1
|
Damoci CB, Merrill JR, Sun Y, Lyons SK, Olive KP. Addressing Biological Questions with Preclinical Cancer Imaging. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 2024; 14:a041378. [PMID: 38503500 PMCID: PMC11529846 DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a041378] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/21/2024]
Abstract
The broad application of noninvasive imaging has transformed preclinical cancer research, providing a powerful means to measure dynamic processes in living animals. While imaging technologies are routinely used to monitor tumor growth in model systems, their greatest potential lies in their ability to answer fundamental biological questions. Here we present the broad range of potential imaging applications according to the needs of a cancer biologist with a focus on some of the common biological processes that can be used to visualize and measure. Topics include imaging metastasis; biophysical properties such as perfusion, diffusion, oxygenation, and stiffness; imaging the immune system and tumor microenvironment; and imaging tumor metabolism. We also discuss the general ability of each approach and the level of training needed to both acquire and analyze images. The overall goal is to provide a practical guide for cancer biologists interested in answering biological questions with preclinical imaging technologies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chris B Damoci
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York 10032, USA
| | - Joseph R Merrill
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York 11724, USA
| | - Yanping Sun
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York 10032, USA
| | - Scott K Lyons
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York 11724, USA
| | - Kenneth P Olive
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York 10032, USA
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York 10032, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gold L, Barci E, Brendel M, Orth M, Cheng J, Kirchleitner SV, Bartos LM, Pötter D, Kirchner MA, Unterrainer LM, Kaiser L, Ziegler S, Weidner L, Riemenschneider MJ, Unterrainer M, Belka C, Tonn JC, Bartenstein P, Niyazi M, von Baumgarten L, Kälin RE, Glass R, Lauber K, Albert NL, Holzgreve A. The Traumatic Inoculation Process Affects TSPO Radioligand Uptake in Experimental Orthotopic Glioblastoma. Biomedicines 2024; 12:188. [PMID: 38255293 PMCID: PMC10813339 DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12010188] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2023] [Revised: 01/10/2024] [Accepted: 01/11/2024] [Indexed: 01/24/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The translocator protein (TSPO) has been proven to have great potential as a target for the positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of glioblastoma. However, there is an ongoing debate about the potential various sources of the TSPO PET signal. This work investigates the impact of the inoculation-driven immune response on the PET signal in experimental orthotopic glioblastoma. METHODS Serial [18F]GE-180 and O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine ([18F]FET) PET scans were performed at day 7/8 and day 14/15 after the inoculation of GL261 mouse glioblastoma cells (n = 24) or saline (sham, n = 6) into the right striatum of immunocompetent C57BL/6 mice. An additional n = 25 sham mice underwent [18F]GE-180 PET and/or autoradiography (ARG) at days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 50 and 90 in order to monitor potential reactive processes that were solely related to the inoculation procedure. In vivo imaging results were directly compared to tissue-based analyses including ARG and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS We found that the inoculation process represents an immunogenic event, which significantly contributes to TSPO radioligand uptake. [18F]GE-180 uptake in GL261-bearing mice surpassed [18F]FET uptake both in the extent and the intensity, e.g., mean target-to-background ratio (TBRmean) in PET at day 7/8: 1.22 for [18F]GE-180 vs. 1.04 for [18F]FET, p < 0.001. Sham mice showed increased [18F]GE-180 uptake at the inoculation channel, which, however, continuously decreased over time (e.g., TBRmean in PET: 1.20 at day 7 vs. 1.09 at day 35, p = 0.04). At the inoculation channel, the percentage of TSPO/IBA1 co-staining decreased, whereas TSPO/GFAP (glial fibrillary acidic protein) co-staining increased over time (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION We identify the inoculation-driven immune response to be a relevant contributor to the PET signal and add a new aspect to consider for planning PET imaging studies in orthotopic glioblastoma models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lukas Gold
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany; (L.G.)
| | - Enio Barci
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany; (L.G.)
