PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to study the association between RGD binding kinetics and αvβ3 integrin receptor density in the complex tumor milieu. PROCEDURES: We assessed αvβ3 in vitro and by (68)Ga-DOTA-[c(RGDfK)]2 positron emission tomography (PET) in tumors with varying αvβ3. RESULTS: Intrinsic αvβ3 expression decreased in the order of M21 >>> MDA-MB-231 > M21L in cells. Tumor volume of distribution by PET, V T, was significantly higher in M21 compared to isogenic M21L tumors (0.40 ± 0.01 versus 0.25 ± 0.02; p < 0.01) despite similar microvessel density (MVD) likely due to higher αvβ3. V T for MDA-MB-231 (0.40 ± 0.04) was comparable to M21 despite lower αvβ3 but in keeping with the higher MVD, suggesting superior tracer distribution. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that radioligand binding kinetics of PET data can be used to discriminate tumors with different αvβ3 integrin expression-a key component of the angiogenesis phenotype-in vivo.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to study the association between RGD binding kinetics and αvβ3 integrin receptor density in the complex tumor milieu. PROCEDURES: We assessed αvβ3 in vitro and by (68)Ga-DOTA-[c(RGDfK)]2 positron emission tomography (PET) in tumors with varying αvβ3. RESULTS: Intrinsic αvβ3 expression decreased in the order of M21 >>> MDA-MB-231 > M21L in cells. Tumor volume of distribution by PET, V T, was significantly higher in M21 compared to isogenic M21L tumors (0.40 ± 0.01 versus 0.25 ± 0.02; p < 0.01) despite similar microvessel density (MVD) likely due to higher αvβ3. V T for MDA-MB-231 (0.40 ± 0.04) was comparable to M21 despite lower αvβ3 but in keeping with the higher MVD, suggesting superior tracer distribution. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that radioligand binding kinetics of PET data can be used to discriminate tumors with different αvβ3 integrin expression-a key component of the angiogenesis phenotype-in vivo.
Authors: Marcel L Janssen; Wim J Oyen; Ingrid Dijkgraaf; Leon F Massuger; Cathelijne Frielink; D Scott Edwards; Milind Rajopadhye; Henk Boonstra; Frans H Corstens; Otto C Boerman Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: B Felding-Habermann; T E O'Toole; J W Smith; E Fransvea; Z M Ruggeri; M H Ginsberg; P E Hughes; N Pampori; S J Shattil; A Saven; B M Mueller Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-02-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: P Workman; E O Aboagye; F Balkwill; A Balmain; G Bruder; D J Chaplin; J A Double; J Everitt; D A H Farningham; M J Glennie; L R Kelland; V Robinson; I J Stratford; G M Tozer; S Watson; S R Wedge; S A Eccles Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Ambros J Beer; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Janette Carlsen; Andreas Kolk; Mario Sarbia; Isabelle Stangier; Petra Watzlowik; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Roland Haubner; Markus Schwaiger Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Rebecca A Dumont; Isabel Hildebrandt; Helen Su; Roland Haubner; Gerald Reischl; Johannes G Czernin; Paul S Mischel; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Giampaolo Tomasi; Laura Kenny; Francesco Mauri; Federico Turkheimer; Eric O Aboagye Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-09-03 Impact factor: 9.236