18FEF3 is not superior to 18FFMISO for PET-based hypoxia evaluation as measured in a rat rhabdomyosarcoma tumour modelReport as inadecuate




18FEF3 is not superior to 18FFMISO for PET-based hypoxia evaluation as measured in a rat rhabdomyosarcoma tumour model - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 209–218

First Online: 09 August 2008Received: 17 August 2007Accepted: 20 July 2008

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this investigation was to quantitatively compare the novel positron emission tomography PET hypoxia marker 2-2-nitroimidazol-1-yl-N-3F,3,3-trifluoropropylacetamide FEF3 with the reference hypoxia tracer Ffluoromisonidazole FFMISO.

MethodsFEF3 or FFMISO was injected every 2 days into two separate groups of rats bearing syngeneic rhabdomyosarcoma tumours. In vivo PET analysis was done by drawing regions of interest on the images of selected tissues. The resulting activity data were quantified by the percentage of injected radioactivity per gram tissue %ID-g and tumour to blood T-B ratio. The spatial distribution of radioactivity was defined by autoradiography on frozen tumour sections.

ResultsThe blood clearance of FEF3 was faster than that of FFMISO. The clearance of both tracers was slower in tumour tissue compared with other tissues. This results in increasing T-B ratios as a function of time post tracer injection p.i

The maximal FEF3 tumour uptake, compared to the maximum FFMISO uptake, was significantly lower at 2 h p.i. but reached similar levels at 4 h p.i. The tumour uptake for both tracers was independent of the tumour volume for all investigated time points. Both tracers showed heterogeneous intra-tumoural distribution.

ConclusionsFEF3 tumour uptake reached similar levels at 4 h p.i. compared with tumour retention observed after injection of FFMISO at 2 h p.i. Although FEF3 is a promising non-invasive tracer, it is not superior over FFMISO for the visualisation of tumour hypoxia. No significant differences between FEF3 and FFMISO were observed with regard to the intra-tumoural distribution and the extra-tumoural tissue retention.

KeywordsHypoxia Tumour FEF3 FFMISO PET  Download fulltext PDF



Author: Ludwig Dubois - Willy Landuyt - Lieselotte Cloetens - Anne Bol - Guy Bormans - Karin Haustermans - Daniel Labar - Johan Nu

Source: https://link.springer.com/







Related documents