SPECT- and PET-Based Approaches for Noninvasive Diagnosis of Acute Renal Allograft Rejection

Pawelski, Helga; Schnöckel, Uta; Kentrup, Dominik; Grabner, Alexander; Schäfers, Michael; Reuter, Stefan

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/874785

BioMed Research International

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusion Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Radiopharmaceuticals in Nuclear Medicine: Recent Developments for SPECT and PET Studies

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2014 | Article ID 874785 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/874785

SPECT- and PET-Based Approaches for Noninvasive Diagnosis of Acute Renal Allograft Rejection

Helga Pawelski,¹Uta Schnöckel,²Dominik Kentrup,¹Alexander Grabner,¹Michael Schäfers,^2,3and Stefan Reuter¹

Academic Editor: Bianca Gutfilen

Received26 Nov 2013

Accepted04 Mar 2014

Published01 Apr 2014

Abstract

Molecular imaging techniques such as single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) or positron emission tomography are promising tools for noninvasive diagnosis of acute allograft rejection (AR). Given the importance of renal transplantation and the limitation of available donors, detailed analysis of factors that affect transplant survival is important. Episodes of acute allograft rejection are a negative prognostic factor for long-term graft survival. Invasive core needle biopsies are still the “goldstandard” in rejection diagnostics. Nevertheless, they are cumbersome to the patient and carry the risk of significant graft injury. Notably, they cannot be performed on patients taking anticoagulant drugs. Therefore, a noninvasive tool assessing the whole organ for specific and fast detection of acute allograft rejection is desirable. We herein review SPECT- and PET-based approaches for noninvasive molecular imaging-based diagnostics of acute transplant rejection.

1. Introduction

Noninvasive imaging techniques for medical diagnosis allowing visualization of specific biological processes have made tremendous progress in the last decades. One major issue focused on the advances in sensitivity and specificity but also on compatibility, accessibility, and affordability.

Scintigraphy, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and positron emission tomography (PET) are imaging procedures based on the detection of internal radiation (mostly intravenous injection of a radioactive tracer), where gamma rays emitted by tracers containing radionuclides (directly in gamma scintigraphy and SPECT or indirectly (annihilation) in PET) are captured via an external detector system (gamma camera). Nuclear imaging has the benefits of high intrinsic sensitivity, recognising targets present in a very low concentration, exceptional penetration of tissues, whole-body visualisation, and a large range of available, clinically tested tracers and consequently a high specificity [1, 2].

While planar scintigraphy produces two-dimensional pictures, SPECT and PET offer the possibility to generate three-dimensional images allowing higher resolution and therefore better monitoring of the deposition and clearance of the employed tracers. The difference of SPECT and PET lies in the detection procedure, resolution, and utilized radionuclides. The spatial resolution is restricted to 3–5 mm in PET and 8–10 mm in SPECT; however, detection of the contrast agent is even possible in the nano- and picomolar range [3]. Although PET offers better quantification and a 2- to 3-fold superior sensitivity than SPECT, the latter still reflects the most commonly used imaging technology due to cost-effectiveness, availability, and existence of a broader array of adequate radionuclides [4]. Both imaging techniques generate functional images of metabolic processes and not morphological visualisation. Therefore, these modalities are utilized for evaluation of the function of the examined organ and illustration of molecular and cellular events like apoptosis, inflammation, infection, change in pH, and metabolism [5]. This review focuses on the principles of SPECT and PET and their field of preclinical and clinical application and gives an overview of their potential mode of operation diagnosis of acute (renal) allograft rejection (AR).

2. Radiopharmaceuticals

In order to receive expedient information about the biological process of interest, the applied radiotracers have to fulfil a variation of features. First, the utilized contrast agent needs to bind sufficiently to the target of interest, delivering a clear signal greater than the background noise of the surrounding tissue (good signal-to-noise ratio) [5]. Appropriate tracers have a great binding specificity for molecular targets, upregulated under specific pathologic settings, permitting comparison to the physiological state. Further, a good tracer allows visualisation in very low concentration and of low concentrated targets, limiting its side effects. The more specific the marker for a condition or a disease is, the more precise the information obtained is. Fast clearance of the used radionuclides is also an aspect that needs to be taken into consideration. Otherwise, distinction between specific and unspecific signal is not possible [5]. Distinct radiopharmaceuticals have been developed for SPECT and PET, nicely overviewed by Signore and Fani [2, 6].

