Heterogeneity in stabilization phenomena in FLT PET images of canines

Emerging Translational Opportunities in Comparative Oncology With Companion Canine Cancers: Radiation Oncology

It is estimated that more than 6 million pet dogs are diagnosed with cancer annually in the USA. Both primary care and specialist veterinarians are frequently called upon to provide clinical care that improves the quality and/or quantity of life for affected animals. Because these cancers develop spontaneously in animals that often share the same environment as their owners, have intact immune systems and are of similar size to humans, and because the diagnostic tests and treatments for these cancers are similar to those used for management of human cancers, canine cancer provides an opportunity for research that simultaneously helps improve both canine and human health care. This is especially true in the field of radiation oncology, for which there is a rich and continually evolving history of learning from the careful study of pet dogs undergoing various forms of radiotherapy. The purpose of this review article is to inform readers of the potential utility and limitations of using dogs in that manner; the peer-reviewed literature will be critically reviewed, and current research efforts will be discussed. The article concludes with a look toward promising future directions and applications of this pet dog “model.”

Dynamic 18F-FLT PET imaging of spatiotemporal changes in tumor cell proliferation and vasculature reveals the mechanistic actions of anti-angiogenic therapy

Anti-angiogenic therapies target tumor vasculature and tumor cells, thus a concurrent assessment of these targets would lead to a greater understanding of therapeutic resistance and facilitate development of improved therapeutic strategies. We utilize dynamic 3'-deoxy-3'-¹⁸F-fluorothymidine positron emission tomography (¹⁸F-FLT PET) scanning to concurrently assess changes in tumor cell proliferation and vasculature during anti-angiogenic therapy, providing insight into how these therapies may be used effectively with combination chemotherapy. Thirty-three patients with advanced solid malignancies underwent treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor (VEGFR-TKI) axitinib on an intermittent schedule (two-weeks-on/one-week-off). Patients had up to three dynamic ¹⁸F-FLT PET/CT scans: at baseline, after two weeks of continuous VEGFR-TKI treatment, and following a one week treatment break. ¹⁸F-FLT kinetics were analyzed using a two-tissue compartment kinetic model. Kinetic parameters V _b and K ₁ were extracted to quantify changes in tumor vasculature and the ¹⁸F-FLT flux constant K _i was calculated to quantify changes in tumor cell proliferation. Two weeks of continuous axitinib exposure led to decreases in V _b (median -21%, P  =  0.07), K ₁ (median -39%, P  <  0.01), and K _i (median -37%, P  <  0.01), corresponding to diminished tumor vasculature and cell proliferation that may antagonize treatment with concurrent chemotherapy. Axitinib treatment breaks led to significant increases in V _b (median  +42%, P  <  0.01), K ₁ (median  +46%, P  <  0.01), and K _i (median  +39%, P  <  0.01) that is suggestive of an optimal time to schedule synergistic chemotherapy. Significant negative correlations (rho  ⩽  -0.70, P  <  0.01) were found between changes in tumor vasculature during axitinib exposure weeks and changes in tumor vasculature during treatment breaks. Imaging with dynamic ¹⁸F-FLT PET revealed new insights relating to the interplay of vascular and proliferative pharmacodynamics of axitinib therapy, facilitating a greater understanding of the mechanistic actions of VEGFR-TKIs. Increases in tumor vasculature and cell proliferation during VEGFR-TKI treatment breaks, suggests this period is an optimal time to schedule synergistic chemotherapy and warrants further investigation.

Evaluation of 18F-fluorothymidine positron emission tomography ([18F]FLT-PET/CT) methodology in assessing early response to chemotherapy in patients with gastro-oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

3'-Deoxy-3'-[18F]fluorothymidine ([18F]FLT) PET has limited utility in abdominal imaging due to high physiological hepatic uptake of a tracer. We evaluated [18F]FLT-PET/CT combined with a temporal-intensity information-based voxel-clustering approach termed kinetic spatial filtering (KSF) to improve tumour visualisation in patients with locally advanced and metastatic gastro-oesophageal cancer and as a marker of early response to chemotherapy. Dynamic [18F]FLT-PET/CT data were collected before and 3 weeks post first cycle of chemotherapy. Changes in tumour [18F]FLT-PET/CT variables were determined. Response was determined on contrast-enhanced CT after three cycles of therapy using RECIST 1.1.

