PURPOSE: The in vivo evaluation of three modified polyethylene glycol (PEG)-anilinoquinazoline derivatives labeled with (124)I, (18)F, and (11)C as potential positron emission tomography (PET) bioprobes for visualizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in cancer using small animal PET. PROCEDURES: Xenograft mice with the human glioblastoma cell lines U138MG (lacking EGFR expression) and U87MG.wtEGFR (transfected with an overexpressing human wild-type EGFR gene) were used. Static and dynamic PET imaging was conducted for all three PEGylated compounds. Tumor necrosis, microvessel density, and EGFR levels were evaluated by histopathology and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: Nineteen animal models were generated (two U138MG, three U87MG, 14 with both U138MG and U87MG bilateral masses). In static images, a slight increase in tracer uptake was observed in tumors, but in general, there was no retention of tracer uptake over time and no difference in uptake between U138MG and U87MG masses. In addition, no significant uptake was demonstrated in dynamic scans of the (18)F-PEG tracer. No necrosis was present except in four animals. MVD was 9.6 and 48 microvessels/×400 field in the U138GM and U87GM masses, respectively (p = 0.00008). Similarly, the microvessel grades were generally higher in the U87GM group (p = 0.002). Total EGFR amount was higher in U87MG than U138MG masses (p = 0.001), but the ratio of activated (pY1068) to total EGFR did not differ (p = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: PEGylated tracers labeled with (11)C, (124)I, and (18)F showed no significant difference in uptake between U138MG and U87MG glioblastoma xenograft mice. The tracer binding with EGFR could be influenced by activation of the tyrosine kinase portion of the receptor which was similar in U138MG and U87MG. Despite these results, these tracers should be investigated in animal models with mutant EGFR genes to determine whether aberrant receptor function plays a role in tumor uptake.
PURPOSE: The in vivo evaluation of three modified polyethylene glycol (PEG)-anilinoquinazoline derivatives labeled with (124)I, (18)F, and (11)C as potential positron emission tomography (PET) bioprobes for visualizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in cancer using small animal PET. PROCEDURES: Xenograft mice with the humanglioblastoma cell lines U138MG (lacking EGFR expression) and U87MG.wtEGFR (transfected with an overexpressing human wild-type EGFR gene) were used. Static and dynamic PET imaging was conducted for all three PEGylated compounds. Tumor necrosis, microvessel density, and EGFR levels were evaluated by histopathology and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: Nineteen animal models were generated (two U138MG, three U87MG, 14 with both U138MG and U87MG bilateral masses). In static images, a slight increase in tracer uptake was observed in tumors, but in general, there was no retention of tracer uptake over time and no difference in uptake between U138MG and U87MG masses. In addition, no significant uptake was demonstrated in dynamic scans of the (18)F-PEG tracer. No necrosis was present except in four animals. MVD was 9.6 and 48 microvessels/×400 field in the U138GM and U87GM masses, respectively (p = 0.00008). Similarly, the microvessel grades were generally higher in the U87GM group (p = 0.002). Total EGFR amount was higher in U87MG than U138MG masses (p = 0.001), but the ratio of activated (pY1068) to total EGFR did not differ (p = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: PEGylated tracers labeled with (11)C, (124)I, and (18)F showed no significant difference in uptake between U138MG and U87MG glioblastoma xenograft mice. The tracer binding with EGFR could be influenced by activation of the tyrosine kinase portion of the receptor which was similar in U138MG and U87MG. Despite these results, these tracers should be investigated in animal models with mutant EGFR genes to determine whether aberrant receptor function plays a role in tumor uptake.
Authors: Giuseppina Ortu; Iris Ben-David; Yulia Rozen; Nanette M T Freedman; Roland Chisin; Alexander Levitzki; Eyal Mishani Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Ashfaque A Memon; Steen Jakobsen; Frederik Dagnaes-Hansen; Boe S Sorensen; Susanne Keiding; Ebba Nexo Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: A Pal; A Glekas; M Doubrovin; J Balatoni; Mohammed Namavari; T Beresten; D Maxwell; S Soghomonyan; A Shavrin; L Ageyeva; R Finn; S M Larson; W Bornmann; J G Gelovani Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2006 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.484
Authors: Carmen J Allegra; J Milburn Jessup; Mark R Somerfield; Stanley R Hamilton; Elizabeth H Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; Pamela K McAllister; Roscoe F Morton; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hsin Hsien Yeh; Kazuma Ogawa; Julius Balatoni; Uday Mukhapadhyay; Asutosh Pal; Carlos Gonzalez-Lepera; Aleksandr Shavrin; Suren Soghomonyan; Leo Flores; Daniel Young; Andrei Y Volgin; Amer M Najjar; Victor Krasnykh; William Tong; Mian M Alauddin; Juri G Gelovani Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Ashutosh Pal; Julius A Balatoni; Uday Mukhopadhyay; Kazuma Ogawa; Carlos Gonzalez-Lepera; Aleksandr Shavrin; Andrei Volgin; William Tong; Mian M Alauddin; Juri G Gelovani Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Antonia Högnäsbacka; Alex J Poot; Danielle J Vugts; Guus A M S van Dongen; Albert D Windhorst Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) Date: 2022-04-05
Authors: Giampaolo Tomasi; Laura Kenny; Francesco Mauri; Federico Turkheimer; Eric O Aboagye Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-09-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Julie Bolcaen; Shankari Nair; Cathryn H S Driver; Tebatso M G Boshomane; Thomas Ebenhan; Charlot Vandevoorde Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) Date: 2021-06-29