Advertisement

FDG small animal PET permits early detection of malignant cells in a xenograft murine model

  • Cristina Nanni
  • Korinne Di Leo
  • Roberto Tonelli
  • Cinzia Pettinato
  • Domenico RubelloEmail author
  • Antonello Spinelli
  • Silvia Trespidi
  • Valentina Ambrosini
  • Paolo Castellucci
  • Mohsen Farsad
  • Roberto Franchi
  • Andrea Pession
  • Stefano Fanti
Molecular Imaging

Abstract

Purpose

The administration of new anticancer drugs in animal models is the first step from in vitro to in vivo pre-clinical protocols. At this stage it is crucial to ensure that cells are in the logarithmic phase of growth and to avoid vascular impairment, which can cause inhomogeneous distribution of the drug within the tumour and thus lead to bias in the final analysis of efficacy. In subcutaneous xenograft murine models, positivity for cancer is visually recognisable 2–3 weeks after inoculation, when a certain amount of necrosis is usually already present. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of FDG small animal PET for the early detection of malignant masses in a xenograft murine model of human rhabdomyosarcoma. A second goal was to analyse the metabolic behaviour of this xenograft tumour over time.

Methods

We studied 23 nude mice, in which 7 × 106 rhabdomyosarcoma cells (RH-30 cell line) were injected in the dorsal subcutaneous tissues. Each animal underwent four FDG PET scans (GE, eXplore Vista DR) under gas anaesthesia. The animals were studied 2, 5, 14 and 20 days after inoculation. We administered 20 MBq of FDG via the tail vein. Uptake time was 60 min, and acquisition time, 20 min. Images were reconstructed with OSEM 2D iterative reconstruction and the target to background ratio (TBR) was calculated for each tumour. Normal subcutaneous tissue had a TBR of 0.3. Necrosis was diagnosed when one or more cold areas were present within the mass. All the animals were sacrificed and histology was available to verify PET results. PET results were concordant with the findings of necropsy and histology in all cases.

Results

The incidence of the tumour was 69.6% (16/23 animals); seven animals did not develop a malignant mass. Ten of the 23 animals had a positive PET scan 2 days after inoculation. Nine of these ten animals developed a tumour; the remaining animal became negative, at the third scan. The positive predictive value of the early PET scan was 90% (9/10 animals) while the negative predictive value was 46% (6/13 animals). In the whole group of animals, mean TBR increased scan by scan. There was a statistically significant difference in TBR between 2 and 20 days after inoculation. Necrosis was present at the second scan in two animals, at the third scan in six animals and at the fourth scan in 11 animals.

Conclusion

The high positive predictive value of FDG PET 2 days after inoculation means that an animal with a first positive scan has a very high likelihood of developing a mass and can be treated at an early stage with an experimental drug. Animals negative at this point in time will never develop a mass or will eventually do so at a late phase. As 2 of the 16 (12.5%) positive animals had necrosis at the second scan, indicating a vascular mismatch, it may be argued that animals should be treated 2 days after inoculation to guarantee homogeneous vascularisation (thereby ensuring a good drug supply within the tumour) in all subjects.

