Comparative Analysis between [18F]Fludarabine-PET and [18F]FDG-PET in a Murine Model of Inflammation

Lymphoma research has advanced thanks to introduction of [18F]­fludarabine, a positron-emitting tool. This novel radiotracer has been shown to display a great specificity for lymphoid tissues. However, in a benign process such as inflammation, the uptake of this tracer has not been questioned. Indee...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Molecular pharmaceutics 2016-06, Vol.13 (6), p.2136-2139
Hauptverfasser: Hovhannisyan, Narinée, Dhilly, Martine, Guillouet, Stéphane, Leporrier, Michel, Barré, Louisa
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2139
container_issue 6
container_start_page 2136
container_title Molecular pharmaceutics
container_volume 13
creator Hovhannisyan, Narinée
Dhilly, Martine
Guillouet, Stéphane
Leporrier, Michel
Barré, Louisa
description Lymphoma research has advanced thanks to introduction of [18F]­fludarabine, a positron-emitting tool. This novel radiotracer has been shown to display a great specificity for lymphoid tissues. However, in a benign process such as inflammation, the uptake of this tracer has not been questioned. Indeed, in inflammatory zones, elevated glucose metabolism rate may result in false-positives with [18F]­FDG-PET Imaging. In the present investigation, it has been argued that cells, involved in inflammation, might be less avid of [18F]­fludarabine. To generate inflammation, Swiss mice were intramuscularly injected with 0.1 mL of turpentine oil into the right front paw. Imaging sessions with 18F-labeled tracers named above were conducted on days 5 and 25 after inoculation. For each animal, volumes of interest (VOI), delineating the muscle of the inflamed (IP) and normal paws (NP), were determined on PET scans. For characterization of inflammation, muscle samples from IP and NP were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). In early (day 5) inflammation, [18F]­FDG accumulation was 4.00 ± 1.65 times greater in the IP than in the contralateral NP; for [18F]­fludarabine, this IP/NP ratio was 1.31 ± 0.28, resulting in a significant difference between radiotracer groups (p < 0.01). In late (day 25) inflammation, the IP/NP ratios were 2.07 ± 0.49 and 1.03 ± 0.07, for [18F]­FDG and [18F]­fludarabine, respectively (p < 0.001). [18F]­Fludarabine showed significantly weaker uptake in inflammation when compared with [18F]­FDG. This encouraging finding suggests that [18F]­fludarabine-PET might well be a robust approach for distinguishing tumor from inflammatory tissue, avoiding false-positive PET results and thus enabling an accurate imaging of lymphoma.
doi_str_mv 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00050
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_01575666v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1794469290</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a463t-9762e1786c846cffd3f695d29c1b4b9d8d9699eda8e3831c03072e373b39363b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkT1v2zAQhomiRZ2k_QsFu7WDXH5IFDkaThwbsJEM6RQEBCWeYBmU6JJSivz70LFjoFsXHnH33HvDg9B3SqaUMPrL1HHaebffmtCZGsZhKipCSEE-oAta5DyTXLGP57_MJ-gyxh0hLC8Y_4wmrCSSEKUukJ37bm-CGdpnwLPeuJfYRlzB8Begx49ULp4WbrSJqNoesvubB2x6expc37412h4bvBlDAvDGW3DYN3jVN850XQr2_Rf0qTEuwtdTvUK_FzcP82W2vrtdzWfrzOSCD5kqBQNaSlHLXNRNY3kjVGGZqmmVV8pKq4RSYI0ELjmtCSclA17yiisu0nuFfh5zt8bpfWg7E160N61eztb60CO0KAshxDNN7I8juw_-zwhx0F0ba3DO9ODHqGmp8lwopkhC1RGtg48xQHPOpkQfhOgkRP8jRJ-EpN1vpzNj1YE9b74bSEBxBA4ZOz-G5CD-R_ArXiucVw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1794469290</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative Analysis between [18F]Fludarabine-PET and [18F]FDG-PET in a Murine Model of Inflammation</title><source>ACS Publications</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Hovhannisyan, Narinée ; Dhilly, Martine ; Guillouet, Stéphane ; Leporrier, Michel ; Barré, Louisa</creator><creatorcontrib>Hovhannisyan, Narinée ; Dhilly, Martine ; Guillouet, Stéphane ; Leporrier, Michel ; Barré, Louisa</creatorcontrib><description>Lymphoma research has advanced thanks to introduction of [18F]­fludarabine, a positron-emitting tool. This novel radiotracer has been shown to display a great specificity for