Dose-response relationship in cyclophosphamide-treated B-cell lymphoma xenografts monitored with [18F]FDG PET.
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.
Brepoels
Lieselot
L
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
De Saint-Hubert
Marijke
M
Stroobants
Sigrid
S
Verhoef
Gregor
G
Balzarini
Jan
J
Mortelmans
Luc
L
Mottaghy
Felix M
FM
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*
D019788:Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; D003520:Cyclophosphamide
Radiographics. 2003 Mar-Apr;23(2):315-40; quiz 533
12640150
BMC Med Imaging. 2008 Oct 16;8:16
18925932
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1989;24(3):148-54
2544306
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Mar;36(3):396-405
19050878
J Surg Oncol. 1986 Apr;31(4):229-34
3724177
Nucl Med Commun. 2001 Oct;22(10):1123-8
11567186
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Apr 10;27(11):1781-7
19273712
N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 2;354(5):496-507
16452561
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003 May;30(5):682-8
12601498
J Nucl Med. 2007 Mar;48(3):390-7
17332616
J Nucl Med. 2007 Oct;48(10):1592-8
17873138
Rofo. 2005 Nov;177(11):1540-4
16302135
Leuk Lymphoma. 2007 Aug;48(8):1522-30
17701583
Ann Oncol. 2002 Sep;13(9):1356-63
12196360
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jul 15;21(14):2651-7
12860940
J Nucl Med. 1992 Nov;33(11):1972-80
1432158
Cancer Res. 2005 May 15;65(10):4202-10
15899811
J Nucl Med. 2005 Jun;46(6):983-95
15937310
J Nucl Med. 2005 Aug;46(8):1342-8
16085592
Leuk Lymphoma. 2007 Aug;48(8):1539-47
17701585
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004 Nov;31(11):1471-8
15257418
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1994;33(5):410-4
8306415
Dokl Biol Sci. 2002 Sep-Oct;386:426-9
12474762
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005 Mar;32(3):294-301
15791438
Clin Positron Imaging. 1999 May;2(3):159-171
14516540
J Nucl Med. 2003 Feb;44(2):224-39
12571214