In PET, the predominant radionuclide used for tracers depicts ¹⁸F, but other markers to visualize biological processes like ¹¹C, ¹³N, ¹⁵O, ⁶⁸Ga, ⁶⁴Cu, ⁶⁰Cu, ⁸⁶Y, ⁸⁹Zr, and ¹²⁴I have been developed. ¹⁸F-based tracers utilized in PET directly incorporate the radionuclide into the biomolecule via substitution making it almost undistinguishable from their nonradioactive analogs by displaying the same characteristics [7]. Depending on the target of interest (e.g., proteins and cellular processes), a suitable compound (peptide, proteins, antibodies, or small molecules), serving as basis for the tracer, needs to be selected [8]. Not only should the duration of the process of interest correspond to the half-life of the chosen radionuclide but also the emitted energy of the positrons needs to be considered for the spatial resolution (low energy and better spatial resolution) [8]. The radiopharmaceutical most commonly used in clinics is ¹⁸F-FDG (with a comparable metabolism to normal glucose but trapping of ¹⁸F-FDG in the cell) for determination of metabolic activity, inflammatory sites, and oncologic analysis.

, ¹¹¹In, ⁶⁷Ga, and ¹²³I depict the deployed markers for SPECT imaging. Among these represents the radionuclide with the largest area of application due to its optimal decay characteristics, easy production, and availability [7]. Compared to PET tracers, the generally longer half-lives of these SPECT radionuclides constitute an advantage correlating better with the half-lives of biological processes. In addition, these radiotracers are generally available. Furthermore, -based tracers are easy to produce by a generator and do not need a nearby medical cyclotron [9] in contrast to rather short-lived unstable PET tracers. However, SPECT tracers also show some disadvantages. Incorporation of , for example, into a molecule is more complex than the substitution of ¹⁸F in PET, involving chelating moieties and leading to possible steric hindrance [7]. Therefore, -based labelling is not suitable for imaging every process. It has been employed for visualisation of bone and joint infections, while ⁶⁷Ga was successfully applied in tumor imaging [10]. For identification of hypoxic areas different tracers usable for standard gamma cameras have been developed such as ¹²³I-labelled iodoazomycin arabinoside and different -based compounds [11–13].

3. Labelling of Intracellular Targets

Gallagher et al. reported already in 1978 the potential of ¹⁸F-FDG for scintigraphic detection of glucose metabolism [14]. The cellular uptake of the radiolabelled glucose analog, which has a similar metabolic route as glucose, via glucose transporters (e.g., GLUT1) correlates with the metabolic activity of the cell and therefore with the cells energy demand. In the cell, the hexokinase phosphorylates ¹⁸F-FDG into ¹⁸F-FDG-6-phosphate. Because of the inability of the glucose-fructose isomerase to transduce phosphorylated ¹⁸F-FDG, it is metabolically trapped in cells displaying high metabolism and allowing visualization of ¹⁸F-FDG-biodistribution [15]. While the technique remained constant, the detection procedure was refined with PET. By now, assessment of metabolic activity via evaluation of glucose metabolism depicts a clinically well-established method.

It has to be noted that ¹⁸F-FDG uptake is not a specific event, meaning that no specificity for a disease or target exists. Its uptake is related to tissue metabolism and presence of glucose transporters. Since stimulated inflammatory cells as well as tumor cells are metabolically very active and show an increased expression of glucose transporters, ¹⁸F-FDG can be deployed to reveal sites of inflammation and tumors.

Furthermore, the glucose transporters exhibit an elevated affinity for deoxyglucose in an ongoing inflammatory state. In fact, ¹⁸F-FDG has been successfully applied for clinical and preclinical diagnosis in many pathologic settings like cancer [15–18], inflammatory diseases such as atherosclerosis [19–21], arterial inflammation [22], psoriasis [23], transplantation medicine [24–28], asthma [29, 30], and fibrosis [31].