- Neurosurgical Research, Department of Neurosurgery, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Matthias Brendel
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany; (L.G.)
- Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (SyNergy), LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Michael Orth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Tübingen, 72076 Tübingen, Germany
| | - Jiying Cheng
- Neurosurgical Research, Department of Neurosurgery, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Sabrina V. Kirchleitner
- Department of Neurosurgery, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Laura M. Bartos
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany; (L.G.)
| | - Dennis Pötter
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany; (L.G.)
| | - Maximilian A. Kirchner
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany; (L.G.)
| | - Lena M. Unterrainer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany; (L.G.)
| | - Lena Kaiser
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany; (L.G.)
| | - Sibylle Ziegler
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany; (L.G.)
| | - Lorraine Weidner
- Department of Neuropathology, Regensburg University Hospital, 93053 Regensburg, Germany
| | | | - Marcus Unterrainer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany; (L.G.)
- DIE RADIOLOGIE, 80331 Munich, Germany
| | - Claus Belka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Bavarian Cancer Research Center (BZKF), 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Joerg-Christian Tonn
- Department of Neurosurgery, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Peter Bartenstein
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany; (L.G.)
- Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (SyNergy), LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Maximilian Niyazi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Tübingen, 72076 Tübingen, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Bavarian Cancer Research Center (BZKF), 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Louisa von Baumgarten
- Department of Neurosurgery, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Bavarian Cancer Research Center (BZKF), 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Roland E. Kälin
- Neurosurgical Research, Department of Neurosurgery, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Rainer Glass
- Neurosurgical Research, Department of Neurosurgery, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Kirsten Lauber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Nathalie L. Albert
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany; (L.G.)
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Bavarian Cancer Research Center (BZKF), 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Adrien Holzgreve
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany; (L.G.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Jackson LR, Masi MR, Selman BM, Sandusky GE, Zarrinmayeh H, Das SK, Maharjan S, Wang N, Zheng QH, Pollok KE, Snyder SE, Sun PZ, Hutchins GD, Butch ER, Veronesi MC. Use of multimodality imaging, histology, and treatment feasibility to characterize a transgenic Rag2-null rat model of glioblastoma. Front Oncol 2022; 12:939260. [PMID: 36483050 PMCID: PMC9722958 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.939260] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2022] [Accepted: 10/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Many drugs that show potential in animal models of glioblastoma (GBM) fail to translate to the clinic, contributing to a paucity of new therapeutic options. In addition, animal model development often includes histologic assessment, but multiparametric/multimodality imaging is rarely included despite increasing utilization in patient cancer management. This study developed an intracranial recurrent, drug-resistant, human-derived glioblastoma tumor in Sprague-Dawley Rag2-Rag2 tm1Hera knockout rat and was characterized both histologically and using multiparametric/multimodality neuroimaging. Hybrid 18F-fluoroethyltyrosine positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, including chemical exchange saturation transfer (18F-FET PET/CEST MRI), was performed for full tumor viability determination and characterization. Histological analysis demonstrated human-like GBM features of the intracranially implanted tumor, with rapid tumor cell proliferation (Ki67 positivity: 30.5 ± 7.8%) and neovascular heterogeneity (von Willebrand factor VIII:1.8 to 5.0% positivity). Early serial MRI followed by simultaneous 18F-FET PET/CEST MRI demonstrated consistent, predictable tumor growth, with exponential tumor growth most evident between days 35 and 49 post-implantation. In a second, larger cohort of rats, 18F-FET PET/CEST MRI was performed in mature tumors (day 49 post-implantation) for biomarker determination, followed by evaluation of single and combination therapy as part of the model development and validation. The mean percentage of the injected dose per mL of 18F-FET PET correlated with the mean %CEST (r = 0.67, P < 0.05), but there was also a qualitative difference in hot spot location within the tumor, indicating complementary information regarding the tumor cell demand for amino acids and tumor intracellular mobile phase protein levels. Finally, the use of this glioblastoma animal model for therapy assessment was validated by its increased overall survival after treatment with combination therapy (temozolomide and idasanutlin) (P < 0.001). Our findings hold promise for a more accurate tumor viability determination and novel therapy assessment in vivo in a recently developed, reproducible, intracranial, PDX GBM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luke R. Jackson
