title: Dose-response relationship in cyclophosphamide-treated B-cell lymphoma xenografts monitored with [18F]FDG PET.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Although [(18)F]FDG PET can measure therapy response sooner and more accurately than morphological imaging techniques, there is still some debate as to whether [(18)F]FDG uptake really reflects changes in the viable cell fraction. In this study changes in [(18)F]FDG uptake were investigated in a lymphoma model at several time-points after treatment and with different doses of chemotherapy. Data were analysed in terms of several parameters.
  
  
  METHODS
  SCID mice were subcutaneously inoculated with 5x10(6) Daudi cells in the right thigh. One group was not treated (control group). The other groups received cyclophosphamide 75 mg/kg (low-dose group), 125 mg/kg (medium-dose group) and 175 mg/kg (high-dose group) on day 0. Sequential [(18)F]FDG small-animal PET (microPET) scans were performed on days 0, 2, 6, 9, 13 and 16 after treatment. The mean and maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(mean) and SUV(max)), metabolic tumour volume (Vol(metab)) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were calculated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A significant decrease in [(18)F]FDG uptake was observed on day 2 in the medium-dose and high-dose groups and on day 6 in the low-dose group, all preceding morphological changes. SUV(mean) and SUV(max) formed a plateau from day 6 to day 9, corresponding to the known influx of inflammatory cells. No obvious plateau was observed with TLG which was found to be the most sensitive parameter clearly differentiating the low-dose group from the medium- and high-dose groups early after therapy.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  [(18)F]FDG uptake was able to reflect the dose-response relationship for cyclophosphamide. TLG was the best parameter for dose-related response assessment in this tumour model.
authors.affiliation: Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
authors.forename: Lieselot
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Brepoels
authors.forename: Marijke
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: De Saint-Hubert
authors.forename: Sigrid
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Stroobants
authors.forename: Gregor
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Verhoef
authors.forename: Jan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Balzarini
authors.forename: Luc
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Mortelmans
authors.forename: Felix M
authors.initials: FM
authors.lastname: Mottaghy
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D045744:Cell Line, Tumor; D003520:Cyclophosphamide / Q000494:pharmacology* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D019788:Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; D006801:Humans; D016393:Lymphoma, B-Cell / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000473:pathology; D051379:Mice; D049268:Positron-Emission Tomography; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D047368:Tumor Burden / Q000187:drug effects; D023041:Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays / Q000379:methods*
chemical_list: D019788:Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; D003520:Cyclophosphamide
references.citation: Radiographics. 2003 Mar-Apr;23(2):315-40; quiz 533
references.pmid: 12640150
references.citation: BMC Med Imaging. 2008 Oct 16;8:16
references.pmid: 18925932
references.citation: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1989;24(3):148-54
references.pmid: 2544306
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Mar;36(3):396-405
references.pmid: 19050878
references.citation: J Surg Oncol. 1986 Apr;31(4):229-34
references.pmid: 3724177
references.citation: Nucl Med Commun. 2001 Oct;22(10):1123-8
references.pmid: 11567186
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2009 Apr 10;27(11):1781-7
references.pmid: 19273712
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 2;354(5):496-507
references.pmid: 16452561
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003 May;30(5):682-8
references.pmid: 12601498
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2007 Mar;48(3):390-7
references.pmid: 17332616
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2007 Oct;48(10):1592-8
references.pmid: 17873138
references.citation: Rofo. 2005 Nov;177(11):1540-4
references.pmid: 16302135
references.citation: Leuk Lymphoma. 2007 Aug;48(8):1522-30
references.pmid: 17701583
references.citation: Ann Oncol. 2002 Sep;13(9):1356-63
references.pmid: 12196360
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jul 15;21(14):2651-7
references.pmid: 12860940
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 1992 Nov;33(11):1972-80
references.pmid: 1432158
references.citation: Cancer Res. 2005 May 15;65(10):4202-10
references.pmid: 15899811
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2005 Jun;46(6):983-95
references.pmid: 15937310
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2005 Aug;46(8):1342-8
references.pmid: 16085592
references.citation: Leuk Lymphoma. 2007 Aug;48(8):1539-47
references.pmid: 17701585
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004 Nov;31(11):1471-8
references.pmid: 15257418
references.citation: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1994;33(5):410-4
references.pmid: 8306415
references.citation: Dokl Biol Sci. 2002 Sep-Oct;386:426-9
references.pmid: 12474762
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005 Mar;32(3):294-301
references.pmid: 15791438
references.citation: Clin Positron Imaging. 1999 May;2(3):159-171
references.pmid: 14516540
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2003 Feb;44(2):224-39
references.pmid: 12571214