Kidney transplantation represents the therapy of choice for patients suffering from end-stage renal failure. Despite exceeding advances in transplantation medicine throughout the last decades, allograft rejection still depicts a central issue of graft failure. The leading cause of death-censored graft loss is either humoral-mediated or T cell-mediated allograft rejection. In this context, acute rejection (AR) episodes have a great impact on the survival of the transplant. Since AR correlates with the constraint of graft function, it is of major importance to counteract its effect immediately. Therefore, early detection of AR is essential. Different techniques to address this aspect have been developed and until today core-needle biopsy still constitutes the gold standard among these. However, considering the invasiveness of this method it would be beneficial if noninvasive imaging methods were clinically available which do not pose a risk for the grafts integrity. We have demonstrated an interesting noninvasive approach monitoring the uptake of ¹⁸F-FDG [27]. In PET, visualisation of the transplant’s function as well as cellular and molecular processes characteristic for AR like leukocyte recruitment, restriction of renal activity, hypoxia, and cell death is possible. Because of high metabolism due to infiltration of inflammatory cells, a specific ¹⁸F-FDG-uptake pattern arises, allowing determination of AR, while at the same time discriminating fundamental differential diagnosis in a rat renal allograft model [27].

In transplantation medicine, imaging of ¹⁸F-FDG uptake has great potential to become a new method to accurately determine and monitor rejection episodes (Figure 1) [27]. One fact concerning the clearance of ¹⁸F-FDG needs to be taken into consideration. Elimination of ¹⁸F-FDG happens via the urine causing drainage of the radiolabelled glucose into the pelvis. This leads to a false positive signal which can be significantly reduced by extending the time between tracer application and tracer detection (late acquisition), ensuring elimination of excessive tracer [27]. For clinical use, further studies and careful assessment of risks for the patient need to be performed.

Figure 1

A series of PET images of dynamic whole-body acquisitions 180 min after a single tail vein injection of ¹⁸F-FDG into an allogeneically kidney-transplanted rat on postoperative day 4 (POD4). After development of acute rejection (the allograft shows an intense ¹⁸F-FDG uptake on POD4) the recipient was treated with cyclosporine A showing already 24 h after commencement of immunosuppressive therapy a significant decrease of the ¹⁸F-FDG uptake into the renal parenchyma ( therapy response). Please note that urine in the renal pelvis can contain eliminated ¹⁸F-FDG. Therefore, it should be excluded from the assessments. Renal graft is marked with yellow circle. % ID: % of injected dose. The figure was adapted from Reuter et al. [28].

As mentioned before, ¹⁸F-FDG uptake is a nonspecific process. ¹⁸F-FDG is administered intravenously to monitor biodistribution subsequently. A great amount of ¹⁸F-FDG is needed in order to receive a clear signal of enhanced metabolic activity since all cells exhibit metabolism to some extent.

Because of the clinical importance of ¹⁸F-FDG as a diagnostic tool, the development of inexpensive and readily available glucose analogs applicable in SPECT was supported. -based glucose labelling was performed resulting in the formation of glucose tracers failing to exhibit similar characteristics as ¹⁸F-FDG. Transport of these glucose analogs into the cell was not mediated through GLUT1 nor did phosphorylation take place via hexokinase. Since these features are essential for accumulation of the glucose analogs in metabolic active cells, the -labelled glucose is not feasible for imaging of metabolism and fails to substitute ¹⁸F-FDG. A reason for this could be a sterical hindrance of the GLUT1 binding site through the tag [4].

4. Ex Vivo Labelling of Leukocytes

Inflammation is a process occurring in many distinctive disease settings such as autoimmune diseases, infections, and allograft rejection. During an ongoing inflammation, specific cells including lymphocytes, granulocytes, and macrophages are activated and recruited to the inflammatory site where they infiltrate the affected tissue. Approaches to visualise these infiltrating cells and therefore to image inflammation have been performed via radiolabelled white blood cells (WBC) and it has been shown that autologous leukocytes radiolabelled with either -HMPAO or ¹¹¹In-oxine for SPECT or ¹⁸F-FDG or ⁶⁴Cu for PET, respectively, specifically are enriched in inflamed tissues [32–34]. In fact, this is an established clinical procedure used in many different pathologic settings such as Crohn’s disease [35], osteomyelitis [36], fever of unknown origin, infection [37], acute appendicitis [38], and arterial and colonic inflammation [39].

