Sylvain Auvity1, Matteo Tonietto2, Fabien Caillé1, Benedetta Bodini2, Michel Bottlaender1, Nicolas Tournier1, Bertrand Kuhnast1, Bruno Stankoff3. 1. UMR 1023 IMIV, Service Hospitalier Frédéric Joliot, CEA, Inserm , Université Paris Sud, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France. 2. Sorbonne Universités, Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière, ICM, Hôpital de la Pitié Salpêtrière, Inserm UMR S 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, Paris, France. 3. Sorbonne Universités, Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière, ICM, Hôpital de la Pitié Salpêtrière, Inserm UMR S 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, Paris, France. bruno.stankoff@aphp.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Drugs promoting myelin repair represent a promising therapeutic approach in multiple sclerosis and several candidate molecules are currently being evaluated, fostering the need of a quantitative method to specifically measure myelin content in vivo. PET using the benzothiazole derivative 11C-PiB has been successfully used to quantify myelin content changes in humans. Stilbene derivatives, such as 11C-MeDAS, have also been shown to bind to myelin in animals and are considered a promising radiopharmaceutical class for myelin imaging. Fluorinated compounds from both classes are now commercially available and thus should constitute clinically useful myelin radiotracers. The aim of this study is to provide a head-to-head comparison of 18F-florbetaben, 18F-florbetapir, 18F-flutemetamol, 11C-MeDAS, and 11C-PiB with regard to brain kinetics and binding in white matter (WM). METHODS: Four baboons underwent a 90-min dynamic PET scan for each radioligand. Arterial blood samples were collected during the exam for each radiotracer, except for 18F-florbetapir, to obtain a radiometabolite-corrected input function. Standardized uptake value ratio between 75 at 90 min (SUVR75-90), binding potential (BP) estimated with Logan method with input function, and distribution volume ratio (DVR) estimated with Logan reference method (using cerebellar gray matter as reference region) were calculated in WM and compared between tracers using mixed effect models. RESULTS: In WM, 18F-florbetapir had the highest SUVR75-90 (1.38 ± 0.03), followed by 18F-flutemetamol (1.34 ± 0.02), 18F-florbetaben (1.32 ± 0.07), 11C-MeDAS (1.27 ± 0.04), and 11C-PiB (1.25 ± 0.07). With regard to BP, 18F-florbetaben had the highest value (0.32 ± 0.06) compared with 18F-flutemetamol (0.20 ± 0.03), 11C-MeDAS (0.17 ± 0.03), and 11C-PiB (0.16 ± 0.03). No difference in DVR was detected between 18F-florbetaben (1.26 ± 0.06) and 18F-florbetapir (1.27 ± 0.03), but both were significantly higher in DVR than 18F-flutemetamol (1.17 ± 0.02), 11C-MeDAS (1.16 ± 0.03), and 11C-PiB (1.14 ± 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Given their higher binding and longer half-life, our study indicates that 18F-florbetapir and 18F-florbetaben are promising tracers for myelin imaging which are readily available for clinical application in demyelinating diseases.
