Title |
Discriminating radiation injury from recurrent tumor with [18F]PARPi and amino acid PET in mouse models
|
---|---|
Published in |
EJNMMI Research, July 2018
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13550-018-0399-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Patrick L. Donabedian, Susanne Kossatz, John A. Engelbach, Stephen A. Jannetti, Brandon Carney, Robert J. Young, Wolfgang A. Weber, Joel R. Garbow, Thomas Reiner |
Abstract |
Radiation injury can be indistinguishable from recurrent tumor on standard imaging. Current protocols for this differential diagnosis require one or more follow-up imaging studies, long dynamic acquisitions, or complex image post-processing; despite much research, the inability to confidently distinguish between these two entities continues to pose a significant dilemma for the treating clinician. Using mouse models of both glioblastoma and radiation necrosis, we tested the potential of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-targeted PET imaging with [18F]PARPi to better discriminate radiation injury from tumor. In mice with experimental radiation necrosis, lesion uptake on [18F]PARPi-PET was similar to contralateral uptake (1.02 ± 0.26 lesion/contralateral %IA/ccmax ratio), while [18F]FET-PET clearly delineated the contrast-enhancing region on MR (2.12 ± 0.16 lesion/contralateral %IA/ccmax ratio). In mice with focal intracranial U251 xenografts, tumor visualization on PARPi-PET was superior to FET-PET, and lesion-to-contralateral activity ratios (max/max, p = 0.034) were higher on PARPi-PET than on FET-PET. A murine model of radiation necrosis does not demonstrate [18F]PARPi avidity, and [18F]PARPi-PET is better than [18F]FET-PET in distinguishing radiation injury from brain tumor. [18F]PARPi-PET can be used for discrimination between recurrent tumor and radiation injury within a single, static imaging session, which may be of value to resolve a common dilemma in neuro-oncology. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 24% |
Researcher | 5 | 20% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 16% |
Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
Professor | 1 | 4% |
Other | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 5 | 20% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 32% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 12% |
Chemistry | 2 | 8% |
Psychology | 2 | 8% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
Other | 3 | 12% |
Unknown | 6 | 24% |