Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of [11C]Choline ([11C]CHO) and S(+)-β-Methyl-[11C]Choline ([11C]SMC) as Imaging Probes for Prostate Cancer in a PC-3 Prostate Cancer Xenograft Model

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Molecular Imaging and Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Carbon-11- and fluorine-18-labeled choline derivatives have been introduced as promising tracers for prostate cancer imaging. However, due to limited specificity and sensitivity, there is a need for new tracers with higher sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing prostate cancer to improve tracer uptake and enhance imaging contrast. The aim of this study was to compare the properties of [11C]choline ([11C]CHO) with S(+)-β-methyl-[11C]choline ([11C]SMC) as tracer for prostate cancer imaging in a human prostate tumor mouse xenograft model by small-animal positron emission tomography/X-ray computed tomography (PET/CT).

Procedures

We carried out a dual-tracer small-animal PET/CT study comparing [11C]CHO and [11C]SMC. The androgen-independent human prostate tumor cell line PC3 was implanted subcutaneously in the flanks of Naval Medical Research Institute (NMRI) (nu/nu) mice (n = 11). Mice—6 weeks post-xenograft implantation—were injected with 37 MBq [11C]CHO via the tail vein. On a separate day, the mice were injected with 37 MBq [11C]SMC. Dynamic imaging was performed for 60 min with the Inveon animal PET/CT scanner (Siemens Medical Solutions) on two separate days (randomizing the sequence of the tracers). The dynamic PET images were acquired in list mode. Regions of interest (5 × 5 × 5 mm) were placed in transaxial slices in tumor, muscle (thigh), liver, kidney, and blood. Image analysis was performed calculating tumor to muscle (T/M) ratios based on summed images as well as dynamic data.

Results

For [11C]SMC, the mean T/M ratio was 2.24 ± 0.56 while the corresponding mean [11C]CHO T/M ratio was 1.35 ± 0.28. The T/M ratio for [11C]SMC was significant higher compared to [11C]CHO (p < 0.001). The time course of T/M ratio (T/Mdyn ratio) of [11C]SMC was higher compared to [11C]CHO with a statistically significant difference between the magnitudes of the T/M ratios and a significant different change of the T/M ratios over time between [11C]CHO and [11C]SMC.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that [11C]SMC is taken up by the tumor in the PC-3 prostate cancer xenograft model. [11C]SMC uptake was significantly higher compared to the clinically utilized [11C]CHO tracer with a higher contrast allowing imaging of a prostate cancer xenograft.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Price DT, Coleman RE, Liao RP et al (2002) Comparison of [18F] fluorocholine and [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose for positron emission tomography of androgen dependent and androgen independent prostate cancer. J Urol 168:273–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zheng QH, Gardner TA, Raikwar S et al (2004) [11C]Choline as a PET biomarker for assessment of prostate cancer tumor models. Bioorg Med Chem 12:2887–2893

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Krause BJ, Souvatzoglou M, Herrmann K et al (2010) [11C]Choline as pharmacodynamic marker for therapy response assessment in a prostate cancer xenograft model. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:1861–1868

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schwarzenbock S, Sachs D, Souvatzoglou M et al (2013) [11C]choline as a pharmacodynamic marker for docetaxel therapy. Response assessment in a LNCaP prostate cancer xenograft mouse model. Nuklearmedizin 52:141–147

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ramirez de Molina A, Penalva V, Lucas L, Lacal JC (2002) Regulation of choline kinase activity by Ras proteins involves Ral-GDS and PI3K. Oncogene 21:937–946

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ramirez de Molina A, Rodriguez-Gonzalez A, Gutierrez R et al (2002) Overexpression of choline kinase is a frequent feature in human tumor-derived cell lines and in lung, prostate, and colorectal human cancers. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 296:580–583

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ackerstaff E, Pflug BR, Nelson JB, Bhujwalla ZM (2001) Detection of increased choline compounds with proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy subsequent to malignant transformation of human prostatic epithelial cells. Cancer Res 61:3599–3603

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hara T, Bansal A, DeGrado TR (2006) Choline transporter as a novel target for molecular imaging of cancer. Mol Imaging 5:498–509

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Katz-Brull R, Degani H (1996) Kinetics of choline transport and phosphorylation in human breast cancer cells; NMR application of the zero trans method. Anticancer Res 16:1375–1380

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ratnam S, Kent C (1995) Early increase in choline kinase activity upon induction of the H-ras oncogene in mouse fibroblast cell lines. Arch Biochem Biophys 323:313–322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Holzapfel K, Muller SA, Seidl C et al (2008) Effects of irradiation on the [Methyl-3H] choline uptake in the human prostate cancer cell lines LNCaP and PC3. Strahlenther Onkol 184:319–324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaighn ME, Narayan KS, Ohnuki Y et al (1979) Establishment and characterization of a human prostatic carcinoma cell line (PC-3). Investig Urol 17:16–23

