Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (22)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (22)
Document Type
- Journal article (21)
- Preprint (1)
Language
- English (22)
Keywords
- positron emission tomography (6)
- CXCR4 (5)
- PRRT (5)
- multiple myeloma (5)
- PET/CT (4)
- PET (3)
- medicine (3)
- molecular imaging (3)
- neuroendocrine tumor (3)
- theranostics (3)
Institute
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin (21)
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II (7)
- Pathologisches Institut (5)
- Abteilung für Molekulare Innere Medizin (in der Medizinischen Klinik und Poliklinik II) (2)
- Institut für Klinische Biochemie und Pathobiochemie (2)
- Institut für diagnostische und interventionelle Radiologie (Institut für Röntgendiagnostik) (2)
- Institut für Klinische Epidemiologie und Biometrie (1)
- Institut für Medizinische Strahlenkunde und Zellforschung (1)
- Institut für diagnostische und interventionelle Neuroradiologie (ehem. Abteilung für Neuroradiologie) (1)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie (1)
Sonstige beteiligte Institutionen
EU-Project number / Contract (GA) number
- 701983 (2)
C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) and somatostatin receptors (SSTR) are overexpressed in gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NET). In this study, we aimed to elucidate the feasibility of non-invasive CXCR4 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging in GEP-NET patients using [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor in comparison to \(^{68}\)Ga-DOTA-D-Phe-Tyr3-octreotide ([\(^{68}\)Ga]DOTATOC) and \(^{18}\)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ([\(^{18}\)F]FDG). Twelve patients with histologically proven GEP-NET (3xG1, 4xG2, 5xG3) underwent [\(^{68}\)Ga]DOTATOC, [\(^{18}\)F]FDG, and [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT for staging and planning of the therapeutic management. Scans were analyzed on a patient as well as on a lesion basis and compared to immunohistochemical staining patterns of CXCR4 and somatostatin receptors SSTR2a and SSTR5. [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor visualized tumor lesions in 6/12 subjects, whereas [\(^{18}\)F]FDG revealed sites of disease in 10/12 and [\(^{68}\)Ga]DOTATOC in 11/12 patients, respectively. Regarding sensitivity, SSTR-directed PET was the superior imaging modality in all G1 and G2 NET. CXCR4-directed PET was negative in all G1 NET. In contrast, 50% of G2 and 80% of G3 patients exhibited [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor-positive tumor lesions. Whereas CXCR4 seems to play only a limited role in detecting well-differentiated NET, increasing receptor expression could be non-invasively observed with increasing tumor grade. Thus, [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT might serve as non-invasive read-out for evaluating the possibility of CXCR4-directed endoradiotherapy in advanced dedifferentiated SSTR-negative tumors.
BACKGROUND:
We observed a disproportional 18 F-fluorothymidine (F-FLT) uptake in follicular lymphoma (FL) relative to its low cell proliferation. We tested the hypothesis that the 'excess' uptake of 18 F-FLT in FL is related to error-prone DNA repair and investigated whether this also contributes to 18 F-FLT uptake in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
METHODS:
We performed immunohistochemical stainings to assess the pure DNA replication marker MIB-1 as well as markers of both DNA replication and repair like PCNA, TK-1 and RPA1 on lymph node biopsies of 27 FLs and 35 DLBCLs. In 7 FL and 15 DLBCL patients, 18 F-FLT-PET had been performed.
RESULTS:
18 F-FLT uptake was lower in FL than in DLBCL (median SUVmax 5.7 vs. 8.9, p = 0,004), but the ratio of 18 F-FLT-SUVmax to percentage of MIB-1 positive cells was significantly higher in FL compared with DLBCL (p = 0.001). The median percentage of MIB-1 positive cells was 10% (range, 10% to 20%) in FL and 70% (40% to 80%) in DLBCL. In contrast, the median percentages of PCNA, TK-1 and RPA1 positive cells were 90% (range, 80 to 100), 90% (80 to 100) and 100% (80 to 100) in FL versus 90% (60 to 100), 90% (60 to 100) and 100% (80 to 100) in DLBCL, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS:
This is the first demonstration of a striking discordance between 18 F-FLT uptake in FL and tumour cell proliferation. High expression of DNA replication and repair markers compared with the pure proliferation marker MIB-1 in FL suggests that this discordance might be due to error-prone DNA repair. While DNA repair-related 18 F-FLT uptake considerably contributes to 18 F-FLT uptake in FL, its contribution to 18 F-FLT uptake in highly proliferative DLBCL is small. This apparently high contribution of DNA repair to the 18 F-FLT signal in FL may hamper studies where 18 F-FLT is used to assess response to cytostatic therapy or to distinguish between FL and transformed lymphoma.