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University (IU) School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Megan R. Masi
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University (IU) School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Bryce M. Selman
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University (IU) School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - George E. Sandusky
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University (IU) School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Hamideh Zarrinmayeh
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University (IU) School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Sudip K. Das
- Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Surendra Maharjan
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University (IU) School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Nian Wang
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University (IU) School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Qi-Huang Zheng
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University (IU) School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Karen E. Pollok
- Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University (IU) School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Scott E. Snyder
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University (IU) School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Phillip Zhe Sun
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - Gary D. Hutchins
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University (IU) School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Elizabeth R. Butch
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University (IU) School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Michael C. Veronesi
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University (IU) School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States,*Correspondence: Michael C. Veronesi,
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Wu C, Lorenzo G, Hormuth DA, Lima EABF, Slavkova KP, DiCarlo JC, Virostko J, Phillips CM, Patt D, Chung C, Yankeelov TE. Integrating mechanism-based modeling with biomedical imaging to build practical digital twins for clinical oncology. BIOPHYSICS REVIEWS 2022; 3:021304. [PMID: 35602761 PMCID: PMC9119003 DOI: 10.1063/5.0086789] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2022] [Accepted: 04/29/2022] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Digital twins employ mathematical and computational models to virtually represent a physical object (e.g., planes and human organs), predict the behavior of the object, and enable decision-making to optimize the future behavior of the object. While digital twins have been widely used in engineering for decades, their applications to oncology are only just emerging. Due to advances in experimental techniques quantitatively characterizing cancer, as well as advances in the mathematical and computational sciences, the notion of building and applying digital twins to understand tumor dynamics and personalize the care of cancer patients has been increasingly appreciated. In this review, we present the opportunities and challenges of applying digital twins in clinical oncology, with a particular focus on integrating medical imaging with mechanism-based, tissue-scale mathematical modeling. Specifically, we first introduce the general digital twin framework and then illustrate existing applications of image-guided digital twins in healthcare. Next, we detail both the imaging and modeling techniques that provide practical opportunities to build patient-specific digital twins for oncology. We then describe the current challenges and limitations in developing image-guided, mechanism-based digital twins for oncology along with potential solutions. We conclude by outlining five fundamental questions that can serve as a roadmap when designing and building a practical digital twin for oncology and attempt to provide answers for a specific application to brain cancer. We hope that this contribution provides motivation for the imaging science, oncology, and computational communities to develop practical digital twin technologies to improve the care of patients battling cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chengyue Wu
- Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA
| | | | | | | | - Kalina P. Slavkova
- Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA
| | | | | | - Caleb M. Phillips
- Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA
| | - Debra Patt
- Texas Oncology, Austin, Texas 78731, USA
| | - Caroline Chung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, Texas 77030, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Holzgreve A, Pötter D, Brendel M, Orth M, Weidner L, Gold L, Kirchner MA, Bartos LM, Unterrainer LM, Unterrainer M, Steiger K, von Baumgarten L, Niyazi M, Belka C, Bartenstein P, Riemenschneider MJ, Lauber K, Albert NL. Longitudinal [ 18F]GE-180 PET Imaging Facilitates In Vivo Monitoring of TSPO Expression in the GL261 Glioblastoma Mouse Model. Biomedicines 2022; 10:biomedicines10040738. [PMID: 35453488 PMCID: PMC9030822 DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10040738] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2022] [Revised: 03/17/2022] [Accepted: 03/21/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
The 18 kDa translocator protein (TSPO) is increasingly recognized as an interesting target for the imaging of glioblastoma (GBM). Here, we investigated TSPO PET imaging and autoradiography in the frequently used GL261 glioblastoma mouse model and aimed to generate insights into the temporal evolution of TSPO radioligand uptake in glioblastoma in a preclinical setting. We performed a longitudinal [18F]GE-180 PET imaging study from day 4 to 14 post inoculation in the orthotopic syngeneic GL261 GBM mouse model (n = 21 GBM mice, n = 3 sham mice). Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) was performed at the day of the final PET scan (±1 day). [18F]GE-180 autoradiography was performed on day 7, 11 and 14 (ex vivo: n = 13 GBM mice, n = 1 sham mouse; in vitro: n = 21 GBM mice; n = 2 sham mice). Brain sections were also used for hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining and TSPO immunohistochemistry. [18F]GE-180 uptake in PET was elevated at the site of inoculation in GBM mice as compared to sham mice at day 11 and later (at day 14, TBRmax +27% compared to sham mice, p = 0.001). In GBM mice, [18F]GE-180 uptake continuously increased over time, e.g., at day 11, mean TBRmax +16% compared to day 4, p = 0.011. [18F]GE-180 uptake as depicted by PET was in all mice co-localized with contrast-enhancement in CT and tissue-based findings. [18F]GE-180 ex vivo and in vitro autoradiography showed highly congruent tracer distribution (r = 0.99, n = 13, p < 0.001). In conclusion, [18F]GE-180 PET imaging facilitates non-invasive in vivo monitoring of TSPO expression in the GL261 GBM mouse model. [18F]GE-180 in vitro autoradiography is a convenient surrogate for ex vivo autoradiography, allowing for straightforward identification of suitable models and scan time-points on previously generated tissue sections.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adrien Holzgreve
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), 81377 Munich, Germany; (A.H.); (D.P.); (M.B.); (L.G.); (M.A.K.); (L.M.B.); (L.M.U.); (P.B.)
| | - Dennis Pötter
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), 81377 Munich, Germany; (A.H.); (D.P.); (M.B.); (L.G.); (M.A.K.); (L.M.B.); (L.M.U.); (P.B.)
| | - Matthias Brendel
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), 81377 Munich, Germany; (A.H.); (D.P.); (M.B.); (L.G.); (M.A.K.); (L.M.B.); (L.M.U.); (P.B.)
| | - Michael Orth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), 81377 Munich, Germany; (M.O.); (M.N.); (C.B.); (K.L.)
| | - Lorraine Weidner
- Department of Neuropathology, Regensburg University Hospital, 93053 Regensburg, Germany; (L.W.); (M.J.R.)
| | - Lukas Gold
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), 81377 Munich, Germany; (A.H.); (D.P.); (M.B.); (L.G.); (M.A.K.); (L.M.B.); (L.M.U.); (P.B.)
| | - Maximilian A. Kirchner
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), 81377 Munich, Germany; (A.H.); (D.P.); (M.B.); (L.G.); (M.A.K.); (L.M.B.); (L.M.U.); (P.B.)
| | - Laura M. Bartos
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), 81377 Munich, Germany; (A.H.); (D.P.); (M.B.); (L.G.); (M.A.K.); (L.M.B.); (L.M.U.); (P.B.)
| | - Lena M. Unterrainer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), 81377 Munich, Germany; (A.H.); (D.P.); (M.B.); (L.G.); (M.A.K.); (L.M.B.); (L.M.U.); (P.B.)
| | - Marcus Unterrainer
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), 81377 Munich, Germany;
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (K.S.); (L.v.B.)
| | - Katja Steiger
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (K.S.); (L.v.B.)
- Institute of Pathology, TUM School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany
| | - Louisa von Baumgarten
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (K.S.); (L.v.B.)
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Maximilian Niyazi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), 81377 Munich, Germany; (M.O.); (M.N.); (C.B.); (K.L.)