lymphoid tissues. However, in a benign process such as inflammation, the uptake of this tracer has not been questioned. Indeed, in inflammatory zones, elevated glucose metabolism rate may result in false-positives with [18F]­FDG-PET Imaging. In the present investigation, it has been argued that cells, involved in inflammation, might be less avid of [18F]­fludarabine. To generate inflammation, Swiss mice were intramuscularly injected with 0.1 mL of turpentine oil into the right front paw. Imaging sessions with 18F-labeled tracers named above were conducted on days 5 and 25 after inoculation. For each animal, volumes of interest (VOI), delineating the muscle of the inflamed (IP) and normal paws (NP), were determined on PET scans. For characterization of inflammation, muscle samples from IP and NP were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&amp;E). In early (day 5) inflammation, [18F]­FDG accumulation was 4.00 ± 1.65 times greater in the IP than in the contralateral NP; for [18F]­fludarabine, this IP/NP ratio was 1.31 ± 0.28, resulting in a significant difference between radiotracer groups (p &lt; 0.01). In late (day 25) inflammation, the IP/NP ratios were 2.07 ± 0.49 and 1.03 ± 0.07, for [18F]­FDG and [18F]­fludarabine, respectively (p &lt; 0.001). [18F]­Fludarabine showed significantly weaker uptake in inflammation when compared with [18F]­FDG. This encouraging finding suggests that [18F]­fludarabine-PET might well be a robust approach for distinguishing tumor from inflammatory tissue, avoiding false-positive PET results and thus enabling an accurate imaging of lymphoma.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1543-8384</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1543-8392</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00050</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27080099</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Chemical Society</publisher><subject>Animals ; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 - administration &amp; dosage ; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 - metabolism ; Inflammation - diagnosis ; Inflammation - metabolism ; Life Sciences ; Mice ; Positron-Emission Tomography - methods ; Radiopharmaceuticals - administration &amp; dosage ; Radiopharmaceuticals - metabolism ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Tissue Distribution ; Vidarabine - administration &amp; dosage ; Vidarabine - analogs &amp; derivatives ; Vidarabine - metabolism</subject><ispartof>Molecular pharmaceutics, 2016-06, Vol.13 (6), p.2136-2139</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2016 American Chemical Society</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a463t-9762e1786c846cffd3f695d29c1b4b9d8d9699eda8e3831c03072e373b39363b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a463t-9762e1786c846cffd3f695d29c1b4b9d8d9699eda8e3831c03072e373b39363b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00050$$EPDF$$P50$$Gacs$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00050$$EHTML$$P50$$Gacs$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,2752,27053,27901,27902,56713,56763</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27080099$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-01575666$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hovhannisyan, Narinée</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dhilly, Martine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guillouet, Stéphane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leporrier, Michel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barré, Louisa</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative Analysis between [18F]Fludarabine-PET and [18F]FDG-PET in a Murine Model of Inflammation</title><title>Molecular pharmaceutics</title><addtitle>Mol. Pharmaceutics</addtitle><description>Lymphoma research has advanced thanks to introduction of [18F]­fludarabine, a positron-emitting tool. This novel radiotracer has been shown to display a great specificity for lymphoid tissues. However, in a benign process such as inflammation, the uptake of this tracer has not been questioned. Indeed, in inflammatory zones, elevated glucose metabolism rate may