Small Animal Imaging in Oncology Drug Development
Major advances in small animal imaging have been made during the last two decades encompassing a full array of platforms that image along the electromagnetic spectrum from MRI (100–101 m), optical (10−6 m), X-ray (10−9 m), to nuclear (10−11–10−12 m). This in part has been facilitated by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH) through the support of Small Animal Imaging Research Programs (SAIRP), and other initiatives to increase the availability of small animal imaging platforms and develop the expertise in the use of these methods. While the primary application of these new techniques has been research tools to answer scientific questions especially related to the understanding of in vivo systems, another area of interest has been the introduction of imaging-based in vivo assay systems for drug development in oncology. In fact, a major effort has been undertaken to integrate in vivo imaging biomarker development with in vitro biomarker development in contrast to the historical scenario of applying imaging only late in the development plan, leading to the conundrum of validation of imaging while trying to employ imaging as a biomarker.
This project has been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under Contract No. HHSN261200800001E. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government Modified per federal agency (NIH).
Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research is accredited by AAALAC International and follows the Public Health Service Policy for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Animal care was provided in accordance with the procedures outlined in the “Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” (National Research Council, 2011; National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.).
- 2.Thomas DW, Burns J, Audette J, Carroll A, et al. Clinical development success rates 2006–2015, BioIndustry analysis. http://www.amplion.com/clinical-development-success-rates?hsCtaTracking=7e38cfe3-248d-440b-a7e4-c038acfa6eb2%7Ca6180579-5624-4deb-ac76-35b512407bd1
- 3.Vanhove C, Bankstahl JP, Krämer SD, Visser E, Belcari N, Vandenberghe S. Accurate molecular imaging of small animals taking into account animal models, handling, anesthesia, quality control and imaging system performance. EJNMMI Phys. 2015;2:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-015-0135-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Fuchs K, Kukuk D, Mahling M, Quintanilla-Martinez L, Reischl G, Reutershan J, Lang F, Rocken M, Pichler BJ, Kneilling M. Impact of anesthetics on 3′-[18F]fluoro-3′-deoxythymidine ([18F]FLT) uptake in animal models of cancer and inflammation. Mol Imaging. 2013:1–11. https://doi.org/10.2310/7290.2012.00042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Maier FC, Kneilling M, Reischl G, Cay F, Bukala D, Schmid A, Judenhofer MS, Röcken M, Machulla H-J, Pichler BJ. Significant impact of different oxygen breathing conditions on noninvasive in vivo tumor-hypoxia imaging using [18F]-fluoro-azomycinarabino- furanoside ([18F]FAZA). Radiat Oncol. 2011;6:165. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-6-165.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 10.Fuchs K, Kukuk D, Reischl G, Foller M, Eichner M, Reutershan J, Lang F, Rocken M, Pichler BJ, Kneilling M. Oxygen breathing affects 3′-deoxy-3’-18F-fluorothymidine uptake in mouse models of arthritis and cancer. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:823–30. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.101808.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Ileva LV, Bernardo M, Patel NL, Riffle LA, Graff-Cherry C, Robinson C, Difilippantonio S, Kalen JD. Challenges in performing preclinical imaging in a large cohort therapeutic efficacy study of murine cancer models. 64th AALAS National Meeting, Baltimore, MD, October 29, 2013.Google Scholar
- 13.Honndorf VS, Schmidt H, Wehrl HF, Wiehr S, Ehrlichmann W, Quintanilla-Martinez L, Barjat H, Ricketts S-A, Pichler BJ. Quantitative correlation at the molecular level of tumor response to docetaxel by multimodal diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and [18F]FDG/[18F]FLT positron emission tomography. Mol Imaging. 2014;(1) https://doi.org/10.2310/7290.2014.00045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME USA, https://www.jax.org/.
- 18.Biological Testing Branch, Division of Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment, NCI, NIH: https://dtp.cancer.gov/organization/btb/default.htm
- 19.Center for Advanced Preclinical Research, Center for Cancer Research, NCI, NIH: https://ccr.cancer.gov/capr
- 25.American Cancer Society. Colorectal cancer. 2018.Google Scholar
- 31.Young MR, Ileva LV, Bernardo M, Riffle LA, Jones YL, Kim YS, Colburn NH, Choyke PL. Monitoring of tumor promotion and progression in a mouse model of inflammation-induced colon cancer with magnetic resonance colonography. Neoplasia. 2009;11(3):237–46. https://doi.org/10.1593/neo.81326.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 36.Bhattacharyya S, Kurdziel K, Wei L, Riffle L, Kaur G, Hill GC, Jacobs PM, Tatum JL, Dorosho JH, Kalen JD. Zirconium-89 labeled panitumumab: a potential immuno-PET probe for HER1-expressing carcinomas. Nucl Med Biol. 2013;40:451–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2013.01.007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 37.Bhattacharyya S, Patel NL, Wei L, Riffle LA, Kalen JD, Hill GC, Jacobs PM, Zinn KR, Rosenthal E. Synthesis and biological evaluation of panitumumab–IRDye800 conjugate as a fluorescence imaging probe for EGFR-expressing cancers. Med Chem Commum. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1039/c4md00116h.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Leijenaar RTH, Nalbantov G, Carvalho S, van Elmpt WJC, Troost EGC, Boellaard R, Aerts HJWL, Gillies RJ, Lambin P. The efect of SUV discretization in quantitative FDG-PET Radiomics: the need for standardized methodology in tumor texture analysis. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11075. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11075.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar