PURPOSE: [(11)C]Choline has been established as a PET tracer for imaging prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to determine whether [(11)C]choline can be used for monitoring the effects of therapy in a prostate cancer mouse xenograft model. METHODS: The androgen-independent human prostate cancer cell line PC-3 was implanted subcutaneously into the flanks of 13 NMRI (nu/nu) mice. All mice were injected 4-6 weeks after xenograft implantation with 37 MBq [(11)C]choline via a tail vein. Dynamic imaging was performed for 60 min with a small-animal PET/CT scanner (Siemens Medical Solutions). Six mice were subsequently injected intravenously with docetaxel twice (days 1 and 5) at a dose of 3 mg/kg body weight. Seven mice were treated with PBS as a control. [(11)C]Choline imaging was performed prior to and 1, 2 and 3 weeks after treatment. To determine choline uptake the images were analysed in terms of tumour-to-muscle (T/M) ratios. Every week the size of the implanted tumour was determined with a sliding calliper. RESULTS: The PC-3 tumours could be visualized by [(11)C]choline PET. Before treatment the T/M(mean) ratio was 1.6+/-0.5 in the control group and 1.8+/-0.4 in the docetaxel-treated group (p=0.65). There was a reduction in the mean [(11)C]choline uptake after docetaxel treatment as early as 1 week after initiation of therapy (T/M ratio 1.8+/-0.4 before treatment, 0.9+/-0.3 after 1 week, 1.1+/-0.3 after 2 weeks and 0.8+/-0.2 after 3 weeks). There were no decrease in [(11)C]choline uptake in the control group following treatment (T/M ratio 1.6+/-0.5 before treatment, 1.7+/-0.4 after 1 week, 1.8+/-0.7 after 2 weeks and 1.7+/-0.4 after 3 weeks). For analysis of the dynamic data, a generalized estimation equation model revealed a significant decrease in the T/M(dyn) ratios 1 week after docetaxel treatment, and the ratio remained at that level through week 3 (mean change -0.93+/-0.24, p<0.001, after 1 week; -0.78+/-0.21, p<0.001, after 2 weeks; -1.08+/-0.26, p<0.001, after 3 weeks). In the control group there was no significant decrease in the T/M(dyn) ratios (mean change 0.085+/-0.39, p=0.83, after 1 week; 0.31+/-0.48, p=0.52, after 2 weeks; 0.11+/-0.30, p=0.72, after 3 weeks). Metabolic changes occurred 1 week after therapy and preceded morphological changes of tumour size during therapy. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that [(11)C]choline has the potential for use in the early monitoring of the therapeutic effect of docetaxel in a prostate cancer xenograft animal model. The results also indicate that PET with radioactively labelled choline derivatives might be a useful tool for monitoring responses to taxane-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: [(11)C]Choline has been established as a PET tracer for imaging prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to determine whether [(11)C]choline can be used for monitoring the effects of therapy in a prostate cancermouse xenograft model. METHODS: The androgen-independent humanprostate cancer cell line PC-3 was implanted subcutaneously into the flanks of 13 NMRI (nu/nu) mice. All mice were injected 4-6 weeks after xenograft implantation with 37 MBq [(11)C]choline via a tail vein. Dynamic imaging was performed for 60 min with a small-animal PET/CT scanner (Siemens Medical Solutions). Six mice were subsequently injected intravenously with docetaxel twice (days 1 and 5) at a dose of 3 mg/kg body weight. Seven mice were treated with PBS as a control. [(11)C]Choline imaging was performed prior to and 1, 2 and 3 weeks after treatment. To determine choline uptake the images were analysed in terms of tumour-to-muscle (T/M) ratios. Every week the size of the implanted tumour was determined with a sliding calliper. RESULTS: The PC-3 tumours could be visualized by [(11)C]cholinePET. Before treatment the T/M(mean) ratio was 1.6+/-0.5 in the control group and 1.8+/-0.4 in the docetaxel-treated group (p=0.65). There was a reduction in the mean [(11)C]choline uptake after docetaxel treatment as early as 1 week after initiation of therapy (T/M ratio 1.8+/-0.4 before treatment, 0.9+/-0.3 after 1 week, 1.1+/-0.3 after 2 weeks and 0.8+/-0.2 after 3 weeks). There were no decrease in [(11)C]choline uptake in the control group following treatment (T/M ratio 1.6+/-0.5 before treatment, 1.7+/-0.4 after 1 week, 1.8+/-0.7 after 2 weeks and 1.7+/-0.4 after 3 weeks). For analysis of the dynamic data, a generalized estimation equation model revealed a significant decrease in the T/M(dyn) ratios 1 week after docetaxel treatment, and the ratio remained at that level through week 3 (mean change -0.93+/-0.24, p<0.001, after 1 week; -0.78+/-0.21, p<0.001, after 2 weeks; -1.08+/-0.26, p<0.001, after 3 weeks). In the control group there was no significant decrease in the T/M(dyn) ratios (mean change 0.085+/-0.39, p=0.83, after 1 week; 0.31+/-0.48, p=0.52, after 2 weeks; 0.11+/-0.30, p=0.72, after 3 weeks). Metabolic changes occurred 1 week after therapy and preceded morphological changes of tumour size during therapy. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that [(11)C]choline has the potential for use in the early monitoring of the therapeutic effect of docetaxel in a prostate cancer xenograft animal model. The results also indicate that PET with radioactively labelled choline derivatives might be a useful tool for monitoring responses to taxane-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced prostate cancer.
Authors: Nobuyuki Oyama; Joonyoung Kim; Lynne A Jones; Nicole M Mercer; John A Engelbach; Terry L Sharp; Michael J Welch Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Ludwig Rinnab; Felix M Mottaghy; Norbert M Blumstein; Sven N Reske; Richard E Hautmann; Kathrin Hohl; Peter Möller; Thomas Wiegel; Rainer Kuefer; Juergen E Gschwend Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: B J Krause; M Souvatzoglou; M Tuncel; K Herrmann; A K Buck; C Praus; T Schuster; H Geinitz; U Treiber; M Schwaiger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-09-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: J Amanie; H S Jans; M Wuest; N Pervez; A Murtha; N Usmani; D Yee; R Pearcey; B Danielson; S Patel; R Macewan; C Field; D Robinson; J Wilson; D Lewis; M Parliament; A J B McEwan Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Mitchell P van Kanten; Reindert J A van Moorselaar; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh; Peter M van de Ven; Irene V Bijnsdorp; Otto S Hoekstra; Albert A Geldof Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Frank I Lin; E M Gonzalez; S Kummar; K Do; J Shih; S Adler; K A Kurdziel; A Ton; B Turkbey; P M Jacobs; S Bhattacharyya; A P Chen; J M Collins; J H Doroshow; P L Choyke; M L Lindenberg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-11-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Bhupesh Parashar; A Gabriella Wernicke; Samuel Rice; Joseph Osborne; Prabhsimranjot Singh; Dattatreyudu Nori; Shankar Vallabhajosula; Stanley Goldsmith; K S Clifford Chao Journal: Discov Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.970
Authors: Sarah Marie Schwarzenböck; Jana Gertz; Michael Souvatzoglou; Jens Kurth; David Sachs; Roman Nawroth; Uwe Treiber; Tibor Schuster; Reingard Senekowitsch-Schmidtke; Markus Schwaiger; Sibylle Ilse Ziegler; Gjermund Henriksen; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Bernd Joachim Krause Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.488