PURPOSE: Two types of tumor hypoxia most likely exist in human cancers: Chronic hypoxia due to the paucity of blood capillaries and acute hypoxia due to temporary shutdoWn of microvasculatures or fluctuation in the red cell flux. In a recent hypoxia imaging study using 18F-FMISO PET, the authors observed variation in tracer uptake in two sequential images and hypothesized that variation in acute hypoxia may be the cause. In this study, they develop an iterative optimization method to delineate chronic and acute hypoxia based on the 18F-FMISO PET serial images. METHODS: They assume that (1) chronic hypoxia is the same in the two scans and can be represented by a Gaussian distribution, while (2) acute hypoxia varies in the two scans and can be represented by Poisson distributions. For validation, they used Monte Carlo simulations to generate pairs of 18F-FMISO PET images with known proportion of chronic and acute hypoxia and then applied the optimization method to the simulated serial images, yielding excellent fit between the input and the fitted results. They then applied this method to the serial 18F-FMISO PET images of 14 patients with head and neck cancers. RESULTS: The results show good fit of the chronic hypoxia to Gaussian distributions for 13 out of 14 patients (with R2>0.7). Similarly, acute hypoxia appears to be well described by the Poisson distribution (R2>0.7) with three exceptions. The model calculation yielded the amount of acute hypoxia, which differed among the patients, ranging from approximately 13% to 52%, with an average of approximately 34%. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first effort to separate acute and chronic hypoxia from serial PET images of cancer patients.
PURPOSE: Two types of tumor hypoxia most likely exist in humancancers: Chronic hypoxia due to the paucity of blood capillaries and acute hypoxia due to temporary shutdoWn of microvasculatures or fluctuation in the red cell flux. In a recent hypoxia imaging study using 18F-FMISO PET, the authors observed variation in tracer uptake in two sequential images and hypothesized that variation in acute hypoxia may be the cause. In this study, they develop an iterative optimization method to delineate chronic and acute hypoxia based on the 18F-FMISO PET serial images. METHODS: They assume that (1) chronic hypoxia is the same in the two scans and can be represented by a Gaussian distribution, while (2) acute hypoxia varies in the two scans and can be represented by Poisson distributions. For validation, they used Monte Carlo simulations to generate pairs of 18F-FMISO PET images with known proportion of chronic and acute hypoxia and then applied the optimization method to the simulated serial images, yielding excellent fit between the input and the fitted results. They then applied this method to the serial 18F-FMISO PET images of 14 patients with head and neck cancers. RESULTS: The results show good fit of the chronic hypoxia to Gaussian distributions for 13 out of 14 patients (with R2>0.7). Similarly, acute hypoxia appears to be well described by the Poisson distribution (R2>0.7) with three exceptions. The model calculation yielded the amount of acute hypoxia, which differed among the patients, ranging from approximately 13% to 52%, with an average of approximately 34%. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first effort to separate acute and chronic hypoxia from serial PET images of cancerpatients.
Authors: C C Ling; J Humm; S Larson; H Amols; Z Fuks; S Leibel; J A Koutcher Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lifei Zhang; Adam S Garden; Justin Lo; K Kian Ang; Anesa Ahamad; William H Morrison; David I Rosenthal; Mark S Chambers; X Ronald Zhu; Radhe Mohan; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Bixiu Wen; Muneyasu Urano; John L Humm; Venkatraman E Seshan; Gloria C Li; C Clifton Ling Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Nancy Y Lee; James G Mechalakos; Sadek Nehmeh; Zhixiong Lin; Olivia D Squire; Shangde Cai; Kelvin Chan; Pasquale B Zanzonico; Carlo Greco; Clifton C Ling; John L Humm; Heiko Schöder Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-09-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James Russell; Sean Carlin; Sean A Burke; Bixiu Wen; Kwang Mo Yang; C Clifton Ling Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sadek A Nehmeh; Nancy Y Lee; Heiko Schröder; Olivia Squire; Pat B Zanzonico; Yusuf E Erdi; Carlo Greco; Gig Mageras; Hai S Pham; Steve M Larson; Clifton C Ling; John L Humm Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hironobu Yasui; Shingo Matsumoto; Nallathamby Devasahayam; Jeeva P Munasinghe; Rajani Choudhuri; Keita Saito; Sankaran Subramanian; James B Mitchell; Murali C Krishna Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: M Busk; L S Mortensen; M Nordsmark; J Overgaard; S Jakobsen; K V Hansen; J Theil; J F Kallehauge; F P D'Andrea; T Steiniche; M R Horsman Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-10-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Rafal Panek; Liam Welsh; Lauren C J Baker; Maria A Schmidt; Kee H Wong; Angela M Riddell; Dow-Mu Koh; Alex Dunlop; Dualta Mcquaid; James A d'Arcy; Shreerang A Bhide; Kevin J Harrington; Christopher M Nutting; Georgina Hopkinson; Cheryl Richardson; Carol Box; Suzanne A Eccles; Martin O Leach; Simon P Robinson; Kate L Newbold Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: I N Fleming; R Manavaki; P J Blower; C West; K J Williams; A L Harris; J Domarkas; S Lord; C Baldry; F J Gilbert Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 7.640