Olivia J Kelada1,2, Sara Rockwell1,3, Ming-Qiang Zheng4, Yiyun Huang4, Yanfeng Liu1, Carmen J Booth5, Roy H Decker1, Uwe Oelfke2, Richard E Carson4, David J Carlson6. 1. Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, P.O. Box 208040, New Haven, CT, 06520-8040, USA. 2. Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Pharmacology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 4. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 5. Section of Comparative Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 6. Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, P.O. Box 208040, New Haven, CT, 06520-8040, USA. david.j.carlson@yale.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to use dynamic [18F]fluoromisonidazole ([18F]FMISO) positron emission tomography (PET) to compare estimates of tumor hypoxic fractions (HFs) derived by tracer kinetic modeling, tissue-to-blood ratios (TBR), and independent oxygen (pO2) measurements. PROCEDURES: BALB/c mice with EMT6 subcutaneous tumors were selected for PET imaging and invasive pO2 measurements. Data from 120-min dynamic [18F]FMISO scans were fit to two-compartment irreversible three rate constant (K 1, k 2, k 3) and Patlak models (K i). Tumor HFs were calculated and compared using K i, k 3, TBR, and pO2 values. The clinical impact of each method was evaluated on [18F]FMISO scans for three non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) radiotherapy patients. RESULTS: HFs defined by TBR (≥1.2, ≥1.3, and ≥1.4) ranged from 2 to 85 % of absolute tumor volume. HFs defined by K i (>0.004 ml min cm-3) and k 3 (>0.008 min-1) varied from 9 to 85 %. HF quantification was highly dependent on metric (TBR, k 3, or K i) and threshold. HFs quantified on human [18F]FMISO scans varied from 38 to 67, 0 to 14, and 0.1 to 27 %, for each patient, respectively, using TBR, k 3, and K i metrics. CONCLUSIONS: [18F]FMISO PET imaging metric choice and threshold impacts hypoxia quantification reliability. Our results suggest that tracer kinetic modeling has the potential to improve hypoxia quantification clinically as it may provide a stronger correlation with direct pO2 measurements.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to use dynamic [18F]fluoromisonidazole ([18F]FMISO) positron emission tomography (PET) to compare estimates of tumor hypoxic fractions (HFs) derived by tracer kinetic modeling, tissue-to-blood ratios (TBR), and independent oxygen (pO2) measurements. PROCEDURES: BALB/c mice with EMT6 subcutaneous tumors were selected for PET imaging and invasive pO2 measurements. Data from 120-min dynamic [18F]FMISO scans were fit to two-compartment irreversible three rate constant (K 1, k 2, k 3) and Patlak models (K i). Tumor HFs were calculated and compared using K i, k 3, TBR, and pO2 values. The clinical impact of each method was evaluated on [18F]FMISO scans for three non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) radiotherapy patients. RESULTS: HFs defined by TBR (≥1.2, ≥1.3, and ≥1.4) ranged from 2 to 85 % of absolute tumor volume. HFs defined by K i (>0.004 ml min cm-3) and k 3 (>0.008 min-1) varied from 9 to 85 %. HF quantification was highly dependent on metric (TBR, k 3, or K i) and threshold. HFs quantified on human [18F]FMISO scans varied from 38 to 67, 0 to 14, and 0.1 to 27 %, for each patient, respectively, using TBR, k 3, and K i metrics. CONCLUSIONS: [18F]FMISO PET imaging metric choice and threshold impacts hypoxia quantification reliability. Our results suggest that tracer kinetic modeling has the potential to improve hypoxia quantification clinically as it may provide a stronger correlation with direct pO2 measurements.
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: Ming-Qiang Zheng; Lee Collier; Frederic Bois; Olivia J Kelada; Kelvin Hammond; Jim Ropchan; Murthy R Akula; David J Carlson; George W Kabalka; Yiyun Huang Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 2.408
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: Eugene Y Kim; Yanfeng Liu; Oluwatoyin M Akintujoye; Krishnamurthy Shyam; Tina A Grove; Alan C Sartorelli; Sara Rockwell Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Olivia J Kelada; Roy H Decker; Sameer K Nath; Kimberly L Johung; Ming-Qiang Zheng; Yiyun Huang; Jean-Dominique Gallezot; Chi Liu; Richard E Carson; Uwe Oelfke; David J Carlson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jennifer Shell; Ethan P LaRochelle; Petr Bruza; Jason Gunn; Lesley Jarvis; David Gladstone; Brian Pogue Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 3.170
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
Authors: Patrick N Song; Ameer Mansur; Yun Lu; Deborah Della Manna; Andrew Burns; Sharon Samuel; Katherine Heinzman; Suzanne E Lapi; Eddy S Yang; Anna G Sorace Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Harold M Swartz; Ann Barry Flood; Philip E Schaner; Howard Halpern; Benjamin B Williams; Brian W Pogue; Bernard Gallez; Peter Vaupel Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2020-08