4.7 Article

An imaging comparison of 64Cu-ATSM and 60Cu-ATSM in cancer of the uterine cervix

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 49, 期 7, 页码 1177-1182

出版社

SOC NUCLEAR MEDICINE INC
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.051326

关键词

Cu-ATSM; hypoxia; Cu-60; Cu-64; cervical cancer

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R21 CA081525, R24 CA086307] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tumor uptake of copper(II)-diacetyl-bis(N-4-methylthiosemicarbazone) (copper-ATSM), a hypoxia-targeting radiopharmaceutical, assessed by PET has been found to correlate with prognosis in several human cancers. Wide clinical utility of this tracer will require its labeling with a copper radionuclide having a longer half-life than the Cu-60 used in studies to date. The purpose of this work was to obtain the requisite preclinical data for copper-ATSM to file an investigational new drug application, followed by a crossover comparison of PET image quality and tumor uptake with Cu-60-ATSM and Cu-64-ATSM in women with cancer of the uterine cervix. Methods: The preclinical toxicology and pharmacology of a copper-ATSM formulation was examined using standard in vitro and in vivo assays, as well as 14-d toxicity studies in both rats and rabbits. For the clinical test-retest imaging study, 10 patients with cervical carcinoma underwent PET on separate days with Cu-60-ATSM and Cu-64-ATSM. Image quality was assessed qualitatively, and the tumor-to-muscle activity ratio was measured for each tracer. Results: The toxicology and pharmacology data demonstrated that the formulation has an appropriate margin of safety for clinical use. In the patient study, we found that the image quality with Cu-64-ATSM was better than that with Cu-60-ATSM because of lower noise. In addition, we found that the pattern and magnitude of tumor uptake of Cu-60-ATSM and Cu-64-ATSM on studies separated by 1-9 d were similar. Conclusion: Cu-64-ATSM appears to be a safe radiopharmaceutical that can be used to obtain high-quality images of tumor hypoxia in human cancers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据