Early monitoring of response to antimetabolic treatment of gemcitabine: A comparison of 18F-FLT and 18F-FDG uptake in Patu 8988 human pancreatic carcinoma cells

RADIOCHEMISTRY, RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE

Early monitoring of response to antimetabolic treatment of gemcitabine: A comparison of ¹⁸F-FLT and ¹⁸F-FDG uptake in Patu 8988 human pancreatic carcinoma cells

DENG Shengming，

ZHANG Bin，

WU Yiwei，

ZHANG Wei

Nuclear Science and Techniques

Vol.22, No.5

pp.293-298

Published in print 20 Oct 2011

DOI：10.13538/j.1001-8042/nst.22.293-298

33400

It is essential to predict the treatment efficacy of pancreatic carcinoma early. The purpose of this study was to examine whether ¹⁸F-FDG (2’-deoxy-2’-[¹⁸F]fluoro-D-glucose) or ¹⁸F-FLT (3’-deoxy-3’-¹⁸F-fluorothymidine) PET can be used for chemosensitivity testing by investigating the binding characteristic of ¹⁸F-FDG or ¹⁸F-FLT with Patu 8988 human pancreatic carcinoma cell and the influence of gemcitabine in the uptake of ¹⁸F-FDG or ¹⁸F-FLT on Patu 8988. Under the conditions of 1×10⁶ cells, 3.7 kBq ¹⁸F-FDG or ¹⁸F-FLT, and incubation at 37ºC for 100 min, the cell uptake of ¹⁸F-FDG and ¹⁸F-FLT was (60.60±3.05)% and (50.57±2.81)%, respectively. There was a significant decrease in TK1-LI (thymidine kinase 1 labeling index) 24 h after administration of gemcitabine. The uptakes of ¹⁸F-FDG and ¹⁸F-FLT were negatively correlated with the doses of gemcitabine (r= –0.928 for ¹⁸F-FDG, r= –0.876 for ¹⁸F-FLT, P<0.01). When same doses of gemcitabine were administered, the ¹⁸F-FLT uptake inhibition rate was significantly higher than that of ¹⁸F-FDG (P<0.01). These results indicate that the response to gemcitabine could be predicted as early as 24 h by ¹⁸F-FDG or ¹⁸F-FLT PET scans. ¹⁸F-FLT is more sensitive than ¹⁸F-FDG to predict the response to therapy.

Pancreatic carcinomaUptakeGemcitabine18F-FDG18F-FLT

References

[1]

Ahn S H, Garewalb H S, Dragovich T. J Buon, 2008, 13: 359-362.

[2]

Song S L, Liu J J, Huang G. J Nucl Med, 2008, 49: 303-309

[3]

Sugiyama M, Sakahara H, Sato K. J Nucl Med, 2004, 45: 1754-1758

[4]

Yamane T, Daimaru O, Ito S. J Nucl Med, 2004, 45: 1838-1842

[5]

Nahmias C, Hanna W T, Wahl L M. J Nucl Med, 2007, 48: 744-751

[6]

Wagner M, Seitz U, Buck A. Cancer Res, 2003, 63: 2681-2687

[7]

Herrmann K, Wieder H A, Buck A K. Clin Cancer Res, 2007, 13: 3552-3558.

[8]

Kenny L, Coombes R C, Vigushin D M. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2007, 34: 1339-1347.

[9]

Kong X B, Zhu Q Y, Vidal P M. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 1992, 36: 808-818.

[10]

Shi Z, Azuma A, Sampath D. Cancer Res, 2001, 61: 1065-1072.

[11]

Ren R M, Yu J M, Li W T. Chin J Nucl Med, 2005, 25: 161-163.

[12]

Seitz U, Wagner M, Neumaier B. Eur J Nucl Med, 2002, 29: 1174-1181.

[13]

Francis R J, Byrne M J, Schaaf A A. J Nucl Med, 2007, 48: 1449-1458.

[14]

Nahmias C, Hanna W T, Wahl L M. J Nucl Med, 2007, 48: 744-751.

[15]

Weber W A, Ziegler S I, Thodtmann R. J Nucl Med, 1999, 40: 1771-1777.

[16]

Leyton J, Latigo J R, Perumal M. Cancer Res, 2005, 65: 4202-4210.

[17]

Barthel H, Cleij M C, Collingridge D R. Cancer Res, 2003, 63: 3791-3798.

[18]

Yang Y J, Ryu J S, Kim S Y. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2006, 33: 412-419.