| Literature DB >> 36091426 |
Shaojuan Zhang1, Jingjie Shang1, Weijian Ye1, Tianming Zhao2, Hao Xu1, Hui Zeng2, Lu Wang1.
Abstract
Multiple myeloma (MM) is a neoplastic plasma cell proliferative disorder characterized by various osteolytic bone destruction as a radiological morphological marker. Functional imaging, particularly nuclear medicine imaging, is a promising method to visualize disease processes before the appearance of structural changes by targeting specific biomarkers related to metabolism ability, tumor microenvironment as well as neoplastic receptors. In addition, by targeting particular antigens with therapeutic antibodies, immuno-PET imaging can support the development of personalized theranostics. At present, various imaging agents have been prepared and evaluated in MM at preclinical and clinical levels. A summary overview of molecular functional imaging in MM is provided, and commonly used radiotracers are characterized.Entities:
Keywords: biomarkers; molecular functional imaging; multiple myeloma; positron emission tomography (PET); radiotracers
Year: 2022 PMID: 36091426 PMCID: PMC9459033 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.920882
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
FIGURE 1Schematic diagram of MM molecular imaging targets and associated imaging probes.
Proposed refinement of the PET response criteria after therapy.
| PET response after therapy | Response criteria |
|---|---|
| complete metabolic response | Uptake ≤ liver activity in bone marrow sites and focal lesion(s) previously involved (including extra-medullary and para-medullary disease) (DS1–3) |
| partial metabolic response | Decrease in the number and/or activity of bone marrow/focal lesion(s) present at baseline, but persistence of lesion(s) with uptake > liver activity (DS 4 or 5) |
| stable metabolic disease | No significant change in bone marrow/focal lesion(s) compared to baseline |
| progressive metabolic disease | New focal lesion(s) compared to baseline consistent with myeloma |
Reported MM related imaging probe at clinical evaluation level.
| Study index; Ref | Imaging probe | Clinical MM setting | Characteristic/Compared to [18F]FDG PET results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ho CL 2014; | [11C]ACT | 35 untreated patients (26 with MM, 5 with SMM, and 4 with MGUS) | 1. MM patients: higher sensitivity (84.6% vs |
| 2. SMM and MGUS patients: negative in [11C]ACT, but 2 MGUS positive in [18F]FDG | |||
| Lin C 2014; | [11C]ACT | 15 MM patients | 1. Diffuse lesions: higher detection rate (100% vs |
| 2. Focal lesions: higher detection ability (59 lesions vs | |||
| 3. Response assessment: diffuse bone marrow uptake reduction of SUVmax (52% vs | |||
| Nanni C 2007; | [11C]choline | 10 MM patients | bone lesions: comparable detection ability (37 lesions vs |
| Cassou-Mounat T 2016; | [18F]fluorocholine | 21 MM patients | bone lesions: higher detection ability (121–124 lesions vs |
| Meckova Z 2018; | [18F]fluorocholine | 5 MM patients | bone lesions: higher detection ability (134 lesions vs |
| Nakamoto Y 2013; | [11C]MET | 20 patients (15 with MM and 5 with plasmacytoma) | bone lesions: comparable detection ability (156 lesions vs |
| Okasaki M 2015; | [11C]MET | 46 patients with MM and 3 with MGUS (21 previously untreated, 43 restaged after treatment) | 1. Bone lesions: higher detection ability (39 lesions vs |
| 2. Lesion activity: higher sensitivity (86.7% | |||
| Lapa C 2017; | [11C]MET | 78 patients (4 with solitary plasmacytoma, 5 with SMM and 69 with symptomatic MM) | 1. MM patients: higher detection rate (75.6% vs |
| 2. EMD: higher detection rate (72 foci vs | |||
| 3. The first evidence of histologically proven [18F]FDG negative MM detectable by [11C]MET | |||
| Lapa C 2019; | [11C]MET | 19 patients (18 with MM and 1 with solitary bone plasmacytoma) | Bone lesions: higher detection rate in 42.1% patients of [11C]MET than [11C]choline |
| [11C]choline | |||
| Isoda A 2012; | [18F]FAMT | 11 MM patients (3 with newly diagnosed and 8 with relapsed) | bone lesions: comparable detection ability with lower SUVmax (2.0 ± 1.0 vs |
