Eric J Meester1,2, Erik de Blois2, Boudewijn J Krenning3, Antonius F W van der Steen1, Jeff P Norenberg4, Kim van Gaalen1, Monique R Bernsen2, Marion de Jong2, Kim van der Heiden5. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Thorax Center, Erasmus Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Cardiology, Thorax Center, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Radiopharmaceutical Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Thorax Center, Erasmus Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. k.vanderheiden@erasmusmc.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many radioligands have been developed for the visualization of atherosclerosis by targeting inflammation. However, interpretation of in vivo signals is often limited to plaque identification. We evaluated binding of some promising radioligands in an in vitro approach in atherosclerotic plaques with different phenotypes. METHODS: Tissue sections of carotid endarterectomy tissue were characterized as early plaque, fibro-calcific plaque, or phenotypically vulnerable plaque. In vitro binding assays for the radioligands [111In]In-DOTATATE; [111In]In-DOTA-JR11; [67Ga]Ga-Pentixafor; [111In]In-DANBIRT; and [111In]In-EC0800 were conducted, the expression of the radioligand targets was assessed via immunohistochemistry. Radioligand binding and expression of radioligand targets was investigated and compared. RESULTS: In sections characterized as vulnerable plaque, binding was highest for [111In]In-EC0800; followed by [111In]In-DANBIRT; [67Ga]Ga-Pentixafor; [111In]In-DOTA-JR11; and [111In]In-DOTATATE (0.064 ± 0.036; 0.052 ± 0.029; 0.011 ± 0.003; 0.0066 ± 0.0021; 0.00064 ± 0.00014 %Added activity/mm2, respectively). Binding of [111In]In-DANBIRT and [111In]In-EC0800 was highest across plaque phenotypes, binding of [111In]In-DOTA-JR11 and [67Ga]Ga-Pentixafor differed most between plaque phenotypes. Binding of [111In]In-DOTATATE was the lowest across plaque phenotypes. The areas positive for cells expressing the radioligand's target differed between plaque phenotypes for all targets, with lowest percentage area of expression in early plaque sections and highest in phenotypically vulnerable plaque sections. CONCLUSIONS: Radioligands targeting inflammatory cell markers showed different levels of binding in atherosclerotic plaques and among plaque phenotypes. Different radioligands might be used for plaque detection and discerning early from vulnerable plaque. [111In]In-EC0800 and [111In]In-DANBIRT appear most suitable for plaque detection, while [67Ga]Ga-Pentixafor and [111In]In-DOTA-JR11 might be best suited for differentiation between plaque phenotypes.
PURPOSE: Many radioligands have been developed for the visualization of atherosclerosis by targeting inflammation. However, interpretation of in vivo signals is often limited to plaque identification. We evaluated binding of some promising radioligands in an in vitro approach in atherosclerotic plaques with different phenotypes. METHODS: Tissue sections of carotid endarterectomy tissue were characterized as early plaque, fibro-calcific plaque, or phenotypically vulnerable plaque. In vitro binding assays for the radioligands [111In]In-DOTATATE; [111In]In-DOTA-JR11; [67Ga]Ga-Pentixafor; [111In]In-DANBIRT; and [111In]In-EC0800 were conducted, the expression of the radioligand targets was assessed via immunohistochemistry. Radioligand binding and expression of radioligand targets was investigated and compared. RESULTS: In sections characterized as vulnerable plaque, binding was highest for [111In]In-EC0800; followed by [111In]In-DANBIRT; [67Ga]Ga-Pentixafor; [111In]In-DOTA-JR11; and [111In]In-DOTATATE (0.064 ± 0.036; 0.052 ± 0.029; 0.011 ± 0.003; 0.0066 ± 0.0021; 0.00064 ± 0.00014 %Added activity/mm2, respectively). Binding of [111In]In-DANBIRT and [111In]In-EC0800 was highest across plaque phenotypes, binding of [111In]In-DOTA-JR11 and [67Ga]Ga-Pentixafor differed most between plaque phenotypes. Binding of [111In]In-DOTATATE was the lowest across plaque phenotypes. The areas positive for cells expressing the radioligand's target differed between plaque phenotypes for all targets, with lowest percentage area of expression in early plaque sections and highest in phenotypically vulnerable plaque sections. CONCLUSIONS: Radioligands targeting inflammatory cell markers showed different levels of binding in atherosclerotic plaques and among plaque phenotypes. Different radioligands might be used for plaque detection and discerning early from vulnerable plaque. [111In]In-EC0800 and [111In]In-DANBIRT appear most suitable for plaque detection, while [67Ga]Ga-Pentixafor and [111In]In-DOTA-JR11 might be best suited for differentiation between plaque phenotypes.
Authors: Xiang Li; Wolfgang Bauer; Michael C Kreissl; Johannes Weirather; Elisabeth Bauer; Ina Israel; Dominik Richter; Gabriele Riehl; Andreas Buck; Samuel Samnick Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Armelle Meershoek; Rogier A van Dijk; Sander Verhage; Jaap F Hamming; Antoon J van den Bogaerdt; Ad J J C Bogers; Alexander F Schaapherder; Jan H Lindeman Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2016-09-17 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Simone Krebs; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Diane Reidy; Bradley J Beattie; Serge K Lyashchenko; Jason S Lewis; Lisa Bodei; Wolfgang A Weber; Joseph A O'Donoghue Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jason M Tarkin; Francis R Joshi; Nicholas R Evans; Mohammed M Chowdhury; Nichola L Figg; Aarti V Shah; Lakshi T Starks; Abel Martin-Garrido; Roido Manavaki; Emma Yu; Rhoda E Kuc; Luigi Grassi; Roman Kreuzhuber; Myrto A Kostadima; Mattia Frontini; Peter J Kirkpatrick; Patrick A Coughlin; Deepa Gopalan; Tim D Fryer; John R Buscombe; Ashley M Groves; Willem H Ouwehand; Martin R Bennett; Elizabeth A Warburton; Anthony P Davenport; James H F Rudd Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Xiang Li; Daniel Heber; Tatjana Leike; Dietrich Beitzke; Xia Lu; Xiaoli Zhang; Yongxiang Wei; Markus Mitterhauser; Wolfgang Wadsak; Saskia Kropf; Hans J Wester; Christian Loewe; Marcus Hacker; Alexander R Haug Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Roberto Mota; Matthew J Campen; Matthew E Cuellar; William S Garver; Jacob Hesterman; Mohammed Qutaish; Tamara Daniels; Monique Nysus; Carston R Wagner; Jeffrey P Norenberg Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Eric J Meester; B J Krenning; J de Swart; M Segbers; H E Barrett; M R Bernsen; K Van der Heiden; Marion de Jong Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2019-03-11
Authors: K Van der Heiden; H E Barrett; E J Meester; K van Gaalen; B J Krenning; F J Beekman; E de Blois; J de Swart; H J M Verhagen; A van der Lugt; J P Norenberg; M de Jong; M R Bernsen; F J H Gijsen Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 3.872