For successful imaging of radiolabelled cells a few aspects need to be taken into account. First, regarding the applied cells, it is notable that, before entering the reticuloendothelial system consisting of spleen, liver, and bone marrow and centre of acute and chronic inflammation through the blood pool, the administered labelled WBC accumulate briefly in the lung. Second, while the biodistribution of the radioactivity in normal human subjects forms a similar pattern independent of the radionuclide (¹⁸F-FDG, ¹¹¹In, and ) used [40], the labelling stability varies. This aspect is important to ensure that the captured radioactive signal reflects WBC accumulation and that signal artefacts due to free (i.e., not cell bound) tracers are eliminated. Third, compound stability of the tracer and radionuclide half-life have to be taken into account. ¹⁸F-labelling exhibits the lowest compound stability and a radioactive half-life of 109 min. Due to this short half-life, long-time stability of this tracer is not of clinical interest. For processes with a longer duration, other radionuclides should be considered for labelling (-HMPAO half-life = 66 h).

Furthermore, labelling efficiency and viability of marked cells reveal discrepancies when distinct radionuclides were deployed. Labelling with ¹¹¹In-oxine and ⁶⁴Cu leads to an approximate efficiency of 80% while the labelling rate of ¹⁸F-FDG yields in 60% [41]. However, since labelling of cytotoxic T cells reaches different efficiencies (¹¹¹In-oxine (68%), ¹⁸F-FDG (64%), and -HMPAO (31%)), labelling potential seems to be cell-type dependant [42]. Another important issue is viability of marked cells. Studies have addressed this factor and demonstrated that similar viability rates are reached with ¹¹¹In-oxine-,-HMPAO-, ¹⁸F-FDG-, and ⁶⁴Cu-labelling approaches in the first four hours [41]. However, after a time period of 24 hours, a sharp decline of cell survival was observed restricting long-time monitoring of specific processes with a single-dose application.

In preclinical and clinical studies labelled leukocytes were utilized for detection of acute rejection in different organs (intestine, heart, skin, or kidney). In kidney-transplanted patients, scintigraphic analysis of -labelled mononuclear cells allowed diagnosis of AR and discrimination from acute tubular necrosis (ATN) [43]. In a more sophisticated approach with PET, human leukocytes, in particular human cytotoxic lymphocytes, marked with low amounts of ¹⁸F-FDG ex vivo were applied in a rat kidney-transplant model [44]. Subsequent PET analysis led to the differential diagnosis of AR excluding other causes of early graft dysfunction such as ischemia, ATN, or immunosuppressive toxicity (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Exemplary PET images (day 4 after surgery) of dynamic whole-body acquisitions of allogeneically (aTX) and syngeneically transplanted (sTX) rats, rats with ATN (IRI), and rats with acute cyclosporine toxicity (CSA). Effects are summarized after tail vein injection of ¹⁸F-FDG—labeled T cells (maximum-intensity projection, whole-body acquisition for 20 min at 60 min (50–70 min after injection). On postoperative day 4 aTX kidneys exhibited significantly elevated ¹⁸F-FDG uptake in comparison to native controls. Accumulation of labelled cells in kidneys with IRI or acute CSA toxicity and sTX was not significantly different from native controls. Please note that the renal pelvis can contain eliminated ¹⁸F-FDG/¹⁸F-fluoride. Therefore, it has to be excluded from the measurements. ID: injected dose. The figure was taken from Grabner et al. [44].

