PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to automate the radiosynthesis of [(18)F]SFB, a widely used reagent for the labeling of biomolecules with (18)F on a new generation commercial synthesis module (FASTLab™, GE Healthcare). PROCEDURES: Two synthesis approaches were implemented on this module: the classical "two-pot radiosynthesis" and the more recently described "one-pot" method. RESULTS: The "two-pot" approach affords [(18)F]SFB with a 42% decay-corrected yield in 57 min (n = 24) with a chemical purity sufficient to avoid an intermediate HPLC purification. The recently established "one-pot" method, afforded a product with a lower chemical purity, in the conditions used in this report. The lower d.c. yield obtained (32% (n = 15)) was related to the low (18)F labeling yields obtained in MeCN compared with DMSO. The subsequent conjugation step with a RGD (PRGD2) peptide was also successfully automated. CONCLUSIONS: The formulated [(18)F]FPRGD2 was obtained without any operator manipulation with a d.c. yield of 13% ± 3% (n = 13) in 130 min, a radiochemical purity >98% and a specific activity of 140 ± 40 TBq/mmol.
PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to automate the radiosynthesis of [(18)F]SFB, a widely used reagent for the labeling of biomolecules with (18)F on a new generation commercial synthesis module (FASTLab™, GE Healthcare). PROCEDURES: Two synthesis approaches were implemented on this module: the classical "two-pot radiosynthesis" and the more recently described "one-pot" method. RESULTS: The "two-pot" approach affords [(18)F]SFB with a 42% decay-corrected yield in 57 min (n = 24) with a chemical purity sufficient to avoid an intermediate HPLC purification. The recently established "one-pot" method, afforded a product with a lower chemical purity, in the conditions used in this report. The lower d.c. yield obtained (32% (n = 15)) was related to the low (18)F labeling yields obtained in MeCN compared with DMSO. The subsequent conjugation step with a RGD (PRGD2) peptide was also successfully automated. CONCLUSIONS: The formulated [(18)F]FPRGD2 was obtained without any operator manipulation with a d.c. yield of 13% ± 3% (n = 13) in 130 min, a radiochemical purity >98% and a specific activity of 140 ± 40 TBq/mmol.
Authors: Xiaoyuan Chen; Ryan Park; Anthony H Shahinian; Michel Tohme; Vazgen Khankaldyyan; Mohammed H Bozorgzadeh; James R Bading; Rex Moats; Walter E Laug; Peter S Conti Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Bernd Neumaier; Felix M Mottaghy; Andreas K Buck; Gerhard Glatting; Norbert M Blumstein; Bettina Mahren; Andreas T J Vogg; Sven N Reske Journal: Cancer Biother Radiopharm Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 3.099
Authors: Wai Lam Yip; Sverre Arne Sande; David Grace; Dirk Jan in't Veld; Per Christian Sontum; Tina Solvang; Knut Dyrstad Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Nadia Withofs; François Cousin; Bernard De Prijck; Christophe Bonnet; Roland Hustinx; Sanjiv S Gambhir; Yves Beguin; Jo Caers Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Sarah Belderbos; Manuel Antonio González-Gómez; Frederik Cleeren; Jens Wouters; Yolanda Piñeiro; Christophe M Deroose; An Coosemans; Willy Gsell; Guy Bormans; Jose Rivas; Uwe Himmelreich Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Charles Truillet; Matthew F L Parker; Loc T Huynh; Junnian Wei; Khaled M Jami; Yung-Hua Wang; Yuqin S Shen; Renuka Sriram; David M Wilson; John Kurhanewicz; Michael J Evans Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-04-17
Authors: Ida Nymann Petersen; Jacob Madsen; Christian Bernard Matthijs Poulie; Andreas Kjær; Matthias Manfred Herth Journal: Molecules Date: 2019-09-22 Impact factor: 4.411
Authors: Falguni Basuli; Xiang Zhang; Tim E Phelps; Elaine M Jagoda; Peter L Choyke; Rolf E Swenson Journal: Molecules Date: 2020-08-27 Impact factor: 4.411