Literature DB >> 25163420

Comparison of [¹¹C]choline ([¹¹C]CHO) and S(+)-β-methyl-[¹¹C]choline ([¹¹C]SMC) as imaging probes for prostate cancer in a PC-3 prostate cancer xenograft model.

Sarah Marie Schwarzenböck1, Jana Gertz, Michael Souvatzoglou, Jens Kurth, David Sachs, Roman Nawroth, Uwe Treiber, Tibor Schuster, Reingard Senekowitsch-Schmidtke, Markus Schwaiger, Sibylle Ilse Ziegler, Gjermund Henriksen, Hans-Jürgen Wester, Bernd Joachim Krause.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Carbon-11- and fluorine-18-labeled choline derivatives have been introduced as promising tracers for prostate cancer imaging. However, due to limited specificity and sensitivity, there is a need for new tracers with higher sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing prostate cancer to improve tracer uptake and enhance imaging contrast. The aim of this study was to compare the properties of [(11)C]choline ([(11)C]CHO) with S(+)-β-methyl-[(11)C]choline ([(11)C]SMC) as tracer for prostate cancer imaging in a human prostate tumor mouse xenograft model by small-animal positron emission tomography/X-ray computed tomography (PET/CT). PROCEDURES: We carried out a dual-tracer small-animal PET/CT study comparing [(11)C]CHO and [(11)C]SMC. The androgen-independent human prostate tumor cell line PC3 was implanted subcutaneously in the flanks of Naval Medical Research Institute (NMRI) (nu/nu) mice (n = 11). Mice-6 weeks post-xenograft implantation-were injected with 37 MBq [(11)C]CHO via the tail vein. On a separate day, the mice were injected with 37 MBq [(11)C]SMC. Dynamic imaging was performed for 60 min with the Inveon animal PET/CT scanner (Siemens Medical Solutions) on two separate days (randomizing the sequence of the tracers). The dynamic PET images were acquired in list mode. Regions of interest (5 × 5 × 5 mm) were placed in transaxial slices in tumor, muscle (thigh), liver, kidney, and blood. Image analysis was performed calculating tumor to muscle (T/M) ratios based on summed images as well as dynamic data.
RESULTS: For [(11)C]SMC, the mean T/M ratio was 2.24 ± 0.56 while the corresponding mean [(11)C]CHO T/M ratio was 1.35 ± 0.28. The T/M ratio for [(11)C]SMC was significant higher compared to [(11)C]CHO (p < 0.001). The time course of T/M ratio (T/Mdyn ratio) of [(11)C]SMC was higher compared to [(11)C]CHO with a statistically significant difference between the magnitudes of the T/M ratios and a significant different change of the T/M ratios over time between [(11)C]CHO and [(11)C]SMC.
CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that [(11)C]SMC is taken up by the tumor in the PC-3 prostate cancer xenograft model. [(11)C]SMC uptake was significantly higher compared to the clinically utilized [(11)C]CHO tracer with a higher contrast allowing imaging of a prostate cancer xenograft.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25163420     DOI: 10.1007/s11307-014-0782-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol        ISSN: 1536-1632            Impact factor:   3.488


  26 in total

1.  Comparative in vitro and in vivo evaluation of two 64Cu-labeled bombesin analogs in a mouse model of human prostate adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Yi-Shan Yang; Xianzhong Zhang; Zhengming Xiong; Xiaoyuan Chen
Journal:  Nucl Med Biol       Date:  2006-03-09       Impact factor: 2.408

2.  Novel radiolabeled peptides for breast and prostate tumor PET imaging: (64)Cu/and (68)Ga/NOTA-PEG-[D-Tyr(6),βAla(11),Thi(13),Nle(14)]BBN(6-14).

Authors:  Patrick Fournier; Véronique Dumulon-Perreault; Samia Ait-Mohand; Sébastien Tremblay; François Bénard; Roger Lecomte; Brigitte Guérin
Journal:  Bioconjug Chem       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 4.774

3.  Kinetics of choline transport and phosphorylation in human breast cancer cells; NMR application of the zero trans method.

Authors:  R Katz-Brull; H Degani
Journal:  Anticancer Res       Date:  1996 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.480

4.  Automated synthesis of [11C]choline, a positron-emitting tracer for tumor imaging.

Authors:  T Hara; M Yuasa
Journal:  Appl Radiat Isot       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 1.513

5.  Choline transporter as a novel target for molecular imaging of cancer.

Authors:  Toshihiko Hara; Aditya Bansal; Timothy R DeGrado
Journal:  Mol Imaging       Date:  2006 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 4.488

6.  PET imaging of prostate cancer xenografts with a highly specific antibody against the prostate-specific membrane antigen.

Authors:  Ursula Elsässer-Beile; Gerald Reischl; Stefan Wiehr; Patrick Bühler; Philipp Wolf; Karen Alt; John Shively; Martin S Judenhofer; Hans-Jürgen Machulla; Bernd J Pichler
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-03-16       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  Characterization of choline uptake in prostate cancer cells following bicalutamide and docetaxel treatment.

Authors:  Sebastian A Müller; Korbinian Holzapfel; Christof Seidl; Uwe Treiber; Bernd J Krause; Reingard Senekowitsch-Schmidtke
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-04-08       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Synthesis and preclinical evaluation of the choline transport tracer deshydroxy-[18F]fluorocholine ([18F]dOC).

Authors:  G Henriksen; M Herz; A Hauser; M Schwaiger; H-J Wester
Journal:  Nucl Med Biol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.408

9.  Stereospecificity of high- and low-affinity transport of choline analogues into rat cortical synaptosomes.

Authors:  S S Ferguson; M Diksic; B Collier
Journal:  J Neurochem       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 5.372

10.  Small-animal PET of tumors with (64)Cu-labeled RGD-bombesin heterodimer.

Authors:  Zhaofei Liu; Zi-Bo Li; Qizhen Cao; Shuanglong Liu; Fan Wang; Xiaoyuan Chen
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  2 in total

1.  Comparison of [(11)C]Choline ([(11)C]CHO) and [(18)F]Bombesin (BAY 86-4367) as Imaging Probes for Prostate Cancer in a PC-3 Prostate Cancer Xenograft Model.

Authors:  Sarah Marie Schwarzenböck; Philipp Schmeja; Jens Kurth; Michael Souvatzoglou; Roman Nawroth; Uwe Treiber; Guenther Kundt; Sandra Berndt; Keith Graham; Reingard Senekowitsch-Schmidtke; Markus Schwaiger; Sibylle I Ziegler; Ludger Dinkelborg; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Bernd Joachim Krause
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 2.  Biomarkers in preclinical cancer imaging.

Authors:  Monique R Bernsen; Klazina Kooiman; Marcel Segbers; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Marion de Jong
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-02-12       Impact factor: 9.236

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.