Cargando…
Performance of nanoScan PET/CT and PET/MR for quantitative imaging of (18)F and (89)Zr as compared with ex vivo biodistribution in tumor-bearing mice
INTRODUCTION: The assessment of ex vivo biodistribution is the preferred method for quantification of radiotracers biodistribution in preclinical models, but is not in line with current ethics on animal research. PET imaging allows for noninvasive longitudinal evaluation of tracer distribution in th...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8197690/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34117946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13550-021-00799-2 |
_version_ | 1783706971675820032 |
---|---|
author | Chomet, Marion Schreurs, Maxime Vos, Ricardo Verlaan, Mariska Kooijman, Esther J. Poot, Alex J. Boellaard, Ronald Windhorst, Albert D. van Dongen, Guus AMS Vugts, Danielle J. Huisman, Marc C. Beaino, Wissam |
author_facet | Chomet, Marion Schreurs, Maxime Vos, Ricardo Verlaan, Mariska Kooijman, Esther J. Poot, Alex J. Boellaard, Ronald Windhorst, Albert D. van Dongen, Guus AMS Vugts, Danielle J. Huisman, Marc C. Beaino, Wissam |
author_sort | Chomet, Marion |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: The assessment of ex vivo biodistribution is the preferred method for quantification of radiotracers biodistribution in preclinical models, but is not in line with current ethics on animal research. PET imaging allows for noninvasive longitudinal evaluation of tracer distribution in the same animals, but systemic comparison with ex vivo biodistribution is lacking. Our aim was to evaluate the potential of preclinical PET imaging for accurate tracer quantification, especially in tumor models. METHODS: NEMA NU 4-2008 phantoms were filled with (11)C, (68)Ga, (18)F, or (89)Zr solutions and scanned in Mediso nanoPET/CT and PET/MR scanners until decay. N87 tumor-bearing mice were i.v. injected with either [(18)F]FDG (~ 14 MBq), kept 50 min under anesthesia followed by imaging for 20 min, or with [(89)Zr]Zr-DFO-NCS-trastuzumab (~ 5 MBq) and imaged 3 days post-injection for 45 min. After PET acquisition, animals were killed and organs of interest were collected and measured in a γ-counter to determine tracer uptake levels. PET data were reconstructed using TeraTomo reconstruction algorithm with attenuation and scatter correction and regions of interest were drawn using Vivoquant software. PET imaging and ex vivo biodistribution were compared using Bland–Altman plots. RESULTS: In phantoms, the highest recovery coefficient, thus the smallest partial volume effect, was obtained with (18)F for both PET/CT and PET/MR. Recovery was slightly lower for (11)C and (89)Zr, while the lowest recovery was obtained with (68)Ga in both scanners. In vivo, tumor uptake of the (18)F- or (89)Zr-labeled tracer proved to be similar irrespective whether quantified by either PET/CT and PET/MR or ex vivo biodistribution with average PET/ex vivo ratios of 0.8–0.9 and a deviation of 10% or less. Both methods appeared less congruent in the quantification of tracer uptake in healthy organs such as brain, kidney, and liver, and depended on the organ evaluated and the radionuclide used. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that PET quantification of (18)F- and (89)Zr-labeled tracers is reliable for the evaluation of tumor uptake in preclinical models and a valuable alternative technique for ex vivo biodistribution. However, PET and ex vivo quantification require fully described experimental and analytical procedures for reliability and reproducibility. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13550-021-00799-2. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8197690 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81976902021-06-28 Performance of nanoScan PET/CT and PET/MR for quantitative imaging of (18)F and (89)Zr as compared with ex vivo biodistribution in tumor-bearing mice Chomet, Marion Schreurs, Maxime Vos, Ricardo Verlaan, Mariska Kooijman, Esther J. Poot, Alex J. Boellaard, Ronald Windhorst, Albert D. van Dongen, Guus AMS Vugts, Danielle J. Huisman, Marc C. Beaino, Wissam EJNMMI Res Original Research INTRODUCTION: The assessment of ex vivo biodistribution is the preferred method for quantification of radiotracers biodistribution in preclinical models, but is not in line with current ethics on animal research. PET imaging allows for noninvasive longitudinal evaluation of tracer distribution in the same animals, but systemic comparison with ex vivo biodistribution is lacking. Our aim was to evaluate the potential of preclinical PET imaging for accurate tracer quantification, especially in tumor models. METHODS: NEMA NU 4-2008 phantoms were filled with (11)C, (68)Ga, (18)F, or (89)Zr solutions and scanned in Mediso nanoPET/CT and PET/MR scanners until decay. N87 tumor-bearing mice were i.v. injected with either [(18)F]FDG (~ 14 MBq), kept 50 min under anesthesia followed by imaging for 20 min, or with [(89)Zr]Zr-DFO-NCS-trastuzumab (~ 5 MBq) and imaged 3 days post-injection