PURPOSE: Receptor availability represents a key component of current cancer management. However, no approaches have been adopted to do this clinically, and the current standard of care is invasive tissue biopsy. A dual-reporter methodology capable of quantifying available receptor binding potential of tumors in vivo within a clinically relevant time scale is presented. PROCEDURES: To test the methodology, a fluorescence imaging-based adaptation was validated against ex vivo and in vitro measures of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) binding potential in four tumor lines in mice, each line expected to express a different level of EGFR. RESULTS: A strong correlation was observed between in vivo and ex vivo measures of binding potential for all tumor lines (r = 0.99, p < 0.01, slope = 1.80 ± 0.48, and intercept = -0.58 ± 0.84) and between in vivo and in vitro for the three lines expressing the least amount of EGFR (r = 0.99, p < 0.01, slope = 0.64 ± 0.32, and intercept = 0.47 ± 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: By providing a fast and robust measure of receptor density in tumors, the presented methodology has powerful implications for improving choices in cancer intervention, evaluation, and monitoring, and can be scaled to the clinic with an imaging modality like SPECT.
PURPOSE: Receptor availability represents a key component of current cancer management. However, no approaches have been adopted to do this clinically, and the current standard of care is invasive tissue biopsy. A dual-reporter methodology capable of quantifying available receptor binding potential of tumors in vivo within a clinically relevant time scale is presented. PROCEDURES: To test the methodology, a fluorescence imaging-based adaptation was validated against ex vivo and in vitro measures of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) binding potential in four tumor lines in mice, each line expected to express a different level of EGFR. RESULTS: A strong correlation was observed between in vivo and ex vivo measures of binding potential for all tumor lines (r = 0.99, p < 0.01, slope = 1.80 ± 0.48, and intercept = -0.58 ± 0.84) and between in vivo and in vitro for the three lines expressing the least amount of EGFR (r = 0.99, p < 0.01, slope = 0.64 ± 0.32, and intercept = 0.47 ± 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: By providing a fast and robust measure of receptor density in tumors, the presented methodology has powerful implications for improving choices in cancer intervention, evaluation, and monitoring, and can be scaled to the clinic with an imaging modality like SPECT.
Authors: J Baselga; D Pfister; M R Cooper; R Cohen; B Burtness; M Bos; G D'Andrea; A Seidman; L Norton; K Gunnett; J Falcey; V Anderson; H Waksal; J Mendelsohn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kimberley S Samkoe; Kristian Sexton; Kenneth M Tichauer; Shannon K Hextrum; Omar Pardesi; Scott C Davis; Julia A O'Hara; P Jack Hoopes; Tayyaba Hasan; Brian W Pogue Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Brian W Pogue; Keith D Paulsen; Kimberley S Samkoe; Jonathan T Elliott; Tayyaba Hasan; Theresa V Strong; Daniel R Draney; Joachim Feldwisch Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Yu W Wang; Altaz Khan; Steven Y Leigh; Danni Wang; Ye Chen; Daphne Meza; Jonathan T C Liu Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Stephen C Kanick; Kenneth M Tichauer; Jason Gunn; Kimberley S Samkoe; Brian W Pogue Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Kimberley S Samkoe; Emily Schultz; Allison Solanki; Lei Wang; Jesse Korber; Kenneth M Tichauer; Summer L Gibbs Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2019-02-28
Authors: Danni Wang; Ye Chen; Steven Y Leigh; Henry Haeberle; Christopher H Contag; Jonathan T C Liu Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2012-12-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Kenneth M Tichauer; Sophie J Deharvengt; Kimberley S Samkoe; Jason R Gunn; Marcus W Bosenberg; Mary-Jo Turk; Tayyaba Hasan; Radu V Stan; Brian W Pogue Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Scott K Shaw; Cynthia L Schreiber; Felicia M Roland; Paul M Battles; Seamus P Brennan; Simon J Padanilam; Bradley D Smith Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Yu Wang; Soyoung Kang; Josh D Doerksen; Adam K Glaser; Jonathan T C Liu Journal: IEEE J Sel Top Quantum Electron Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 4.544