Jazmin Schwartz1, Milan Grkovski2, Andreas Rimner3, Heiko Schöder4, Pat B Zanzonico2, Sean D Carlin4, Kevin D Staton4, John L Humm2, Sadek A Nehmeh5. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York schwarj1@mkscc.org. 2. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; and. 5. National Center for Cancer Care and Research, Doha, Qatar.
Abstract
Hypoxic tumors exhibit increased resistance to radiation, chemical, and immune therapies. 18F-fluoromisonidazole (18F-FMISO) PET is a noninvasive, quantitative imaging technique used to evaluate the magnitude and spatial distribution of tumor hypoxia. In this study, pharmacokinetic analysis (PKA) of 18F-FMISO dynamic PET extended to 3 h after injection is reported for the first time, to our knowledge, in stage III-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Methods: Sixteen patients diagnosed with NSCLC underwent 2 PET/CT scans (1-3 d apart) before radiation therapy: a 3-min static 18 F-FDG and a dynamic 18F-FMISO scan lasting 168 ± 15 min. The latter data were acquired in 3 serial PET/CT dynamic imaging sessions, registered with each other and analyzed using pharmacokinetic modeling software. PKA was performed using a 2-tissue, 3-compartment irreversible model, and kinetic parameters were estimated for the volumes of interest determined using coregistered 18F-FDG images for both the volume of interest-averaged and the voxelwise time-activity curves for each patient's lesions, normal lung, and muscle. Results: We derived average values of 18F-FMISO kinetic parameters for NSCLC lesions as well as for normal lung and muscle. We also investigated the correlation between the trapping rate (k3) and delivery rate (K1), influx rate (Ki ) constants, and tissue-to-blood activity concentration ratios (TBRs) for all tissues. Lesions had trapping rates 1.6 times larger, on average, than those of normal lung and 4.4 times larger than those in muscle. Additionally, for almost all cases, k3 and Ki had a significant strong correlation for all tissue types. The TBR-k3 correlation was less straightforward, showing a moderate to strong correlation for only 41% of lesions. Finally, K1-k3 voxelwise correlations for tumors were varied, but negative for 76% of lesions, globally exhibiting a weak inverse relationship (average R = -0.23 ± 0.39). However, both normal tissue types exhibited significant positive correlations for more than 60% of patients, with 41% having moderate to strong correlations (R > 0.5). Conclusion: All lesions showed distinct 18F-FMISO uptake. Variable 18F-FMISO delivery was observed across lesions, as indicated by the variable values of the kinetic rate constant K1 Except for 3 cases, some degree of hypoxia was apparent in all lesions based on their nonzero k3 values.
Hypoxic tumors exhibit increased resistance to radiation, chemical, and immune therapies. 18F-fluoromisonidazole (18F-FMISO) PET is a noninvasive, quantitative imaging technique used to evaluate the magnitude and spatial distribution of tumor hypoxia. In this study, pharmacokinetic analysis (PKA) of 18F-FMISO dynamic PET extended to 3 h after injection is reported for the first time, to our knowledge, in stage III-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Methods: Sixteen patients diagnosed with NSCLC underwent 2 PET/CT scans (1-3 d apart) before radiation therapy: a 3-min static 18 F-FDG and a dynamic 18F-FMISO scan lasting 168 ± 15 min. The latter data were acquired in 3 serial PET/CT dynamic imaging sessions, registered with each other and analyzed using pharmacokinetic modeling software. PKA was performed using a 2-tissue, 3-compartment irreversible model, and kinetic parameters were estimated for the volumes of interest determined using coregistered 18F-FDG images for both the volume of interest-averaged and the voxelwise time-activity curves for each patient's lesions, normal lung, and muscle. Results: We derived average values of 18F-FMISO kinetic parameters for NSCLC lesions as well as for normal lung and muscle. We also investigated the correlation between the trapping rate (k3) and delivery rate (K1), influx rate (Ki ) constants, and tissue-to-blood activity concentration ratios (TBRs) for all tissues. Lesions had trapping rates 1.6 times larger, on average, than those of normal lung and 4.4 times larger than those in muscle. Additionally, for almost all cases, k3 and Ki had a significant strong correlation for all tissue types. The TBR-k3 correlation was less straightforward, showing a moderate to strong correlation for only 41% of lesions. Finally, K1-k3 voxelwise correlations for tumors were varied, but negative for 76% of lesions, globally exhibiting a weak inverse relationship (average R = -0.23 ± 0.39). However, both normal tissue types exhibited significant positive correlations for more than 60% of patients, with 41% having moderate to strong correlations (R > 0.5). Conclusion: All lesions showed distinct 18F-FMISO uptake. Variable 18F-FMISO delivery was observed across lesions, as indicated by the variable values of the kinetic rate constant K1 Except for 3 cases, some degree of hypoxia was apparent in all lesions based on their nonzero k3 values.
Authors: Indira Madani; Wim Duthoy; Cristina Derie; Werner De Gersem; Tom Boterberg; Micky Saerens; Filip Jacobs; Vincent Grégoire; Max Lonneux; Luc Vakaet; Barbara Vanderstraeten; Wouter Bauters; Katrien Bonte; Hubert Thierens; Wilfried De Neve Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J S Rasey; W J Koh; M L Evans; L M Peterson; T K Lewellen; M M Graham; K A Krohn Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Beverley F Holman; Vesna Cuplov; Lynn Millner; Brian F Hutton; Toby M Maher; Ashley M Groves; Kris Thielemans Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: W J Koh; K S Bergman; J S Rasey; L M Peterson; M L Evans; M M Graham; J R Grierson; K L Lindsley; T K Lewellen; K A Krohn Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1995-09-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniela Thorwarth; Stefan Welz; David Mönnich; Christina Pfannenberg; Konstantin Nikolaou; Matthias Reimold; Christian La Fougère; Gerald Reischl; Paul-Stefan Mauz; Frank Paulsen; Markus Alber; Claus Belka; Daniel Zips Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Thomas Theis; Nuwandi M Ariyasingha; Roman V Shchepin; Jacob R Lindale; Warren S Warren; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: J Phys Chem Lett Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 6.475
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: George Amadeus Prenosil; Thilo Weitzel; Markus Fürstner; Michael Hentschel; Thomas Krause; Paul Cumming; Axel Rominger; Bernd Klaeser Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240