for 45 min. After PET acquisition, animals were killed and organs of interest were collected and measured in a γ-counter to determine tracer uptake levels. PET data were reconstructed using TeraTomo reconstruction algorithm with attenuation and scatter correction and regions of interest were drawn using Vivoquant software. PET imaging and ex vivo biodistribution were compared using Bland–Altman plots. RESULTS: In phantoms, the highest recovery coefficient, thus the smallest partial volume effect, was obtained with (18)F for both PET/CT and PET/MR. Recovery was slightly lower for (11)C and (89)Zr, while the lowest recovery was obtained with (68)Ga in both scanners. In vivo, tumor uptake of the (18)F- or (89)Zr-labeled tracer proved to be similar irrespective whether quantified by either PET/CT and PET/MR or ex vivo biodistribution with average PET/ex vivo ratios of 0.8–0.9 and a deviation of 10% or less. Both methods appeared less congruent in the quantification of tracer uptake in healthy organs such as brain, kidney, and liver, and depended on the organ evaluated and the radionuclide used. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that PET quantification of (18)F- and (89)Zr-labeled tracers is reliable for the evaluation of tumor uptake in preclinical models and a valuable alternative technique for ex vivo biodistribution. However, PET and ex vivo quantification require fully described experimental and analytical procedures for reliability and reproducibility. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13550-021-00799-2. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-06-12 /pmc/articles/PMC8197690/ /pubmed/34117946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13550-021-00799-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Research Chomet, Marion Schreurs, Maxime Vos, Ricardo Verlaan, Mariska Kooijman, Esther J. Poot, Alex J. Boellaard, Ronald Windhorst, Albert D. van Dongen, Guus AMS Vugts, Danielle J. Huisman, Marc C. Beaino, Wissam Performance of nanoScan PET/CT and PET/MR for quantitative imaging of (18)F and (89)Zr as compared with ex vivo biodistribution in tumor-bearing mice |
title | Performance of nanoScan PET/CT and PET/MR for quantitative imaging of (18)F and (89)Zr as compared with ex vivo biodistribution in tumor-bearing mice |
title_full | Performance of nanoScan PET/CT and PET/MR for quantitative imaging of (18)F and (89)Zr as compared with ex vivo biodistribution in tumor-bearing mice |
title_fullStr | Performance of nanoScan PET/CT and PET/MR for quantitative imaging of (18)F and (89)Zr as compared with ex vivo biodistribution in tumor-bearing mice |
title_full_unstemmed | Performance of nanoScan PET/CT and PET/MR for quantitative imaging of (18)F and (89)Zr as compared with ex vivo biodistribution in tumor-bearing mice |
title_short | Performance of nanoScan PET/CT and PET/MR for quantitative imaging of (18)F and (89)Zr as compared with ex vivo biodistribution in tumor-bearing mice |
title_sort | performance of nanoscan pet/ct and pet/mr for quantitative imaging of (18)f and (89)zr as compared with ex vivo biodistribution in tumor-bearing mice |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8197690/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34117946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13550-021-00799-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chometmarion performanceofnanoscanpetctandpetmrforquantitativeimagingof18fand89zrascomparedwithexvivobiodistributionintumorbearingmice AT schreursmaxime performanceofnanoscanpetctandpetmrforquantitativeimagingof18fand89zrascomparedwithexvivobiodistributionintumorbearingmice AT vosricardo performanceofnanoscanpetctandpetmrforquantitativeimagingof18fand89zrascomparedwithexvivobiodistributionintumorbearingmice AT verlaanmariska performanceofnanoscanpetctandpetmrforquantitativeimagingof18fand89zrascomparedwithexvivobiodistributionintumorbearingmice AT kooijmanestherj performanceofnanoscanpetctandpetmrforquantitativeimagingof18fand89zrascomparedwithexvivobiodistributionintumorbearingmice AT pootalexj performanceofnanoscanpetctandpetmrforquantitativeimagingof18fand89zrascomparedwithexvivobiodistributionintumorbearingmice AT boellaardronald performanceofnanoscanpetctandpetmrforquantitativeimagingof18fand89zrascomparedwithexvivobiodistributionintumorbearingmice AT windhorstalbertd performanceofnanoscanpetctandpetmrforquantitativeimagingof18fand89zrascomparedwithexvivobiodistributionintumorbearingmice AT vandongenguusams performanceofnanoscanpetctandpetmrforquantitativeimagingof18fand89zrascomparedwithexvivobiodistributionintumorbearingmice AT vugtsdaniellej performanceofnanoscanpetctandpetmrforquantitativeimagingof18fand89zrascomparedwithexvivobiodistributionintumorbearingmice AT huismanmarcc performanceofnanoscanpetctandpetmrforquantitativeimagingof18fand89zrascomparedwithexvivobiodistributionintumorbearingmice AT beainowissam performanceofnanoscanpetctandpetmrforquantitativeimagingof18fand89zrascomparedwithexvivobiodistributionintumorbearingmice |