INTRODUCTION: Recently, first applications of microfluidic principles for radiosyntheses of positron emission tomography compounds were presented, but direct comparisons with conventional methods were still missing. Therefore, our aims were (1) the set-up of a microfluidic procedure for the preparation of the recently developed adenosine A(3)-receptor tracers [(18)F]FE@SUPPY [5-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)2,4-diethyl-3-(ethylsulfanylcarbonyl)-6-phenylpyridine-5-carboxylate] and [(18)F]FE@SUPPY:2 [5-ethyl-2,4-diethyl-3-((2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)sulfanylcarbonyl)-6-phenylpyridine-5-carboxylate] and (2) the direct comparison of reaction conditions and radiochemical yields of the no-carrier-added nucleophilic substitution with [(18)F]fluoride between microfluidic and conventional methods. METHODS: For the determination of optimal reaction conditions within an Advion NanoTek synthesizer, 5-50 μl of precursor and dried [(18)F]fluoride solution were simultaneously pushed through the temperature-controlled reactor (26 °C-180 °C) with defined reactant bolus flow rates (10-50 μl/min). Radiochemical incorporation yields (RCIYs) and overall radiochemical yields for large-scale preparations were compared with data from conventional batch-mode syntheses. RESULTS: Optimal reaction parameters for the microfluidic set-up were determined as follows: 170 °C, 30-μl/min pump rate per reactant (reaction overall flow rate of 60 μl/min) and 5-mg/ml precursor concentration in the reaction mixture. Applying these optimized conditions, we observed a significant increase in RCIY from 88.2% to 94.1% (P < .0001, n ≥ 11) for [(18)F]FE@SUPPY and that from 42.5% to 95.5% (P<.0001, n ≥ 5) for [(18)F]FE@SUPPY:2 using microfluidic instead of conventional heating. Precursor consumption was decreased from 7.5 and 10 mg to 1 mg per large-scale synthesis for both title compounds, respectively. CONCLUSION: The direct comparison of radiosyntheses data applying a conventional method and a microfluidic approach revealed a significant increase of RCIY using the microfluidic approach.
INTRODUCTION: Recently, first applications of microfluidic principles for radiosyntheses of positron emission tomography compounds were presented, but direct comparisons with conventional methods were still missing. Therefore, our aims were (1) the set-up of a microfluidic procedure for the preparation of the recently developed adenosine A(3)-receptor tracers [(18)F]FE@SUPPY [5-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)2,4-diethyl-3-(ethylsulfanylcarbonyl)-6-phenylpyridine-5-carboxylate] and [(18)F]FE@SUPPY:2 [5-ethyl-2,4-diethyl-3-((2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)sulfanylcarbonyl)-6-phenylpyridine-5-carboxylate] and (2) the direct comparison of reaction conditions and radiochemical yields of the no-carrier-added nucleophilic substitution with [(18)F]fluoride between microfluidic and conventional methods. METHODS: For the determination of optimal reaction conditions within an Advion NanoTek synthesizer, 5-50 μl of precursor and dried [(18)F]fluoride solution were simultaneously pushed through the temperature-controlled reactor (26 °C-180 °C) with defined reactant bolus flow rates (10-50 μl/min). Radiochemical incorporation yields (RCIYs) and overall radiochemical yields for large-scale preparations were compared with data from conventional batch-mode syntheses. RESULTS: Optimal reaction parameters for the microfluidic set-up were determined as follows: 170 °C, 30-μl/min pump rate per reactant (reaction overall flow rate of 60 μl/min) and 5-mg/ml precursor concentration in the reaction mixture. Applying these optimized conditions, we observed a significant increase in RCIY from 88.2% to 94.1% (P < .0001, n ≥ 11) for [(18)F]FE@SUPPY and that from 42.5% to 95.5% (P<.0001, n ≥ 5) for [(18)F]FE@SUPPY:2 using microfluidic instead of conventional heating. Precursor consumption was decreased from 7.5 and 10 mg to 1 mg per large-scale synthesis for both title compounds, respectively. CONCLUSION: The direct comparison of radiosyntheses data applying a conventional method and a microfluidic approach revealed a significant increase of RCIY using the microfluidic approach.
Authors: Dexing Zeng; Amit V Desai; David Ranganathan; Tobias D Wheeler; Paul J A Kenis; David E Reichert Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Henry Herman; Graciela Flores; Kevin Quinn; Mark Eddings; Sebastian Olma; Melissa D Moore; Huijiang Ding; Krzysztof P Bobinski; Mingwei Wang; Dirk Williams; Darin Wiliams; Clifton Kwang-Fu Shen; Michael E Phelps; R Michael van Dam Journal: Appl Radiat Isot Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 1.513
Authors: Cécile Philippe; Lukas Nics; Markus Zeilinger; Eva Schirmer; Helmut Spreitzer; Georgios Karanikas; Rupert Lanzenberger; Helmut Viernstein; Wolfgang Wadsak; Markus Mitterhauser Journal: Sci Pharm Date: 2013-07-01
Authors: Christopher Frank; Georg Winter; Fredrik Rensei; Victor Samper; Allen F Brooks; Brian G Hockley; Bradford D Henderson; Christian Rensch; Peter J H Scott Journal: EJNMMI Radiopharm Chem Date: 2019-09-18