Paolo Zanotti-Fregonara1, Belen Pascual2, Mattia Veronese3, Meixiang Yu2, David Beers2, Stanley H Appel2, Joseph C Masdeu2. 1. Nantz National Alzheimer Center and Houston Methodist Research Neurological Institute, and Weill Cornell Medicine, 6670 Bertner Ave, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. pzanottifregonara@houstonmethodist.org. 2. Nantz National Alzheimer Center and Houston Methodist Research Neurological Institute, and Weill Cornell Medicine, 6670 Bertner Ave, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 3. Department of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: 11C-ER176 is a new PET tracer to quantify the translocator protein (TSPO), a biomarker for inflammation. The aim of this study was to perform a head-to-head comparison between 11C-ER176 and the widely used 11C-PBR28. METHODS: Seven healthy volunteers had a 90-min PET scan and metabolite-corrected arterial input function with 11C-PBR28 in the morning and 11C-ER176 in the afternoon. Binding was quantified at the regional level in terms of VT with a two-tissue compartmental model. By using VND values from the literature obtained with pharmacological blockade, we derived the binding potential BPND for both tracers. RESULTS: 11C-ER176 was more stable in arterial blood than 11C-PBR28 (the percentages of unmetabolized parent in plasma at 90 min were 29.0 ± 8.3% and 8.8 ± 2.9% respectively). The brain time-activity curves for both tracers were well fitted by the two-tissue model, but 11C-ER176 had higher VT values than 11C-PBR28 (5.74 ± 1.54 vs 4.43 ± 1.99 ml/cm3) and a lower coefficient of variation. The BPND of 11C-ER176 was more than 4 times larger than that of 11C-PBR28 for high-affinity binders, and more than 9 times larger for mixed-affinity binders. CONCLUSION: 11C-ER176 displays a higher binding potential and a smaller variability of VT values. Thanks to these characteristics, clinical studies performed with 11C-ER176 are expected to have higher statistical power and thus require fewer subjects.
INTRODUCTION:11C-ER176 is a new PET tracer to quantify the translocator protein (TSPO), a biomarker for inflammation. The aim of this study was to perform a head-to-head comparison between 11C-ER176 and the widely used 11C-PBR28. METHODS: Seven healthy volunteers had a 90-min PET scan and metabolite-corrected arterial input function with 11C-PBR28 in the morning and 11C-ER176 in the afternoon. Binding was quantified at the regional level in terms of VT with a two-tissue compartmental model. By using VND values from the literature obtained with pharmacological blockade, we derived the binding potential BPND for both tracers. RESULTS:11C-ER176 was more stable in arterial blood than 11C-PBR28 (the percentages of unmetabolized parent in plasma at 90 min were 29.0 ± 8.3% and 8.8 ± 2.9% respectively). The brain time-activity curves for both tracers were well fitted by the two-tissue model, but 11C-ER176 had higher VT values than 11C-PBR28 (5.74 ± 1.54 vs 4.43 ± 1.99 ml/cm3) and a lower coefficient of variation. The BPND of 11C-ER176 was more than 4 times larger than that of 11C-PBR28 for high-affinity binders, and more than 9 times larger for mixed-affinity binders. CONCLUSION:11C-ER176 displays a higher binding potential and a smaller variability of VT values. Thanks to these characteristics, clinical studies performed with 11C-ER176 are expected to have higher statistical power and thus require fewer subjects.
Authors: Kornelis S M van der Geest; Maria Sandovici; Pieter H Nienhuis; Riemer H J A Slart; Peter Heeringa; Elisabeth Brouwer; William F Jiemy Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-06
Authors: Ruiqing Ni; Adrienne Müller Herde; Ahmed Haider; Claudia Keller; Georgios Louloudis; Markus Vaas; Roger Schibli; Simon M Ametamey; Jan Klohs; Linjing Mu Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2021-10-12 Impact factor: 3.484
Authors: Jinsoo Hong; Sanjay Telu; Yi Zhang; William H Miller; H Umesha Shetty; Cheryl L Morse; Victor W Pike Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2021-08-06 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Jason C Mixdorf; Dhanabalan Murali; Yangchun Xin; Alexandra H DiFilippo; Eduardo Aluicio-Sarduy; Todd E Barnhart; Jonathan W Engle; Paul A Ellison; Bradley T Christian Journal: Appl Radiat Isot Date: 2021-09-17 Impact factor: 1.787
Authors: Christin Y Sander; Stefano Bovo; Angel Torrado-Carvajal; Daniel Albrecht; Hongping Deng; Vitaly Napadow; Julie C Price; Jacob M Hooker; Marco L Loggia Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 6.960
Authors: Fabiola De Marchi; Ivana Munitic; Amedeo Amedei; James D Berry; Eva L Feldman; Eleonora Aronica; Giovanni Nardo; Donatienne Van Weehaeghe; Elena Niccolai; Nikolina Prtenjaca; Stacey A Sakowski; Caterina Bendotti; Letizia Mazzini Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2021-06-19 Impact factor: 9.052
Authors: Natalia P Rocha; Odelin Charron; Leigh B Latham; Gabriela D Colpo; Paolo Zanotti-Fregonara; Meixiang Yu; Leorah Freeman; Erin Furr Stimming; Antonio L Teixeira Journal: Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm Date: 2021-04-01