Kun Zheng1, Naixin Liang2, Jingjing Zhang1, Lixin Lang3, Wei Zhang1, Shanqing Li2, Jun Zhao4, Gang Niu3, Fang Li1, Zhaohui Zhu5, Xiaoyuan Chen6. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. 3. Laboratory of Molecular Imaging and Nanomedicine (LOMIN), National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and. 4. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China shawn.chen@nih.gov zhuzhh@pumch.cn. 6. Laboratory of Molecular Imaging and Nanomedicine (LOMIN), National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and shawn.chen@nih.gov zhuzhh@pumch.cn.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This study was designed to assess the diagnostic value of (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 (NOTA-PRGD2 is NOTA-PEG4-E[c(RGDfK)]2) PET/CT in lung cancer. METHODS: Ninety-one patients (48 men and 43 women; age, 22-82 y) with suspected lung lesions on CT were enrolled with informed consent. Immediately after intravenous injection of 117.7 ± 37.7 MBq of (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2, 15 patients underwent dynamic whole-body PET/CT scans for 1-2 h, and the remaining 76 patients underwent whole-body PET/CT scans at 30 ± 10 min after bolus injection. Each patient also underwent standard (18)F-FDG PET/CT for comparison. RESULTS: No side effect was found after (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 injection. (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 was rapidly cleared from the blood pool and primarily excreted through the urinary system. The standardized uptake values of proven malignancies were significantly higher than those of the benign ones. With an average standardized uptake value of greater than 1.3 being considered malignant, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 PET/CT in diagnosing lung cancer were 83.8% (57/68), 91.3% (21/23), and 85.7% (78/91), respectively. The diagnostic value of (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 for lung cancer is comparable to that of (18)F-FDG PET/CT. However, (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 PET/CT is more specific than (18)F-FDG PET/CT in assessing lymph node metastasis, with positive and negative predictive values of 90.0% (27/30) and 93.8% (121/129), respectively, whereas those of (18)F-FDG PET/CT were 30.2% (29/96) and 90.5% (57/63), respectively. CONCLUSION: This study indicates the efficacy of (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 PET/CT in lung cancer diagnosis. (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 PET/CT shows significant advantage over (18)F-FDG PET/CT in judging metastatic lymph nodes with higher specificity.
UNLABELLED: This study was designed to assess the diagnostic value of (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 (NOTA-PRGD2 is NOTA-PEG4-E[c(RGDfK)]2) PET/CT in lung cancer. METHODS: Ninety-one patients (48 men and 43 women; age, 22-82 y) with suspected lung lesions on CT were enrolled with informed consent. Immediately after intravenous injection of 117.7 ± 37.7 MBq of (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2, 15 patients underwent dynamic whole-body PET/CT scans for 1-2 h, and the remaining 76 patients underwent whole-body PET/CT scans at 30 ± 10 min after bolus injection. Each patient also underwent standard (18)F-FDG PET/CT for comparison. RESULTS: No side effect was found after (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 injection. (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 was rapidly cleared from the blood pool and primarily excreted through the urinary system. The standardized uptake values of proven malignancies were significantly higher than those of the benign ones. With an average standardized uptake value of greater than 1.3 being considered malignant, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 PET/CT in diagnosing lung cancer were 83.8% (57/68), 91.3% (21/23), and 85.7% (78/91), respectively. The diagnostic value of (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 for lung cancer is comparable to that of (18)F-FDG PET/CT. However, (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 PET/CT is more specific than (18)F-FDG PET/CT in assessing lymph node metastasis, with positive and negative predictive values of 90.0% (27/30) and 93.8% (121/129), respectively, whereas those of (18)F-FDG PET/CT were 30.2% (29/96) and 90.5% (57/63), respectively. CONCLUSION: This study indicates the efficacy of (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 PET/CT in lung cancer diagnosis. (68)Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 PET/CT shows significant advantage over (18)F-FDG PET/CT in judging metastatic lymph nodes with higher specificity.
Authors: I Iskender; H O Kapicibasi; S Z Kadioglu; G Sevilgen; C Tezel; A Kosar'; A Atasalihi; A Kir Journal: Acta Chir Belg Date: 2012 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.090
Authors: Ambros J Beer; Jaroslav Pelisek; Peter Heider; Antti Saraste; Christian Reeps; Stephan Metz; Stefan Seidl; Horst Kessler; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Hans Henning Eckstein; Markus Schwaiger Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-01-08
Authors: E Noiri; M S Goligorsky; G J Wang; J Wang; C J Cabahug; S Sharma; B A Rhodes; P Som Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 1996-12 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Xiaoyuan Chen; Shuang Liu; Yingping Hou; Michel Tohme; Ryan Park; James R Bading; Peter S Conti Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Xiaoyuan Chen; Ryan Park; Anthony H Shahinian; Michel Tohme; Vazgen Khankaldyyan; Mohammed H Bozorgzadeh; James R Bading; Rex Moats; Walter E Laug; Peter S Conti Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Lutz S Freudenberg; Sandra J Rosenbaum; Thomas Beyer; Andreas Bockisch; Gerald Antoch Journal: Radiol Clin North Am Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Daphne Lobeek; Gerben M Franssen; Michelle T Ma; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Clemens Decristoforo; Wim J G Oyen; Otto C Boerman; Samantha Y A Terry; Mark Rijpkema Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Thomas Ebenhan; Isabel Schoeman; Daniel D Rossouw; Anne Grobler; Biljana Marjanovic-Painter; Judith Wagener; Hendrik G Kruger; Mike M Sathekge; Jan Rijn Zeevaart Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Ingrid J G Burvenich; Sagun Parakh; Adam C Parslow; Sze Ting Lee; Hui K Gan; Andrew M Scott Journal: AAPS J Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 4.009