Milan Grkovski1, Reema Goel2, Simone Krebs2, Kevin D Staton3, James J Harding4, Ingo K Mellinghoff5, John L Humm1, Mark P S Dunphy6. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Radiochemistry and Molecular Imaging Probe Core Facility, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; and. 5. Department of Neurology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 6. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York dunphym@mkscc.org.
Abstract
18F-(2S,4R)-4-fluoroglutamine (18F-FGln) is an investigational PET radiotracer for imaging tumor glutamine flux and metabolism. The aim of this study was to investigate its pharmacokinetic properties in patients with cancer. Methods: Fifty lesions from 41 patients (21 men and 20 women, aged 54 ± 14 y) were analyzed. Thirty-minute dynamic PET scans were performed concurrently with a rapid intravenous bolus injection of 232 ± 82 MBq of 18F-FGln, followed by 2 static PET scans at 97 ± 14 and 190 ± 12 min after injection. Five patients also underwent a second 18F-FGln study 4-13 wk after initiation of therapy with glutaminase, dual TORC1/2, or programmed death-1 inhibitors. Blood samples were collected to determine plasma and metabolite fractions and to scale the image-derived input function. Regions of interest were manually drawn to calculate SUVs. Pharmacokinetic modeling with both reversible and irreversible 1- and 2-tissue-compartment models was performed to calculate the kinetic rate constants K 1, k 2, k 3, and k 4 The analysis was repeated with truncated 30-min dynamic datasets. Results: Intratumor 18F-FGln uptake patterns demonstrated substantial heterogeneity in different lesion types. In most lesions, the reversible 2-tissue-compartment model was chosen as the most appropriate according to the Akaike information criterion. K 1, a surrogate biomarker for 18F-FGln intracellular transport, was the kinetic rate constant that was most correlated both with SUV at 30 min (Spearman ρ = 0.71) and with SUV at 190 min (ρ = 0.51). Only K 1 was reproducible from truncated 30-min datasets (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.96). k 3, a surrogate biomarker for glutaminolysis rate, was relatively low in about 50% of lesions. Treatment with glutaminase inhibitor CB-839 substantially reduced the glutaminolysis rates as measured by k 3 Conclusion: 18F-FGln dynamic PET is a sensitive tool for studying glutamine transport and metabolism in human malignancies. Analysis of dynamic data facilitates better understanding of 18F-FGln pharmacokinetics and may be necessary for response assessment to targeted therapies that impact intracellular glutamine pool size and tumor glutaminolysis rates.
18F-(2S,4R)-4-fluoroglutamine (18F-FGln) is an investigational PET radiotracer for imaging tumor glutamine flux and metabolism. The aim of this study was to investigate its pharmacokinetic properties in patients with cancer. Methods: Fifty lesions from 41 patients (21 men and 20 women, aged 54 ± 14 y) were analyzed. Thirty-minute dynamic PET scans were performed concurrently with a rapid intravenous bolus injection of 232 ± 82 MBq of 18F-FGln, followed by 2 static PET scans at 97 ± 14 and 190 ± 12 min after injection. Five patients also underwent a second 18F-FGln study 4-13 wk after initiation of therapy with glutaminase, dual TORC1/2, or programmed death-1 inhibitors. Blood samples were collected to determine plasma and metabolite fractions and to scale the image-derived input function. Regions of interest were manually drawn to calculate SUVs. Pharmacokinetic modeling with both reversible and irreversible 1- and 2-tissue-compartment models was performed to calculate the kinetic rate constants K 1, k 2, k 3, and k 4 The analysis was repeated with truncated 30-min dynamic datasets. Results: Intratumor 18F-FGln uptake patterns demonstrated substantial heterogeneity in different lesion types. In most lesions, the reversible 2-tissue-compartment model was chosen as the most appropriate according to the Akaike information criterion. K 1, a surrogate biomarker for 18F-FGln intracellular transport, was the kinetic rate constant that was most correlated both with SUV at 30 min (Spearman ρ = 0.71) and with SUV at 190 min (ρ = 0.51). Only K 1 was reproducible from truncated 30-min datasets (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.96). k 3, a surrogate biomarker for glutaminolysis rate, was relatively low in about 50% of lesions. Treatment with glutaminase inhibitor CB-839 substantially reduced the glutaminolysis rates as measured by k 3 Conclusion: 18F-FGln dynamic PET is a sensitive tool for studying glutamine transport and metabolism in human malignancies. Analysis of dynamic data facilitates better understanding of 18F-FGln pharmacokinetics and may be necessary for response assessment to targeted therapies that impact intracellular glutamine pool size and tumor glutaminolysis rates.
Authors: Wenchao Qu; Zhihao Zha; Karl Ploessl; Brian P Lieberman; Lin Zhu; David R Wise; Craig B Thompson; Hank F Kung Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2010-12-29 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Rong Zhou; Austin R Pantel; Shihong Li; Brian P Lieberman; Karl Ploessl; Hoon Choi; Eric Blankemeyer; Hsiaoju Lee; Hank F Kung; Robert H Mach; David A Mankoff Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Sriram Venneti; Mark P Dunphy; Hanwen Zhang; Kenneth L Pitter; Patrick Zanzonico; Carl Campos; Sean D Carlin; Gaspare La Rocca; Serge Lyashchenko; Karl Ploessl; Daniel Rohle; Antonio M Omuro; Justin R Cross; Cameron W Brennan; Wolfgang A Weber; Eric C Holland; Ingo K Mellinghoff; Hank F Kung; Jason S Lewis; Craig B Thompson Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Mark P S Dunphy; James J Harding; Sriram Venneti; Hanwen Zhang; Eva M Burnazi; Jacqueline Bromberg; Antonio M Omuro; James J Hsieh; Ingo K Mellinghoff; Kevin Staton; Christina Pressl; Bradley J Beattie; Pat B Zanzonico; John F Gerecitano; David P Kelsen; Wolfgang Weber; Serge K Lyashchenko; Hank F Kung; Jason S Lewis Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Cristina Vajaitu; Carmen Cristina Draghici; Iulia Solomon; Cristina Victoria Lisievici; Alexandra Victoria Popa; Mihai Lupu; Constantin Caruntu; Maria Magdalena Constantin; Vlad Mihai Voiculescu Journal: J Immunol Res Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 4.818
Authors: Saverio Tardito; Anaïs Oudin; Shafiq U Ahmed; Fred Fack; Olivier Keunen; Liang Zheng; Hrvoje Miletic; Per Øystein Sakariassen; Adam Weinstock; Allon Wagner; Susan L Lindsay; Andreas K Hock; Susan C Barnett; Eytan Ruppin; Svein Harald Mørkve; Morten Lund-Johansen; Anthony J Chalmers; Rolf Bjerkvig; Simone P Niclou; Eyal Gottlieb Journal: Nat Cell Biol Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 28.824
Authors: Varsha Viswanath; Rong Zhou; Hsiaoju Lee; Shihong Li; Abigail Cragin; Robert K Doot; David A Mankoff; Austin R Pantel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Allison S Cohen; Joe Grudzinski; Gary T Smith; Todd E Peterson; Jennifer G Whisenant; Tiffany L Hickman; Kristen K Ciombor; Dana Cardin; Cathy Eng; Laura W Goff; Satya Das; Robert J Coffey; Jordan D Berlin; H Charles Manning Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Evelien A J van Genugten; Jetty A M Weijers; Sandra Heskamp; Manfred Kneilling; Michel M van den Heuvel; Berber Piet; Johan Bussink; Lizza E L Hendriks; Erik H J G Aarntzen Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 6.244