The σ2 receptor is a potential in vivo target for measuring proliferative status in cancer. The feasibility of using N-(4-(6,7-dimethoxy-3,4-dihydroisoquinolin-2(1H)-yl)butyl)-2-(2-18F-fluoroethoxy)-5-methylbenzamide (18F-ISO-1) to image solid tumors in lymphoma, breast cancer, and head and neck cancer has been previously established. Here, we report the results of the first dedicated clinical trial of 18F-ISO-1 in women with primary breast cancer. Our study objective was to determine whether 18F-ISO-1 PET could provide an in vivo measure of tumor proliferative status, and we hypothesized that uptake would correlate with a tissue-based assay of proliferation, namely Ki-67 expression. Methods: Twenty-eight women with 29 primary invasive breast cancers were prospectively enrolled in a clinical trial (NCT02284919) between March 2015 and January 2017. Each received an injection of 278-527 MBq of 18F-ISO-1 and then underwent PET/CT imaging of the breasts 50-55 min later. In vivo uptake of 18F-ISO-1 was quantitated by SUVmax and distribution volume ratios and was compared with ex vivo immunohistochemistry for Ki-67. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests assessed uptake differences across Ki-67 thresholds, and Spearman correlation tested associations between uptake and Ki-67. Results: Tumor SUVmax (median, 2.0 g/mL; range, 1.3-3.3 g/mL), partial-volume-corrected SUVmax, and SUV ratios were tested against Ki-67. Tumors stratified into the high-Ki-67 (≥20%) group had SUVmax greater than the low-Ki-67 (<20%) group (P = 0.02). SUVmax exhibited a positive correlation with Ki-67 across all breast cancer subtypes (ρ = 0.46, P = 0.01, n = 29). Partial-volume-corrected SUVmax was positively correlated with Ki-67 for invasive ductal carcinoma (ρ = 0.51, P = 0.02, n = 21). Tumor-to-normal-tissue ratios and tumor distribution volume ratio did not correlate with Ki-67 (P > 0.05). Conclusion: 18F-ISO-1 uptake in breast cancer modestly correlates with an in vitro assay of proliferation.
The σ2 receptor is a potential in vivo target for measuring proliferative status in cancer. The feasibility of using N-(4-(6,7-dimethoxy-3,4-dihydroisoquinolin-2(1H)-yl)butyl)-2-(2-18F-fluoroethoxy)-5-methylbenzamide (18F-ISO-1) to image solid tumors in lymphoma, breast cancer, and head and neck cancer has been previously established. Here, we report the results of the first dedicated clinical trial of 18F-ISO-1 in women with primary breast cancer. Our study objective was to determine whether 18F-ISO-1 PET could provide an in vivo measure of tumor proliferative status, and we hypothesized that uptake would correlate with a tissue-based assay of proliferation, namely Ki-67 expression. Methods: Twenty-eight women with 29 primary invasive breast cancers were prospectively enrolled in a clinical trial (NCT02284919) between March 2015 and January 2017. Each received an injection of 278-527 MBq of 18F-ISO-1 and then underwent PET/CT imaging of the breasts 50-55 min later. In vivo uptake of 18F-ISO-1 was quantitated by SUVmax and distribution volume ratios and was compared with ex vivo immunohistochemistry for Ki-67. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests assessed uptake differences across Ki-67 thresholds, and Spearman correlation tested associations between uptake and Ki-67. Results:Tumor SUVmax (median, 2.0 g/mL; range, 1.3-3.3 g/mL), partial-volume-corrected SUVmax, and SUV ratios were tested against Ki-67. Tumors stratified into the high-Ki-67 (≥20%) group had SUVmax greater than the low-Ki-67 (<20%) group (P = 0.02). SUVmax exhibited a positive correlation with Ki-67 across all breast cancer subtypes (ρ = 0.46, P = 0.01, n = 29). Partial-volume-corrected SUVmax was positively correlated with Ki-67 for invasive ductal carcinoma (ρ = 0.51, P = 0.02, n = 21). Tumor-to-normal-tissue ratios and tumor distribution volume ratio did not correlate with Ki-67 (P > 0.05). Conclusion: 18F-ISO-1 uptake in breast cancer modestly correlates with an in vitro assay of proliferation.
Authors: A S Coates; E P Winer; A Goldhirsch; R D Gelber; M Gnant; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jeffrey A Kolthammer; Kuan-Hao Su; Anu Grover; Manoj Narayanan; David W Jordan; Raymond F Muzic Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: W H Goodson; D H Moore; B M Ljung; K Chew; B Mayall; H S Smith; F M Waldman Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Helen Trihia; Susan Murray; Karen Price; Richard D Gelber; Rastko Golouh; Aron Goldhirsch; Alan S Coates; John Collins; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Barry A Gusterson Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lanell M Peterson; David A Mankoff; Thomas Lawton; Kevin Yagle; Erin K Schubert; Svetlana Stekhova; Allen Gown; Jeanne M Link; Timothy Tewson; Kenneth A Krohn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Torsten O Nielsen; Roger A'Hern; John Bartlett; R Charles Coombes; Jack Cuzick; Matthew Ellis; N Lynn Henry; Judith C Hugh; Tracy Lively; Lisa McShane; Soon Paik; Frederique Penault-Llorca; Ljudmila Prudkin; Meredith Regan; Janine Salter; Christos Sotiriou; Ian E Smith; Giuseppe Viale; Jo Anne Zujewski; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rodrigo Goncalves; Katherine DeSchryver; Cynthia Ma; Yu Tao; Jeremy Hoog; Maggie Cheang; Erika Crouch; Neha Dahiya; Souzan Sanati; Michael Barnes; Luis Otávio Zanatta Sarian; John Olson; Donald Craig Allred; Matthew J Ellis Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Richie R Bhandare; Dilep Kumar Sigalapalli; Afzal B Shaik; Daniel J Canney; Benjamin E Blass Journal: RSC Adv Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 4.036
Authors: Perrin E Romine; Lanell M Peterson; Brenda F Kurland; Darrin W Byrd; Alena Novakova-Jiresova; Mark Muzi; Jennifer M Specht; Robert K Doot; Jeanne M Link; Kenneth A Krohn; Paul E Kinahan; David A Mankoff; Hannah M Linden Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Antonino N Fallica; Valeria Pittalà; Maria N Modica; Loredana Salerno; Giuseppe Romeo; Agostino Marrazzo; Mohamed A Helal; Sebastiano Intagliata Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 7.446