UNLABELLED: (18)F-fluoromisonidazole PET, a noninvasive means of identifying hypoxia in tumors, has been widely applied but with mixed results, raising concerns about its accuracy. The objective of this study was to determine whether kinetic analysis of dynamic (18)F-fluoromisonidazole data provides better discrimination of tumor hypoxia than methods based on a simple tissue-to-plasma ratio. METHODS: Eleven Dunning R3327-AT prostate tumor-bearing nude rats were immobilized in custom-fabricated whole-body molds, injected intravenously with (18)F-fluoromisonidazole, and imaged dynamically for 105 min. They were then transferred to a robotic system for image-guided measurement of intratumoral partial pressure of oxygen (Po(2)). The dynamic (18)F-fluoromisonidazole uptake data were fitted with 2 variants of a 2-compartment, 3-rate-constant model, one constrained to have K(1) equal to k(2) and the other unconstrained. Parametric images of the rate constants were generated. The Po(2) measurements were compared with spatially registered maps of kinetic rate constants and tumor-to-plasma ratios. RESULTS: The constrained pharmacokinetic model variant was shown to provide fits similar to that of the unconstrained model and did not introduce significant bias in the results. The trapping rate constant, k(3), of the constrained model provided a better discrimination of low Po(2) than the tissue-to-plasma ratio or the k(3) of the unconstrained model. CONCLUSION: The use of kinetic modeling on a voxelwise basis can identify tumor hypoxia with improved accuracy over simple tumor-to-plasma ratios. An effective means of controlling noise in the trapping rate constant, k(3), without introducing significant bias, is to constrain K(1) equal to k(2) during the fitting process.
UNLABELLED: (18)F-fluoromisonidazolePET, a noninvasive means of identifying hypoxia in tumors, has been widely applied but with mixed results, raising concerns about its accuracy. The objective of this study was to determine whether kinetic analysis of dynamic (18)F-fluoromisonidazole data provides better discrimination of tumor hypoxia than methods based on a simple tissue-to-plasma ratio. METHODS: Eleven Dunning R3327-AT prostate tumor-bearing nude rats were immobilized in custom-fabricated whole-body molds, injected intravenously with (18)F-fluoromisonidazole, and imaged dynamically for 105 min. They were then transferred to a robotic system for image-guided measurement of intratumoral partial pressure of oxygen (Po(2)). The dynamic (18)F-fluoromisonidazole uptake data were fitted with 2 variants of a 2-compartment, 3-rate-constant model, one constrained to have K(1) equal to k(2) and the other unconstrained. Parametric images of the rate constants were generated. The Po(2) measurements were compared with spatially registered maps of kinetic rate constants and tumor-to-plasma ratios. RESULTS: The constrained pharmacokinetic model variant was shown to provide fits similar to that of the unconstrained model and did not introduce significant bias in the results. The trapping rate constant, k(3), of the constrained model provided a better discrimination of low Po(2) than the tissue-to-plasma ratio or the k(3) of the unconstrained model. CONCLUSION: The use of kinetic modeling on a voxelwise basis can identify tumor hypoxia with improved accuracy over simple tumor-to-plasma ratios. An effective means of controlling noise in the trapping rate constant, k(3), without introducing significant bias, is to constrain K(1) equal to k(2) during the fitting process.
Authors: W J Koh; J S Rasey; M L Evans; J R Grierson; T K Lewellen; M M Graham; K A Krohn; T W Griffin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1992 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jenghwa Chang; Bixiu Wen; Peter Kazanzides; Pat Zanzonico; Ronald D Finn; Gabor Fichtinger; C Clifton Ling Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Pat Zanzonico; Jose Campa; Dolores Polycarpe-Holman; Gregor Forster; Ronald Finn; Steven Larson; John Humm; Clifton Ling Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Christoph Oehler; Joseph A O'Donoghue; James Russell; Pat Zanzonico; Sylvie Lorenzen; C Clifton Ling; Sean Carlin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-02-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: D M Brizel; S P Scully; J M Harrelson; L J Layfield; J M Bean; L R Prosnitz; M W Dewhirst Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1996-03-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: K Allemann; M T Wyss; M Wergin; S Ohlerth; C Rohrer-Bley; S M Evans; A P Schubiger; S M Ametamey; B Kaser-Hotz Journal: Vet Comp Oncol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.613
Authors: Olivia J Kelada; Sara Rockwell; Ming-Qiang Zheng; Yiyun Huang; Yanfeng Liu; Carmen J Booth; Roy H Decker; Uwe Oelfke; Richard E Carson; David J Carlson Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Mireia Crispin-Ortuzar; Aditya Apte; Milan Grkovski; Jung Hun Oh; Nancy Y Lee; Heiko Schöder; John L Humm; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Mark Muzi; Lanell M Peterson; Janet N O'Sullivan; James R Fink; Joseph G Rajendran; Lena J McLaughlin; John P Muzi; David A Mankoff; Kenneth A Krohn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Stéphanie Servagi-Vernat; Sarah Differding; Francois-Xavier Hanin; Daniel Labar; Anne Bol; John A Lee; Vincent Grégoire Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 9.236