5. In Vivo Labelling with Antibodies

Visualisation of inflammation without ex vivo labelled leukocytes is possible via another approach utilizing radiolabelled monoclonal antibodies (mAb) directed against infiltrating cells. On first sight, many advantages are connected to this procedure. On the one hand, a vast quantity of targeting possibilities exists, allowing, at least theoretically, high specificity and a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio. On the other hand, the procedure of antibody production is standardized coming along with easy storage, simple administration, and cost-effectiveness [2]. In spite of many advantages of this method, some problems concerning target accessibility and safety exist. Since the antibodies are not able to penetrate tissues, targeting is restricted to intra- and perivascular antigens, limiting their range of action. Furthermore, allergic complications can arise when administering the antibodies to a patient. Additionally, since antibodies are able to elicit an immune response, their immunogenicity needs to be determined before their usage in order to prevent falsification through their activity.

Numerous radiolabelled mAb and mAb fragments have been designed to address infiltrating cells. Since T cells and B cells constitute cell types playing a major role during inflammation, antibodies directed against CD3, CD4, CD8, CD25, CD20, and granulocytes have been developed. They are mainly marked with , ¹¹¹In, and ¹²³I [2].

In transplantation medicine a few approaches have been performed to elucidate rejection episodes. Antibodies directed against the CD3 complex, expressed on T cells, natural killer cells (NK), and natural killer T cells (NK T), have been designed to illustrate T-cell infiltration and thus to determine AR. In a preliminary study, Martins et al. applied -OKT3 to successfully diagnose AR in kidney-transplanted patients [45]; however, more data is needed to confirm this finding. A clear disadvantage of this antibody is a side effect due to immunogenicity. A more biocompatible humanized alternative but still in need of further evaluation is the radiolabelled CD3 antibody -SHNH-visilizumab.

A vast number of possibilities exist to image targets of interest accessible via the vascular system. In order to deploy them for diagnosis of different diseases, identification of specific markers upregulated during distinct pathologic processes is necessary. Antibodies directed against vascular proteins such as vascular adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1), intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), or selectins could be used to address vascular-related diseases such as atherosclerosis and visualise the sites of thrombus formation.

The greatest problem that needs to be overcome in this setting is the clearance of unbound radiolabelled antibody in order to improve the background-to-noise ratio. Since free tracer circulates in the vascular system, producing a SPECT or PET signal, the signal arising from the bound antibody might be masked depending on the ratio of free-to-bound antibody. Moreover, the high molecular weight of most mAb constitutes a limitation since sequestration by specific cells might result in diminution of available, free mAb able to bind to the target of interest. On the contrary, mAb tracers with low molecular weight might produce unspecific signals due to their passive diffusion into and enrichment in inflamed tissues. A possible solution of this problem could be the selection of radiolabelled antibody fragments with intermediate molecular weight (40–80 kDa). These have been demonstrated to exhibit features ideal for PET and SPECT tracers such as low immunogenicity, fast blood clearance, better enrichment in sites of inflammation, and no unspecific binding to Fc receptors due to the absence of the Fc part [2].

6. Conclusion

Specific noninvasive methods for diagnosis of AR in transplant patients are highly in demand. Molecular and cellular imaging strategies using SPECT- or PET-based approaches have great potential to fulfil these requests of allograft surveillance. Advances in technology and tracer development open new possibilities in regard to diagnosis and management of renal rejection. Currently, nearly all of these promising new approaches are still at an experimental stage. Future studies will elucidate whether these diagnostics tools are transmissible to transplant patients in clinical routine.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Collaborative Research Centre 656 (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, SFB656, Project C7) and the IMF (Innovative Medizinische Forschung, Medical Faculty, University of Münster, Project IRE121102).

