Comparison of methods for evaluating radiolabelled Annexin A5 uptake in pre-clinical PET oncological studies

Nuclear Medicine and Biology

Volumn 41, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 793-800

  Grafström, Jonas ^a   Stone Elander, Sharon ^a,b  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

AnnexinA5; Distribution volume ratio; Enhanced permeability and retention effects; Logan method; Positron emission tomography

Indexed keywords

ANNEXIN A5 C 11; CARBON 11; DOXORUBICIN; LIPOCORTIN 5; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; ANTINEOPLASTIC ANTIBIOTIC; CARBON; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ARTERIAL BLOOD; ARTICLE; CELL DEATH; CHEMICAL PARAMETERS; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEAD AND NECK CARCINOMA; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; ISOTOPE LABELING; MOUSE; MUSCLE TISSUE; NONHUMAN; PET SCANNER; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REGION OF INTEREST; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARD UPTAKE VALUE; VOLUME OF DISTRIBUTION; ANIMAL; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC USE; DRUG SCREENING; EVALUATION STUDY; HEAD AND NECK NEOPLASMS; KINETICS; METABOLISM; PROCEDURES; SCID MOUSE; SCINTISCANNING;

ANIMALS; ANNEXIN A5; ANTIBIOTICS, ANTINEOPLASTIC; CARBON RADIOISOTOPES; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; DOXORUBICIN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HEAD AND NECK NEOPLASMS; KINETICS; MICE; MICE, SCID; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS;