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Muller SA, Holzapfel K, Seidl C et al (2009) Characterization of choline uptake in prostate cancer cells following bicalutamide and docetaxel treatment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36:1434–1442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ferguson SS, Diksic M, Collier B (1991) Stereospecificity of high- and low-affinity transport of choline analogues into rat cortical synaptosomes. J Neurochem 57:915–921

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hara T, Yuasa M (1999) Automated synthesis of [11C]choline, a positron-emitting tracer for tumor imaging. Appl Radiat Isot 50:531–533

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Henriksen G, Herz M, Hauser A et al (2004) Synthesis and preclinical evaluation of the choline transport tracer deshydroxy-[18F] fluorocholine ([18F] dOC). Nucl Med Biol 31:851–858

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bao Q, Newport D, Chen M et al (2009) Performance evaluation of the inveon dedicated PET preclinical tomograph based on the NEMA NU-4 standards. J Nucl Med: Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 50:401–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Elsasser-Beile U, Reischl G, Wiehr S et al (2009) PET imaging of prostate cancer xenografts with a highly specific antibody against the prostate-specific membrane antigen. J Nucl Med 50:606–611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Eder M et al (2012) [68Ga] Gallium-labelled PSMA ligand as superior PET tracer for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: comparison with 18F-FECH. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39:1085–1086

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Alt K, Wiehr S, Ehrlichmann W et al (2010) High-resolution animal PET imaging of prostate cancer xenografts with three different 64Cu-labeled antibodies against native cell-adherent PSMA. Prostate 70:1413–1421

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dijkgraaf I, Franssen GM, McBride WJ et al (2012) PET of tumors expressing gastrin-releasing peptide receptor with an 18F-labeled bombesin analog. J Nucl Med 53:947–952

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang X, Cai W, Cao F et al (2006) 18F-labeled bombesin analogs for targeting GRP receptor-expressing prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 47:492–501

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Biddlecombe GB, Rogers BE, de Visser M et al (2007) Molecular imaging of gastrin-releasing peptide receptor-positive tumors in mice using 64Cu- and 86Y-DOTA-(Pro1, Tyr4)-bombesin (1–14). Bioconjug Chem 18:724–730

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fournier P, Dumulon-Perreault V, Ait-Mohand S et al (2012) Novel radiolabeled peptides for breast and prostate tumor PET imaging: (64) Cu/and (68) Ga/NOTA-PEG-[D-Tyr (6), betaAla (11), Thi (13), Nle (14)] BBN (6–14). Bioconjug Chem 23:1687–1693

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Liu Z, Li ZB, Cao Q et al (2009) Small-animal PET of tumors with (64) Cu-labeled RGD-bombesin heterodimer. J Nucl Med 50:1168–1177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yang YS, Zhang X, Xiong Z, Chen X (2006) Comparative in vitro and in vivo evaluation of two 64Cu-labeled bombesin analogs in a mouse model of human prostate adenocarcinoma. Nucl Med Biol 33:371–380

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Sybille Reder, Elisabeth Aiwanger, Annette Frank and Rosel Oos for their excellent and extensive technical support.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675, Munich, Germany

    Sarah Marie Schwarzenböck, Michael Souvatzoglou, David Sachs, Reingard Senekowitsch-Schmidtke, Markus Schwaiger, Sibylle Ilse Ziegler & Bernd Joachim Krause

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre of Rostock, University of Rostock, 18057, Rostock, Germany

    Sarah Marie Schwarzenböck, Jana Gertz, Jens Kurth & Bernd Joachim Krause

  3. Department of Urology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675, Munich, Germany

    Roman Nawroth & Uwe Treiber

  4. Institution of Statistics and Epidemiology, Technical University of Munich, 81675, Munich, Germany

    Tibor Schuster

  5. Institution of Pharmaceutical Radiochemistry, Technical University of Munich, 85748, Garching, Germany

    Gjermund Henriksen & Hans-Jürgen Wester

Authors
  1. Sarah Marie Schwarzenböck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jana Gertz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Souvatzoglou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jens Kurth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Sachs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Roman Nawroth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Uwe Treiber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tibor Schuster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Reingard Senekowitsch-Schmidtke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Markus Schwaiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Sibylle Ilse Ziegler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Gjermund Henriksen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Hans-Jürgen Wester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Bernd Joachim Krause
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Marie Schwarzenböck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schwarzenböck, S.M., Gertz, J., Souvatzoglou, M. et al. Comparison of [11C]Choline ([11C]CHO) and S(+)-β-Methyl-[11C]Choline ([11C]SMC) as Imaging Probes for Prostate Cancer in a PC-3 Prostate Cancer Xenograft Model. Mol Imaging Biol 17, 248–256 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-014-0782-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-014-0782-8

Key words

Search

Navigation