UNLABELLED: We compared the imaging characteristics and hypoxia selectivity of 4 hypoxia PET radiotracers ((18)F-fluoromisonidazole [(18)F-FMISO], (18)F-flortanidazole [(18)F-HX4], (18)F-fluoroazomycin arabinoside [(18)F-FAZA], and (64)Cu-diacetyl-bis(N4-methylsemicarbazone) [(64)Cu-ATSM]) in a single murine xenograft tumor model condition using small-animal PET imaging and combined ex vivo autoradiography and fluorescence immunohistochemistry. METHODS: Nude mice bearing SQ20b xenograft tumors were administered 1 of 4 hypoxia PET tracers and images acquired 80-90 min after injection. Frozen sections from excised tumors were then evaluated for tracer distribution using digital autoradiography and compared with histologic markers of tumor hypoxia (pimonidazole, carbonic anydrase 9 [CA9]) and vascular perfusion (Hoechst 33342). RESULTS: The highest tumor uptake was observed with (64)Cu-ATSM (maximum standardized uptake values [SUV(max)], 1.26 ± 0.13) and the lowest with (18)F-FAZA (SUVmax, 0.41 ± 0.24). (18)F-FMISO and (18)F-HX4 had similar intermediate tumor uptake (SUV(max), 0.76 ± 0.38 and 0.65 ± 0.19, respectively). Digital autoradiographs of hypoxia tracer distribution were compared pixel by pixel with images of immunohistochemistry stains. The fluorinated nitroimidazoles all showed radiotracer uptake increasing with pimonidazole and CA9 staining. (64)Cu-ATSM showed the opposite pattern, with highest radiotracer uptake observed in regions with the lowest pimonidazole and CA9 staining. CONCLUSION: The fluorinated nitroimidazoles showed similar tumor distributions when compared with immunohistochemistry markers of hypoxia. Variations in tumor standardized uptake value and normal tissue distribution may determine the most appropriate clinical setting for each tracer. (64)Cu-ATSM showed the highest tumor accumulation and little renal clearance. However, the lack of correlation between (64)Cu-ATSM distribution and immunohistochemistry hypoxia markers casts some doubt on the hypoxia selectivity of (64)Cu-ATSM.
UNLABELLED: We compared the imaging characteristics and hypoxia selectivity of 4 hypoxiaPET radiotracers ((18)F-fluoromisonidazole [(18)F-FMISO], (18)F-flortanidazole [(18)F-HX4], (18)F-fluoroazomycin arabinoside [(18)F-FAZA], and (64)Cu-diacetyl-bis(N4-methylsemicarbazone) [(64)Cu-ATSM]) in a single murine xenograft tumor model condition using small-animal PET imaging and combined ex vivo autoradiography and fluorescence immunohistochemistry. METHODS:Nude mice bearing SQ20b xenograft tumors were administered 1 of 4 hypoxiaPET tracers and images acquired 80-90 min after injection. Frozen sections from excised tumors were then evaluated for tracer distribution using digital autoradiography and compared with histologic markers of tumor hypoxia (pimonidazole, carbonic anydrase 9 [CA9]) and vascular perfusion (Hoechst 33342). RESULTS: The highest tumor uptake was observed with (64)Cu-ATSM (maximum standardized uptake values [SUV(max)], 1.26 ± 0.13) and the lowest with (18)F-FAZA (SUVmax, 0.41 ± 0.24). (18)F-FMISO and (18)F-HX4 had similar intermediate tumor uptake (SUV(max), 0.76 ± 0.38 and 0.65 ± 0.19, respectively). Digital autoradiographs of hypoxia tracer distribution were compared pixel by pixel with images of immunohistochemistry stains. The fluorinated nitroimidazoles all showed radiotracer uptake increasing with pimonidazole and CA9 staining. (64)Cu-ATSM showed the opposite pattern, with highest radiotracer uptake observed in regions with the lowest pimonidazole and CA9 staining. CONCLUSION: The fluorinated nitroimidazoles showed similar tumor distributions when compared with immunohistochemistry markers of hypoxia. Variations in tumor standardized uptake value and normal tissue distribution may determine the most appropriate clinical setting for each tracer. (64)Cu-ATSM showed the highest tumor accumulation and little renal clearance. However, the lack of correlation between (64)Cu-ATSM distribution and immunohistochemistry hypoxia markers casts some doubt on the hypoxia selectivity of (64)Cu-ATSM.
Authors: Kyung Hwan Shin; Juan A Diaz-Gonzalez; James Russell; Qing Chen; Paul Burgman; Xiao-Feng Li; C Clifton Ling Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Miriam M Kleiter; Donald E Thrall; David E Malarkey; Xiaoshen Ji; David Y W Lee; Shu-Chuan Chou; James A Raleigh Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-11-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Quynh-Thu Le; Christina Kong; Phillip W Lavori; Ken O'byrne; Janine T Erler; Xin Huang; Yijun Chen; Hongbin Cao; Robert Tibshirani; Nic Denko; Amato J Giaccia; Albert C Koong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Farrokh Dehdashti; Perry W Grigsby; Jason S Lewis; Richard Laforest; Barry A Siegel; Michael J Welch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-01-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jason S Lewis; Richard Laforest; Farrokh Dehdashti; Perry W Grigsby; Michael J Welch; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-06-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Douglas S MacPherson; Kimberly Fung; Brendon E Cook; Lynn C Francesconi; Brian M Zeglis Journal: Dalton Trans Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 4.390
Authors: Jon Cacicedo; Arturo Navarro; Olga Del Hoyo; Alfonso Gomez-Iturriaga; Filippo Alongi; Jose A Medina; Olgun Elicin; Andrea Skanjeti; Francesco Giammarile; Pedro Bilbao; Francisco Casquero; Berardino de Bari; Alan Dal Pra Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Eric W Price; Kimberly J Edwards; Kathryn E Carnazza; Sean D Carlin; Brian M Zeglis; Michael J Adam; Chris Orvig; Jason S Lewis Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Eric W Price; Kathryn E Carnazza; Sean D Carlin; Andrew Cho; Kimberly J Edwards; Kuntal K Sevak; Jonathan M Glaser; Elisa de Stanchina; Yelena Y Janjigian; Jason S Lewis Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jeroen A C M Goos; Maria Davydova; Nigel Lengkeek; Ivan Greguric; Michael R Whittaker; John F Quinn; Jonathan B Baell; Jason S Lewis; Thomas P Davis Journal: Macromol Rapid Commun Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 5.734
Authors: Connie Yip; Philip J Blower; Vicky Goh; David B Landau; Gary J R Cook Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 9.236