PURPOSE: The behavior of copper-64-diacetyl-bis(N(4)-methylthiosemicarbazone) ((64)Cu-ATSM) in hypoxic tumors was examined through a combination of in vivo dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) and ex vivo autoradiographic and histologic evaluation using a xenograft model of head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: (64)Cu-ATSM was administered during dynamic PET imaging, and temporal changes in (64)Cu-ATSM distribution within tumors were evaluated for at least 1 hour and up to 18 hours. Animals were sacrificed at either 1 hour (cohort A) or after 18 hours (cohort B) postinjection of radiotracer and autoradiography performed. Ex vivo analysis of microenvironment subregions was conducted by immunohistochemical staining for markers of hypoxia (pimonidazole hydrochloride) and blood flow (Hoechst-33342). RESULTS: Kinetic analysis revealed rapid uptake of radiotracer by tumors. The net influx (K(i)) constant was 12-fold that of muscle, whereas the distribution volume (V(d)) was 5-fold. PET images showed large tumor-to-muscle ratios, which continually increased over the entire 18-hour course of imaging. However, no spatial changes in (64)Cu-ATSM distribution occurred in PET imaging at 20 minutes postinjection. Microscopic intratumoral distribution of (64)Cu-ATSM and pimonidazole were not correlated at 1 hour or after 18 hours postinjection, nor was (64)Cu-ATSM and Hoechst-33342. CONCLUSIONS: The oxygen partial pressures at which (64)Cu-ATSM and pimonidazole are reduced and bound in cells are theorized to be distinct and separable. However, this study demonstrated that microscopic distributions of these tracers within tumors are independent. Researchers have shown (64)Cu-ATSM uptake to be specific to malignant expression, and this work has also demonstrated clear tumor targeting by the radiotracer.
PURPOSE: The behavior of copper-64-diacetyl-bis(N(4)-methylthiosemicarbazone) ((64)Cu-ATSM) in hypoxic tumors was examined through a combination of in vivo dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) and ex vivo autoradiographic and histologic evaluation using a xenograft model of head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: (64)Cu-ATSM was administered during dynamic PET imaging, and temporal changes in (64)Cu-ATSM distribution within tumors were evaluated for at least 1 hour and up to 18 hours. Animals were sacrificed at either 1 hour (cohort A) or after 18 hours (cohort B) postinjection of radiotracer and autoradiography performed. Ex vivo analysis of microenvironment subregions was conducted by immunohistochemical staining for markers of hypoxia (pimonidazole hydrochloride) and blood flow (Hoechst-33342). RESULTS: Kinetic analysis revealed rapid uptake of radiotracer by tumors. The net influx (K(i)) constant was 12-fold that of muscle, whereas the distribution volume (V(d)) was 5-fold. PET images showed large tumor-to-muscle ratios, which continually increased over the entire 18-hour course of imaging. However, no spatial changes in (64)Cu-ATSM distribution occurred in PET imaging at 20 minutes postinjection. Microscopic intratumoral distribution of (64)Cu-ATSM and pimonidazole were not correlated at 1 hour or after 18 hours postinjection, nor was (64)Cu-ATSM and Hoechst-33342. CONCLUSIONS: The oxygen partial pressures at which (64)Cu-ATSM and pimonidazole are reduced and bound in cells are theorized to be distinct and separable. However, this study demonstrated that microscopic distributions of these tracers within tumors are independent. Researchers have shown (64)Cu-ATSM uptake to be specific to malignant expression, and this work has also demonstrated clear tumor targeting by the radiotracer.
Authors: Katherine Ann Price; Peter J Crouch; Irene Volitakis; Brett M Paterson; SinChun Lim; Paul S Donnelly; Anthony R White Journal: Inorg Chem Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 5.165
Authors: Hong Yuan; Thies Schroeder; James E Bowsher; Laurence W Hedlund; Terence Wong; Mark W Dewhirst Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: A Obata; E Yoshimi; A Waki; J S Lewis; N Oyama; M J Welch; H Saji; Y Yonekura; Y Fujibayashi Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Jun Liu; Asghar Hajibeigi; Gang Ren; Mai Lin; Wasana Siyambalapitiyage; Zhisu Liu; Evan Simpson; Robert W Parkey; Xiankai Sun; Orhan K Oz Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Farrokh Dehdashti; Perry W Grigsby; Mark A Mintun; Jason S Lewis; Barry A Siegel; Michael J Welch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sean Carlin; Andrei Pugachev; Xiaorong Sun; Sean Burke; Filip Claus; Joseph O'Donoghue; C Clifton Ling; John L Humm Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2009-07-29 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Brian M Zeglis; Jacob L Houghton; Michael J Evans; Nerissa Viola-Villegas; Jason S Lewis Journal: Inorg Chem Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 5.165
Authors: Li Wang; Hui Wang; Kun Shen; Hyejin Park; Tao Zhang; Xuedan Wu; Mei Hu; Hong Yuan; Yue Chen; Zhanhong Wu; Qiu Wang; Zibo Li Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Tanuj Puri; Anastasia Chalkidou; Rhonda Henley-Smith; Arunabha Roy; Paul R Barber; Teresa Guerrero-Urbano; Richard Oakley; Ricard Simo; Jean-Pierre Jeannon; Mark McGurk; Edward W Odell; Michael J O'Doherty; Paul K Marsden Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 3.138