| Luthra K 2014; | [99mTc]Tc-MIBI | 84 patients (24 with newly diagnosed MM; 35 with treated MM, 2 with SMM, 4 cwith plasmacytoma, 13 with MGUS and 3 with suspected MM) | 1. [99mTc]Tc-MIBI uptake earlier than CT |
| 2. Follow-up patients: the presence or absence of [99mTc]Tc-MIBI uptake could differentiate active from old burnt-out lesions | |||
| Mosci C 2020; | [99mTc]Tc-MIBI | 62 newly diagnosed MM patients | 1. Diffuse lesions: higher detection rate (78% vs |
| 2. Focal lesions: lower detection rate (54% vs | |||
| Sachpekidis C 2018; | [18F]FLT | 8 myeloma patients (4 symptomatic MM and 4 with SMM) | bone lesions: lower detection ability (17 lesions vs. 48 lesions) |
| Okasaki M 2015; | [11C]4DST | 46 patients with MM and 3 with MGUS (21 previously untreated, 43 restaged after treatment) | 1. Bone lesions: higher detection ability (40 lesions vs. 33 lesions) with higher SUVmax (8.30 ± 6.24 vs. 3.35 ± 1.70) |
| 2. Lesion activity: higher sensitivity (93.3% vs. 60.0%) and lower specificity (71.4 % vs. 76.1%) compared to marrow plasma cells cytology | |||
| Withofs N 2017; | [18F]FPRGD2 | 4 MM patients (2 with newly diagnosed and 2 with relapsed) | bone lesions: lower detection rate than WBCT (44 lesions vs |
| de Waal EG 2015; | [18F]FAZA | 5 relapsed MM patients | bone lesions: negative scan |
| de Waal EG 2015; | [89Zr]Zr-bevacizumab | 5 relapsed MM patients | bone lesions: negative scan |
| Alabed YZ 2020; | [68Ga]Ga-PSMA | 1 patient with multiple solitary plasmacytomas | bone lesions: positive scan |
| Dyrberg E 2017; | [18F]NaF | 14 patients newly diagnosed MM | 1. Bone lesions: higher detection ability (41 lesions vs. 13 lesions) |
| 2. EMD: not recommended | |||
| Sonmezoglu K 2017; | [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-TATE | 19 MM patients | bone lesions: comparable detection ability (108 lesions vs |
| Pan Q 2020; | [68Ga]Ga-Pentixafor | 30 patients with newly diagnosed MM | 1. MM patients: higher detection rate (93.3% vs. 53.3%) |
| 2. Diffuse lesions: higher detection rate (88.2% vs | |||
| 3. Focal lesions: higher detection rate (92.3% vs | |||
| 4. [68Ga]Ga-Pentixafor uptake values related to tumor burden | |||
| Ulaner GA 2020; | [89Zr]Zr-DFO-daratumumab | 10 MM patients | 1. MM patients: 50% detection rate |
| 2. Identify lesions in one patient not seen at [18F]FDG PET/CT. |
Reported MM related imaging probe at pre-clinical evaluation level.
| Study index; Ref | Imaging probe | Pre-clinical MM setting | Characteristic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Soodgupta D 2016; | [64Cu]Cu-LLP2A | 5TGM1-GFP cells bearing mice | 1. High specificity |
| 2. Comparable SUVmax with [18F]FDG | |||
| Bailly C 2019; | [64Cu]Cu-TE2A-9E7.4 | 5T33-MM cells bearing mice | higher tumor to background ratio of [64Cu]Cu-TE2A-9E7.4 than [89Zr]Zr-DFO-9E7.4 at 24 h post-injection (4.08 ± 1.09 %ID/g vs |
| [89Zr]Zr-DFO-9E7.4 | |||
| Caserta E 2018; | [64Cu]Cu-DOTA-Dara | MM.1S GFP+/Luc+ cells bearing mice | higher resolution and specificity than [18F]FDG |
| Ulaner GA 2020; | [89Zr]Zr-DFO-daratumumab | CD38+ OPM2 cells bearing mice | with and without blocking bone marrow uptake (5.4% ID/g vs |
| Wang C 2021; | [68Ga]Ga-NOTA-Nb1053 | MM.1S cells bearing mice | higher tumor to background ratio than [18F]FDG |
| Wei W 2021; | [18F]F-Nb1053 | MM.1S cells bearing mice | high specificity through daratumumab premedication |
| Cho N 2021; | DARA-IRDye800 | MM.1S GFP+/Luc+ cells bearing mice | 1. High tumor to background ratio (5- and 18-fold) |
| 2. High specificity (11-fold decrease) after therapeutic doses of daratumumab | |||
| Detappe A 2019; | NP-BCMA | MM.1S GFP+/Luc+ cells bearing mice | higher sensitivity and specificity of NP-BCMA than NP-SLAMF7 |
| NP-SLAMF7 | |||
| Ghai A 2021; | [89Zr]Zr-DFO-elotuzumab | MM.1S cells bearing mice | higher sensitivity and specificity than [18F]FDG |
| Camacho X 2021; | [99mTc]Tc-Tocilizumab | MM.1S cells bearing mice | longer tumor uptake time of Cy7-Tocilizumab than [99mTc]Tc-Tocilizumab |
| Cy7-Tocilizumab |