George H Wilson1, John C Gore2, Thomas E Yankeelov3, Stephanie Barnes4, Todd E Peterson4, Jarrod M True1, Sepideh Shokouhi4, J Oliver McIntyre3, Melinda Sanders5, Vandana Abramson6, The-Quyen Ngyuen7, Anita Mahadevan-Jansen7, Mohammed N Tantawy8. 1. Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 2. Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee Department of Cancer Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 4. Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 5. Department of Pathology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; and. 6. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 7. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 8. Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee n.tantawy@vanderbilt.edu.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Current radiologic methods for diagnosing breast cancer detect specific morphologic features of solid tumors or any associated calcium deposits. These deposits originate from an early molecular microcalcification process of 2 types: type 1 is calcium oxylate and type II is carbonated calcium hydroxyapatite. Type I microcalcifications are associated mainly with benign tumors, whereas type II microcalcifications are produced internally by malignant cells. No current noninvasive in vivo techniques are available for detecting intratumoral microcalcifications. Such a technique would have a significant impact on breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis in preclinical and clinical settings. (18)F-NaF PET has been used solely for bone imaging by targeting the bone hydroxyapatite. In this work, we provide preliminary evidence that (18)F-NaF PET imaging can be used to detect breast cancer by targeting the hydroxyapatite lattice within the tumor microenvironment with high specificity and soft-tissue contrast-to-background ratio while delineating tumors from inflammation. METHODS: Mice were injected with approximately 10(6) MDA-MB-231 cells subcutaneously and imaged with (18)F-NaF PET/CT in a 120-min dynamic sequence when the tumors reached a size of 200-400 mm(3). Regions of interest were drawn around the tumor, muscle, and bone. The concentrations of radiotracer within those regions of interest were compared with one another. For comparison to inflammation, rats with inflamed paws were subjected to (18)F-NaF PET imaging. RESULTS: Tumor uptake of (18)F(-) was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than muscle uptake, with the tumor-to-muscle ratio being about 3.5. The presence of type II microcalcification in the MDA-MB-231 cell line was confirmed histologically using alizarin red S and von Kossa staining as well as Raman microspectroscopy. No uptake of (18)F(-) was observed in the inflamed tissue of the rats. Lack of hydroxyapatite in the inflamed tissue was verified histologically. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence suggesting that specific targeting with (18)F(-) of hydroxyapatite within the tumor microenvironment may be able to distinguish between inflammation and cancer.
UNLABELLED: Current radiologic methods for diagnosing breast cancer detect specific morphologic features of solid tumors or any associated calcium deposits. These deposits originate from an early molecular microcalcification process of 2 types: type 1 is calcium oxylate and type II is carbonated calcium hydroxyapatite. Type I microcalcifications are associated mainly with benign tumors, whereas type II microcalcifications are produced internally by malignant cells. No current noninvasive in vivo techniques are available for detecting intratumoral microcalcifications. Such a technique would have a significant impact on breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis in preclinical and clinical settings. (18)F-NaF PET has been used solely for bone imaging by targeting the bone hydroxyapatite. In this work, we provide preliminary evidence that (18)F-NaF PET imaging can be used to detect breast cancer by targeting the hydroxyapatite lattice within the tumor microenvironment with high specificity and soft-tissue contrast-to-background ratio while delineating tumors from inflammation. METHODS:Mice were injected with approximately 10(6) MDA-MB-231 cells subcutaneously and imaged with (18)F-NaF PET/CT in a 120-min dynamic sequence when the tumors reached a size of 200-400 mm(3). Regions of interest were drawn around the tumor, muscle, and bone. The concentrations of radiotracer within those regions of interest were compared with one another. For comparison to inflammation, rats with inflamed paws were subjected to (18)F-NaF PET imaging. RESULTS:Tumor uptake of (18)F(-) was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than muscle uptake, with the tumor-to-muscle ratio being about 3.5. The presence of type II microcalcification in the MDA-MB-231 cell line was confirmed histologically using alizarin red S and von Kossa staining as well as Raman microspectroscopy. No uptake of (18)F(-) was observed in the inflamed tissue of the rats. Lack of hydroxyapatite in the inflamed tissue was verified histologically. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence suggesting that specific targeting with (18)F(-) of hydroxyapatite within the tumor microenvironment may be able to distinguish between inflammation and cancer.
Authors: Alvaro A Ordonez; Vincent P DeMarco; Mariah H Klunk; Supriya Pokkali; Sanjay K Jain Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: William Raynor; Sina Houshmand; Saeid Gholami; Sahra Emamzadehfard; Chamith S Rajapakse; Björn Alexander Blomberg; Thomas J Werner; Poul F Høilund-Carlsen; Joshua F Baker; Abass Alavi Journal: Curr Osteoporos Rep Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 5.096
Authors: Dayo D Felix; John C Gore; Thomas E Yankeelov; Todd E Peterson; Stephanie Barnes; Jennifer Whisenant; Jared Weis; Sepideh Shoukouhi; John Virostko; Michael Nickels; J Oliver McIntyre; Melinda Sanders; Vandana Abramson; Mohammed N Tantawy Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Alain P Gobert; Olivier Boutaud; Mohammad Asim; Irene A Zagol-Ikapitte; Alberto G Delgado; Yvonne L Latour; Jordan L Finley; Kshipra Singh; Thomas G Verriere; Margaret M Allaman; Daniel P Barry; Kara M McNamara; Johanna C Sierra; Venkataraman Amarnath; Mohammed N Tantawy; Diane Bimczok; M Blanca Piazuelo; M Kay Washington; Shilin Zhao; Lori A Coburn; Keith T Wilson Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 33.883
Authors: Anum K Syed; Jennifer G Whisenant; Stephanie L Barnes; Anna G Sorace; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 6.639