PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare (68)Ga-chloride with 2-[(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D: -glucose (FDG) for the imaging of pancreatic xenografts. PROCEDURES: Rats with subcutaneous human pancreatic adenocarcinoma xenografts were evaluated in vivo by dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) and ex vivo by measuring radioactivity of excised tissues and by digital autoradiography of tumor cryosections. RESULTS: Both tracers were capable of delineating all subcutaneous tumors from surrounding tissues by PET. The standardized uptake values of tumors by PET were 0.9 +/- 0.3 (mean +/- SD) for (68)Ga-chloride (n = 13) and 1.8 +/- 1.2 for FDG (n = 11). Ex vivo studies showed tumor-to-muscle ratio of 4.0 +/- 0.3 for (68)Ga-chloride (n = 4) and 7.9 +/- 3.2 for FDG (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: (68)Ga-chloride delineated subcutaneously implanted pancreatic adenocarcinoma xenografts by PET, but the uptake was lower than FDG. Further studies to clarify the value of (68)Ga-chloride for PET imaging of tumors are warranted.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare (68)Ga-chloride with 2-[(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D: -glucose (FDG) for the imaging of pancreatic xenografts. PROCEDURES: Rats with subcutaneous human pancreatic adenocarcinoma xenografts were evaluated in vivo by dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) and ex vivo by measuring radioactivity of excised tissues and by digital autoradiography of tumor cryosections. RESULTS: Both tracers were capable of delineating all subcutaneous tumors from surrounding tissues by PET. The standardized uptake values of tumors by PET were 0.9 +/- 0.3 (mean +/- SD) for (68)Ga-chloride (n = 13) and 1.8 +/- 1.2 for FDG (n = 11). Ex vivo studies showed tumor-to-muscle ratio of 4.0 +/- 0.3 for (68)Ga-chloride (n = 4) and 7.9 +/- 3.2 for FDG (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: (68)Ga-chloride delineated subcutaneously implanted pancreatic adenocarcinoma xenografts by PET, but the uptake was lower than FDG. Further studies to clarify the value of (68)Ga-chloride for PET imaging of tumors are warranted.
Authors: M Henze; J Schuhmacher; P Hipp; J Kowalski; D W Becker; J Doll; H R Mäcke; M Hofmann; J Debus; U Haberkorn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Carla J Mathias; Michael R Lewis; David E Reichert; Richard Laforest; Terry L Sharp; Jason S Lewis; Zhen-Fan Yang; David J Waters; Paul W Snyder; Philip S Low; Michael J Welch; Mark A Green Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Anne Roivainen; Tuula Tolvanen; Satu Salomäki; Gabor Lendvai; Irina Velikyan; Petri Numminen; Maria Välilä; Hannu Sipilä; Mats Bergström; Pirkko Härkönen; Harri Lönnberg; Bengt Långström Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andy J Minn; Gaorav P Gupta; David Padua; Paula Bos; Don X Nguyen; Dimitry Nuyten; Bas Kreike; Yi Zhang; Yixin Wang; Hemant Ishwaran; John A Foekens; Marc van de Vijver; Joan Massagué Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-04-09 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Anu Autio; Tiina Ujula; Pauliina Luoto; Satu Salomäki; Sirpa Jalkanen; Anne Roivainen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-06-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: George Firth; Julia E Blower; Joanna J Bartnicka; Aishwarya Mishra; Aidan M Michaels; Alex Rigby; Afnan Darwesh; Fahad Al-Salemee; Philip J Blower Journal: RSC Chem Biol Date: 2022-04-11
Authors: Johanna Mu Silvola; Iina Laitinen; Henri J Sipilä; V Jukka O Laine; Pia Leppänen; Seppo Ylä-Herttuala; Juhani Knuuti; Anne Roivainen Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Anu Autio; Helena Virtanen; Tuula Tolvanen; Heidi Liljenbäck; Vesa Oikonen; Tiina Saanijoki; Riikka Siitonen; Meeri Käkelä; Andrea Schüssele; Mika Teräs; Anne Roivainen Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Jeffrey D Steinberg; Anandhkumar Raju; Prashant Chandrasekharan; Chang-Tong Yang; Karen Khoo; Jean-Pierre Abastado; Edward G Robins; David W Townsend Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2014-03-08 Impact factor: 3.138