PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the in vivo stability, uptake, and positron emission tomography (PET) imaging performance of a novel estrogen receptor PET tracer, 4-fluoro-11β-methoxy-16α-[(18)F]fluoroestradiol (4FMFES), with 16α-[(18)F]fluoroestradiol (FES). PROCEDURES: MC7-L1 and MC4-L2 (ER+) cell lines and their ERα-knockdown variants (ERαKD) were implanted subcutaneously in Balb/c mice. After 21 days, mice were imaged using either FES or 4FMFES. One hour post-injection, static images were acquired for 30 min and the tumor %ID/g uptake values were derived. Biodistribution data were also obtained 1 h following the injection of either FES or 4FMFES. Blood samples were taken at different times and analyzed on thin-layer chromatography to quantify the presence of radiometabolites for each radiotracer. To assess specific targeting to the estrogen receptors, mice bearing only ER+ tumors were treated with the competitive ER inhibitor fulvestrant 48 h prior to imaging with 4FMFES. RESULTS: Metabolic stability was found to be similar for both tracers in mice. Both FES and 4FMFES differentiated ER+ tumors from ERαKD tumors in biodistribution and PET imaging studies. 4FMFES achieved a significantly higher %ID/g uptake in ER+ tumors and MC4-L2 ERαKD tumors than FES in the PET imaging studies. Also, tumor-to-background ratio was higher in ER+ tumors using 4FMFES compared to FES. Dissection data showed a significantly higher %ID/g in all tested cell lines and ER-rich tissues using 4FMFES versus FES. Fulvestrant-treated mice had either low or undetectable tumor uptake. CONCLUSION: In a tumor-bearing mouse model, 4FMFES achieves better specific tumor uptake and better contrast than FES, making it a promising candidate for ER imaging.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the in vivo stability, uptake, and positron emission tomography (PET) imaging performance of a novel estrogen receptor PET tracer, 4-fluoro-11β-methoxy-16α-[(18)F]fluoroestradiol (4FMFES), with 16α-[(18)F]fluoroestradiol (FES). PROCEDURES: MC7-L1 and MC4-L2 (ER+) cell lines and their ERα-knockdown variants (ERαKD) were implanted subcutaneously in Balb/c mice. After 21 days, mice were imaged using either FES or 4FMFES. One hour post-injection, static images were acquired for 30 min and the tumor %ID/g uptake values were derived. Biodistribution data were also obtained 1 h following the injection of either FES or 4FMFES. Blood samples were taken at different times and analyzed on thin-layer chromatography to quantify the presence of radiometabolites for each radiotracer. To assess specific targeting to the estrogen receptors, mice bearing only ER+ tumors were treated with the competitive ER inhibitor fulvestrant 48 h prior to imaging with 4FMFES. RESULTS: Metabolic stability was found to be similar for both tracers in mice. Both FES and 4FMFES differentiated ER+ tumors from ERαKD tumors in biodistribution and PET imaging studies. 4FMFES achieved a significantly higher %ID/g uptake in ER+ tumors and MC4-L2 ERαKD tumors than FES in the PET imaging studies. Also, tumor-to-background ratio was higher in ER+ tumors using 4FMFES compared to FES. Dissection data showed a significantly higher %ID/g in all tested cell lines and ER-rich tissues using 4FMFES versus FES. Fulvestrant-treated mice had either low or undetectable tumor uptake. CONCLUSION: In a tumor-bearing mouse model, 4FMFES achieves better specific tumor uptake and better contrast than FES, making it a promising candidate for ER imaging.
Authors: Michel Paquette; René Ouellet; Mélanie Archambault; Étienne Croteau; Roger Lecomte; François Bénard Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2011-11-12 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Hannah M Linden; Brenda F Kurland; Lanell M Peterson; Erin K Schubert; Julie R Gralow; Jennifer M Specht; Georgiana K Ellis; Thomas J Lawton; Robert B Livingston; Philip H Petra; Jeanne M Link; Kenneth A Krohn; David A Mankoff Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Yann Seimbille; Jacques Rousseau; François Bénard; Catherine Morin; Hasrat Ali; George Avvakumov; Geoffrey L Hammond; Johan E van Lier Journal: Steroids Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Antonio Aliaga; Jacques A Rousseau; René Ouellette; Jules Cadorette; Johan E van Lier; Roger Lecomte; Francois Bénard Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Lanell M Peterson; David A Mankoff; Thomas Lawton; Kevin Yagle; Erin K Schubert; Svetlana Stekhova; Allen Gown; Jeanne M Link; Timothy Tewson; Kenneth A Krohn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jean-Mathieu Beauregard; Etienne Croteau; Naseem Ahmed; Johan E van Lier; François Bénard Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: François Bénard; Naseem Ahmed; Jean-Mathieu Beauregard; Jacques Rousseau; Antonio Aliaga; Céléna Dubuc; Etienne Croteau; Johan E van Lier Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-03-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Michel Paquette; Éric Lavallée; Serge Phoenix; René Ouellet; Helena Senta; Johan E van Lier; Brigitte Guérin; Roger Lecomte; Éric E Turcotte Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Natalie J Serkova; Kristine Glunde; Chad R Haney; Mohammed Farhoud; Alexandra De Lille; Elizabeth F Redente; Dmitri Simberg; David C Westerly; Lynn Griffin; Ralph P Mason Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 13.312
Authors: Barbara Salvatore; Maria Grazia Caprio; Billy Samuel Hill; Annachiara Sarnella; Giovanni Nicola Roviello; Antonella Zannetti Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 6.639