| Literature DB >> 29515786 |
Stéphane Supiot1,2, Caroline Rousseau1,2, Mélanie Dore1,2, Catherine Cheze-Le-Rest3, Christine Kandel-Aznar4, Vincent Potiron1,2, Stéphane Guerif3, François Paris1,2, Ludovic Ferrer1,2, Loïc Campion1,2, Philippe Meingan1, Gregory Delpon1,2, Mathieu Hatt5, Dimitris Visvikis5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Hypoxia is a major factor in prostate cancer aggressiveness and radioresistance. Predicting which patients might be bad candidates for radiotherapy may help better personalize treatment decisions in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. We assessed spatial distribution of 18F-Misonidazole (FMISO) PET/CT uptake in the prostate prior to radiotherapy treatment.Entities:
Keywords: FAZA; HIF; hypoxia; misonidazole; prostate cancer
Year: 2018 PMID: 29515786 PMCID: PMC5839367 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.24234
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Native FMISO uptake images and attenuation-corrected FMISO images fused with CT-scan images
Eleven FMISO-positive regions (red arrows) were determined in 9 out of 27 patients. u: urethra; b: bladder. In patient 5 and 26, only one FMISO-positive region is shown.
Figure 2Dynamic images analyses in three FMISO-positive patients with a past history of TURP
FMISO ROIs were delineated on 3.5h images and reported on 45-minute images where the urethra was also contoured (A). A time/activity curve was generated over 45 minutes in patient #26 (B).
Figure 3(A) Max SUV and (B) Tumor/Muscle max SUV ratios at 2.5h and 3.5h following 4 MBq/kg injection of FMISO
For patients with 2 FMISO-positive volumes, the volumes were summed.
Glut1 expression in prostatic normal and cancer tissues in FMISO-positive and FMISO-negative patients
| Patient # | Normal tissue | Adenocarcinoma | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cyt | mb | % | cyt | mb | % | |
| FMISO-positive | ||||||
| 4 | + | ++ | 10% | - | - | |
| 5 | ||||||
| 10 | - | - | - | - | ||
| 14 | - | - | - | - | ||
| 15 | - | - | - | - | ||
| 16 | - | - | + | - | 10% | |
| 17 | - | - | - | - | ||
| 26 | - | - | - | - | ||
| 27 | - | - | - | - | ||
| FMISO-negative | ||||||
| 1 | - | - | - | - | ||
| 2 | - | - | + | - | 10% | |
| 3 | - | - | - | - | ||
| 6 | - | - | - | - | ||
| 7 | - | - | ++ | ++ | 10% | |
| 8 | - | - | - | - | ||
| 9 | - | - | - | - | ||
| 11 | ||||||
| 12 | - | - | + | - | 100% | |
| 13 | - | - | - | - | ||
| 18 | ++ | ++ | + | ++ | 50% | |
| 19 | - | - | - | ++ | 10% | |
| 20 | ||||||
| 21 | - | - | - | - | ||
| 22 | - | - | - | - | ||
| 23 | + | ++ | 20% | ++ | - | 100% |
| 24 | + | - | 100% | ++ | - | 50% |
| 25 | ++ | - | 100% | - | - | |
The extent of expression of Glut1 (“staining frequency”) was recorded as percentage of the entire tumor sample that stained positive with consideration of staining intensity scored as low “+”, intermediate “++” or high “+++”
Fusion of FMISO with MRI and FCH volumes
| Patient | Dice Index | Intersect | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCH | MRI | FCH | MRI | ||
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 % | 0 % | |
| 5 | 0.01 | - | 50 % | - | |
| 10 | 0.02 | - | 17 % | - | |
| 14 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 25 % | 50 % | |
| 15 | 0.22 | 0.12 | 30 % | 45 % | |
| 16 | 0 | 0.03 | 0 % | 40 % | |
| 17 | 0.13 | 0.20 | 65 % | 82 % | |
| 26 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0 % | 50 % | |
| 27 | - | 0.02 | - | 11 % | |
Overlap is expressed as percentage of FMISO volume overlapping with MRI or FCH volume. In one patient, FCH PET was not performed for technical reasons. MRI was contra-indicated in two patients with pacemakers.