Kuangyu Shi1, Christine Bayer2, Sabrina T Astner2, Florian C Gaertner3, Peter Vaupel2, Markus Schwaiger3, Sung-Cheng Huang4, Sibylle I Ziegler3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaningerstrasse. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. k.shi@tum.de. 2. Department of Radiooncology and Radiotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaningerstrasse. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Quantitative evaluation of tumor hypoxia based on H-1-(3-[18F]fluoro-2-hydroxypropyl)-2-nitroimidazole ([18F]FMISO) positron emission tomography (PET) can deliver important information for treatment planning in radiotherapy. However, the merits and limitations of different analysis methods in revealing the underlying physiological feature are not clear. This study aimed to assess these quantitative analysis methods with the support of immunohistological data. PROCEDURES: Sixteen nude mice bearing xenografted human squamous cell carcinomas (FaDu or CAL-33) were scanned using 2-h dynamic [18F]FMISO PET. Tumors were resected and sliced, and the hypoxia marker pimonidazole was immunostained followed by H&E staining. The pimonidazole signal was segmented using a k-means clustering algorithm, and the hypoxic fraction (HF) was calculated as the hypoxic area/viable tumor-tissue-area ratio pooled over three tissue slices from the apical, center, and basal layers. PET images were analyzed using various methods including static analysis [standard uptake value (SUV), tumor-to-blood ratio (T/B), tumor-to-muscle ratio (T/M)] and kinetic modeling (Casciari αk A , irreversible and reversible two-tissue compartment k 3, Thorwarth w A k 3, Patlak K i , Logan V d , Cho K), and correlated with HF. RESULTS: No significant correlation was found for static analysis. A significant correlation between k 3 of the irreversible two-tissue compartment model and HF was observed (r = 0.61, p = 0.01). The correlation between HF and αk A of the Casciari model could be improved through reducing local minima by testing more sets of initial values (r = 0.59, p = 0.02) or by reducing the model complexity by fixing three parameters (r = 0.63, p = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: With support of immunohistochemistry data, this study shows that various analysis methods for [18F]FMISO PET perform differently for assessment of tumor hypoxia. A better fitting quality does not necessarily mean a higher physiological correlation. Hypoxia PET analysis needs to consider both the mathematical stability and physiological fidelity. Based on the results of this study, preference should be given to the irreversible two-tissue compartment model as well as the Casciari model with reduced parameters.
PURPOSE: Quantitative evaluation of tumor hypoxia based on H-1-(3-[18F]fluoro-2-hydroxypropyl)-2-nitroimidazole ([18F]FMISO) positron emission tomography (PET) can deliver important information for treatment planning in radiotherapy. However, the merits and limitations of different analysis methods in revealing the underlying physiological feature are not clear. This study aimed to assess these quantitative analysis methods with the support of immunohistological data. PROCEDURES: Sixteen nude mice bearing xenografted humansquamous cell carcinomas (FaDu or CAL-33) were scanned using 2-h dynamic [18F]FMISO PET. Tumors were resected and sliced, and the hypoxia marker pimonidazole was immunostained followed by H&E staining. The pimonidazole signal was segmented using a k-means clustering algorithm, and the hypoxic fraction (HF) was calculated as the hypoxic area/viable tumor-tissue-area ratio pooled over three tissue slices from the apical, center, and basal layers. PET images were analyzed using various methods including static analysis [standard uptake value (SUV), tumor-to-blood ratio (T/B), tumor-to-muscle ratio (T/M)] and kinetic modeling (Casciari αk A , irreversible and reversible two-tissue compartment k 3, Thorwarth w A k 3, Patlak K i , Logan V d , Cho K), and correlated with HF. RESULTS: No significant correlation was found for static analysis. A significant correlation between k 3 of the irreversible two-tissue compartment model and HF was observed (r = 0.61, p = 0.01). The correlation between HF and αk A of the Casciari model could be improved through reducing local minima by testing more sets of initial values (r = 0.59, p = 0.02) or by reducing the model complexity by fixing three parameters (r = 0.63, p = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: With support of immunohistochemistry data, this study shows that various analysis methods for [18F]FMISO PET perform differently for assessment of tumor hypoxia. A better fitting quality does not necessarily mean a higher physiological correlation. Hypoxia PET analysis needs to consider both the mathematical stability and physiological fidelity. Based on the results of this study, preference should be given to the irreversible two-tissue compartment model as well as the Casciari model with reduced parameters.
Authors: Piet Dirix; Vincent Vandecaveye; Frederik De Keyzer; Sigrid Stroobants; Robert Hermans; Sandra Nuyts Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-06-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: W J Koh; J S Rasey; M L Evans; J R Grierson; T K Lewellen; M M Graham; K A Krohn; T W Griffin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1992 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J A Raleigh; D P Calkins-Adams; L H Rinker; C A Ballenger; M C Weissler; W C Fowler; D B Novotny; M A Varia Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1998-09-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Christoph Oehler; Joseph A O'Donoghue; James Russell; Pat Zanzonico; Sylvie Lorenzen; C Clifton Ling; Sean Carlin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-02-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Bernd Gagel; Patrick Reinartz; Ercole Dimartino; Michael Zimny; Michael Pinkawa; Payam Maneschi; Sven Stanzel; Kurt Hamacher; Heinz H Coenen; Michael Westhofen; Ulrich Büll; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: HyungJoon Cho; Ellen Ackerstaff; Sean Carlin; Mihaela E Lupu; Ya Wang; Asif Rizwan; Joseph O'Donoghue; C Clifton Ling; John L Humm; Pat B Zanzonico; Jason A Koutcher Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Petra Georg; Piotr Andrzejewski; Pascal Baltzer; Michaela Daniel; Wolfgang Wadsak; Markus Mitterhauser; Alina Sturdza; Katarina Majercakova; Georgios Karanikas; Richard Pötter; Marcus Hacker; Thomas Helbich; Dietmar Georg; Katja Pinker Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Tanuj Puri; Tessa A Greenhalgh; James M Wilson; Jamie Franklin; Lia Mun Wang; Victoria Strauss; Chris Cunningham; Mike Partridge; Tim Maughan Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Julia C Carmona-Bozo; Roido Manavaki; Ramona Woitek; Turid Torheim; Gabrielle C Baxter; Corradina Caracò; Elena Provenzano; Martin J Graves; Tim D Fryer; Andrew J Patterson; Fiona J Gilbert Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 5.315