| Literature DB >> 34869017 |
Maximilian A Kirchner1, Adrien Holzgreve1, Matthias Brendel1, Michael Orth2, Viktoria C Ruf3, Katja Steiger4, Dennis Pötter1, Lukas Gold1, Marcus Unterrainer1,5, Lena M Mittlmeier1, Enio Barci6, Roland E Kälin6, Rainer Glass6,7, Simon Lindner1, Lena Kaiser1, Jessica Maas2, Louisa von Baumgarten8, Harun Ilhan1, Claus Belka2,7, Johannes Notni4, Peter Bartenstein1,7, Kirsten Lauber2,7, Nathalie L Albert1,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET imaging has recently gained attention in glioblastoma (GBM) patients as a potential theranostic target for PSMA radioligand therapy. However, PSMA PET has not yet been established in a murine GBM model. Our goal was to investigate the potential of PSMA PET imaging in the syngeneic GL261 GBM model and to give an outlook regarding the potential of PMSA radioligand therapy in this model.Entities:
Keywords: 18F-PSMA-1007 PET; GL261; Prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA); glioblastoma; mouse; preclinical
Year: 2021 PMID: 34869017 PMCID: PMC8635528 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.774017
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Overview study design.
| Day | PSMA PET | CT | PSMA ARG | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | (GBM | sham) | n | (GBM | sham) | n | (GBM | sham) | |
|
| ||||||
|
| 3 | (2 | 1) | 7 | (5 | 2) | 2 | (2 | 0) |
|
| 4 | (2 | 2) | 4b | (2 | 2) | 2 | (2 | 0) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||
|
| 8 | (5 | 3) | 12 | (8 | 4) | − | |
|
| 12 | (8 | 4) | 12 | (8 | 4) | − | |
|
| 12 | (8 | 4) | 12 | (8 | 4) | − | |
|
| 12 | (8 | 4) | 12 | (8 | 4) | 1 | (0 | 1) |
|
| 10 | (7 | 3) | 11d | (8 | 3) | 8 | (6 | 2) |
|
| 2 | (1 | 1) | 2 | (1 | 1) | 2 | (1 | 1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||
|
| 2 | (2 | 0) | − | 2 | (2 | 0) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aDue to technical difficulties only 3 out of 7 PET scans could be acquired successfully. CTs were performed as planned. bCTs were performed the day prior to PET scans. cFrom the total of 12 mice (8 GBM, 4 sham) in the longitudinal imaging cohort the measurements of 4 mice (3 GBM, 1 sham) on day 4 and 1 GBM mouse on day 18 were excluded from statistical analysis due to incomplete data acquisition or tracer injection dOne mouse had to be euthanized after CT and received no PET.
Figure 1In vitro 18F-PSMA-1007 uptake. CPM/CPMIA: Internalization and binding given as a fraction of initially added activity. LNCaP and PC-3 cells served as PSMA positive and negative controls, respectively.
Figure 218F-PSMA-1007 PET (A, E), CT (B), H&E (C) and ex vivo ARG (D, F). PET images were fused onto an MRI template. Asterisk, tumor. Yellow delineation in (B) for better visibility. Arrow, Increased peripheral signal. Arrowheads, ventricles; circumventricular organs.
Figure 3Time-activity-curves (TAC). (A) Individual TACs for n = 4 GBM (red dotted line) mice and n = 3 sham mice (blue dotted line) as well as the average SUVmean for GBM (red solid line) and sham mice (blue solid line) are given. (B) TBRmean increased and stabilized after 40 min (max. 7.9 at 77.5 min). Therefore a 40-70 min time frame was chosen for further static scans.
Figure 4Longitudinal 18F-PSMA-1007 PET image fused on respective CT (A), SUVmean (B) and TBRmean (C). GT VOI, General tumor VOI. Day 4: (n = 5 GBM mice, n = 3 sham mice); day 8, 11 and 15: (all 8 GBM | 4 sham); day 18: (6 GBM | 3 sham); day 22 (1 GBM | 1 sham). *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
Figure 518F-PSMA-1007 ex vivo ARG and in vitro ARG in GBM. Asterisk, tumor. The ex vivo ARG (left) gave higher signal in tumor tissue than in the healthy brain tissue. The in vitro ARG on the other hand showed lower signal in the tumor tissue than in the healthy brain tissue.
Figure 6Tumor (left) and kidney (right) 18F-PSMA-1007 uptake in blocked and unblocked mice. Blocked mice received a bolus injection of cold PSMA reference standard prior to PET imaging with hot 18F-PSMA-1007. Surprisingly, the SUVmean was lower in unblocked mice than in blocked mice. Kidney uptake decreased in blocked mice and confirms successful blocking (right).