Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 260–266 | Cite as

2-Deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-d-glucose Accumulation in Ovarian Carcinoma Cell Lines

  • A. M. Lutz
  • P. Ray
  • J. K. Willmann
  • Charles Drescher
  • S. S. GambhirEmail author
Brief Article



To evaluate 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-d-glucose (FDG) accumulation in human ovarian carcinoma cell lines compared with control tumor cell lines known to accumulate FDG.


FDG accumulation assays were performed in 15 different ovarian carcinoma cell lines at 1, 2, and 3 hours after incubation with 1 μCi of FDG. Results were compared with FDG accumulation in six different control tumor cell lines. 2-Deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-d-glucose accumulation was expressed as counts per minute (cpm) in cells and normalized to initial cpm in medium and total protein content of cell lysates.


FDG accumulation in all 15 ovarian carcinoma cell lines was equal to or higher than 0.0005 ± 8.6 10−5 cpm in cells/cpm in medium/μg protein at all three different time points. In two ovarian carcinoma cell lines (ES-2, poorly differentiated clear cell carcinoma, and OVCAR-3, poorly differentiated papillary adenocarcinoma), FDG accumulation was not statistically, significantly different compared to the control cell line with the highest FDG accumulation (LS 174T human colorectal adenocarcinoma) at two or more time points (P ≥ 0.07). In 2 of 15 (13%) ovarian carcinoma cell lines (OVCAR5 epithelial carcinoma and SKOV3 clear cell carcinoma), FDG accumulation was lower than that in the control cell line with the lowest FDG accumulation (HT-29 human colorectal adenocarcinoma) at one or more time points (P < 0.05).


Most human ovarian carcinoma cell lines showed comparable FDG accumulations with control cell lines known to accumulate FDG. This study lays the foundations for further comparisons with other ovarian cancer cell lines and for other positron emission tomography tracers.

Key words

FDG accumulation Ovarian carcinoma cell lines Cell uptake study FDG uptake 



We would like to thank for the generous support the Canary Foundation and Mr. Don Listwin for funding most of this work. Amelie Lutz was supported in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation. Juergen Willmann was supported in part by the Swiss Foundation of Medical-Biological Grants and Novartis Research Foundation. We would also like to thank support from NIH ICMIC P50 CA114747 (SSG). Furthermore, we would like to thank Dr. David Dick and Dr. Fred Chin in our cyclotron facility for the production of FDG. We would also like to thank Aviva Ventura from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for her help with the ovarian cancer cell lines.


