Literature DB >> 29931837

Correcting for targeted and control agent signal differences in paired-agent molecular imaging of cancer cell-surface receptors.

Negar Sadeghipour1, Scott C Davis2, Kenneth M Tichauer1.   

Abstract

Paired-agent kinetic modeling protocols provide one means of estimating cancer cell-surface receptors with in vivo molecular imaging. The protocols employ the coadministration of a control imaging agent with one or more targeted imaging agent to account for the nonspecific uptake and retention of the targeted agent. These methods require the targeted and control agent data be converted to equivalent units of concentration, typically requiring specialized equipment and calibration, and/or complex algorithms that raise the barrier to adoption. This work evaluates a kinetic model capable of correcting for targeted and control agent signal differences. This approach was compared with an existing simplified paired-agent model (SPAM), and modified SPAM that accounts for signal differences by early time point normalization of targeted and control signals (SPAMPN). The scaling factor model (SPAMSF) outperformed both SPAM and SPAMPN in terms of accuracy and precision when the scale differences between targeted and imaging agent signals (α) were not equal to 1, and it matched the performance of SPAM for α  =  1. This model could have wide-reaching implications for quantitative cancer receptor imaging using any imaging modalities, or combinations of imaging modalities, capable of concurrent detection of at least two distinct imaging agents (e.g., SPECT, optical, and PET/MR). (2018) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE).

Entities:  

Keywords:  kinetic modeling; optical tissue properties; paired-agent imaging

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29931837      PMCID: PMC6013418          DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.23.6.066004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomed Opt        ISSN: 1083-3668            Impact factor:   3.170


  42 in total

Review 1.  Consensus nomenclature for in vivo imaging of reversibly binding radioligands.

Authors:  Robert B Innis; Vincent J Cunningham; Jacques Delforge; Masahiro Fujita; Albert Gjedde; Roger N Gunn; James Holden; Sylvain Houle; Sung-Cheng Huang; Masanori Ichise; Hidehiro Iida; Hiroshi Ito; Yuichi Kimura; Robert A Koeppe; Gitte M Knudsen; Juhani Knuuti; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Marc Laruelle; Jean Logan; Ralph Paul Maguire; Mark A Mintun; Evan D Morris; Ramin Parsey; Julie C Price; Mark Slifstein; Vesna Sossi; Tetsuya Suhara; John R Votaw; Dean F Wong; Richard E Carson
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2007-05-09       Impact factor: 6.200

Review 2.  Quantitative in vivo cell-surface receptor imaging in oncology: kinetic modeling and paired-agent principles from nuclear medicine and optical imaging.

Authors:  Kenneth M Tichauer; Yu Wang; Brian W Pogue; Jonathan T C Liu
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  High vascular delivery of EGF, but low receptor binding rate is observed in AsPC-1 tumors as compared to normal pancreas.

Authors:  Kimberley S Samkoe; Kristian Sexton; Kenneth M Tichauer; Shannon K Hextrum; Omar Pardesi; Scott C Davis; Julia A O'Hara; P Jack Hoopes; Tayyaba Hasan; Brian W Pogue
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 4.  Harnessing Preclinical Molecular Imaging to Inform Advances in Personalized Cancer Medicine.

Authors:  Peter M Clark; Victoria A Ebiana; Laura Gosa; Timothy F Cloughesy; David A Nathanson
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 5.  Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Targeted PET/Single- Photon Emission Computed Tomography Imaging of Breast Cancer: Noninvasive Measurement of a Biomarker Integral to Tumor Treatment and Prognosis.

Authors:  Kelly E Henry; Gary A Ulaner; Jason S Lewis
Journal:  PET Clin       Date:  2017-07

Review 6.  Imaging in the era of molecular oncology.

Authors:  Ralph Weissleder; Mikael J Pittet
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-04-03       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Dynamic dual-tracer MRI-guided fluorescence tomography to quantify receptor density in vivo.

Authors:  Scott C Davis; Kimberley S Samkoe; Kenneth M Tichauer; Kristian J Sexton; Jason R Gunn; Sophie J Deharvengt; Tayyaba Hasan; Brian W Pogue
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Kinetics of binding, endocytosis, and recycling of EGF receptor mutants.

Authors:  S Felder; J LaVin; A Ullrich; J Schlessinger
Journal:  J Cell Biol       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 10.539

Review 9.  Why are tumour blood vessels abnormal and why is it important to know?

Authors:  J A Nagy; S-H Chang; A M Dvorak; H F Dvorak
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Fluorescent Affibody Molecule Administered In Vivo at a Microdose Level Labels EGFR Expressing Glioma Tumor Regions.

Authors:  Ana Luiza Ribeiro de Souza; Kayla Marra; Jason Gunn; Kimberley S Samkoe; P Jack Hoopes; Joachim Feldwisch; Keith D Paulsen; Brian W Pogue
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 3.488

View more
  2 in total

1.  Prediction of optimal contrast times post-imaging agent administration to inform personalized fluorescence-guided surgery.

Authors:  Negar Sadeghipour; Aakanksha Rangnekar; Margaret Folaron; Rendall Strawbridge; Kimberley Samkoe; Scott Davis; Kenneth Tichauer
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 3.170

2.  Noninvasive quantification of target availability during therapy using paired-agent fluorescence tomography.

Authors:  Boyu Meng; Margaret R Folaron; Rendall R Strawbridge; Negar Sadeghipour; Kimberley S Samkoe; Kenneth Tichauer; Scott C Davis
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 11.556

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.