Andreas Kjaer Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2012-06-05
Authors: Prashant Dogra; Natalie L Adolphi; Zhihui Wang; Yu-Shen Lin; Kimberly S Butler; Paul N Durfee; Jonas G Croissant; Achraf Noureddine; Eric N Coker; Elaine L Bearer; Vittorio Cristini; C Jeffrey Brinker Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 14.919