result in false-positives with [18F]­FDG-PET Imaging. In the present investigation, it has been argued that cells, involved in inflammation, might be less avid of [18F]­fludarabine. To generate inflammation, Swiss mice were intramuscularly injected with 0.1 mL of turpentine oil into the right front paw. Imaging sessions with 18F-labeled tracers named above were conducted on days 5 and 25 after inoculation. For each animal, volumes of interest (VOI), delineating the muscle of the inflamed (IP) and normal paws (NP), were determined on PET scans. For characterization of inflammation, muscle samples from IP and NP were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&amp;E). In early (day 5) inflammation, [18F]­FDG accumulation was 4.00 ± 1.65 times greater in the IP than in the contralateral NP; for [18F]­fludarabine, this IP/NP ratio was 1.31 ± 0.28, resulting in a significant difference between radiotracer groups (p &lt; 0.01). In late (day 25) inflammation, the IP/NP ratios were 2.07 ± 0.49 and 1.03 ± 0.07, for [18F]­FDG and [18F]­fludarabine, respectively (p &lt; 0.001). [18F]­Fludarabine showed significantly weaker uptake in inflammation when compared with [18F]­FDG. This encouraging finding suggests that [18F]­fludarabine-PET might well be a robust approach for distinguishing tumor from inflammatory tissue, avoiding false-positive PET results and thus enabling an accurate imaging of lymphoma.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 - metabolism</subject><subject>Inflammation - diagnosis</subject><subject>Inflammation - metabolism</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Mice</subject><subject>Positron-Emission Tomography - methods</subject><subject>Radiopharmaceuticals - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Radiopharmaceuticals - metabolism</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Tissue Distribution</subject><subject>Vidarabine - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Vidarabine - analogs &amp; derivatives</subject><subject>Vidarabine - metabolism</subject><issn>1543-8384</issn><issn>1543-8392</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkT1v2zAQhomiRZ2k_QsFu7WDXH5IFDkaThwbsJEM6RQEBCWeYBmU6JJSivz70LFjoFsXHnH33HvDg9B3SqaUMPrL1HHaebffmtCZGsZhKipCSEE-oAta5DyTXLGP57_MJ-gyxh0hLC8Y_4wmrCSSEKUukJ37bm-CGdpnwLPeuJfYRlzB8Begx49ULp4WbrSJqNoesvubB2x6expc37412h4bvBlDAvDGW3DYN3jVN850XQr2_Rf0qTEuwtdTvUK_FzcP82W2vrtdzWfrzOSCD5kqBQNaSlHLXNRNY3kjVGGZqmmVV8pKq4RSYI0ELjmtCSclA17yiisu0nuFfh5zt8bpfWg7E160N61eztb60CO0KAshxDNN7I8juw_-zwhx0F0ba3DO9ODHqGmp8lwopkhC1RGtg48xQHPOpkQfhOgkRP8jRJ-EpN1vpzNj1YE9b74bSEBxBA4ZOz-G5CD-R_ArXiucVw</recordid><startdate>20160606</startdate><enddate>20160606</enddate><creator>Hovhannisyan, Narinée</creator><creator>Dhilly, Martine</creator><creator>Guillouet, Stéphane</creator><creator>Leporrier, Michel</creator><creator>Barré, Louisa</creator><general>American Chemical Society</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160606</creationdate><title>Comparative Analysis between [18F]Fludarabine-PET and [18F]FDG-PET in a Murine Model of Inflammation</title><author>Hovhannisyan, Narinée ; Dhilly, Martine ; Guillouet, Stéphane ; Leporrier, Michel ; Barré, Louisa</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a463t-9762e1786c846cffd3f695d29c1b4b9d8d9699eda8e3831c03072e373b39363b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 - metabolism</topic><topic>Inflammation - diagnosis</topic><topic>Inflammation - metabolism</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Mice</topic><topic>Positron-Emission Tomography - methods</topic><topic>Radiopharmaceuticals - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Radiopharmaceuticals - metabolism</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Tissue Distribution</topic><topic>Vidarabine - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Vidarabine - analogs &amp; derivatives</topic><topic>Vidarabine - metabolism</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hovhannisyan, Narinée</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dhilly, Martine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guillouet, Stéphane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leporrier, Michel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barré, Louisa</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>Molecular