[
11C]Erlotinib PET cannot detect acquired erlotinib resistance in NSCLC tumor xenografts in mice.
Nucl Med Biol 2017;
52:7-15. [PMID:
28575795 DOI:
10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2017.05.007]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2017] [Revised: 05/02/2017] [Accepted: 05/10/2017] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
[11C]Erlotinib PET has shown promise to distinguish non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors harboring the activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation delE746-A750 from tumors with wild-type EGFR. To assess the suitability of [11C]erlotinib PET to detect the emergence of acquired erlotinib resistance in initially erlotinib-responsive tumors, we performed in vitro binding and PET experiments in mice bearing tumor xenografts using a range of different cancer cells, which were erlotinib-sensitive or exhibited clinically relevant resistance mechanisms to erlotinib.
METHODS
The following cell lines were used for in vitro binding and PET experiments: the epidermoid carcinoma cell line A-431 (erlotinib-sensitive, wild-type EGFR) and the three NSCLC cell lines HCC827 (erlotinib-sensitive, delE746-A750), HCC827EPR (erlotinib-resistant, delE746-A750 and T790M) and HCC827ERLO (erlotinib-resistant, delE746-A750 and MET amplification). BALB/c nude mice with subcutaneous tumor xenografts underwent two consecutive [11C]erlotinib PET scans, a baseline scan and a second scan in which unlabeled erlotinib (10mg/kg) was co-injected. Logan graphical analysis was used to estimate total distribution volume (VT) of [11C]erlotinib in tumors.
RESULTS
In vitro experiments revealed significantly higher uptake of [11C]erlotinib (5.2-fold) in the three NSCLC cell lines as compared to A-431 cells. In all four cell lines co-incubation with unlabeled erlotinib (1μM) led to significant reductions in [11C]erlotinib uptake (-19% to -66%). In both PET scans and for all four studied cell lines there were no significant differences in tumoral [11C]erlotinib VT values. For all three NSCLC cell lines, but not for the A-431 cell line, tumoral VT was significantly reduced following co-injection of unlabeled erlotinib (-20% to -35%).
CONCLUSIONS
We found no significant differences in the in vitro and in vivo binding of [11C]erlotinib between erlotinib-sensitive and erlotinib-resistant NSCLC cells. Our findings suggest that [11C]erlotinib PET will not be suitable to distinguish erlotinib-sensitive NSCLC tumors from tumors with acquired resistance to erlotinib.
Collapse