RESULTS

Ten patients were included. Following application of the KSF, visual distinction of all oesophageal and/or gastric tumours was observed in [18F]FLT-PET images. Among the nine patients available for response evaluation (RECIST 1.1), three patients had responded (partial response) and six patients were non-responders (stable disease). There was a significant association between Ki-67 and all baseline [18F]FLT-PET parameters. Area under the curve (AUC) from 0 to 1 min was associated with treatment response.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that application of the KSF allowed accurate visualisation of both primary and metastatic lesions following imaging with the proliferation marker, [18F]FLT-PET/CT. However, [18F]FLT-PET uptake parameters did not correlate with response. Instead, we observe significant changes in tracer delivery following chemotherapy suggesting that further [18F]FLT-PET/CT studies in this tumour type should be undertaken with caution.

Molecular Imaging to Plan Radiotherapy and Evaluate Its Efficacy

Molecular imaging plays a central role in the management of radiation oncology patients. Specific uses of imaging, particularly to plan radiotherapy and assess its efficacy, require an additional level of reproducibility and image quality beyond what is required for diagnostic imaging. Specific requirements include proper patient preparation, adequate technologist training, careful imaging protocol design, reliable scanner technology, reproducible software algorithms, and reliable data analysis methods. As uncertainty in target definition is arguably the greatest challenge facing radiation oncology, the greatest impact that molecular imaging can have may be in the reduction of interobserver variability in target volume delineation and in providing greater conformity between target volume boundaries and true tumor boundaries. Several automatic and semiautomatic contouring methods based on molecular imaging are available but still need sufficient validation to be widely adopted. Biologically conformal radiotherapy (dose painting) based on molecular imaging-assessed tumor heterogeneity is being investigated, but many challenges remain to fully exploring its potential. Molecular imaging also plays increasingly important roles in both early (during treatment) and late (after treatment) response assessment as both a predictive and a prognostic tool. Because of potentially confounding effects of radiation-induced inflammation, treatment response assessment requires careful interpretation. Although molecular imaging is already strongly embedded in radiotherapy, the path to widespread and all-inclusive use is still long. The lack of solid clinical evidence is the main impediment to broader use. Recommendations for practicing physicians are still rather scarce. (18)F-FDG PET/CT remains the main molecular imaging modality in radiation oncology applications. Although other molecular imaging options (e.g., proliferation imaging) are becoming more common, their widespread use is limited by lack of tracer availability and inadequate reimbursement models. With the increasing presence of molecular imaging in radiation oncology, special emphasis should be placed on adequate training of radiation oncology personnel to understand the potential, and particularly the limitations, of quantitative molecular imaging applications. Similarly, radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists should be sensitized to the special need of the radiation oncologist in terms of quantification and reproducibility. Furthermore, strong collaboration between radiation oncology, nuclear medicine/radiology, and medical physics teams is necessary, as optimal and safe use of molecular imaging can be ensured only within appropriate interdisciplinary teams.

Molecular imaging biomarkers of resistance to radiation therapy for spontaneous nasal tumors in canines

PURPOSE

Imaging biomarkers of resistance to radiation therapy can inform and guide treatment management. Most studies have so far focused on assessing a single imaging biomarker. The goal of this study was to explore a number of different molecular imaging biomarkers as surrogates of resistance to radiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Twenty-two canine patients with spontaneous sinonasal tumors were treated with accelerated hypofractionated radiation therapy, receiving either 10 fractions of 4.2 Gy each or 10 fractions of 5.0 Gy each to the gross tumor volume. Patients underwent fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-, fluorothymidine (FLT)-, and Cu(II)-diacetyl-bis(N4-methylthiosemicarbazone) (Cu-ATSM)-labeled positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging before therapy and FLT and Cu-ATSM PET/CT imaging during therapy. In addition to conventional maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUV(max); SUV(mean)) measurements, imaging metrics providing response and spatiotemporal information were extracted for each patient. Progression-free survival was assessed according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumor. The prognostic value of each imaging biomarker was evaluated using univariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Multivariable analysis was also performed but was restricted to 2 predictor variables due to the limited number of patients. The best bivariable model was selected according to pseudo-R(2).

RESULTS

The following variables were significantly associated with poor clinical outcome following radiation therapy according to univariable analysis: tumor volume (P=.011), midtreatment FLT SUV(mean) (P=.018), and midtreatment FLT SUV(max) (P=.006). Large decreases in FLT SUV(mean) from pretreatment to midtreatment were associated with worse clinical outcome (P=.013). In the bivariable model, the best 2-variable combination for predicting poor outcome was high midtreatment FLT SUV(max) (P=.022) in combination with large FLT response from pretreatment to midtreatment (P=.041).

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to tumor volume, pronounced tumor proliferative response quantified using FLT PET, especially when associated with high residual FLT PET at midtreatment, is a negative prognostic biomarker of outcome in canine tumors following radiation therapy. Neither FDG PET nor Cu-ATSM PET were predictive of outcome.