Top

Molecular Imaging and Biology

Published in:

01-04-2019 | Research Article

How Long of a Dynamic 3′-Deoxy-3′-[¹⁸F]fluorothymidine ([¹⁸F]FLT) PET Acquisition Is Needed for Robust Kinetic Analysis in Breast Cancer?

Authors: Jun Zhang, Xiaoli Liu, Michelle I. Knopp, Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy, Michael V. Knopp

Published in: Molecular Imaging and Biology | Issue 2/2019

Abstract

Purpose

To quantitatively evaluate the minimally required scanning time of 3′-deoxy-3′-[¹⁸F]fluorothymidine ([¹⁸F]FLT) positron emission tomography (PET) dynamic acquisition for accurate kinetic assessment of the proliferation in breast cancer tumors.

Procedures

Within a therapeutic intervention trial, 26 breast tumors of 8 breast cancer patients were analyzed from 30-min dynamic [¹⁸F]FLT-PET acquisitions. PET/CT was acquired on a Gemini TF 64 system (Philips Healthcare) and reconstructed into 26 frames (8 × 15 s, 6 × 30 s, 5 × 1 min, 5 × 2 min, and 2 × 5 min). Maximum activity concentrations (Bq/ml) of volume of interests over tumors and plasma in descending aorta were obtained over time frames. Kinetic parameters were estimated using in-house developed software with the two-tissue three-compartment irreversible model (2TCM) (K₁, k₂, k₃, and K_i; k₄ = 0) and Patlak model (K_i) based on different acquisition durations (T_d) (10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 25, and 30 min, separately). Different linear regression onset time (T₀) points (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 min) were applied in Patlak analysis. K_i of the 30-min data set was taken as the gold standard for comparison. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (R) of 0.9 was chosen as a limit for the correlation.

Results

The correlation of kinetic parameters between the gold standard and the abbreviated dynamic data series increased with longer T_d from 10 to 30 min. k₂ and k₃ using 2TCM and K_i using Patlak model revealed poor correlations for dynamic PET with T_d ≤ 14 min (k₂: R = 0.84, 0.85, 0.86; k₃: R = 0.67, 0.67, 0.67; K_i: R = 0.72, 0.78, 0.87 at T_d = 10, 12, and 14 min, respectively). Excellent correlations were shown for all kinetic parameters when T_d ≥ 16 min regardless of the kinetic model and T₀ value (R > 0.9).

Conclusions

This study indicates that a 16-min dynamic PET acquisition appears to be sufficient to provide accurate [¹⁸F]FLT kinetics to quantitatively assess the proliferation in breast cancer lesions.

American Cancer Society. Breast cancer facts & figures 2017–2018 (2017) Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2017-2018.pdf

Escalona S, Blasco JA, Reza MM, Andradas E, Gómez N (2010) A systematic review of FDG-PET in breast cancer. Med Oncol 27:114–129CrossRefPubMed

Rosen EL, Eubank WB, Mankoff DA (2007) FDG PET, PET/CT, and breast cancer imaging. Radiographics 27:S215–S229CrossRefPubMed

Bensch F, van Kruchten M, Lamberts LE, Schröder CP, Hospers GAP, Brouwers AH, van Vugt MATM, de Vries EGE (2013) Molecular imaging for monitoring treatment response in breast cancer patients. Eur J Pharmacol 717:2–11CrossRefPubMed

Oude Munnink TH, Nagengast WB, Brouwers AH et al (2009) Molecular imaging of breast cancer. Breast 18:S66–S73CrossRefPubMed

Lavayssiere R, Cabee AE, Filmont JE (2009) Positron emission tomography (PET) and breast cancer in clinical practice. Eur J Radiol 69:50–58CrossRefPubMed

Smith IC, Welch AE, Hutcheon AW, Miller ID, Payne S, Chilcott F, Waikar S, Whitaker T, Ah-See AK, Eremin O, Heys SD, Gilbert FJ, Sharp PF (2000) Positron emission tomography using [(18)F]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose to predict the pathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 18:1676–1688CrossRefPubMed

Doot RK, Dunnwald LK, Schubert EK, Muzi M, Peterson LM, Kinahan PE, Kurland BF, Mankoff DA (2007) Dynamic and static approaches to quantifying ¹⁸F-FDG uptake for measuring cancer response to therapy, including the effect of granulocyte CSF. J Nucl Med 48:920–925CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Been LB, Suurmeijer AJ, Cobben DC et al (2004) [¹⁸F]FLT-PET in oncology: current status and opportunities. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:1659–1672CrossRefPubMed

10.