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (K.S.); (L.v.B.)
| | - Claus Belka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), 81377 Munich, Germany; (M.O.); (M.N.); (C.B.); (K.L.)
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (K.S.); (L.v.B.)
| | - Peter Bartenstein
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), 81377 Munich, Germany; (A.H.); (D.P.); (M.B.); (L.G.); (M.A.K.); (L.M.B.); (L.M.U.); (P.B.)
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (K.S.); (L.v.B.)
| | - Markus J. Riemenschneider
- Department of Neuropathology, Regensburg University Hospital, 93053 Regensburg, Germany; (L.W.); (M.J.R.)
| | - Kirsten Lauber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), 81377 Munich, Germany; (M.O.); (M.N.); (C.B.); (K.L.)
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (K.S.); (L.v.B.)
| | - Nathalie L. Albert
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU Munich), 81377 Munich, Germany; (A.H.); (D.P.); (M.B.); (L.G.); (M.A.K.); (L.M.B.); (L.M.U.); (P.B.)
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (K.S.); (L.v.B.)
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kirchner MA, Holzgreve A, Brendel M, Orth M, Ruf VC, Steiger K, Pötter D, Gold L, Unterrainer M, Mittlmeier LM, Barci E, Kälin RE, Glass R, Lindner S, Kaiser L, Maas J, von Baumgarten L, Ilhan H, Belka C, Notni J, Bartenstein P, Lauber K, Albert NL. PSMA PET Imaging in Glioblastoma: A Preclinical Evaluation and Theranostic Outlook. Front Oncol 2021; 11:774017. [PMID: 34869017 PMCID: PMC8635528 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.774017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2021] [Accepted: 10/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET imaging has recently gained attention in glioblastoma (GBM) patients as a potential theranostic target for PSMA radioligand therapy. However, PSMA PET has not yet been established in a murine GBM model. Our goal was to investigate the potential of PSMA PET imaging in the syngeneic GL261 GBM model and to give an outlook regarding the potential of PMSA radioligand therapy in this model. METHODS We performed an 18F-PSMA-1007 PET study in the orthotopic GL261 model (n=14 GBM, n=7 sham-operated mice) with imaging at day 4, 8, 11, 15, 18 and 22 post implantation. Time-activity-curves (TAC) were extracted from dynamic PET scans (0-120 min p. i.) in a subset of mice (n=4 GBM, n=3 sham-operated mice) to identify the optimal time frame for image analysis, and standardized-uptake-values (SUV) as well as tumor-to-background ratios (TBR) using contralateral normal brain as background were calculated in all mice. Additionally, computed tomography (CT), ex vivo and in vitro 18F-PSMA-1007 autoradiographies (ARG) were performed. RESULTS TAC analysis of GBM mice revealed a plateau of TBR values after 40 min p. i. Therefore, a 30 min time frame between 40-70 min p. i. was chosen for PET quantification. At day 15 and later, GBM mice showed a discernible PSMA PET signal on the inoculation site, with highest TBRmean in GBM mice at day 18 (7.3 ± 1.3 vs. 1.6 ± 0.3 in shams; p=0.024). Ex vivo ARG confirmed high tracer signal in GBM compared to healthy background (TBRmean 26.9 ± 10.5 vs. 1.6 ± 0.7 in shams at day 18/22 post implantation; p=0.002). However, absolute uptake values in the GL261 tumor remained low (e.g., SUVmean 0.21 ± 0.04 g/ml at day 18) resulting in low ratios compared to dose-relevant organs (e.g., mean tumor-to-kidney ratio 1.5E-2 ± 0.5E-2). CONCLUSIONS Although 18F-PSMA-1007 PET imaging of GL261 tumor-bearing mice is feasible and resulted in high TBRs, absolute tumoral uptake values remained low and hint to limited applicability of the GL261 model for PSMA-directed therapy studies. Further investigations are warranted to identify suitable models for preclinical evaluation of PSMA-targeted theranostic approaches in GBM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maximilian A. Kirchner
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Adrien Holzgreve
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Matthias Brendel
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Michael Orth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Viktoria C. Ruf
- Center for Neuropathology and Prion Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Katja Steiger
- Institute of Pathology, Technische Universität München (TUM) School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Dennis Pötter
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Lukas Gold
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Marcus Unterrainer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Lena M. Mittlmeier