References

L. T. Hall, A. F. Struck, and S. B. Perlman, “Clinical molecular imaging with PET agents other than18F-FDG,” Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 545–554, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Signore, S. J. Mather, G. Piaggio, G. Malviya, and R. A. Dierckx, “Molecular imaging of inflammation/infection: nuclear medicine and optical imaging agents and methods,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 110, no. 5, pp. 3112–3145, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Gotthardt, C. P. Bleeker-Rovers, O. C. Boerman, and W. J. G. Oyen, “Imaging of inflammation by PET, conventional scintigraphy, and other imaging techniques,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 1937–1949, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Müller and R. Schibli, “Single photon emission computed tomography tracer,” in Molecular Imaging in Oncology, vol. 187 of Recent Results in Cancer Research, pp. 65–105, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Skotland, “Molecular imaging: challenges of bringing imaging of intracellular targets into common clinical use,” Contrast Media and Molecular Imaging, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Fani and H. R. Maecke, “Radiopharmaceutical development of radiolabelled peptides,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. S11–S30, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. L. Pimlott and A. Sutherland, “Molecular tracers for the PET and SPECT imaging of disease,” Chemical Society Reviews, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 149–162, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Gillings, “Radiotracers for positron emission tomography imaging,” Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 149–158, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. L. Bailey and K. P. Willowson, “An evidence-based review of quantitative SPECT imaging and potential clinical applications,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 83–89, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Navalkissoor, E. Nowosinska, G. Gnanasegaran, and J. R. Buscombe, “Single-photon emission computed tomography-computed tomography in imaging infection,” Nuclear Medicine Communications, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 283–290, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Melo, J. Duncan, J. R. Ballinger, and A. M. Rauth, “BRU59-21, a second-generation 99mTc-labeled 2-nitroimidazole for imaging hypoxia in tumors,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 169–176, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Yutani, H. Kusuoka, K. Fukuchi, M. Tatsumi, and T. Nishimura, “Applicability of 99mTc-HL91, a putative hypoxic tracer, to detection of tumor hypoxia,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 854–861, 1999.
View at: Google Scholar
J. R. Ballinger, J. W. M. Kee, and A. M. Rauth, “In vitro and in vivo evaluation of a technetium-99m-labeled 2-nitroimidazole (BMS181321) as a marker of tumor hypoxia,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1023–1031, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar
B. M. Gallagher, J. S. Fowler, and N. I. Gutterson, “Metabolic trapping as a principle of radiopharmaceutical design: some factors responsible for the biodistribution of [18F] 2-deoxy-2- fluoro-D-glucose,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 1154–1161, 1978.
View at: Google Scholar
E. K. J. Pauwels, M. J. Ribeiro, J. H. M. B. Stoot, V. R. McCready, M. Bourguignon, and B. Mazière, “FDG accumulation and tumor biology,” Nuclear Medicine and Biology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 317–322, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Delbeke, “Oncological applications of FDG PET imaging: brain tumors, colorectal cancer lymphoma and melanoma,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 591–603, 1999.
View at: Google Scholar
C. K. Hoh and C. Schiepers, “18-FDG imaging in breast cancer,” Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 49–56, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. S. Tyler, M. Onaitis, A. Kherani et al., “Positron emission tomography scanning in malignant melanoma,” Cancer, vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 1019–1025, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
N. Tahara, A. Tahara, A. Honda et al., “Molecular imaging of vascular inflammation,” Current Pharmaceutical Design, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
A. M. Hag, S. F. Pedersen, C. Christoffersen et al., “(18)F-FDG PET imaging of murine atherosclerosis: association with gene expression of key molecular markers,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 11, Article ID e50908, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Rosenbaum, A. Millon, and Z. A. Fayad, “Molecular imaging in atherosclerosis: FDG PET,” Current Atherosclerosis Reports, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 429–437, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Vijayakumar, S. Subramanian, P. Singh et al., “Arterial inflammation in bronchial asthma,” Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 385–395, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Bissonnette, J. C. Tardif, F. Harel, J. Pressacco, C. Bolduc, and M. C. Guertin, “Effects of the tumor necrosis factor-alpha antagonist adalimumab on arterial inflammation assessed by positron emission tomography in patients with psoriasis: results of a randomized controlled trial,” Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 83–90, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Balink, J. Collins, G. Bruyn, and F. Gemmel, “F-18 FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of fever of unknown