| Literature DB >> 26543028 |
Charline Lasnon1,2,3, Audrey Emmanuelle Dugué4, Mélanie Briand5, Soizic Dutoit5, Nicolas Aide5,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tail vein injection under short anesthesia is the most commonly used route for administering radiopharmaceuticals. However, the small caliber of the vein in rodents may lead to tracer extravasation and thereby compromise quantitative accuracy of PET. We aimed to evaluate a method for correction of interstitial radiotracer leakage in the context of pre-clinical therapeutic response assessment.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer research; Extravasation; Quantification; Small animal PET; Tail vein injection; Therapy assessment
Year: 2015 PMID: 26543028 PMCID: PMC4635168 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-015-0141-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Res Impact factor: 3.138
Fig. 1Representative images in animals with and without misinjection. Maximum intensity projection (MIP) visualization of the small animal positron emission tomography/computed tomography (SA-PET/CT) reconstruction for a treated rat in the second experiment without tracer extravasation on day 0 (a) and with tracer extravasation on day 3 (b). On day 3, a volume of interest (VOI) region was manually drawn and a visually adapted. Isocontour was applied (displayed in green) to quantify and correct for tail vein extravasation. Yellow arrows show the subcutaneous tumors
Frequency and ranges of tail vein extravasation activity values
| Percentage of injected dose remaining in tail vein | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [0–2] | [2–5] | [5–10] | >10 | ||
| Experiment 1 | Observer A ( | 7 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Observer B ( | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | |
| Experiment 2 | Observer A ( | 11 | 3 | 5 | 0 |
| Observer B ( | 7 | 5 | 3 | 1 | |
Fig. 2Frequency of tail vein extravasations depending on group and protocol time points. Panels a and b display the first experiment results and panels c and d display the second experiment results. For groups and protocol time point studies, only data of observer A is used. Of note, only three animals were scanned on day 7 because two treated rats had died from treatment toxicity
Fig. 3Relationship between quantitative values recorded by observers a and b. Tail vein activity measurements (kBq) were compared using Bland–Altman plot. The first experiment data is displayed in blue and the second experiment data in green
Fig. 4Comparison of corrected and uncorrected SUVmean values. a, b Upper panels display the SUVmean values of the first experiment, and c, d lower panels display the SUVmean values of the second experiment, as recorded by observer A. Data is shown as Tukey boxplots (left panels, lines displaying median, 25th and 75th percentiles; cross represents the mean value) and Bland–Altman plots (right panels)
Fig. 5Uncorrected and corrected quantitative values in two therapy assessment experiments. Standard uptake values (SUVmean) relative to day 0 (medians, quartiles and means (star) for control and treated groups across all times points for the first and second experiments with uncorrected (a) and corrected (b) data. Quantitative values were extracted from observer A data. Legend for p values: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, and *p < 0.05
Summary of the main studies that have evaluated tail vein extravasation
| Vines et al. | Chang et al. | Groman et al. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Animal model | Mice originally used for various oncology studies | Human HCT116 colon cancer xenografted nude mice (female, Charles River Laboratory) | Albino mice (males, 15 to 20 g, Swiss CD-1(ICR)BR, Charles River Laboratory) |
| Number of animals | 50 | 12 | 30 |
| Injection method | In-house needle catheters 30-gauge needles insert into 15 cm of polyethylene 10 tubing with a Blunt 30-gauge Luer-lock hub | 29.5-gauge Terumo insulin syringe | Needle without precision |
| Tracer | 18F-FDG | 18F-FPP(RGD)2 | Mixed of two reagents: 99mTc-EB1 and colloid gold |
| Injected activity | 2–9 MBq over 20–30 s | 1.9–3.8 MBq | - |
| Injected volume | 170 μL | 100 μL | 100 μL of mixture |
| Misinjection frequency and assessment | 7/50 (14.0 %) | 4/23 (17.4 %) | 12/30 (40.0 %) |
| Intermediate or poor injection based on qualitative assessment | Visual inspection | Injection efficiency <90 % based on quantitative assessment | |
| Quantitative evaluation | Mean %ID/g on tail ranging from 2.4 to 28.4 | Percentage-intended dose not injected ranging from 0.5 to 9.1 % | Percentage-intended dose not injected ranging from 12 to 63 % |