| Literature DB >> 31161539 |
Songji Zhao1,2, Wenwen Yu3, Naoyuki Ukon4,5, Chengbo Tan4, Ken-Ichi Nishijima5,6, Yoichi Shimizu7, Kei Higashikawa5,6, Tohru Shiga8, Hiroko Yamashita9, Nagara Tamaki8, Yuji Kuge5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eribulin, an inhibitor of microtubule dynamics, shows antitumor potency against a variety of solid cancers through its antivascular activity and remodeling of tumor vasculature. 18F-Fluoromisonidazole (18F-FMISO) is the most widely used PET probe for imaging tumor hypoxia. In this study, we utilized 18F-FMISO to clarify the effects of eribulin on the tumor hypoxic condition in comparison with histological findings.Entities:
Keywords: 18F-FMISO PET imaging; Eribulin; Human tumor xenograft model; Remodeling of tumor vasculature; Tumor hypoxia
Year: 2019 PMID: 31161539 PMCID: PMC6546772 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-019-0521-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Res Impact factor: 3.138
Fig. 1Experimental protocol of this study. The left panel shows the ex vivo study with control (non-treatment) and two eribulin treatment (A, 0.3 and B, 1.0 mg/kg) groups. The right panel shows PET imaging study with control (non-treatment) and eribulin treatment (0.3 mg/kg) groups
Fig. 2Representative images of 18F-FMISO PET (a) and intratumoral accumulation levels of 18F-FMISO (b) in ex vivo study groups. The circle shows the tumor region. R, right; L, left
Fig. 3Representative images of 18F-FMISO ARG (a), pimonidazole IHC (b), H&E staining (c), quantitative analysis of intratumoral 18F-FMISO accumulation level (d), and %pimonidazole-positive area (e) in the ex vivo study groups
Fig. 4Representative images (a–c) and quantitative analysis (d) of CD31 IHC in the ex vivo groups. Scale bar is 100 μm
Mouse body weight (g)
| Ex vivo study groups ( | PET imaging study groups ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-treatment ( | Eribulin treatment ( | |||||
| Day 1 | Day 4 | Day 1 | Day 8 | Day 1 | Day 8 | |
| Control | 21.3 ± 1.0 | 21.8 ± 1.1 | 23.1 ± 1.2 | 22.8 ± 1.3 | – | – |
| Eribulin 0.3 mg/kg | 20.6 ± 0.4 | 21.2 ± 0.8 | – | – | 22.6 ± 1.0 | 21.1 ± 1.4 |
| Eribulin 1.0 mg/kg | 20.1 ± 0.9 | 20.5 ± 0.7 | – | – | – | – |
Tumor volume (mm3)
| Ex vivo study groups ( | PET imaging study groups ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-treatment ( | Eribulin treatment ( | |||||
| Day 1 | Day 4 | Day 1 | Day 8 | Day 1 | Day 8 | |
| Control | 263.0 ± 1.0 | 290.2 ± 34.2 | 241.8 ± 95.6 | 307.2 ± 87.3 | – | – |
| Eribulin 0.3 mg/kg | 258.8 ± 40.8 | 247.5 ± 39.1 | – | – | 285.6 ± 101.8 | 297.6.1 ± 113.8 |
| Eribulin 1.0 mg/kg | 250.2 ± 35.0 | 234.4 ± 42.9 | – | – | – | – |
Fig. 518F-FMISO PET images (a), tumor volumes (b), and quantitative analyses of tumor mean SUV (SUVmean) (c) in control mice of PET imaging study group
Fig. 618F-FMISO PET images (a), tumor volumes (b), and quantitative analyses of tumor mean SUV (SUVmean) (c) in mice treated with eribulin in PET imaging study group