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Enio Barci
- Neurosurgical Research, Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Roland E. Kälin
- Neurosurgical Research, Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Rainer Glass
- Neurosurgical Research, Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Simon Lindner
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Lena Kaiser
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Jessica Maas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Louisa von Baumgarten
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Harun Ilhan
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Claus Belka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Johannes Notni
- Institute of Pathology, Technische Universität München (TUM) School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Peter Bartenstein
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Kirsten Lauber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Nathalie L. Albert
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
Overcoming the challenges of understanding and treating cancer requires reliable patient-derived models of cancer (PDMCs). For decades, cancer research and therapeutic development relied primarily on cancer cell lines because of their prevalence, reproducibility, and simplicity to maintain. However, findings from research conducted in cell lines are rarely recapitulated in vivo and seldom directly translatable to patients. The tumor microenvironment (TME), tumor-stromal interactions, and associations with host immune cells produce profound changes in tumor phenotype and complexity not captured in traditional monolayer cell culture. In this chapter, we present various cancer explant models and discuss their applicability based on specific research aims. We discuss the appropriateness of these models for basic science questions, drug screening/development, and for personalized, precision medicine. We also consider logistical factors such as resource cost, technical difficulty, and accessibility. We finish this chapter with a practical guide intended to help the reader select the cancer explant model system(s) that best address their research aims.
Collapse
|
8
|
Serkova NJ, Glunde K, Haney CR, Farhoud M, De Lille A, Redente EF, Simberg D, Westerly DC, Griffin L, Mason RP. Preclinical Applications of Multi-Platform Imaging in Animal Models of Cancer. Cancer Res 2021; 81:1189-1200. [PMID: 33262127 PMCID: PMC8026542 DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-20-0373] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2020] [Revised: 06/10/2020] [Accepted: 11/25/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
In animal models of cancer, oncologic imaging has evolved from a simple assessment of tumor location and size to sophisticated multimodality exploration of molecular, physiologic, genetic, immunologic, and biochemical events at microscopic to macroscopic levels, performed noninvasively and sometimes in real time. Here, we briefly review animal imaging technology and molecular imaging probes together with selected applications from recent literature. Fast and sensitive optical imaging is primarily used to track luciferase-expressing tumor cells, image molecular targets with fluorescence probes, and to report on metabolic and physiologic phenotypes using smart switchable luminescent probes. MicroPET/single-photon emission CT have proven to be two of the most translational modalities for molecular and metabolic imaging of cancers: immuno-PET is a promising and rapidly evolving area of imaging research. Sophisticated MRI techniques provide high-resolution images of small metastases, tumor inflammation, perfusion, oxygenation, and acidity. Disseminated tumors to the bone and lung are easily detected by microCT, while ultrasound provides real-time visualization of tumor vasculature and perfusion. Recently available photoacoustic imaging provides real-time evaluation of vascular patency, oxygenation, and nanoparticle distributions. New hybrid instruments, such as PET-MRI, promise more convenient combination of the capabilities of each modality, enabling enhanced research efficacy and throughput.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie J Serkova
- Department of Radiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
- Animal Imaging Shared Resource, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Kristine Glunde
- Division of Cancer Imaging Research, The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology, and the Sydney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Chad R Haney
