Michel Paquette1, Éric Lavallée1, Serge Phoenix1, René Ouellet1, Helena Senta1, Johan E van Lier1, Brigitte Guérin1, Roger Lecomte1, Éric E Turcotte2. 1. Sherbrooke Molecular Imaging Center, Research Center of the Sherbrooke University Hospital (CRCHUS), and Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiobiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada. 2. Sherbrooke Molecular Imaging Center, Research Center of the Sherbrooke University Hospital (CRCHUS), and Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiobiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada eric.e.turcotte@usherbrooke.ca.
Abstract
After encouraging preclinical and human dosimetry results for the novel estrogen receptor (ER) PET radiotracer 4-fluoro-11β-methoxy-16α-18F-fluoroestradiol (18F-4FMFES), a phase II clinical trial was initiated to compare the PET imaging diagnostic potential of 18F-4FMFES with that of 16α-18F-fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) in ER-positive (ER+) breast cancer patients. Methods: Patients diagnosed with ER+ breast cancer (n = 31) were recruited for this study, including 6 who underwent mastectomy or axillary node dissection. For each patient, 18F-FES and 18F-4FMFES PET/CT scans were done sequentially (within a week) and in random order. One hour after injection of either radiotracer, a head-to-thigh static scan with a 2-min acquisition per bed position was obtained. Blood samples were taken at different times after injection to assess each tracer metabolism by reverse-phase thin-layer chromatography. The SUVmean of nonspecific tissues and the SUVmax of the tumor were evaluated for each detected lesion, and tumor-to-nonspecific organ ratios were calculated. Results: Blood metabolite analysis 60 min after injection of the tracer showed a 2.5-fold increase in metabolic stability of 18F-4FMFES over 18F-FES. Although for most foci 18F-4FMFES PET had an SUVmax similar to that of 18F-FES PET, tumor contrast improved substantially in all cases. Lower uptake was consistently observed in nonspecific tissues for 18F-4FMFES, notably a 4-fold decrease in blood-pool activity as compared with 18F-FES. Consequently, image quality was considerably improved using 18F-4FMFES, with lower overall background activity. As a result, 18F-4FMFES successfully identified 9 more lesions than 18F-FES. Conclusion: This phase II study with ER+ breast cancer patients showed that 18F-4FMFES PET achieves a lower nonspecific signal and better tumor contrast than 18F-FES PET, resulting in improved diagnostic confidence and lower false-negative diagnoses.
After encouraging preclinical and human dosimetry results for the novel estrogen receptor (ER) PET radiotracer 4-fluoro-11β-methoxy-16α-18F-fluoroestradiol (18F-4FMFES), a phase II clinical trial was initiated to compare the PET imaging diagnostic potential of 18F-4FMFES with that of 16α-18F-fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) in ER-positive (ER+) breast cancerpatients. Methods:Patients diagnosed with ER+ breast cancer (n = 31) were recruited for this study, including 6 who underwent mastectomy or axillary node dissection. For each patient, 18F-FES and 18F-4FMFES PET/CT scans were done sequentially (within a week) and in random order. One hour after injection of either radiotracer, a head-to-thigh static scan with a 2-min acquisition per bed position was obtained. Blood samples were taken at different times after injection to assess each tracer metabolism by reverse-phase thin-layer chromatography. The SUVmean of nonspecific tissues and the SUVmax of the tumor were evaluated for each detected lesion, and tumor-to-nonspecific organ ratios were calculated. Results: Blood metabolite analysis 60 min after injection of the tracer showed a 2.5-fold increase in metabolic stability of 18F-4FMFES over 18F-FES. Although for most foci 18F-4FMFES PET had an SUVmax similar to that of 18F-FES PET, tumor contrast improved substantially in all cases. Lower uptake was consistently observed in nonspecific tissues for 18F-4FMFES, notably a 4-fold decrease in blood-pool activity as compared with 18F-FES. Consequently, image quality was considerably improved using 18F-4FMFES, with lower overall background activity. As a result, 18F-4FMFES successfully identified 9 more lesions than 18F-FES. Conclusion: This phase II study with ER+ breast cancerpatients showed that 18F-4FMFES PET achieves a lower nonspecific signal and better tumor contrast than 18F-FES PET, resulting in improved diagnostic confidence and lower false-negative diagnoses.
Authors: Lanell M Peterson; Brenda F Kurland; Jeanne M Link; Erin K Schubert; Svetlana Stekhova; Hannah M Linden; David A Mankoff Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2011-05-05 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: M G Pomper; H VanBrocklin; A M Thieme; R D Thomas; D O Kiesewetter; K E Carlson; C J Mathias; M J Welch; J A Katzenellenbogen Journal: J Med Chem Date: 1990-12 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: M A Mintun; M J Welch; B A Siegel; C J Mathias; J W Brodack; A H McGuire; J A Katzenellenbogen Journal: Radiology Date: 1988-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mary L Gemignani; Sujata Patil; Venkatraman E Seshan; Michelle Sampson; John L Humm; Jason S Lewis; Edi Brogi; Steven M Larson; Monica Morrow; Neeta Pandit-Taskar Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Barbara Salvatore; Maria Grazia Caprio; Billy Samuel Hill; Annachiara Sarnella; Giovanni Nicola Roviello; Antonella Zannetti Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 6.639