Keywords

Small animal PET 18F-FDG Rhabdomyosarcoma Xenograft model 

References

  1. 1.
    Lee KH, Ko BH, Paik JY, Jung KH, Choe YS, Choi Y, et al. Effects of anesthetic agents and fasting duration on 18F-FDG biodistribution and insulin levels in tumor-bearing mice. J Nucl Med 2005;46(9):1531–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schuhmacher J, Zhang H, Doll J, Macke HR, Matys R, Hauser H, et al. GRP receptor-targeted PET of a rat pancreas carcinoma xenograft in nude mice with a 68Ga-labeled bombesin(6–14) analog. J Nucl Med 2005;46(4):691–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greschus S, Kiessling F, Lichy MP, Moll J, Mueller MM, Savai R, et al. Potential applications of flat-panel volumetric CT in morphologic and functional small animal imaging. Neoplasia 2005;7(8):730–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ritman EL. Micro-computed tomography-current status and developments. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2004;6:185–208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gauvain KM, Garbow JR, Song SK, Hirbe AC, Weilbaecher K. MRI detection of early bone metastases in B16 mouse melanoma models. Clin Exp Metastasis 2005;22(5):403–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reynolds CP, Sun BC, DeClerck YA, Moats RA. Assessing growth and response to therapy in murine tumor models. Methods Mol Med 2005;111:335–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aina OH, Marik J, Gandour-Edwards R, Lam KS. Near-infrared optical Imaging of ovarian cancer xenografts with novel alpha3-Integrin binding peptide “OA02”. Mol Imaging 2005;4(4):439–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hsu ER, Gillenwater AM, Richards-Kortum RR. Detection of the molecular changes associated with oral cancer using a molecular-specific fluorescent contrast agent and single-wavelength spectroscopy. Appl Spectrosc 2005;59(9):1166–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liang H. Modeling antitumor activity in xenograft tumor treatment. Biom J 2005;47(3):358–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peterson JK, Tucker C, Favours E, Cheshire PJ, Creech J, Billups CA, et al. In vivo evaluation of ixabepilone (BMS247550), a novel epothilone B derivative, against pediatric cancer models. Clin Cancer Res 2005;111:6950–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Line BR, Mitra A, Nan A, Ghandehari H. Targeting tumor angiogenesis: comparison of peptide and polymer-peptide conjugates. J Nucl Med 2005;46(9):1552–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pinthus JH, Sheffer Y, Nagler A, Fridman E, Mor Y, Genina O, et al. Inhibition of Wilms tumor xenograft progression by halofuginone is accompanied by activation of WT-1 gene expression. J Urol 2005;174:1527–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang J, Maurer L. Positron emission tomography: applications in drug discovery and drug development. Curr Top Med Chem 2005;5(11):1053–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tai YC, Ruangma A, Rowland D, Siegel S, Newport DF, Chow PL, et al. Performance evaluation of the microPET focus: a third-generation microPET scanner dedicated to animal imaging. J Nucl Med 2005;46(3):455–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Komarova NL, Mironov V. On the role of endothelial progenitor cells in tumor neovascularization. J Theor Biol 2005;235(3):338–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beltinger C, Debatin K-M. Murine models for experimental therapy of pediatric solid tumors with poor prognosis. Int J Cancer 2001;92:313–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Charles K, Capecchi MR. New genetic tactics to model alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma in the mouse. Cancer Res 2005;65:233–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Messahel B, Hing S, Nash R, Jeffrey I, Pritchard-Jones K. Clinical features of molecular pathology of solid tumours in childhood. Lancet Oncol 2005;6(6):421–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cao MY, Lee Y, Feng N, Li H, Du D, Miao D, et al. NK cell activation and tumor infiltration are involved in the antitumor mechanism of Virulizin. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2005;54:229–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Nanni
    • 1
  • Korinne Di Leo
    • 2
  • Roberto Tonelli
    • 2
  • Cinzia Pettinato
    • 3
  • Domenico Rubello
    • 4
    Email author
  • Antonello Spinelli
    • 1
  • Silvia Trespidi
    • 1
  • Valentina Ambrosini
    • 1
  • Paolo Castellucci
    • 1
  • Mohsen Farsad
    • 1
  • Roberto Franchi
    • 1
  • Andrea Pession
    • 2
  • Stefano Fanti
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuclear MedicineAzienda Ospedaliera di Bologna Policlinico S.Orsola-MalpighiBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Department of PediatricsUniversity of Bologna, Sant’Orsola-Malpighi HospitalBolognaItaly
  3. 3.PhysicsAzienda Ospedaliera di Bologna Policlinico S.Orsola-MalpighiBolognaItaly
  4. 4.Service of Nuclear Medicine and PETOspedale S. Maria della MisericordiaRovigoItaly

Personalised recommendations