Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Document Type
- Journal article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Keywords
- CXCR4 (2)
- <sup>18</sup>F-FDG (1)
- <sup>68</sup>Ga-Pentixafor (1)
- NEC (1)
- NET (1)
- [68Ga]Pentixafor (1)
- chemokine receptor (1)
- solid tumors (1)
- theranostics (1)
We aimed to elucidate the diagnostic potential of the C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4)-directed positron emission tomography (PET) tracer \(^{68}\)Ga-Pentixafor in patients with poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC), relative to the established reference standard \(^{18}\)F-FDG PET/computed tomography (CT). In our database, we retrospectively identified 11 treatment-naïve patients with histologically proven NEC, who underwent \(^{18}\)F-FDG and CXCR4-directed PET/CT for staging and therapy planning. The images were analyzed on a per-patient and per-lesion basis and compared to immunohistochemical staining (IHC) of CXCR4 from PET-guided biopsies. \(^{68}\)Ga-Pentixafor visualized tumor lesions in 10/11 subjects, while \(^{18}\)F-FDG revealed sites of disease in all 11 patients. Although weak to moderate CXCR4 expression could be corroborated by IHC in 10/11 cases, \(^{18}\)F-FDG PET/CT detected significantly more tumor lesions (102 vs. 42; total lesions, n = 107; p < 0.001). Semi-quantitative analysis revealed markedly higher 18F-FDG uptake as compared to \(^{68}\)Ga-Pentixafor (maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUV) and tumor-to-background ratios (TBR) of cancerous lesions, SUVmax: 12.8 ± 9.8 vs. 5.2 ± 3.7; SUVmean: 7.4 ± 5.4 vs. 3.1 ± 3.2, p < 0.001; and, TBR 7.2 ± 7.9 vs. 3.4 ± 3.0, p < 0.001). Non-invasive imaging of CXCR4 expression in NEC is inferior to the reference standard \(^{18}\)F-FDG PET/CT.
Despite histological evidence in various solid tumor entities, available experience with CXCR4-directed diagnostics and endoradiotherapy mainly focuses on hematologic diseases. With the goal of expanding the application of CXCR4 theranostics to solid tumors, we aimed to elucidate the feasibility of CXCR4-targeted imaging in a variety of such neoplasms.
Methods: Nineteen patients with newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve solid tumors including pancreatic adenocarcinoma or neuroendocrine tumor, cholangiocarcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, ovarian cancer, and prostate cancer underwent [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT. CXCR4-mediated uptake was assessed both visually and semi-quantitatively by evaluation of maximum standardized uptake values (SUV\(_{max}\)) of both primary tumors and metastases. With physiologic liver uptake as reference, tumor-to-background ratios (TBR) were calculated. [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor findings were further compared to immunohistochemistry and [\(^{18}\)F]FDG PET/CT.
Results: On [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT, 10/19 (52.6%) primary tumors were visually detectable with a median SUVmax of 5.4 (range, 1.7–16.0) and a median TBR of 2.6 (range, 0.8–7.4), respectively. The highest level of radiotracer uptake was identified in a patient with cholangiocarcinoma (SUVmax, 16.0; TBR, 7.4). The relatively low uptake on [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor was also noted in metastases, exhibiting a median SUVmax of 4.5 (range, 2.3–8.8; TBR, 1.7; range, 1.0–4.1). A good correlation between uptake on [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor and histological derived CXCR4 expression was noted (R = 0.62, P < 0.05). In the 3 patients in whom [\(^{18}\)F]FDG PET/CT was available, [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor exhibited lower uptake in all lesions.
Conclusions: In this cohort of newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve patients with solid malignancies, CXCR4 expression as detected by [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor-PET/CT and immunohistochemistry was rather moderate. Thus, CXCR4-directed imaging may not play a major role in the management of solid tumors in the majority of patients.