Pio BS, Park CK, Pietras R, Hsueh WA, Satyamurthy N, Pegram MD, Czernin J, Phelps ME, Silverman DHS (2006) Usefulness of 3′-[F-18]fluoro-3′-deoxythymidine with positron emission tomography in predicting breast cancer response to therapy. Mol Imaging Biol 8:36–42CrossRefPubMed

11.

Chalkidou A, Landau DB, Odell EW, Cornelius VR, O’Doherty MJ, Marsden PK (2012) Correlation between Ki-67 immunohistochemistry and ¹⁸F-Fluorothymidine uptake in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 48:3499–3513CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kenny L, Coombes RC, Vigushin DM, al-Nahhas A, Shousha S, Aboagye EO (2007) Imaging early changes in proliferation at 1 week post chemotherapy: a pilot study in breast cancer patients with 3′-deoxy-3′-[18F]fluorothymidine positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:1339–1347CrossRefPubMed

13.

Contractor KB, Kenny LM, Stebbing J, Rosso L, Ahmad R, Jacob J, Challapalli A, Turkheimer F, al-Nahhas A, Sharma R, Coombes RC, Aboagye EO (2011) [¹⁸F]-3'Deoxy-3′-fluorothymidine positron emission tomography and breast cancer response to docetaxel. Clin Cancer Res 17:7664–7672CrossRefPubMed

14.

Bollineni VR, Kramer GM, Jansma EP, Liu Y, Oyen WJG (2016) A systematic review on [¹⁸F]FLT-PET uptake as a measure of treatment response in cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 55:81–97CrossRefPubMed

15.

Kenny LM, Vigushin DM, Al-Nahhas A et al (2005) Quantification of cellular proliferation in tumor and normal tissues of patients with breast cancer by [¹⁸F]fluorothymidine-positron emission tomography imaging: evaluation of analytical methods. Cancer Res 65:10104–10112CrossRefPubMed

16.

Watabe H, Ikoma Y, Kimura Y, Naganawa M, Shidahara M (2006) PET kinetic analysis—compartmental model. Ann Nucl Med 20:583–588CrossRefPubMed

17.

Muzi M, Vesselle H, Grierson JR, Mankoff DA, Schmidt RA, Peterson L, Wells JM, Krohn KA (2005) Kinetic analysis of 3′-deoxy-3′-fluorothymidine PET studies: validation studies in patients with lung cancer. J Nucl Med 46:274–282PubMed

18.

Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Pan L, Strauss LG (2012) Quantitative approaches of dynamic FDG-PET and PET/CT studies (dPET/CT) for the evaluation of oncological patients. Cancer Imaging 12:283–289CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Patlak CS, Blasberg RG, Fenstermacher JD (1983) Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 3:1–7CrossRef

20.

Gramer BM, Muenzel D, Leber V, von Thaden AK, Feussner H, Schneider A, Vembar M, Soni N, Rummeny EJ, Huber AM (2012) Impact of iterative reconstruction on CNR and SNR in dynamic myocardial perfusion imaging in an animal model. Eur Radiol 22:2654–2661CrossRefPubMed

21.

Gaeta CM, Vercher-Conejero JL, Sher AC, Kohan A, Rubbert C, Avril N (2013) Recurrent and metastatic breast cancer PET, PET/CT, PET/MRI: FDG and new biomarkers. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 57:352–366PubMed

22.

Manohar K, Mittal BR, Senthil R, Kashyap R, Bhattacharya A, Singh G (2012) Clinical utility of F-18 FDG PET/CT in recurrent breast carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun 33:591–596CrossRefPubMed

23.

Raijmakers P, Temmerman OPP, Saridin CP, Heyligers IC, Becking AG, van Lingen A, Lammertsma AA (2014) Quantification of ¹⁸F-fluoride kinetics: evaluation of simplified methods. J Nucl Med 55:1122–1127CrossRefPubMed

24.

Veronese M, Rizzo G, Aboagye EO, Bertoldo A (2014) Parametric imaging of F-fluoro-3-deoxy-3-L-fluorothymidine PET data to investigate tumour heterogeneity. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:1781–1792CrossRefPubMed

25.

