Urban Simoncic1, Scott Perlman2, Glenn Liu3, Mary Jane Staab4, Jane Elizabeth Straus4, Robert Jeraj5. 1. Jozef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; Centre of Excellence for Biosensors, Instrumentation and Process Control (COBIK), Ajdovscina, Slovenia. Electronic address: urban.simoncic@ijs.si. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. 3. Genitourinary Oncology Research Program, University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. 4. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. 5. Jozef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; Centre of Excellence for Biosensors, Instrumentation and Process Control (COBIK), Ajdovscina, Slovenia; University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessment of skeletal metastases' response to therapy is a highly relevant but unresolved clinical problem. The main goal of this work was to compare pharmacodynamic responses to therapy assessed with positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) using fluorine-18 sodium fluoride (NaF) and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) as the tracers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with prostate cancer with known osseous metastases were treated with zibotentan (ZD4054) and imaged with combined dynamic NaF/FDG PET/CT before therapy (baseline), after 4 weeks of therapy (week 4), and after 2 weeks of treatment break (week 6). Kinetic analysis allowed comparison of the voxel-based tracer uptake rate parameter Ki, the vasculature parameters K1 (measuring perfusion/permeability) and Vb (measuring vasculature fraction in the tissue), and the standardized uptake values (SUVs). RESULTS: Correlations were high for the NaF and FDG peak uptake parameters (Ki and SUV correlations ranged from 0.57 to 0.88) and for vasculature parameters (K1 and Vb correlations ranged from 0.61 to 0.81). Correlation was low between the NaF and FDG week 4 Ki responses (ρ = 0.35; P = .084) but was higher for NaF and FDG week 6 Ki responses (ρ = 0.72; P < .0001). Correlations for vasculature responses were always low (ρ < 0.35). NaF and FDG uptakes in the osseous metastases were spatially dislocated, with overlap in the range from 0% to 80%. CONCLUSION: This study found that late NaF and FDG uptake responses are consistently correlated but that earlier uptake responses and all vasculature responses can be unrelated. This study also confirmed that FDG and NaF uptakes are spatially dislocated. Although treatment responses assessed with NaF and FDG may be correlated, using both tracers provides additional information.
BACKGROUND: Assessment of skeletal metastases' response to therapy is a highly relevant but unresolved clinical problem. The main goal of this work was to compare pharmacodynamic responses to therapy assessed with positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) using fluorine-18 sodium fluoride (NaF) and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) as the tracers. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with prostate cancer with known osseous metastases were treated with zibotentan (ZD4054) and imaged with combined dynamic NaF/FDG PET/CT before therapy (baseline), after 4 weeks of therapy (week 4), and after 2 weeks of treatment break (week 6). Kinetic analysis allowed comparison of the voxel-based tracer uptake rate parameter Ki, the vasculature parameters K1 (measuring perfusion/permeability) and Vb (measuring vasculature fraction in the tissue), and the standardized uptake values (SUVs). RESULTS: Correlations were high for the NaF and FDG peak uptake parameters (Ki and SUV correlations ranged from 0.57 to 0.88) and for vasculature parameters (K1 and Vb correlations ranged from 0.61 to 0.81). Correlation was low between the NaF and FDG week 4 Ki responses (ρ = 0.35; P = .084) but was higher for NaF and FDG week 6 Ki responses (ρ = 0.72; P < .0001). Correlations for vasculature responses were always low (ρ < 0.35). NaF and FDG uptakes in the osseous metastases were spatially dislocated, with overlap in the range from 0% to 80%. CONCLUSION: This study found that late NaF and FDG uptake responses are consistently correlated but that earlier uptake responses and all vasculature responses can be unrelated. This study also confirmed that FDG and NaF uptakes are spatially dislocated. Although treatment responses assessed with NaF and FDG may be correlated, using both tracers provides additional information.
Authors: Frank I Lin; Jyotsna E Rao; Erik S Mittra; Kavitha Nallapareddy; Alka Chengapa; David W Dick; Sanjiv Sam Gambhir; Andrei Iagaru Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Robert K Doot; Mark Muzi; Lanell M Peterson; Erin K Schubert; Julie R Gralow; Jennifer M Specht; David A Mankoff Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: R A Hawkins; Y Choi; S C Huang; C K Hoh; M Dahlbom; C Schiepers; N Satyamurthy; J R Barrio; M E Phelps Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1992-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andrei Iagaru; Erik Mittra; Camila Mosci; David W Dick; Mike Sathekge; Vineet Prakash; Victor Iyer; Paula Lapa; Jorge Isidoro; Joao M de Lima; Sanjiv Sam Gambhir Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Karim Fizazi; Karim S Fizazi; Celestia S Higano; Joel B Nelson; Martin Gleave; Kurt Miller; Thomas Morris; Faith E Nathan; Stuart McIntosh; Kristine Pemberton; Judd W Moul Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-04-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Howard I Scher; Susan Halabi; Ian Tannock; Michael Morris; Cora N Sternberg; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Celestia Higano; Glenn J Bubley; Robert Dreicer; Daniel Petrylak; Philip Kantoff; Ethan Basch; William Kevin Kelly; William D Figg; Eric J Small; Tomasz M Beer; George Wilding; Alison Martin; Maha Hussain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stephanie A Harmon; Timothy Perk; Christie Lin; Jens Eickhoff; Peter L Choyke; William L Dahut; Andrea B Apolo; John L Humm; Steven M Larson; Michael J Morris; Glenn Liu; Robert Jeraj Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Antonio José Conde Moreno; Carlos Ferrer Albiach; Rodrigo Muelas Soria; Verónica González Vidal; Raquel García Gómez; María Albert Antequera Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 3.481