Quantitative Hypoxia Imaging for Treatment Planning of Radiotherapy

  • Iuliana Toma-Dasu
  • Alexandru Dasu
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 812)


Tumour oxygenation is an important determinant of radiotherapy outcome as it could modulate cellular radiation sensitivity. Advanced PET imaging able to characterise this microenvironmental aspect in vivo might be used to devise counteracting therapies as it could provide information on the severity and the spatial distribution of the hypoxic regions. This study reviews the advantages and limitations of PET for imaging and quantifying tumour hypoxia and proposes a novel approach to obtain absolute levels of hypoxia from PET images through the use of EPR oximetry. This would offer a significant advantage over proposals based on empirical conversions of the intensities in the PET images to relative radiosensitivities. Thus, tumour hypoxia must be taken into account at the stage of treatment planning for photons and particle therapy by accounting for its extent and severity through the use of PET imaging combined with absolute EPR measurements.


Tumour hypoxia Oxygenation PET imaging Treatment planning Treatment optimization 



Financial support from the Cancer Research Funds of Radiumhemmet, Stockholm and the LiU Cancer research network at Linköping University and the County Council of Östergötland (Sweden) is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. 1.
    Vaupel P, Kallinowski F, Okunieff P (1989) Blood flow, oxygen and nutrient supply, and metabolic microenvironment of human tumors: a review. Cancer Res 49:6449–6465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gray LH, Conger AD, Ebert M et al (1953) The concentration of oxygen dissolved in tissues at the time of irradiation as a factor in radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 26:638–648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hockel M, Knoop C, Schlenger K et al (1993) Intratumoral pO2 predicts survival in advanced cancer of the uterine cervix. Radiother Oncol 26:45–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hockel M, Schlenger K, Aral B et al (1996) Association between tumor hypoxia and malignant progression in advanced cancer of the uterine cervix. Cancer Res 56:4509–4515PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brizel DM, Sibley GS, Prosnitz LR et al (1997) Tumor hypoxia adversely affects the prognosis of carcinoma of the head and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 38:285–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rasey JS, Grunbaum Z, Magee S et al (1987) Characterization of radiolabeled fluoromisonidazole as a probe for hypoxic cells. Radiat Res 111:292–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee ST, Scott AM (2007) Hypoxia positron emission tomography imaging with 18f-fluoromisonidazole. Semin Nucl Med 37:451–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Piert M, Machulla HJ, Picchio M et al (2005) Hypoxia-specific tumor imaging with 18F-fluoroazomycin arabinoside. J Nucl Med 46:106–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krohn KA, Link JM, Mason RP (2008) Molecular imaging of hypoxia. J Nucl Med 49(Suppl 2):129S–148SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewis JS, McCarthy DW, McCarthy TJ et al (1999) Evaluation of 64Cu-ATSM in vitro and in vivo in a hypoxic tumor model. J Nucl Med 40:177–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grosu AL, Souvatzoglou M, Roper B et al (2007) Hypoxia imaging with FAZA-PET and theoretical considerations with regard to dose painting for individualization of radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69:541–551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alber M, Paulsen F, Eschmann SM et al (2003) On biologically conformal boost dose optimization. Phys Med Biol 48:N31–N35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flynn RT, Bowen SR, Bentzen SM et al (2008) Intensity-modulated x-ray (IMXT) versus proton (IMPT) therapy for theragnostic hypoxia-based dose painting. Phys Med Biol 53:4153–4167CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thorwarth D, Eschmann SM, Paulsen F et al (2007) Hypoxia dose painting by numbers: a planning study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68:291–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roels S, Slagmolen P, Nuyts J et al (2008) Biological image-guided radiotherapy in rectal cancer: is there a role for FMISO or FLT, next to FDG? Acta Oncol 47:1237–1248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dasu A, Toma-Dasu I (2013) Dose painting by numbers – do the practical limitations of the technique decrease or increase the probability of controlling tumours? IFMBE Proc 39:1731–1734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Toma-Dasu I, Uhrdin J, Antonovic L et al (2012) Dose prescription and treatment planning based on FMISO-PET hypoxia. Acta Oncol 51:222–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toma-Dasu I, Dasu A (2013) Biologically-optimised IMRT based on molecular imaging of tumour hypoxia – the impact of the tracer used. IFMBE Proc 39:1742–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Toma-Dasu I, Uhrdin J, Dasu A et al (2009) Therapy optimization based on non-linear uptake of PET tracers versus "linear dose painting". IFMBE Proc 25(1):221–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tran LB, Bol A, Labar D et al (2012) Hypoxia imaging with the nitroimidazole 18F-FAZA PET tracer: a comparison with OxyLite, EPR oximetry and 19F-MRI relaxometry. Radiother Oncol 105:29–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Radiation PhysicsStockholm University and Karolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Radiation Physics UHL, County Council of ÖstergötlandLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations