| Literature DB >> 27957730 |
E E Verwer1,2, C M L Zegers3, W van Elmpt3, R Wierts4, A D Windhorst1, F M Mottaghy4,5, P Lambin3, R Boellaard6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: [18F]HX4 is a promising new PET tracer developed to identify hypoxic areas in tumor tissue. This study analyzes [18F]HX4 kinetics and assesses the performance of simplified methods for quantification of [18F]HX4 uptake. To this end, eight patients with non-small cell lung cancer received dynamic PET scans at three different time points (0, 120, and 240 min) after injection of 426 ± 72 MBq [18F]HX4, each lasting 30 min. Several compartment models were fitted to time activity curves (TAC) derived from various areas within tumor tissue using image-derived input functions.Entities:
Keywords: 18F-3-Fluoro-2-(4-((2-Nitro-1H-Imidazol-1-yl)Methyl)-1H-1,2,3-Triazol-1-yl)Propan-1-ol ([18F]HX4); Hypoxia; Image-derived input function (IDIF); Molecular imaging; Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); Positron emission tomography (PET); Standardized uptake value (SUV); Tracer kinetic modeling; Tumor-to-blood ratio
Year: 2016 PMID: 27957730 PMCID: PMC5153396 DOI: 10.1186/s40658-016-0167-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Phys ISSN: 2197-7364
Fig. 1Typical [18F]HX4 PET/CT images of a patient with NSCLC: a low dose CT; b, c, d averaged PET image acquired over 25–30 min p.i., 119–149 min p.i., and 237–267 min p.i., respectively
Study group averages of SUVBW and tissue-to-muscle (TiMr) and tissue-to-blood (TiBr) ratios (±2 SD) at 2 h and 4 h p.i. for various tissues
| Tissue type | SUVBW | TiMr | TiBr | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 h | 4 h | 2 h | 4 h | 2 h | 4 h | |
| Fat | 0.27 ± 0.07 | 0.18 ± 0.08 | 0.29 ± 0.05 | 0.28 ± 0.09 | 0.28 ± 0.06 | 0.27 ± 0.10 |
| Liver | 1.28 ± 0.40 | 1.02 ± 0.23 | 1.54 ± 0.61 | 1.93 ± 1.12 | 1.48 ± 0.62 | 1.88 ± 0.89 |
| Lung | 0.24 ± 0.11 | 0.16 ± 0.10 | 0.25 ± 0.08 | 0.24 ± 0.12 | 0.24 ± 0.08 | 0.23 ± 0.09 |
| Muscle | 0.95 ± 0.28 | 0.67 ± 0.34 | – | – | 0.96 ± 0.18 | 0.98 ± 0.28 |
| Tumor | 0.93 ± 0.56 | 0.72 ± 0.56 | 0.98 ± 0.46 | 1.09 ± 0.82 | 0.93 ± 0.35 | 1.02 ± 0.45 |
| Tumor, viable | 1.07 ± 0.63 | 0.86 ± 0.67 | 1.12 ± 0.49 | 1.29 ± 0.98 | 1.07 ± 0.36 | 1.21 ± 0.52 |
| Tumor, high | 1.22 ± 0.75 | 1.04 ± 0.83 | 1.28 ± 0.71 | 1.61 ± 1.58 | 1.22 ± 0.54 | 1.50 ± 0.96 |
| Tumor, mid | 0.96 ± 0.66 | 0.74 ± 0.54 | 1.00 ± 0.55 | 1.12 ± 0.79 | 0.95 ± 0.43 | 1.05 ± 0.39 |
| Tumor, low | 0.39 ± 0.52 | 0.33 ± 0.40 | 0.43 ± 0.59 | 0.62 ± 1.04 | 0.41 ± 0.51 | 0.55 ± 0.70 |
VOI size (cm3) and model preference (%) for [18F]HX4 kinetics in various tissues according to AIC, based on the 2.5 h dynamic PET data
| Model | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tissue type | VOI size (cm3) | 1T2k | 2T3k | 2T4k | 1T2k+VB | 2T3k+VB | 2T4k+VB |
| Fat | 3.7 ± 1.1 | – | – | 25 | 12.5 | 50 | 12.5 |
| Lung | 20.1 ± 9.3 | – | – | – | 37.5 | 50 | 12.5 |
| Muscle | 4.5 ± 2.5 | – | 12.5 | 25 | 62.5 | – | – |
| Liver | 17.1 ± 9.2 | – | 25 | 75 | – | – | – |
| Tumor | 111.4 ± 64.1 | – | – | – | – | – | 100 |
| Tumor, viable | 48.0 ± 27.2 | – | – | – | – | – | 100 |
| Tumor, high | 3.0 ± 2.8 | – | – | 25 | – | 12.5 | 62.5 |
| Tumor, mid | 1.8 ± 0.8 | – | 12.5 | 25 | – | 37.5 | 25 |
| Tumor, low | 1.1 ± 0.2 | – | – | – | – | 75 | 25 |
For clarity, values of 0% are not shown
Fig. 2Non-linear regression fits to a tumor time activity curve from the typical example displayed in Fig. 1 using several of the models evaluated. a Fits to 2.5 h TAC extrapolated to 5 h p.i. b Detailed view of the first 9 min p.i.
Fig. 3a, b, c Averaged simplified measures at 2–2.5 h p.i. for all tumor VOI, compared to VT derived with NLR from 0–2.5 h dynamic PET data using the 2T4k+VB model and IDIF: a standardized uptake value normalized to patient weight (SUVBW), b tumor-to-blood ratio (TBr), c tumor-to-muscle ratio (TMr); d TBr as measured at 4–4.5 h p.i. compared to VT derived from 0–4.5 h dynamic PET data