| Literature DB >> 33392502 |
Robert J Young1,2, Paula Demétrio De Souza França1,3, Giacomo Pirovano1, Anna F Piotrowski4,2, Philip J Nicklin1, Christopher C Riedl1, Jazmin Schwartz5,6,7, Tejus A Bale8,2, Patrick L Donabedian1, Susanne Kossatz1, Eva M Burnazi1, Sheryl Roberts1, Serge K Lyashchenko1, Alexandra M Miller4,2, Nelson S Moss9, Megan Fiasconaro10, Zhigang Zhang10, Audrey Mauguen10, Thomas Reiner1,11,6, Mark P Dunphy1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We report preclinical and first-in-human-brain-cancer data using a targeted poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) binding PET tracer, [18F]PARPi, as a diagnostic tool to differentiate between brain cancers and treatment-related changes.Entities:
Keywords: PARP1; PET; PET/MR; [18F]PARPi; brain cancer
Year: 2020 PMID: 33392502 PMCID: PMC7758909 DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdaa119
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neurooncol Adv ISSN: 2632-2498
Figure 1.Mouse models demonstrate blood–brain barrier permeability of [18F]PARPi. (A) A DIPG cancer model was grown in mice for 4–5 weeks. Animals were co-injected with 150–170 µCi [18F]PARPi and 10 kDa FITC–Dextran. (B) By analyzing the localization of FITC–Dextran (which does not penetrate the normal blood–brain barrier) and [18F]PARPi post-injection, we demonstrated that an intact blood–brain barrier was able to block dextran passage while allowing [18F]PARPi passage. (C) Mouse brains were harvested 1 h post-injection, sliced, and imaged. Adjacent slides showed undetectable FITC fluorescence where autoradiography of the same slides presented [18F]PARPi signal. Scale bar corresponds to 250 µm.
Figure 2.Representation of the study schema. Intervention consisted of 1 PET/MR scan repeated up to 3 times after the injection of 10 mCi [18F]PARPi. Six blood draws (5 mL each) were taken: 5 to access the pharmacokinetics and distribution of the drug and 1 for complete blood count with differential and a complete metabolic panel to access toxicity. Vital signs included temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation; none were out of normal range.
Summary of [18F]PARPi Imaging Data
| Imaging | Cancer | Treatment- Related Change |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| *Significant | |
| [18F]PARPi SUV60mean | 1.16 (1.14–1.19) | 0.45 (0.39–0.55) | .03* |
| [18F]PARPi SUV120mean | 0.80 (0.76–0.82) | 0.34 (0.29–0.45) | .03* |
| [18F]PARPi ratio SUV60mean | 1.98 (1.88–2.00) | 0.72 (0.65–0.76) | .03* |
| [18F]PARPi ratio SUV120mean | 1.86 (1.69–2.10) | 0.95 (0.80–1.05) | .03* |
| Other advanced imaging | |||
|
| 58 (48–66) | 80 (42–117) | .7 |
|
| 7.20 (6.10–8.57) | 2.21 (1.73–2.58) | .03* |
|
| 4.28 (3.82–6.16) | 1.49 (1.41–1.65) | .03* |
|
| 0.67 (0.58–0.73) | 0.38 (0.36–0.43) | .08 |
SUV60mean, standardized uptake value 60 min after injection; SUV120mean, standardized uptake value 120 min after injection; DCE, dynamic contrast-enhanced T1 perfusion; rKtrans, ratio transfer coefficient constant lesion/normal (measure of leakiness); VP, ratio plasma volume lesion/normal (measure of perfusion); CCA, contrast clearance analysis.
aStatistics presented: median (interquartile range, IQR).
Figure 3.Correlation of PARP1 expression with [18F]PARPi uptake. (A) Specific nuclear PARPi-FL uptake was seen in all cancers (lesions #2, #6, and #7), and faint uptake was seen in treatment-related changes (lesion #5). This differential PARP1 expression was also observed on immunohistochemistry between patients. (B) Differences in quantified PARP1 expression were seen in cancer (blue; lesions #2, #6, and #7) when compared to treatment-related changes (pink; lesion #5). (B) Lesion #5, with no viable cancer, had median PARP1 expression over total tissue area of 3%, which was lower than the expression in all cancer specimens (lesions #2, #6, and #7; 7%, 10%, and 14%, respectively; P < .001; Kruskal–Wallis test). (C) Correlation of PARP1 expression and the SUVmax of [18F]PARPi at 60 min post-injection. Scale bar in slides with high magnification corresponds to 50 µm and overviews correspond to 0.5 cm.
Figure 4.Histology demonstrates [18F]PARPi imaging correlation with PARP1 expression. (A) Lesion #6 biospecimen (metastatic renal cell carcinoma status post-LITT) consisted of a cancer (marked 1 inside the dotted area) and reactive tissue with gliosis and histiocytes (marked 2 outside the dotted area). PARP1 immunohistochemistry showed staining in the cancer areas. (B) Quantification of PARP1 expression over the total tissue area demonstrated that cancer had a substantially higher PARP1 expression than reactive treatment-related changes. (C) Coronal PET/MR images of the parietal lobe taken with [18F]PARPi tracer. Difference in uptake seen on imaging (arrow points to high uptake) is believed to be due to the difference in PARP1 expression seen at histology between areas of cancer and areas of treatment change.
Figure 5.Biospecimen and imaging of lesion #7, untreated glioblastoma. (A) PARPi-FL uptake blocking demonstrates the specificity of the compound. Biospecimen stained with the fluorescent version (PARPi-FL, top row) and blocked (co-incubated with a 100-fold excess of olaparib, bottom row). (B) Quantification of nuclear accumulation of PARPi-FL showed median fluorescence significantly higher (P < .001) than in the blocked tissue. (C) Axial [18F]PARPi uptake map, contrast T1-weighted image, and [18F]PARPi map overlaid on contrast T1-weighted image show untreated enhancing cancer in the temporal lobe with high [18F]PARPi uptake (arrow).