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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Molecular pharmaceutics 2016-06, Vol.13 (6), p.2136-2139 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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&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.</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 & 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</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&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.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 - administration & 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 & dosage</subject><subject>Radiopharmaceuticals - metabolism</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Tissue Distribution</subject><subject>Vidarabine - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Vidarabine - analogs & 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 & 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 & dosage</topic><topic>Radiopharmaceuticals - metabolism</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Tissue Distribution</topic><topic>Vidarabine - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Vidarabine - analogs & 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&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.</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 |