1
|
Guo L, Wang J, Li N, Cui J, Su Y. Peptides for diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1135523. [PMID: 37213272 PMCID: PMC10196167 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1135523] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/01/2023] [Accepted: 04/24/2023] [Indexed: 05/23/2023] Open
Abstract
Ovarian cancer is the most deadly gynecologic malignancy, and its incidence is gradually increasing. Despite improvements after treatment, the results are unsatisfactory and survival rates are relatively low. Therefore, early diagnosis and effective treatment remain two major challenges. Peptides have received significant attention in the search for new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Radiolabeled peptides specifically bind to cancer cell surface receptors for diagnostic purposes, while differential peptides in bodily fluids can also be used as new diagnostic markers. In terms of treatment, peptides can exert cytotoxic effects directly or act as ligands for targeted drug delivery. Peptide-based vaccines are an effective approach for tumor immunotherapy and have achieved clinical benefit. In addition, several advantages of peptides, such as specific targeting, low immunogenicity, ease of synthesis and high biosafety, make peptides attractive alternative tools for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, particularly ovarian cancer. In this review, we focus on the recent research progress regarding peptides in the diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer, and their potential applications in the clinical setting.
Collapse
|
2
|
Micro-positron emission tomography imaging of angiogenesis based on 18F-RGD for assessing liver metastasis of colorectal cancer. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2021; 20:345-351. [PMID: 33753000 DOI: 10.1016/j.hbpd.2021.03.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2020] [Accepted: 03/03/2021] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging is a non-invasive method to visualize and quantify the tumor microenvironment. This study aimed to explore the feasibility of 18F-AIF-NOTA-E[PEG4-c(RGDfk)]2 (denoted as 18F-RGD) PET quantitative parameters to distinguish the angiogenesis in colorectal cancer (CRC) mice which has different metastatic potential. METHODS Twenty LoVo and twenty LS174T of CRC liver metastases animal models were established by implantation of human CRC cell lines via intrasplenic injection. Radiotracer-based micro-PET imaging of animal model was performed and the uptake of 18F-RGD tracer in the tumor tissues was quantified as tumor-to-liver maximum or mean standardized uptake value (SUVmax or SUVmean) ratio. Pearson correlation was used to analyze the relationship between radioactive parameters and tumor markers. RESULTS The SUVmax and SUVmean ratios of LoVo model were significantly higher than those of LS174T in both liver metastasis and primary tumor lesions (P < 0.05). A significant difference was observed in both vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and Ki67 expressions between LoVo and LS174T primary tumors (P < 0.05). The tumor-to-liver SUVmax or SUVmean ratio of 18F-RGD showed a moderate correlation with VEGF expression (r = 0.5700, P = 0.001 and r = 0.6657, P < 0.001, respectively), but the SUVmean ration showed a weak correlation with Ki67 expression (r = 0.3706, P < 0.05). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of 18F-RGD SUVmean ratio, SUVmax ratio for differentiating LoVo from LS174T tumor were 0.801 and 0.759, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The tumor-to-liver SUVmean ratio of 18F-RGD was a promising image parameter for the process of monitoring tumor angiogenesis in CRC xenograft mice model.
Collapse
|
3
|
Li L, Ma L, Shang D, Liu Z, Yu Q, Wang S, Teng X, Zhang Q, Hu X, Zhao W, Hou W, Jin J, Kong FMS, Yu J, Yuan S. Pretreatment PET/CT imaging of angiogenesis based on 18F-RGD tracer uptake may predict antiangiogenic response. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019; 46:940-947. [PMID: 30187104 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-018-4143-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2018] [Accepted: 08/19/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To explore the relationship between metabolic uptake of the 18F-ALF-NOTA-PRGD2 (18F-RGD) tracer on positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) and the antiangiogenic effect of apatinib in patients with solid malignancies. MATERIALS AND PATIENTS Patients with measurable lesions scheduled for second- or third-line single-agent therapy with apatinib were eligible for this prospective clinical trial. All patients underwent 18F-RGD PET/CT examination before the start of treatment. Standardized uptake values (SUVs) of contoured tumor lesions were computed and compared using independent sample t-tests or the Mann-Whitney U test. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine accuracy in predicting response. Survival curves were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Of 38 patients who consented to study participation, 25 patients with 42 measurable lesions met the criteria for inclusion in this response assessment analysis. The median follow-up time was 3 months (range, 1-10 months), and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3 months (95% confidence interval, 1.04-4.96). The SUVpeak and SUVmean were significantly higher in responding tumors than in non-responding tumors (4.98 ± 2.34 vs 3.59 ± 1.44, p = 0.048; 3.71 ± 1.15 vs 2.95 ± 0.49, P = 0.036). SUVmax did not differ between responding tumors and non-responding tumors (6.58 ± 3.33 vs 4.74 ± 1.83, P = 0.078). An exploratory ROC curve analysis indicated that SUVmean [area under the ROC curve (AUC) = 0.700] was a better parameter than SUVpeak (AUC = 0.689) for predicting response. Using a threshold value of 3.82, high SUVmean at baseline was associated with improved PFS (5.0 vs. 3.4 months, log-rank P = 0.036). CONCLUSION 18F-RGD uptake on PET/CT imaging pretreatment may predict the response to antiangiogenic therapy, with higher 18F-RGD uptake in tumors predicting a better response to apatinib therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li Li
- School of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Jinan-Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong, China
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute-Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, No 440 Jiyan Road, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China
| | - Li Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute-Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, No 440 Jiyan Road, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China
| | - Dongping Shang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute-Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, No 440 Jiyan Road, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China
| | - Zhiguo Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute-Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, No 440 Jiyan Road, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China
| | - Qingxi Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute-Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, No 440 Jiyan Road, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China
| | - Suzhen Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute-Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, No 440 Jiyan Road, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China
| | - Xuepeng Teng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute-Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, No 440 Jiyan Road, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China
| | - Qiang Zhang
- Zibo Forth People's Hospital, Zibo, Shandong, China
| | - Xudong Hu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute-Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, No 440 Jiyan Road, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China
- Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong, China
| | - Wei Zhao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute-Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, No 440 Jiyan Road, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China
| | - Wenhong Hou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute-Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, No 440 Jiyan Road, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China
| | - Jianyue Jin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Feng-Ming Spring Kong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Simon Cancer Center, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Jinming Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute-Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, No 440 Jiyan Road, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China
| | - Shuanghu Yuan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute-Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, No 440 Jiyan Road, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China.
- Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong, China.
| |
Collapse
|