PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to estimate the receptor-ligand binding of an arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) peptide in somatic tumours. To this aim, we employed dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) data obtained from breast cancer patients with metastases, studied with the α(v)β(3/5) integrin receptor radioligand [(18)F]fluciclatide. METHODS: First, compartmental modelling and spectral analysis with arterial input function were performed at the region of interest (ROI) level in healthy lung and liver, and in lung and liver metastases; compartmental modelling was also carried out at the pixel level. The selection of the most appropriate indexes for tumour/healthy tissue differentiation and for estimation of specific binding was then assessed. RESULTS: The two-tissue reversible model emerged as the best according to the Akaike Information Criterion. Spectral analysis confirmed the reversibility of tracer kinetics. Values of kinetic parameters, estimated as mean from parametric maps, correlated well with those computed from ROI analysis. The volume of distribution V(T) was on average higher in lung metastases than in the healthy lung, but lower in liver metastases than in the healthy liver. In agreement with the expected higher α(v)β(3/5) expression in pathology, k(3) and k(3)/k(4) were both remarkably higher in metastases, which makes them more suitable than V(T) for tumour/healthy tissue differentiation. The ratio k(3)/k(4), in particular, appeared a reasonable measure of specific binding. CONCLUSION: Besides establishing the best quantitative approaches for the analysis of [(18)F]fluciclatide data, this study indicated that the k(3)/k(4) ratio is a reasonable measure of specific binding, suggesting that this index can be used to estimate α(v)β(3/5) receptor expression in oncology, although further studies are necessary to validate this hypothesis.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to estimate the receptor-ligand binding of an arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) peptide in somatic tumours. To this aim, we employed dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) data obtained from breast cancer patients with metastases, studied with the α(v)β(3/5) integrin receptor radioligand [(18)F]fluciclatide. METHODS: First, compartmental modelling and spectral analysis with arterial input function were performed at the region of interest (ROI) level in healthy lung and liver, and in lung and liver metastases; compartmental modelling was also carried out at the pixel level. The selection of the most appropriate indexes for tumour/healthy tissue differentiation and for estimation of specific binding was then assessed. RESULTS: The two-tissue reversible model emerged as the best according to the Akaike Information Criterion. Spectral analysis confirmed the reversibility of tracer kinetics. Values of kinetic parameters, estimated as mean from parametric maps, correlated well with those computed from ROI analysis. The volume of distribution V(T) was on average higher in lung metastases than in the healthy lung, but lower in liver metastases than in the healthy liver. In agreement with the expected higher α(v)β(3/5) expression in pathology, k(3) and k(3)/k(4) were both remarkably higher in metastases, which makes them more suitable than V(T) for tumour/healthy tissue differentiation. The ratio k(3)/k(4), in particular, appeared a reasonable measure of specific binding. CONCLUSION: Besides establishing the best quantitative approaches for the analysis of [(18)F]fluciclatide data, this study indicated that the k(3)/k(4) ratio is a reasonable measure of specific binding, suggesting that this index can be used to estimate α(v)β(3/5) receptor expression in oncology, although further studies are necessary to validate this hypothesis.
Authors: Brian J McParland; Matthew P Miller; Terence J Spinks; Laura M Kenny; Safiye Osman; Mandeep K Khela; Eric Aboagye; Raoul C Coombes; Ai-Min Hui; Pamela S Cohen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-09-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wouter B Nagengast; Marjolijn N Lub-de Hooge; Sjoukje F Oosting; Wilfred F A den Dunnen; Frank-Jan Warnders; Adrienne H Brouwers; Johan R de Jong; Patricia M Price; Harry Hollema; Geke A P Hospers; Philip H Elsinga; Jan Willem Hesselink; Jourik A Gietema; Elisabeth G E de Vries Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: G Gasparini; P C Brooks; E Biganzoli; P B Vermeulen; E Bonoldi; L Y Dirix; G Ranieri; R Miceli; D A Cheresh Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ambros J Beer; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Janette Carlsen; Andreas Kolk; Mario Sarbia; Isabelle Stangier; Petra Watzlowik; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Roland Haubner; Markus Schwaiger Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Roland Haubner; Wolfgang A Weber; Ambros J Beer; Eugenija Vabuliene; Daniel Reim; Mario Sarbia; Karl-Friedrich Becker; Michael Goebel; Rüdiger Hein; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Horst Kessler; Markus Schwaiger Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2005-03-29 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Daniel H Johnson; Laura E Via; Peter Kim; Dominick Laddy; Chuen-Yen Lau; Edward A Weinstein; Sanjay Jain Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Esther Mena; Rikard Owenius; Baris Turkbey; Richard Sherry; Gennady Bratslavsky; Sven Macholl; Matthew P Miller; Ed J Somer; Liza Lindenberg; Stephen Adler; Joanna Shih; Peter Choyke; Karen Kurdziel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-06-28 Impact factor: 9.236