- Center for Advanced Molecular Imaging, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
| | | | | | | | - Dmitri Simberg
- Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado
| | - David C Westerly
- Animal Imaging Shared Resource, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Lynn Griffin
- Department of Radiology, Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado
| | - Ralph P Mason
- Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Cai L, Kirchleitner SV, Zhao D, Li M, Tonn JC, Glass R, Kälin RE. Glioblastoma Exhibits Inter-Individual Heterogeneity of TSPO and LAT1 Expression in Neoplastic and Parenchymal Cells. Int J Mol Sci 2020; 21:ijms21020612. [PMID: 31963507 PMCID: PMC7013601 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21020612] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/26/2019] [Revised: 01/11/2020] [Accepted: 01/13/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Molecular imaging is essential for diagnosis and treatment planning for glioblastoma patients. Positron emission tomography (PET) with tracers for the detection of the solute carrier family 7 member 5 (SLC7A5; also known as the amino acid transporter light chain L system, LAT1) and for the mitochondrial translocator protein (TSPO) is successfully used to provide additional information on tumor volume and prognosis. The current approaches for TSPO-PET and the visualization of tracer ([18F] Fluoroethyltyrosine, FET) uptake by LAT1 (FET-PET) do not yet exploit the full diagnostic potential of these molecular imaging techniques. Therefore, we investigated the expression of TSPO and LAT1 in patient glioblastoma (GBM) samples, as well as in various GBM mouse models representing patient GBMs of different genetic subtypes. By immunohistochemistry, we found that TSPO and LAT1 are upregulated in human GBM samples compared to normal brain tissue. Next, we orthotopically implanted patient-derived GBM cells, as well as genetically engineered murine GBM cells, representing different genetic subtypes of the disease. To determine TSPO and LAT1 expression, we performed immunofluorescence staining. We found that both TSPO and LAT1 expression was increased in tumor regions of the implanted human or murine GBM cells when compared to the neighboring mouse brain tissue. While LAT1 was largely restricted to tumor cells, we found that TSPO was also expressed by microglia, tumor-associated macrophages, endothelial cells, and pericytes. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)-data analysis corroborates the upregulation of TSPO in a bigger cohort of GBM patient samples compared to tumor-free brain tissue. In addition, AIF1 (the gene encoding for the myeloid cell marker Iba1) was also upregulated in GBM compared to the control. Interestingly, TSPO, as well as AIF1, showed significantly different expression levels depending on the GBM genetic subtype, with the highest expression being exhibited in the mesenchymal subtype. High TSPO and AIF1 expression also correlated with a significant decrease in patient survival compared to low expression. In line with this finding, the expression levels for TSPO and AIF1 were also significantly higher in (isocitrate-dehydrogenase wild-type) IDHWT compared to IDH mutant (IDHMUT) GBM. LAT1 expression, on the other hand, was not different among the individual GBM subtypes. Therefore, we could conclude that FET- and TSPO-PET confer different information on pathological features based on different genetic GBM subtypes and may thus help in planning individualized strategies for brain tumor therapy in the future. A combination of TSPO-PET and FET-PET could be a promising way to visualize tumor-associated myeloid cells and select patients for treatment strategies targeting the myeloid compartment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linzhi Cai
- Neurosurgical Research, Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany (S.V.K.)
| | - Sabrina V. Kirchleitner
- Neurosurgical Research, Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany (S.V.K.)
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Dongxu Zhao
- Neurosurgical Research, Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany (S.V.K.)
| | - Min Li
- Neurosurgical Research, Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany (S.V.K.)
| | - Jörg-Christian Tonn
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Rainer Glass
- Neurosurgical Research, Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany (S.V.K.)
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Correspondence:
| | - Roland E. Kälin
- Neurosurgical Research, Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany (S.V.K.)