origin,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 862–868, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. K. Braun, M. Molitor-Dart, C. Wigfield et al., “Transfer of tolerance to collagen type v suppresses T-helper-cell-17 lymphocyte-mediated acute lung transplant rejection,” Transplantation, vol. 88, no. 12, pp. 1341–1348, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. L. Chen, X. Wang, S. Yamamoto et al., “Increased T cell glucose uptake reflects acute rejection in lung grafts,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 2540–2549, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Reuter, U. Schnöckel, R. Schröter et al., “Non-invasive imaging of acute renal allograft rejection in rats using small animal 18F-FDG-PET,” PLoS ONE, vol. 4, no. 4, Article ID e5296, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Reuter, U. Schnöckel, B. Edemir et al., “Potential of noninvasive serial assessment of acute renal allograft rejection by18F-FDG PET to monitor treatment efficiency,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 1644–1652, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Harris, J. G. Venegas, C. Wongviriyawong et al., “18F-FDG uptake rate is a biomarker of eosinophilic inflammation and airway response in asthma,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 1713–1720, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. A. Jones, P. S. Marino, B. H. Shakur, and N. W. Morrell, “In vivo assessment of lung inflammatory cell activity in patients with COPD and asthma,” European Respiratory Journal, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 567–573, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
D. L. Chen, J. J. Atkinson, and T. W. Ferkol, “FDG PET imaging in cystic fibrosis,” Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 412–419, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. L. Datz, “Indium-111-labeled leukocytes for the detection of infection: current status,” Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 92–109, 1994.
View at: Google Scholar
J. G. McAfee and M. L. Thakur, “Survey of radioactive agents for in vitro labeling of phagocytic leukocytes. I. Soluble agents,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 480–487, 1976.
View at: Google Scholar
A. M. Peters, H. J. Danpure, and S. Osman, “Clinical experience with 99mTc-hexamethylpropylene-amineoxime for labelling leucocytes and imaging inflammation,” The Lancet, vol. 2, no. 8513, pp. 946–949, 1986.
View at: Google Scholar
W. Becker, W. Fischbach, and M. Jenett, “111In-oxide-labelled white blood cells in the diagnosis and follow-up of Crohn's disease,” Klinische Wochenschrift, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 141–148, 1986.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Meller, G. Köster, T. Liersch et al., “Chronic bacterial osteomyelitis: prospective comparison of 18F-FDG imaging with a dual-head coincidence camera and 111In-labelled autologous leucocyte scintigraphy,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 53–60, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Forstrom, B. P. Mullan, J. C. Hung, V. J. Lowe, and L. M. Thorson, “18F-FDG labelling of human leukocytes,” Nuclear Medicine Communications, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 691–694, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Aydin, A. Kin Cengiz, and F. Gungor, “Tc-99m labeled HMPAO white blood cell scintigraphy in pediatric patients,” Molecular Imaging and Radionuclide Therapy, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 13–18, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bhattacharya, R. Kochhar, A. Khaliq, S. Sharma, and B. R. Mittal, “Incidental detection of colonic inflammation on PET/CT using 18F-FDG-labeled autologous leukocytes,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. e101–e102, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Forstrom, W. L. Dunn, B. P. Mullan, J. C. Hung, V. J. Lowe, and L. M. Thorson, “Biodistribution and dosimetry of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose labelled leukocytes in normal human subjects,” Nuclear Medicine Communications, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 721–725, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. K. Bhargava, R. K. Gupta, K. J. Nichols, and C. J. Palestro, “In vitro human leukocyte labeling with 64Cu: an intraindividual comparison with 111In-oxine and 18F-FDG,” Nuclear Medicine and Biology, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 545–549, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Botti, D. R. M. Negri, E. Seregni et al., “Comparison of three different methods for radiolabelling human activated T lymphocytes,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 497–504, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Lopes De Souza, L. M. Barbosa Da Fonseca, R. Torres Gonçalves et al., “Diagnosis of renal allograft rejection and acute tubular necrosis by 99mTc-mononuclear leukocyte imaging,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 2997–3001, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Grabner, D. Kentrup, B. Edemir et al., “PET with 18F-FDG-labeled T lymphocytes for diagnosis of acute rat renal allograft rejection,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 1147–1153, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. P. P. Martins, S. A. L. Souza, R. T. Gonçalves, L. M. B. Fonseca, and B. Gutfilen, “Preliminary results of [99mTc]OKT3 scintigraphy to evaluate acute rejection in renal transplants,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 2664–2667, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2014 Helga Pawelski et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1841

Downloads

1023

Citations