Chulhan Kim1, In Hye Kim2, Seo-Il Kim2, Young Sang Kim2, Se Hun Kang2, Seung Hwan Moon1, Tae-Sung Kim3, Seok-Ki Kim3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital, National Cancer Center, 111 Jungbalsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do 410-769 South Korea. 2. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Branch, Research Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang-si, South Korea. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital, National Cancer Center, 111 Jungbalsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do 410-769 South Korea ; Molecular Imaging and Therapy Branch, Research Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang-si, South Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared alternative routes for (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) administration, such as the retroorbital (RO), intraperitoneal (IP) and per oral (PO) routes, with the intravenous (IV) route in normal tissues and tumors of mice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CRL-1642 (ATCC, Lewis lung carcinoma) cells were inoculated in female BALB/c-nu/nu mice 6 to 10 weeks old. When the tumor grew to about 9 mm in diameter, positron emission tomography (PET) scans were performed after FDG administration via the RO, IP, PO or IV route. Additional serial PET scans were performed using the RO, IV or IP route alternatively from 5 to 29 days after the tumor cell injection. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the FDG uptake in normal tissues at 60 min after FDG administration via RO, IP and IV routes. PO administration, however, showed delayed distribution and unwanted high gastrointestinal uptake. Tumoral uptake of FDG showed a similar temporal pattern and increased until 60 min after FDG administration in the RO, IP and IV injection groups. In the PO administration group, tumoral uptake was delayed and reduced. There was no statistical difference among the RO, IP and IV administration groups for additional serial PET scans. CONCLUSION: RO administration is an effective alternative route to IV administration for mouse FDG PET scans using normal mice and tumor models. In addition, IP administration can be a practical alternative in the late phase, although the initial uptake is lower than those in the IV and RO groups.
PURPOSE: We compared alternative routes for (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) administration, such as the retroorbital (RO), intraperitoneal (IP) and per oral (PO) routes, with the intravenous (IV) route in normal tissues and tumors of mice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CRL-1642 (ATCC, Lewis lung carcinoma) cells were inoculated in female BALB/c-nu/nu mice 6 to 10 weeks old. When the tumor grew to about 9 mm in diameter, positron emission tomography (PET) scans were performed after FDG administration via the RO, IP, PO or IV route. Additional serial PET scans were performed using the RO, IV or IP route alternatively from 5 to 29 days after the tumor cell injection. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the FDG uptake in normal tissues at 60 min after FDG administration via RO, IP and IV routes. PO administration, however, showed delayed distribution and unwanted high gastrointestinal uptake. Tumoral uptake of FDG showed a similar temporal pattern and increased until 60 min after FDG administration in the RO, IP and IV injection groups. In the PO administration group, tumoral uptake was delayed and reduced. There was no statistical difference among the RO, IP and IV administration groups for additional serial PET scans. CONCLUSION:RO administration is an effective alternative route to IV administration for mouseFDG PET scans using normal mice and tumor models. In addition, IP administration can be a practical alternative in the late phase, although the initial uptake is lower than those in the IV and RO groups.
Entities:
Keywords:
Administration route; FDG; Intraperitoneal; Intravenous; Per oral; Retroorbital; Small animal PET
Authors: Barbara J Fueger; Johannes Czernin; Isabel Hildebrandt; Chris Tran; Benjamin S Halpern; David Stout; Michael E Phelps; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Zhongxing Liang; Heidi T Cho; Larry Williams; Aizhi Zhu; Ke Liang; Ke Huang; Hui Wu; Chunsu Jiang; Samuel Hong; Ronald Crowe; Mark M Goodman; Hyunsuk Shim Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-11-24
Authors: Adam R Schoell; Bruce R Heyde; Dana E Weir; Po-Chang Chiang; Yiding Hu; David K Tung Journal: J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 1.232
Authors: Bethany Mills; Ramla O Awais; Jeni Luckett; Dave Turton; Paul Williams; Alan C Perkins; Philip J Hill Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Francesco Cicone; David Viertl; Ana Maria Quintela Pousa; Thibaut Denoël; Silvano Gnesin; Francesco Scopinaro; Marie-Catherine Vozenin; John O Prior Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2017-03-29