Literature DB >> 27080099

Comparative Analysis between [(18)F]Fludarabine-PET and [(18)F]FDG-PET in a Murine Model of Inflammation.

Narinée Hovhannisyan1,2,3, Martine Dhilly1,2,3, Stéphane Guillouet1,2,3, Michel Leporrier1,2,3, Louisa Barré1,2,3.   

Abstract

Lymphoma research has advanced thanks to introduction of [(18)F]fludarabine, a positron-emitting tool. This novel radiotracer has been shown to display a great specificity for lymphoid tissues. However, in a benign process such as inflammation, the uptake of this tracer has not been questioned. Indeed, in inflammatory zones, elevated glucose metabolism rate may result in false-positives with [(18)F]FDG-PET Imaging. In the present investigation, it has been argued that cells, involved in inflammation, might be less avid of [(18)F]fludarabine. To generate inflammation, Swiss mice were intramuscularly injected with 0.1 mL of turpentine oil into the right front paw. Imaging sessions with (18)F-labeled tracers named above were conducted on days 5 and 25 after inoculation. For each animal, volumes of interest (VOI), delineating the muscle of the inflamed (IP) and normal paws (NP), were determined on PET scans. For characterization of inflammation, muscle samples from IP and NP were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). In early (day 5) inflammation, [(18)F]FDG accumulation was 4.00 ± 1.65 times greater in the IP than in the contralateral NP; for [(18)F]fludarabine, this IP/NP ratio was 1.31 ± 0.28, resulting in a significant difference between radiotracer groups (p < 0.01). In late (day 25) inflammation, the IP/NP ratios were 2.07 ± 0.49 and 1.03 ± 0.07, for [(18)F]FDG and [(18)F]fludarabine, respectively (p < 0.001). [(18)F]Fludarabine showed significantly weaker uptake in inflammation when compared with [(18)F]FDG. This encouraging finding suggests that [(18)F]fludarabine-PET might well be a robust approach for distinguishing tumor from inflammatory tissue, avoiding false-positive PET results and thus enabling an accurate imaging of lymphoma.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PET; [18F]FDG; [18F]fludarabine; inflammation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27080099     DOI: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Pharm        ISSN: 1543-8384            Impact factor:   4.939


  5 in total

1.  Highly Efficient Separation of Ultratrace Radioactive Copper Using a Flow Electrolysis Cell.

Authors:  Yumi Sugo; Shin-Ichi Ohira; Hinako Manabe; Yo-Hei Maruyama; Naoaki Yamazaki; Ryoma Miyachi; Kei Toda; Noriko S Ishioka; Masanobu Mori
Journal:  ACS Omega       Date:  2022-04-27

2.  [18F]Fludarabine-PET in a murine model of multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Narinée Hovhannisyan; Martine Dhilly; Martin Fidalgo; Fabien Fillesoye; Stéphane Guillouet; Brigitte Sola; Louisa Barré
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  [18F]Fludarabine-PET as a promising tool for differentiating CNS lymphoma and glioblastoma: Comparative analysis with [18F]FDG in human xenograft models.

Authors:  Narinée Hovhannisyan; Fabien Fillesoye; Stéphane Guillouet; Méziane Ibazizene; Jérôme Toutain; Fabienne Gourand; Samuel Valable; Benoit Plancoulaine; Louisa Barré
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 11.556

Review 4.  Hyperpolarized 13 C magnetic resonance imaging for noninvasive assessment of tissue inflammation.

Authors:  Stephanie Anderson; James T Grist; Andrew Lewis; Damian J Tyler
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2020-12-08       Impact factor: 4.044

Review 5.  [18F]-Fludarabine for Hematological Malignancies.

Authors:  Louisa Barré; Narinée Hovhannisyan; Caroline Bodet-Milin; Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré; Gandhi Damaj
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2019-04-17
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.