PURPOSE: Drugs promoting myelin repair represent a promising therapeutic approach in multiple sclerosis and several candidate molecules are currently being evaluated, fostering the need of a quantitative method to specifically measure myelin content in vivo. PET using the benzothiazole derivative 11C-PiB has been successfully used to quantify myelin content changes in humans. Stilbene derivatives, such as 11C-MeDAS, have also been shown to bind to myelin in animals and are considered a promising radiopharmaceutical class for myelin imaging. Fluorinated compounds from both classes are now commercially available and thus should constitute clinically useful myelin radiotracers. The aim of this study is to provide a head-to-head comparison of 18F-florbetaben, 18F-florbetapir, 18F-flutemetamol, 11C-MeDAS, and 11C-PiB with regard to brain kinetics and binding in white matter (WM). METHODS: Four baboons underwent a 90-min dynamic PET scan for each radioligand. Arterial blood samples were collected during the exam for each radiotracer, except for 18F-florbetapir, to obtain a radiometabolite-corrected input function. Standardized uptake value ratio between 75 at 90 min (SUVR75-90), binding potential (BP) estimated with Logan method with input function, and distribution volume ratio (DVR) estimated with Logan reference method (using cerebellar gray matter as reference region) were calculated in WM and compared between tracers using mixed effect models. RESULTS: In WM, 18F-florbetapir had the highest SUVR75-90 (1.38 ± 0.03), followed by 18F-flutemetamol (1.34 ± 0.02), 18F-florbetaben (1.32 ± 0.07), 11C-MeDAS (1.27 ± 0.04), and 11C-PiB (1.25 ± 0.07). With regard to BP, 18F-florbetaben had the highest value (0.32 ± 0.06) compared with 18F-flutemetamol (0.20 ± 0.03), 11C-MeDAS (0.17 ± 0.03), and 11C-PiB (0.16 ± 0.03). No difference in DVR was detected between 18F-florbetaben (1.26 ± 0.06) and 18F-florbetapir (1.27 ± 0.03), but both were significantly higher in DVR than 18F-flutemetamol (1.17 ± 0.02), 11C-MeDAS (1.16 ± 0.03), and 11C-PiB (1.14 ± 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Given their higher binding and longer half-life, our study indicates that 18F-florbetapir and 18F-florbetaben are promising tracers for myelin imaging which are readily available for clinical application in demyelinating diseases.
Entities:
Keywords:
Benzothiazole; Multiple sclerosis; Myelin; PET imaging; Stilbene
Authors: Chunying Wu; Changning Wang; Daniela C Popescu; Wenxia Zhu; Eduardo A Somoza; Junqing Zhu; Allison G Condie; Christopher A Flask; Robert H Miller; Wendy Macklin; Yanming Wang Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Brian B Avants; Nicholas J Tustison; Gang Song; Philip A Cook; Arno Klein; James C Gee Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Chunying Wu; Junqing Zhu; Jonathan Baeslack; Anita Zaremba; Jordan Hecker; Janet Kraso; Paul M Matthews; Robert H Miller; Yanming Wang Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2013-09-23 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Pedro Brugarolas; Jorge E Sánchez-Rodríguez; Hsiu-Ming Tsai; Falguni Basuli; Shih-Hsun Cheng; Xiang Zhang; Andrew V Caprariello; Jerome J Lacroix; Richard Freifelder; Dhanabalan Murali; Onofre DeJesus; Robert H Miller; Rolf E Swenson; Chin-Tu Chen; Peter Herscovitch; Daniel S Reich; Francisco Bezanilla; Brian Popko Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Burcu Zeydan; Christopher G Schwarz; Scott A Przybelski; Timothy G Lesnick; Walter K Kremers; Matthew L Senjem; Orhun H Kantarci; Paul H Min; Bradley J Kemp; Clifford R Jack; Kejal Kantarci; Val J Lowe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Vafa Alakbarzade; Jonathan Mr French; David R Howlett; Johannes Attems; Paul T Francis; Sarah Stratton; Camilla N Clark; Anthony C Pereira; Atticus H Hainsworth Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2021-02-16
Authors: Justine Y Hansen; Golia Shafiei; Jacob W Vogel; Kelly Smart; Carrie E Bearden; Martine Hoogman; Barbara Franke; Daan van Rooij; Jan Buitelaar; Carrie R McDonald; Sanjay M Sisodiya; Lianne Schmaal; Dick J Veltman; Odile A van den Heuvel; Dan J Stein; Theo G M van Erp; Christopher R K Ching; Ole A Andreassen; Tomas Hajek; Nils Opel; Gemma Modinos; André Aleman; Ysbrand van der Werf; Neda Jahanshad; Sophia I Thomopoulos; Paul M Thompson; Richard E Carson; Alain Dagher; Bratislav Misic Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 17.694
Authors: Chris W J van der Weijden; Jan F Meilof; Anouk van der Hoorn; Junqing Zhu; Chunying Wu; Yanming Wang; Antoon T M Willemsen; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Erik F J de Vries Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-04-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Alexis Moscoso; Jesús Silva-Rodríguez; Jose Manuel Aldrey; Julia Cortés; Juan Manuel Pías-Peleteiro; Álvaro Ruibal; Pablo Aguiar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 9.236