PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to assess the biodistribution and radiation dose resulting from administration of (18)F-EF5, a lipophilic 2-nitroimidazole hypoxia marker in ten cancer patients. For three of these patients (with glioblastoma) unlabeled EF5 was additionally administered to allow the comparative assessment of (18)F-EF5 tumor uptake with EF5 binding, the latter measured in tumor biopsies by fluorescent anti-EF5 monoclonal antibodies. METHODS: (18)F-EF5 was synthesized by electrophilic addition of (18)F(2) gas, made by deuteron bombardment of a neon/fluorine mixture in a high-pressure gas target, to an allyl precursor in trifluoroacetic acid at 0° then purified and administered by intravenous bolus. Three whole-body images were collected for each of ten patients using an Allegro (Philips) scanner. Gamma counts were determined in blood, drawn during each image, and urine, pooled as a single sample. PET images were analyzed to determine radiotracer uptake in several tissues and the resulting radiation dose calculated using OLINDA software and standard phantom. For three patients, 21 mg/kg unlabeled EF5 was administered after the PET scans, and tissue samples obtained the next day at surgery to determine EF5 binding using immunohistochemistry techniques (IHC). RESULTS: EF5 distributes evenly throughout soft tissue within minutes of injection. Its concentration in blood over the typical time frame of the study (∼3.5 h) was nearly constant, consistent with a previously determined EF5 plasma half-life of ∼13 h. Elimination was primarily via urine and bile. Radiation exposure from labeled EF5 is similar to other (18)F-labeled imaging agents (e.g., FDG and FMISO). In a de novo glioblastoma multiforme patient, focal uptake of (18)F-EF5 was confirmed by IHC. CONCLUSION: These results confirm predictions of biodistribution and safety based on EF5's characteristics (high biological stability, high lipophilicity). EF5 is a novel hypoxia marker with unique pharmacological characteristics allowing both noninvasive and invasive measurements.
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to assess the biodistribution and radiation dose resulting from administration of (18)F-EF5, a lipophilic 2-nitroimidazolehypoxia marker in ten cancerpatients. For three of these patients (with glioblastoma) unlabeled EF5 was additionally administered to allow the comparative assessment of (18)F-EF5tumor uptake with EF5 binding, the latter measured in tumor biopsies by fluorescent anti-EF5 monoclonal antibodies. METHODS: (18)F-EF5 was synthesized by electrophilic addition of (18)F(2) gas, made by deuteron bombardment of a neon/fluorine mixture in a high-pressure gas target, to an allyl precursor in trifluoroacetic acid at 0° then purified and administered by intravenous bolus. Three whole-body images were collected for each of ten patients using an Allegro (Philips) scanner. Gamma counts were determined in blood, drawn during each image, and urine, pooled as a single sample. PET images were analyzed to determine radiotracer uptake in several tissues and the resulting radiation dose calculated using OLINDA software and standard phantom. For three patients, 21 mg/kg unlabeled EF5 was administered after the PET scans, and tissue samples obtained the next day at surgery to determine EF5 binding using immunohistochemistry techniques (IHC). RESULTS:EF5 distributes evenly throughout soft tissue within minutes of injection. Its concentration in blood over the typical time frame of the study (∼3.5 h) was nearly constant, consistent with a previously determined EF5 plasma half-life of ∼13 h. Elimination was primarily via urine and bile. Radiation exposure from labeled EF5 is similar to other (18)F-labeled imaging agents (e.g., FDG and FMISO). In a de novo glioblastoma multiformepatient, focal uptake of (18)F-EF5 was confirmed by IHC. CONCLUSION: These results confirm predictions of biodistribution and safety based on EF5's characteristics (high biological stability, high lipophilicity). EF5 is a novel hypoxia marker with unique pharmacological characteristics allowing both noninvasive and invasive measurements.
Authors: James L Tatum; Gary J Kelloff; Robert J Gillies; Jeffrey M Arbeit; J Martin Brown; K S Clifford Chao; J Donald Chapman; William C Eckelman; Anthony W Fyles; Amato J Giaccia; Richard P Hill; Cameron J Koch; Murali Cherukuri Krishna; Kenneth A Krohn; Jason S Lewis; Ralph P Mason; Giovanni Melillo; Anwar R Padhani; Garth Powis; Joseph G Rajendran; Richard Reba; Simon P Robinson; Gregg L Semenza; Harold M Swartz; Peter Vaupel; David Yang; Barbara Croft; John Hoffman; Guoying Liu; Helen Stone; Daniel Sullivan Journal: Int J Radiat Biol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.694
Authors: M Höckel; C Knoop; K Schlenger; B Vorndran; E Baussmann; M Mitze; P G Knapstein; P Vaupel Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1993-01 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: K Allemann; M T Wyss; M Wergin; S Ohlerth; C Rohrer-Bley; S M Evans; A P Schubiger; S M Ametamey; B Kaser-Hotz Journal: Vet Comp Oncol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.613
Authors: Ernst J Postema; Alexander J B McEwan; Terence A Riauka; Piyush Kumar; Dacia A Richmond; Douglas N Abrams; Leonard I Wiebe Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-05-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Cameron J Koch; W Timothy Jenkins; Kevin W Jenkins; Xiang Yang Yang; A Lee Shuman; Stephen Pickup; Caitlyn R Riehl; Ramesh Paudyal; Harish Poptani; Sydney M Evans Journal: Tumor Microenviron Ther Date: 2013-01
Authors: Satish K Chitneni; Gerald T Bida; Hong Yuan; Gregory M Palmer; Michael P Hay; Thorsten Melcher; William R Wilson; Michael R Zalutsky; Mark W Dewhirst Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Joseph C Walsh; Artem Lebedev; Edward Aten; Kathleen Madsen; Liane Marciano; Hartmuth C Kolb Journal: Antioxid Redox Signal Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 8.401