pharmaceutics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hovhannisyan, Narinée</au><au>Dhilly, Martine</au><au>Guillouet, Stéphane</au><au>Leporrier, Michel</au><au>Barré, Louisa</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative Analysis between [18F]Fludarabine-PET and [18F]FDG-PET in a Murine Model of Inflammation</atitle><jtitle>Molecular pharmaceutics</jtitle><addtitle>Mol. Pharmaceutics</addtitle><date>2016-06-06</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>2136</spage><epage>2139</epage><pages>2136-2139</pages><issn>1543-8384</issn><eissn>1543-8392</eissn><abstract>Lymphoma research has advanced thanks to introduction of [18F]­fludarabine, a positron-emitting tool. This novel radiotracer has been shown to display a great specificity for lymphoid tissues. However, in a benign process such as inflammation, the uptake of this tracer has not been questioned. Indeed, in inflammatory zones, elevated glucose metabolism rate may result in false-positives with [18F]­FDG-PET Imaging. In the present investigation, it has been argued that cells, involved in inflammation, might be less avid of [18F]­fludarabine. To generate inflammation, Swiss mice were intramuscularly injected with 0.1 mL of turpentine oil into the right front paw. Imaging sessions with 18F-labeled tracers named above were conducted on days 5 and 25 after inoculation. For each animal, volumes of interest (VOI), delineating the muscle of the inflamed (IP) and normal paws (NP), were determined on PET scans. For characterization of inflammation, muscle samples from IP and NP were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&amp;E). In early (day 5) inflammation, [18F]­FDG accumulation was 4.00 ± 1.65 times greater in the IP than in the contralateral NP; for [18F]­fludarabine, this IP/NP ratio was 1.31 ± 0.28, resulting in a significant difference between radiotracer groups (p &lt; 0.01). In late (day 25) inflammation, the IP/NP ratios were 2.07 ± 0.49 and 1.03 ± 0.07, for [18F]­FDG and [18F]­fludarabine, respectively (p &lt; 0.001). [18F]­Fludarabine showed significantly weaker uptake in inflammation when compared with [18F]­FDG. This encouraging finding suggests that [18F]­fludarabine-PET might well be a robust approach for distinguishing tumor from inflammatory tissue, avoiding false-positive PET results and thus enabling an accurate imaging of lymphoma.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Chemical Society</pub><pmid>27080099</pmid><doi>10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00050</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1543-8384
ispartof Molecular pharmaceutics, 2016-06, Vol.13 (6), p.2136-2139
issn 1543-8384
1543-8392
language eng
recordid cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_01575666v1
source ACS Publications; MEDLINE
subjects Animals
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 - administration & dosage
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 - metabolism
Inflammation - diagnosis
Inflammation - metabolism
Life Sciences
Mice
Positron-Emission Tomography - methods
Radiopharmaceuticals - administration & dosage
Radiopharmaceuticals - metabolism
Sensitivity and Specificity
Tissue Distribution
Vidarabine - administration & dosage
Vidarabine - analogs & derivatives
Vidarabine - metabolism
title Comparative Analysis between [18F]Fludarabine-PET and [18F]FDG-PET in a Murine Model of Inflammation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T07%3A35%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20Analysis%20between%20%5B18F%5DFludarabine-PET%20and%20%5B18F%5DFDG-PET%20in%20a%20Murine%20Model%20of%20Inflammation&rft.jtitle=Molecular%20pharmaceutics&rft.au=Hovhannisyan,%20Narine%CC%81e&rft.date=2016-06-06&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=2136&rft.epage=2139&rft.pages=2136-2139&rft.issn=1543-8384&rft.eissn=1543-8392&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00050&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E1794469290%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1794469290&rft_id=info:pmid/27080099&rfr_iscdi=true