Krak NC, van der Hoeven JJ, Hoekstra OS et al (2003) Measuring [(18)F]FDG uptake in breast cancer during chemotherapy: comparison of analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:674–681CrossRefPubMed

26.

Dunnwald LK, Gralow JR, Ellis GK, Livingston RB, Linden HM, Specht JM, Doot RK, Lawton TJ, Barlow WE, Kurland BF, Schubert EK, Mankoff DA (2008) Tumor metabolism and blood flow changes by positron emission tomography: relation to survival in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:4449–4457CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Dunnwald LK, Doot RK, Specht JM, Gralow JR, Ellis GK, Livingston RB, Linden HM, Gadi VK, Kurland BF, Schubert EK, Muzi M, Mankoff DA (2011) PET tumor metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: value of static versus kinetic measures of fluorodeoxyglucose uptake. Clin Cancer Res 17:2400–2409CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Visser EP, Philippens ME, Kienhorst L et al (2008) Comparison of tumor volumes derived from glucose metabolic rate maps and SUV maps in dynamic ¹⁸F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 49:892–898CrossRefPubMed

29.

Freedman NM, Sundaram SK, Kurdziel K, Carrasquillo J, Whatley M, Carson J, Sellers D, Libutti S, Yang J, Bacharach S (2003) Comparison of SUV and Patlak slope for monitoring of cancer therapy using serial PET scans. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:46–53CrossRefPubMed

30.

Cheebsumon P, Velasquez LM, Hoekstra CJ, Hayes W, Kloet RW, Hoetjes NJ, Smit EF, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R (2011) Measuring response to therapy using FDG PET: semi-quantitative and full kinetic analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:832–842CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Mankoff DA, Dunnwald LK, Gralow JR, Ellis GK, Charlop A, Lawton TJ, Schubert EK, Tseng J, Livingston RB (2002) Blood flow and metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer: relationship to response to therapy. J Nucl Med 43:500–509PubMed

32.

Desilva A, Wuest M, Wang M, Hummel J, Mossman K, Wuest F, Hitt MM (2012) Comparative functional evaluation of immunocompetent mouse breast cancer models established from PyMT-tumors using small animal PET with [¹⁸F]FDG and [¹⁸F]FLT. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2:88–98PubMed

33.

Shields AF, Briston DA, Chandupatla S, Douglas KA, Lawhorn-Crews J, Collins JM, Mangner TJ, Heilbrun LK, Muzik O (2005) A simplified analysis of [¹⁸F]3′-deoxy-3′-fluorothymidine metabolism and retention. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:1269–1275CrossRefPubMed

34.

Kramer GM, Frings V, Heijtel D, Smit EF, Hoekstra OS, Boellaard R, QuIC-ConCePT Consortium (2017) Parametric method performance for dynamic 3′-deoxy-3'-¹⁸F-fluorothymidine PET/CT in epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small cell lung carcinoma patients before and during therapy. J Nucl Med 58:920–925CrossRefPubMed

Title: How Long of a Dynamic 3′-Deoxy-3′-[18F]fluorothymidine ([18F]FLT) PET Acquisition Is Needed for Robust Kinetic Analysis in Breast Cancer?
Authors: Jun Zhang
Xiaoli Liu
Michelle I. Knopp
Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy
Michael V. Knopp
Publication date: 01-04-2019
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Molecular Imaging and Biology / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 1536-1632
Electronic ISSN: 1860-2002
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-018-1231-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

How Long of a Dynamic 3′-Deoxy-3′-[¹⁸F]fluorothymidine ([¹⁸F]FLT) PET Acquisition Is Needed for Robust Kinetic Analysis in Breast Cancer?

Abstract

Purpose

Procedures

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Procedures

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Mapping Bone Marrow Response in the Vertebral Column by Positron Emission Tomography Following Radiotherapy and Erlotinib Therapy of Lung Cancer

Summary of Imaging in 2020: Visualizing the Future of Healthcare with MR Imaging

Detection of Sentinel Lymph Nodes with Near-Infrared Imaging in Malignancies

Influence of Multidrug Resistance-Associated Proteins on the Excretion of the ABCC1 Imaging Probe 6-Bromo-7-[11C]Methylpurine in Mice

Effects of a Ketogenic Diet on [18F]FDG-PET Imaging in a Mouse Model of Lung Cancer

In Vivo Evaluation of Magnetic Targeting in Mice Colon Tumors with Ultra-Magnetic Liposomes Monitored by MRI