PURPOSE: [(18)F]Fluoroazomycin arabinoside (FAZA) is a positron emission tomography (PET) tracer developed to enable identification of hypoxic regions within a tumour. The aims of this study were to determine the optimal kinetic model along with validation of using alternatives to arterial blood sampling for analysing [(18)F]FAZA studies and to assess the validity of simplified analytical methods. METHODS: Dynamic 70-min [(18)F]FAZA PET/CT scans were obtained from nine non-small cell lung cancer patients. Continuous arterial blood sampling, together with manual arterial and venous sampling, was performed to derive metabolite-corrected plasma input functions. Volumes of interest (VOIs) were defined for tumour, healthy lung muscle and adipose tissue generating [(18)F]FAZA time-activity curves (TACs). TACs were analysed using one- and two-tissue compartment models using both metabolite-corrected blood sampler plasma input functions (BSIF) and image-derived plasma input functions (IDIF). RESULTS: The reversible two-tissue compartment model with blood volume parameter (2T4k+VB) best described kinetics of [(18)F]FAZA in tumours. Volumes of distribution (VT) obtained using IDIF correlated well with those derived using BSIF (R(2) = 0.82). Venous samples yielded the same radioactivity concentrations as arterial samples for times >50 min post-injection (p.i.). In addition, both plasma to whole blood ratios and parent fractions were essentially the same for venous and arterial samples. Both standardised uptake value (SUV), normalised to lean body mass, and tumour to blood ratio correlated well with VT (R(2) = 0.77 and R(2) = 0.87, respectively, at 50-60 min p.i.), although a bias was observed at low VT. CONCLUSION: The 2T4k+VB model provided the best fit to the dynamic [(18)F]FAZA data. IDIF with venous blood samples can be used as input function. Further data are needed to validate the use of simplified methods.
PURPOSE: [(18)F]Fluoroazomycin arabinoside (FAZA) is a positron emission tomography (PET) tracer developed to enable identification of hypoxic regions within a tumour. The aims of this study were to determine the optimal kinetic model along with validation of using alternatives to arterial blood sampling for analysing [(18)F]FAZA studies and to assess the validity of simplified analytical methods. METHODS: Dynamic 70-min [(18)F]FAZA PET/CT scans were obtained from nine non-small cell lung cancerpatients. Continuous arterial blood sampling, together with manual arterial and venous sampling, was performed to derive metabolite-corrected plasma input functions. Volumes of interest (VOIs) were defined for tumour, healthy lung muscle and adipose tissue generating [(18)F]FAZA time-activity curves (TACs). TACs were analysed using one- and two-tissue compartment models using both metabolite-corrected blood sampler plasma input functions (BSIF) and image-derived plasma input functions (IDIF). RESULTS: The reversible two-tissue compartment model with blood volume parameter (2T4k+VB) best described kinetics of [(18)F]FAZA in tumours. Volumes of distribution (VT) obtained using IDIF correlated well with those derived using BSIF (R(2) = 0.82). Venous samples yielded the same radioactivity concentrations as arterial samples for times >50 min post-injection (p.i.). In addition, both plasma to whole blood ratios and parent fractions were essentially the same for venous and arterial samples. Both standardised uptake value (SUV), normalised to lean body mass, and tumour to blood ratio correlated well with VT (R(2) = 0.77 and R(2) = 0.87, respectively, at 50-60 min p.i.), although a bias was observed at low VT. CONCLUSION: The 2T4k+VB model provided the best fit to the dynamic [(18)F]FAZA data. IDIF with venous blood samples can be used as input function. Further data are needed to validate the use of simplified methods.
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: Morand Piert; Hans-Jürgen Machulla; Maria Picchio; Gerald Reischl; Sybille Ziegler; Piyush Kumar; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Roswitha Beck; Alexander J B McEwan; Leonard I Wiebe; Markus Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Morten Busk; Michael R Horsman; Steen Jakobsen; Kim V Hansen; Johan Bussink; Albert van der Kogel; Jens Overgaard Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-09-02 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: Carlos Caicedo; Maria Jose Garcia-Velloso; Maria Dolores Lozano; Tania Labiano; Carmen Vigil Diaz; Jose Maria Lopez-Picazo; Alfonso Gurpide; Javier J Zulueta; Javier Zulueta; Jose Angel Richter Echevarria; Jose Luis Perez Gracia Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Catharina M L Zegers; Wouter van Elmpt; Katrin Szardenings; Hartmuth Kolb; Alan Waxman; Rathan M Subramaniam; Dae Hyuk Moon; Jacqueline C Brunetti; Shyam M Srinivas; Philippe Lambin; David Chien Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: David W Chapman; Hans-Sonke Jans; Ivy Ma; John R Mercer; Leonard I Wiebe; Melinda Wuest; Ronald B Moore Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2014-09-10 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Tanuj Puri; Tessa A Greenhalgh; James M Wilson; Jamie Franklin; Lia Mun Wang; Victoria Strauss; Chris Cunningham; Mike Partridge; Tim Maughan Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 3.138