EID: 84912079060     PISSN: 09698051     EISSN: 18729614     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2014.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Guertzen A.L., Bao Q., Bergeron M., Blankemeyer E., Blinder S., Cañadas M., et al. NEMA NU 4-2008 comparison of preclinical PET imaging systems. J Nucl Med 2012, 53:1300-1309.
2. Yao R., Lecomte R., Crawford E.S. Small-animal PET: what is it and why do we need it?. J Nucl Med Technol 2012, 40:157-165.
3. Franc B.L., Acton P.D., Mari C., Hasegawa B.H. Small-animal SPECT and SPECT/CT: important tools for preclinical investigation. J Nucl Med 2008, 49:1651-1663.
4. Dupont P., Warwick J. Kinetic modelling in small animal imaging with PET. Methods 2009, 48:98-103.
5. Kuntner C. Kinetic modeling in preclinical positron emission tomography. Z Med Phys 2014, [published on line March 2014].
6. 11C]-AnxA5 PET imaging with serum biomarkers for improved detection in live mice of modest cell death in human solid tumor xenografts. PLoS One 2012, 7:1-9. [e42151].
7. Tait J.F., Gibson D., Fujikawa K. Phospholipid binding properties of human placental anticoagulant protein-I, a member of the lipocortin family. J Biol Chem 1989, 264:7944-7949.
8. Blankenberg F.G. Imaging the molecular signatures of apoptosis and injury with radiolabeled Annexin V. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2009, 6:469-476.
9. Smith B.A., Smith B.D. Biomarkers and molecular probes for cell death imaging and targeted therapeutics. Bioconjug Chem 2012, 23:1989-2006.
10. Ogasawara A., Tinianow J.N., Vanderbilt A.N., Gill H.S., Yee S., Flores J.E., et al. ImmunoPET imaging of phosphatidylserine in pro-apoptotic therapy treated tumor models. Nucl Med Biol 2013, 401:15-22.
11. 99mTc-HYNIC-rh-annexin-V scintigraphy: visual and quantitative evaluation of early treatment-induced apoptosis to predict treatment outcome. Nucl Med Commun 2008, 29:39-44.
12. Maeda H., Wu J., Matsumura Y., Hori K. Tumour vascular permeability and the EPR effect in macromolecular therapeutics: a review. J Control Release 2000, 65:271-284.
13. Dunnwald L.K., Doot R.K., Specht J.M., Gralow J.R., Ellis G.K., Livingston R.B., et al. PET tumor metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: value of static versus kinetic measures of fluorodeoxyglucose uptake. Clin Cancer Res 2011, 17:2400-2409.
14. Tomasi G., Turkheimer F., Aboagye E. Importance of quantification for the analysis of PET data in oncology: review of current methods and trends for the future. Mol Imaging Biol 2012, 14:31-46.
15. Muzi M., O'Sullivan F., Mankoff D.A., Doot R.K., Pierce L.A., Kurland B.F. Quantitative assessment of dynamic PET imaging data in cancer imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2012, 30:1203-1215.
16. Gunn R.N., Guo Q., Salinas C.A., Tziortzi A.C., Searle G.E. Advances in biomathematical modeling for PET neuroreceptor imaging. Drug Discov Today 2011, 8:e45-e51.
17. Slifstein M., Laruelle M. Models and methods for derivation of in vivo neuroreceptor parameters with PET and SPECT reversible radiotracers. Nucl Med Biol 2001, 28:595-608.
18. 64Cu-DOTA-RGD kinetics in tumor-bearing mice. J Nucl Med 2009, 50:250-258.
19. 68Ga]Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 using a reference tissue model. PLoS One 2012, 5:1-9. [e37506].
20. 18F]fluorobenzoyl) interleukin-2 binding to lymphocytes in an xenograft model of inflammation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012, 39:1551-1560.
21. Gunn R.N., Gunn S.R., Cunningham V.J. 2001 Positron emission tomography compartmental models. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2001, 21:635-652.
22. Mintun M.A., Raichle M.E., Kilbourn M.R., Wooten G.F., Welch M.J. A quantitative model for the in vivo assessment of drug binding sites with positron emission tomography. Ann Neurol 1984, 15:217-227.
23. Innis R.B., Cunningham V.J., Delforge J., Fujita M., Gjedde A., Gunn R.N., et al. Consensus nomenclature for in vivo imaging of reversibly binding radioligands. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2007, 27:1533-1539.
24. Patlak C.S., Blasberg R.G. Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data: generalizations. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1985, 5:584-590.
25. Logan J., Fowler J.S., Volkow N.D., Wang G.J., Ding Y.S., Alexoff D.L. Distribution volume ratios without blood sampling from graphical analysis of PET data. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1996, 16:834-840.
26. 11C-labeled Sel-tagged annexin A5 and a size-matched control for dynamic in vivo PET imaging of protein distribution in tissues prior to and after induced cell death. Biochim Biophys Acta 1830, 2013:2562-2573.
27. Andree H.A.M., Reutlingsperger C.P.M., Hauptmann R., Hemker C.H., Hermens W.Th., Willems G.M. Binding of vascular α(VAC)α anticoagulant to planar phospholipid bilayers. J Biol Chem 1990, 265:4923-4928.
28. 11C-methyl]-cocaine PET studies in human subjects. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1990, 10:740-747.
29. Logan J. Graphical analysis of PET data applied to reversible and irreversible tracers. Nucl Med Biol 2000, 27:661-670.
30. Patlak C.S., Blasberg R.G., Fenstermacher J.D. Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1983, 3:1-7.
31. Tai Y.C., Raungma A., Rowland D., Siegel S., Newport D.F., Chow P.L., et al. Performance evaluation of the microPET Focus: a third-generation microPET scanner dedicated to animal imaging. J Nucl Med 2005, 46:455-463.
32. Soret M., Bacharach S.L., Buvat I. Partial volume effects in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med 2007, 48:932-945.
33. Erlandsson K., Buvat I., Pretorious P.H., Thomas B.A., Hutton B. A review of partial volume correction techniques and their applications in neurology, cardiology and oncology. Phys Med Biol 2012, 57:R119-R159.
34. Krak N.C., Boellaard R., Hoekstra O.S., Twisk J.W.R., Hoekstra C.J., Lammertsma A.A. Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial. Mol Imaging Biol 2005, 32:294-301.
35. Lammertsma A., Hume S. Simplified reference tissue model for PET receptor studies. Neuroimage 1996, 4:153-158.
36. 11C]raclopride binding. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1998, 18:941-950.
37. 11C-raclopride. Psychopharmacology 1987, 92:278-284.
38. Laforest R., Sharp T.L., Engelbach J.A., Fettig N.M., Herrero P., Kim J., et al. Measurement of input functions in rodents: challenges and solutions. Nucl Med Biol 2005, 32:679-685.
39. Maeda H., Bharate G.Y., Daruwalla J. Polymeric drugs for efficient tumor-targeted drug delivery based on EPR effect. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2009, 71:409-419.
40. Galli G., Indovina L., Calcagni M.L., Mansi L., Giardano A. The quantification with FDG as seen by a physician. Nucl Med Biol 2013, 40:720-730.
41. 99mTc-annexin V uptake and histologic findings in an experimental model. J Nucl Med 2004, 45:2083-2087.
42. Taurin S., Nehoff H., Greish K. Anticancer nanomedicine and tumor vascular permeability; where is the missing link?. J Control Release 2012, 164:265-275.
43. Goel S., Duda D.G., Xu L., Munn L.L., Boucher Y., Fukumura D. Normalization of the vasculature for treatment of cancer and other diseases. Physiol Rev 2011, 91:1071-1121.
44. Aboagye E.O., Gillbert F.J., Fleming I.N., Beer A.J., Cunningham V.J., Marsden P.K., et al. Recommendations for measurements of tumour vascularity with positron emission tomography in early phase clinical trials. Eur Radiol 2012, 22:1465-1478.