- Walter Brendel Center of Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
[ 18F]FET PET is a useful tool for treatment evaluation and prognosis prediction of anti-angiogenic drug in an orthotopic glioblastoma mouse model. Lab Anim Res 2019; 34:248-256. [PMID: 30671112 PMCID: PMC6333614 DOI: 10.5625/lar.2018.34.4.248] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2018] [Revised: 12/04/2018] [Accepted: 12/07/2018] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
O-2-18F-fluoroethyl-l-tyrosine ([18F]FET) has been widely used for glioblastomas (GBM) in clinical practice, although evaluation of its applicability in non-clinical research is still lacking. The objective of this study was to examine the value of [18F]FET for treatment evaluation and prognosis prediction of anti-angiogenic drug in an orthotopic mouse model of GBM. Human U87MG cells were implanted into nude mice and then bevacizumab, a representative anti-angiogenic drug, was administered. We monitored the effect of anti-angiogenic agents using multiple imaging modalities, including bioluminescence imaging (BLI), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT). Among these imaging methods analyzed, only [18F]FET uptake showed a statistically significant decrease in the treatment group compared to the control group (P=0.02 and P=0.03 at 5 and 20 mg/kg, respectively). This indicates that [18F]FET PET is a sensitive method to monitor the response of GBM bearing mice to anti-angiogenic drug. Moreover, [18F]FET uptake was confirmed to be a significant parameter for predicting the prognosis of anti-angiogenic drug (P=0.041 and P=0.007, on Days 7 and 12, respectively, on Pearson's correlation; P=0.048 and P=0.030, on Days 7 and 12, respectively, on Cox regression analysis). However, results of BLI or MRI were not significantly associated with survival time. In conclusion, this study suggests that [18F]FET PET imaging is a pertinent imaging modality for sensitive monitoring and accurate prediction of treatment response to anti-angiogenic agents in an orthotopic model of GBM.
Collapse
|
11
|
Voxel-wise analysis of dynamic 18F-FET PET: a novel approach for non-invasive glioma characterisation. EJNMMI Res 2018; 8:91. [PMID: 30203138 PMCID: PMC6131687 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-018-0444-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2018] [Accepted: 08/26/2018] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Glioma grading with dynamic 18F-FET PET (0-40 min p.i.) is typically performed by analysing the mean time-activity curve of the entire tumour or a suspicious area within a heterogeneous tumour. This work aimed to ensure a reader-independent glioma characterisation and identification of aggressive sub-volumes by performing a voxel-based analysis with diagnostically relevant kinetic and static 18F-FET PET parameters. One hundred sixty-two patients with a newly diagnosed glioma classified according to histologic and molecular genetic properties were evaluated. The biological tumour volume (BTV) was segmented in static 20-40 min p.i. 18F-FET PET images using the established threshold of 1.6 × background activity. For each enclosed voxel, the time-to-peak (TTP), the late slope (Slope15-40), and the tumour-to-background ratios (TBR5-15, TBR20-40) obtained from 5 to 15 min p.i. and 20 to 40 min p.i. images were determined. The percentage portion of these values within the BTV was evaluated with percentage volume fractions (PVFs) and cumulated percentage volume histograms (PVHs). The ability to differentiate histologic and molecular genetic classes was assessed and compared to volume-of-interest (VOI)-based parameters. RESULTS Aggressive WHO grades III and IV and IDH-wildtype gliomas were dominated by a high proportion of voxels with an early peak, negative slope, and high TBR, whereby the PVHs with TTP < 20 min p.i., Slope15-40 < 0 SUV/h, and TBR5-15 and TBR20-40 > 2 yielded the most significant differences between glioma grades. We found significant differences of the parameters between WHO grades and IDH mutation status, where the effect size was predominantly higher for voxel-based PVHs compared to the corresponding VOI-based parameters. A low overlap of BTV sub-volumes defined by TTP < 20 min p.i. and negative Slope15-40 with TBR5-15 > 2- and TBR20-40 > 2-defined hotspots was observed. CONCLUSIONS The presented approach applying voxel-wise analysis of dynamic 18F-FET PET enables an enhanced characterisation of gliomas and might potentially provide a fast identification of aggressive sub-volumes within the BTV. Parametric 3D 18F-FET PET information as investigated in this study has the potential to guide individual therapy instrumentation and may be included in future biopsy studies.
Collapse
|