| Literature DB >> 25977879 |
Antti Silvoniemi1, Jonna Silén2, Sarita Forsback2, Eliisa Löyttyniemi3, Aleksi R Schrey4, Olof Solin2, Reidar Grénman4, Heikki Minn5, Tove J Grönroos5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor hypoxia is linked to invasion and metastasis but whether this associates with tumor growth rate is not well understood. We aimed to study the relationship between hypoxia evaluated with the positron emission tomography (PET) tracer [(18)F]EF5 and tumor growth. Our second goal was to assess the variability in the uptake of [(18)F]EF5 in tumor between two scans.Entities:
Keywords: HNSCC; Hypoxia; PET/CT; Tumor growth rate; Xenograft; [18F]EF5; [18F]FDG
Year: 2014 PMID: 25977879 PMCID: PMC4412195 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-014-0065-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Res Impact factor: 3.138
Characteristics of the cell lines
| UT-SCC 8 | Male | Supraglottic larynx | T2N0M0 | Primary | G1 |
| UT-SCC 34 | Male | Supraglottic larynx | T4N0M0 | Primary | G1 |
| UT-SCC 70 | Male | Hypopharynx | T4N1M0 | Primary | G3 |
| UT-SCC 74A | Male | Mobile tongue | T3N1M0 | Primary | G1 to G2 |
[ F]FDG and [ F]EF5 uptake values, tumor volumes, and tumor growth rates
| 1 | 8 | 1.59 | 2.15 | 0.54 | 0.90 | 0.99 | 1.60 | 26 | 29 | 183 | 8.20 |
| 2 | 8 | 1.31 | 2.21 | 1.41 | 3.45 | 0.68 | 1.03 | 26 | 91 | 685 | 8.69 |
| 3 | 8 | 1.51 | 2.31 | 1.39 | 2.86 | 0.95 | 1.15 | 26 | 45 | 275 | 7.38 |
| 4 | 34 | 1.80 | 2.99 | 2.35 | 3.15 | 2.42 | 2.89 | 5 | 325 | 367 | 14.08 |
| 5 | 34 | 3.06 | 4.44 | 1.96 | 2.56 | 2.75 | 3.64 | 7 | 330 | 408 | 11.92 |
| 6 | 74A | 2.23 | 3.71 | 1.30 | 1.80 | 1.75 | 2.56 | 36 | 223 | 660 | 6.64 |
| 7 | 74A | 2.76 | 3.89 | 0.88 | 1.30 | 2.67 | 3.34 | 14 | 53 | 105 | 12.08 |
| 8 | 70 | 1.06 | 2.89 | 1.50 | 3.18 | 1.37 | 2.62 | 15 | 340 | 569 | 6.11 |
| 9 | 70 | 1.70 | 5.13 | 1.39 | 2.17 | 1.03 | 2.15 | 35 | 93 | 274 | 5.29 |
| 10 | 70 | 4.58 | 10.89 | 2.16 | 3.28 | 1.62 | 3.39 | 35 | 30 | 168 | 9.17 |
| Median | 1.75 | 3.35 | 1.40 | 2.71 | 1.50 | 2.59 | 26 | 92 | 321 | 8.45 | |
| (Q1-Q3) | (1.51 to 2.76) | (2.31 to 4.44) | (1.30 to 1.96) | (1.80 to 3.18) | (0.99 to 2.42) | (1.60 to 3.34) | (14 to 35) | (45 to 325) | (183 to 569) | (6.64 to 11.92) |
Figure 1Growth curve, PET data, and partial pOmeasurements from tumor nr 5. (A) Growth curve of the tumor with the starting point and end point of the exponential growth period. (B) Axial PET/CT images of the tumor. (C) Time-activity curves of the tracer uptake into the tumor in the [18F]FDG scan and in the first and second [18F]EF5 scan. (D) Measurements of the partial pressure of oxygen in the tumor.
Figure 2Whole tumor uptake of [ F]EF5 in the repeated PET/CT scans.
Figure 3Whole tumor uptake values compared to the tumor growth rate. The black line indicates the linear relationship between tumor growth rate and the tracer uptake in the [18F]FDG-scans (A) and in the first (B) and second (C) [18F]EF5 scans. UT-SCC8 (filled triangle), UT-SCC34 (filled diamond), UT-SCC74A (filled circle), and UT-SCC70 (filled square).
Figure 4Hottest cluster (HC 10%) tumor uptake values compared to the tumor growth rate. The black line indicates the linear relationship between tumor growth rate and the tracer uptake in the [18F]FDG-scans (A) and in the first (B) and second (C) [18F]EF5 scans. UT-SCC8 (filled triangle), UT-SCC34 (filled diamond), UT-SCC74A (filled circle), and UT-SCC70 (filled square).