PURPOSE: Although [(18)F]FDG PET can measure therapy response sooner and more accurately than morphological imaging techniques, there is still some debate as to whether [(18)F]FDG uptake really reflects changes in the viable cell fraction. In this study changes in [(18)F]FDG uptake were investigated in a lymphoma model at several time-points after treatment and with different doses of chemotherapy. Data were analysed in terms of several parameters. METHODS: SCID mice were subcutaneously inoculated with 5x10(6) Daudi cells in the right thigh. One group was not treated (control group). The other groups received cyclophosphamide 75 mg/kg (low-dose group), 125 mg/kg (medium-dose group) and 175 mg/kg (high-dose group) on day 0. Sequential [(18)F]FDG small-animal PET (microPET) scans were performed on days 0, 2, 6, 9, 13 and 16 after treatment. The mean and maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(mean) and SUV(max)), metabolic tumour volume (Vol(metab)) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were calculated. RESULTS: A significant decrease in [(18)F]FDG uptake was observed on day 2 in the medium-dose and high-dose groups and on day 6 in the low-dose group, all preceding morphological changes. SUV(mean) and SUV(max) formed a plateau from day 6 to day 9, corresponding to the known influx of inflammatory cells. No obvious plateau was observed with TLG which was found to be the most sensitive parameter clearly differentiating the low-dose group from the medium- and high-dose groups early after therapy. CONCLUSION: [(18)F]FDG uptake was able to reflect the dose-response relationship for cyclophosphamide. TLG was the best parameter for dose-related response assessment in this tumour model.
PURPOSE: Although [(18)F]FDG PET can measure therapy response sooner and more accurately than morphological imaging techniques, there is still some debate as to whether [(18)F]FDG uptake really reflects changes in the viable cell fraction. In this study changes in [(18)F]FDG uptake were investigated in a lymphoma model at several time-points after treatment and with different doses of chemotherapy. Data were analysed in terms of several parameters. METHODS: SCID mice were subcutaneously inoculated with 5x10(6) Daudi cells in the right thigh. One group was not treated (control group). The other groups received cyclophosphamide 75 mg/kg (low-dose group), 125 mg/kg (medium-dose group) and 175 mg/kg (high-dose group) on day 0. Sequential [(18)F]FDG small-animal PET (microPET) scans were performed on days 0, 2, 6, 9, 13 and 16 after treatment. The mean and maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(mean) and SUV(max)), metabolic tumour volume (Vol(metab)) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were calculated. RESULTS: A significant decrease in [(18)F]FDG uptake was observed on day 2 in the medium-dose and high-dose groups and on day 6 in the low-dose group, all preceding morphological changes. SUV(mean) and SUV(max) formed a plateau from day 6 to day 9, corresponding to the known influx of inflammatory cells. No obvious plateau was observed with TLG which was found to be the most sensitive parameter clearly differentiating the low-dose group from the medium- and high-dose groups early after therapy. CONCLUSION: [(18)F]FDG uptake was able to reflect the dose-response relationship for cyclophosphamide. TLG was the best parameter for dose-related response assessment in this tumour model.
Authors: H M Zhuang; A Cortés-Blanco; M Pourdehnad; L E Adam; A J Yamamoto; R Martínez-Lázaro; J H Lee; J C Loman; M D Rossman; A Alavi Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Lieselot Brepoels; Sigrid Stroobants; Peter Vandenberghe; Karoline Spaepen; Patrick Dupont; Johan Nuyts; Guy Bormans; Luc Mortelmans; Gregor Verhoef; Christiane De Wolf-Peeters Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Karoline Spaepen; Sigrid Stroobants; Patrick Dupont; Guy Bormans; Jan Balzarini; Gregor Verhoef; Luc Mortelmans; Peter Vandenberghe; Christine De Wolf-Peeters Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-02-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Steven M. Larson; Yusuf Erdi; Timothy Akhurst; Madhu Mazumdar; Homer A. Macapinlac; Ronald D. Finn; Cecille Casilla; Melissa Fazzari; Neil Srivastava; Henry W.D. Yeung; John L. Humm; Jose Guillem; Robert Downey; Martin Karpeh; Alfred E. Cohen; Robert Ginsberg Journal: Clin Positron Imaging Date: 1999-05
Authors: K Spaepen; S Stroobants; P Dupont; P Vandenberghe; J Thomas; T de Groot; J Balzarini; C De Wolf-Peeters; L Mortelmans; G Verhoef Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Nicolas Graf; Ken Herrmann; Barbara Numberger; Daniela Zwisler; Michaela Aichler; Annette Feuchtinger; Tibor Schuster; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Reingard Senekowitsch-Schmidtke; Christian Peschel; Markus Schwaiger; Ulrich Keller; Tobias Dechow; Andreas K Buck Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-10-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Neale S Mason; Brian J Lopresti; James Ruszkiewicz; Xinxin Dong; Sonali Joyce; George Leef; Malabika Sen; Abdus S Wahed; Chester A Mathis; Jennifer R Grandis; Sufi M Thomas Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-01-05
Authors: Marijke De Saint-Hubert; Ellen Devos; Abdelilah Ibrahimi; Zeger Debyser; Luc Mortelmans; Felix M Mottaghy Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-07-10
Authors: Marijke De Saint-Hubert; Lieselot Brepoels; Ellen Devos; Peter Vermaelen; Tjibe De Groot; Thomas Tousseyn; Luc Mortelmans; Felix M Mottaghy Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-12-15