  1. 1.
    Phelps ME (2000) Inaugural article: positron emission tomography provides molecular imaging of biological processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:9226–9233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gambhir SS (2002) Molecular imaging of cancer with positron emission tomography. Nat Rev Cancer 2:683–693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DH, Coleman RE, Phelps ME (2001) A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 42:1S–93SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grab D, Flock F, Stohr I, et al. (2000) Classification of asymptomatic adnexal masses by ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Gynecol Oncol 77:454–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rieber A, Nussle K, Stohr I, et al. (2001) Preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors with MR imaging: comparison with transvaginal sonography, positron emission tomography, and histologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:123–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fenchel S, Grab D, Nuessle K, et al. (2002) Asymptomatic adnexal masses: correlation of FDG PET and histopathologic findings. Radiology 223:780–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kawahara K, Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, et al. (2004) Evaluation of positron emission tomography with tracer 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in addition to magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in selected women after ultrasonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28:505–516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lerman H, Metser U, Grisaru D, Fishman A, Lievshitz G, Even-Sapir E (2004) Normal and abnormal 18F-FDG endometrial and ovarian uptake in pre- and postmenopausal patients: assessment by PET/CT. J Nucl Med 45:266–271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kubik-Huch RA, Dorffler W, von Schulthess GK, et al. (2000) Value of (18F)-FDG positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing primary and recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Eur Radiol 10:761–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Risum S, Hogdall C, Loft A, et al. (2007) The diagnostic value of PET/CT for primary ovarian cancer—a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 105:145–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burke MA, Patchefsky AS (2003) Pathology. In: Ozols RF (ed) Ovarian cancer. Hamilton: BC Decker, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Massoud TF, Gambhir SS (2003) Molecular imaging in living subjects: seeing fundamental biological processes in a new light. Genes Dev 17:545–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lemaire C, Damhaut Ph, Lauricella B, et al. (2002) Fast [18F]FDG synthesis by alkaline hydrolysis on a low polarity solid phase support. J Label Compd Radiopharm 45:435–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clavo AC, Brown RS, Wahl RL (1995) Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human cancer cell lines is increased by hypoxia. J Nucl Med 36:1625–1632PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clavo AC, Wahl RL (1996) Effects of hypoxia on the uptake of tritiated thymidine, l-leucine, l-methionine and FDG in cultured cancer cells. J Nucl Med 37:502–506PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Waki A, Kato H, Yano R, et al. (1998) The importance of glucose transport activity as the rate-limiting step of 2-deoxyglucose uptake in tumor cells in vitro. Nucl Med Biol 25:593–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhuang H, Pourdehnad M, Lambright ES, et al. (2001) Dual time point 18F-FDG PET imaging for differentiating malignant from inflammatory processes. J Nucl Med 42:1412–1417PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Freshney RI (2005) Biology of cultured cells. In: Culture of animal cells, 5th edn. Hoboken: Wiley, pp 31–42Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buick RN, Pullano R, Trent JM (1985) Comparative properties of five human ovarian adenocarcinoma cell lines. Cancer Res 45:3668–3676PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shaw TJ, Senterman MK, Dawson K, Crane CA, Vanderhyden BC (2004) Characterization of intraperitoneal, orthotopic, and metastatic xenograft models of human ovarian cancer. Mol Ther 10:1032–1042PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sundaresan G, Yazaki PJ, Shively JE, et al. (2003) 124I-labeled engineered anti-CEA minibodies and diabodies allow high-contrast, antigen-specific small-animal PET imaging of xenografts in athymic mice. J Nucl Med 44:1962–1969PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Min JJ, Biswal S, Deroose C, Gambhir SS (2004) Tetraphenylphosphonium as a novel molecular probe for imaging tumors. J Nucl Med 45:636–643PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McSheehy PM, Leach MO, Judson IR, Griffiths JR (2000) Metabolites of 2′-fluoro-2′-deoxy-d-glucose detected by 19F magnetic resonance spectroscopy in vivo predict response of murine RIF-1 tumors to 5-fluorouracil. Cancer Res 60:2122–2127PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cantuaria G, Magalhaes A, Penalver M, et al. (2000) Expression of GLUT-1 glucose transporter in borderline and malignant epithelial tumors of the ovary. Gynecol Oncol 79:33–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kurokawa T, Yoshida Y, Kawahara K, et al. (2004) Expression of GLUT-1 glucose transfer, cellular proliferation activity and grade of tumor correlate with [F-18]-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography in epithelial tumors of the ovary. Int J Cancer 109:926–932PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Provencher DM, Lounis H, Champoux L, et al. (2000) Characterization of four novel epithelial ovarian cancer cell lines. In vivo Cell Dev Biol Anim 36:357–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Benard J, Da Silva J, De Blois MC, et al. (1985) Characterization of a human ovarian adenocarcinoma line, IGROV1, in tissue culture and in nude mice. Cancer Res 45:4970–4979PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hamilton TC, Young RC, McKoy WM, et al. (1983) Characterization of a human ovarian carcinoma cell line (NIH:OVCAR-3) with androgen and estrogen receptors. Cancer Res 43:5379–5389PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Langdon SP, Lawrie SS, Hay FG, et al. (1988) Characterization and properties of nine human ovarian adenocarcinoma cell lines. Cancer Res 48:6166–6172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eva A, Robbins KC, Andersen PR, et al. (1982) Cellular genes analogous to retroviral onc genes are transcribed in human tumour cells. Nature 295:116–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Karlan BY, Jones J, Slamon DJ, Lagasse LD (1994) Glucocorticoids stabilize HER-2/neu messenger RNA in human epithelial ovarian carcinoma cells. Gynecol Oncol 53:70–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Molecular Imaging 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. M. Lutz
    • 1
  • P. Ray
    • 1
  • J. K. Willmann
    • 1
  • Charles Drescher
    • 2
  • S. S. Gambhir
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Molecular Diagnostic ProgramFred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Bioengineering, the Bio-X ProgramStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  4. 4.The James H Clark CenterStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations