Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
Volume 2015, Article ID 415923, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/415923
Review Article

PET-Specific Parameters and Radiotracers in Theoretical Tumour Modelling

1School of Chemistry & Physics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
2Department of Medical Physics, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
3Faculty of Science, University of Oradea, 410087 Oradea, Romania

Received 17 July 2014; Accepted 15 September 2014

Academic Editor: Iuliana Toma-Dasu

Copyright © 2015 Matthew Jennings 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.

Linked References

  1. J. W. Fletcher, B. Djulbegovic, H. P. Soares et al., “Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 480–508, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. O. Israel and A. Kuten, “Early detection of cancer recurrence: 18F-FDG PET/CT can make a difference in diagnosis and patient care,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 28S–35S, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. D. Papathanassiou, C. Bruna-Muraille, J.-C. Liehn, T. D. Nguyen, and H. Curé, “Positron emission tomography in oncology: present and future of PET and PET/CT,” Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 239–254, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. S. S. Gambhir, J. Czernin, J. Schwimmer, D. H. S. Silverman, R. E. Coleman, and M. E. Phelps, “A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1S–93S, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. T. M. Blodgett, C. C. Meltzer, and D. W. Townsend, “PET/CT: form and function,” Radiology, vol. 242, no. 2, pp. 360–385, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. T. Beyer, D. W. Townsend, T. Brun et al., “A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1369–1379, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. T. Ishikita, N. Oriuchi, T. Higuchi et al., “Additional value of integrated PET/CT over PET alone in the initial staging and follow up of head and neck malignancy,” Annals of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 77–82, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. R. J. Cerfolio, B. Ojha, A. S. Bryant, V. Raghuveer, J. M. Mountz, and A. A. Bartolucci, “The accuracy of integrated PET-CT compared with dedicated PET alone for the staging of patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer,” Annals of Thoracic Surgery, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 1017–1023, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. G. Antoch, J. Stattaus, A. T. Nemat et al., “Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging,” Radiology, vol. 229, no. 2, pp. 526–533, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. W. D. Wever, S. Ceyssens, L. Mortelmans et al., “Additional value of PET-CT in the staging of lung cancer: Comparison with CT alone, PET alone and visual correlation of PET and CT,” European Radiology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 23–32, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. G. W. Goerres, G. K. von Schulthess, and H. C. Steinert, “Why most PET of lung and head-and-neck cancer will be PET/CT,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 66S–71S, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. A. Shammas, B. Degirmenci, J. M. Mountz et al., “18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with suspected recurrent or metastatic well-differentiated thyroid cancer,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 221–226, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  13. M. MacManus, U. Nestle, K. E. Rosenzweig et al., “Use of PET and PET/CT for Radiation Therapy Planning: IAEA expert report 2006–2007,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 85–94, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. P. Tracqui, “Biophysical models of tumour growth,” Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 72, no. 5, Article ID 056701, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. B. Titz and R. Jeraj, “An imaging-based tumour growth and treatment response model: investigating the effect of tumour oxygenation on radiation therapy response,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 53, no. 17, pp. 4471–4488, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. B. Titz, K. R. Kozak, and R. Jeraj, “Computational modelling of anti-angiogenic therapies based on multiparametric molecular imaging data,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 57, no. 19, pp. 6079–6101, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. S. Sanga, H. B. Frieboes, X. Zheng, R. Gatenby, E. L. Bearer, and V. Cristini, “Predictive oncology: a review of multidisciplinary, multiscale in silico modeling linking phenotype, morphology and growth,” NeuroImage, vol. 37, pp. S120–S134, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. T. S. Deisboeck, Z. Wang, P. MacKlin, and V. Cristini, “Multiscale cancer modeling,” Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 13, pp. 127–155, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at Scopus
  19. J. S. Lowengrub, H. B. Frieboes, F. Jin et al., “Nonlinear modelling of cancer: bridging the gap between cells and tumours,” Nonlinearity, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. R1–R9, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  20. Y. Liu, S. M. Sadowski, A. B. Weisbrod, E. Kebebew, R. M. Summers, and J. Yao, “Patient specific tumor growth prediction using multimodal images,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 555–566, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  21. D. M. Brizel, G. S. Sibley, L. R. Prosnitz, R. L. Scher, and M. W. Dewhirst, “Tumor hypoxia adversely affects the prognosis of carcinoma of the head and neck,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 285–289, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. A. L. Harris, “Hypoxia—a key regulatory factor in tumour growth,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 38–47, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. V. Adhikarla and R. Jeraj, “An imaging-based stochastic model for simulation of tumour vasculature,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 57, no. 19, pp. 6103–6124, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. W. Tuckwell, E. Bezak, E. Yeoh, and L. Marcu, “Efficient Monte Carlo modelling of individual tumour cell propagation for hypoxic head and neck cancer,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 53, no. 17, pp. 4489–4507, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. D. Thorwarth, S. M. Eschmann, F. Paulsen, and M. Alber, “A kinetic model for dynamic 18F-Fmiso PET data to analyse tumour hypoxia,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 2209–2224, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. C. J. Kelly and M. Brady, “A model to simulate tumour oxygenation and dynamic [18F]-Fmiso PET data,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 51, pp. 5859–5873, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. W. Wang, J.-C. Georgi, S. A. Nehmeh et al., “Evaluation of a compartmental model for estimating tumor hypoxia via FMISO dynamic PET imaging,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 3083–3099, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. R. Haubner, H. J. Wester, W. A. Weber et al., “Noninvasive imaging of αvβ3 integrin expression using 18F-labeled RGD-containing glycopeptide and positron emission tomography,” Cancer Research, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 1781–1785, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. A. J. Beer, R. Haubner, M. Sarbia et al., “Positron emission tomography using [18F]Galacto-RGD identifies the level of integrin αvβ3 expression in man,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 12, no. 13, pp. 3942–3949, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. X. Zhang, Y. Lin, and R. J. Gillies, “Tumor pH and its measurement,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 1167–1170, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. R. A. Gatenby, E. T. Gawlinski, A. F. Gmitro, B. Kaylor, and R. J. Gillies, “Acid-mediated tumor invasion: a multidisciplinary study,” Cancer Research, vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 5216–5223, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. R. A. Gatenby and E. T. Gawlinski, “A reaction-diffusion model of cancer invasion,” Cancer Research, vol. 56, no. 24, pp. 5745–5753, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. A. L. Vavere, G. B. Biddlecombe, W. M. Spees et al., “A novel technology for the imaging of acidic prostate tumors by positron emission tomography,” Cancer Research, vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 4510–4516, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. D. Grandér, “How do mutated oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes cause cancer?” Medical Oncology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 20–26, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. J. M. Chang, H. J. Lee, J. M. Goo et al., “False positive and false negative FDG-PET scans in various thoracic diseases,” Korean Journal of Radiology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 57–69, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. A. D. Culverwell, A. F. Scarsbrook, and F. U. Chowdhury, “False-positive uptake on 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in oncological imaging,” Clinical Radiology, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 366–382, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. D. Delbeke, H. Schöder, W. H. Martin, and R. L. Wahl, “Hybrid imaging (SPECT/CT and PET/CT): improving therapeutic decisions,” Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 308–340, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. A. K. Buck, G. Halter, H. Schirrmeister et al., “Imaging proliferation in lung tumors with PET: 18F-FLT versus 18F-FDG,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1426–1431, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. W. Chen, S. Delaloye, D. H. S. Silverman et al., “Predicting treatment response of malignant gliomas to bevacizumab and irinotecan by imaging proliferation with [18F] fluorothymidine positron emission tomography: a pilot study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 25, no. 30, pp. 4714–4721, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. B. S. Pio, C. K. Park, R. Pietras et al., “Usefulness of 3′-[F-18]fluoro-3′-deoxythymidine with positron emission tomography in predicting breast cancer response to therapy,” Molecular Imaging and Biology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 36–42, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. H. Barthel, M. C. Cleij, D. R. Collingridge et al., “3′-Deoxy-3′-[18F]fluorothymidine as a new marker for monitoring tumor response to antiproliferative therapy in vivo with positron emission tomography,” Cancer Research, vol. 63, no. 13, pp. 3791–3798, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. J. S. Rasey, J. R. Grierson, L. W. Wiens, P. D. Kolb, and J. L. Schwartz, “Validation of FLT uptake as a measure of thymidine kinase-1 activity in A549 carcinoma cells,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 1210–1217, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. W. Chen, T. Cloughesy, N. Kamdar et al., “Imaging proliferation in brain tumors with 18F-FLT PET: comparison with 18F-FDG,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 945–952, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. A. F. Shields, “PET imaging with 18F-FLT and thymidine analogs: promise and pitfalls,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1432–1434, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. G. Mees, R. Dierckx, C. Vangestel, and C. van de Wiele, “Molecular imaging of hypoxia with radiolabelled agents,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1674–1686, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. W. J. Koh, J. S. Rasey, M. L. Evans et al., “Imaging of hypoxia in human tumors with [F-18]fluoromisonidazole,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 199–212, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. S. T. Lee and A. M. Scott, “Hypoxia positron emission tomography imaging with 18F-fluoromisonidazole,” Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 451–461, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. Y. Fujibayashi, H. Taniuchi, Y. Yonekura, H. Ohtani, J. Konishi, and A. Yokoyama, “Copper-62-ATSM: a new hypoxia imaging agent with high membrane permeability and low redox potential,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 1155–1160, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. F. Dehdashti, P. W. Grigsby, M. A. Mintun, J. S. Lewis, B. A. Siegel, and M. J. Welch, “Assessing tumor hypoxia in cervical cancer by positron emission tomography with 60Cu-ATSM: relationship to therapeutic response—a preliminary report,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 1233–1238, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. Y. Minagawa, K. Shizukuishi, I. Koike et al., “Assessment of tumor hypoxia by 62Cu-ATSM PET/CT as a predictor of response in head and neck cancer: a pilot study,” Annals of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 339–345, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. J. P. Holland, J. S. Lewis, and F. Dehdashti, “Assessing tumor hypoxia by positron emission tomography with Cu-ATSM,” The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 193–200, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. J. S. Lewis, D. W. McCarthy, T. J. McCarthy, Y. Fujibayashi, and M. J. Welch, “Evaluation of 64Cu-ATSM in vitro and in vivo in a hypoxic tumor model,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 177–183, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. K. Smallbone, D. J. Gavaghan, R. . Gatenby, and P. K. Maini, “The role of acidity in solid tumour growth and invasion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 235, no. 4, pp. 476–484, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  54. K. Smallbone, R. A. Gatenby, and P. K. Maini, “Mathematical modelling of tumour acidity,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 255, no. 1, pp. 106–112, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  55. N. Viola-Villegas, V. Divilov, O. Andreev, Y. Reshetnyak, and J. Lewis, “Towards the improvement of an acidosis-targeting peptide PET tracer,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 53, supplement 1, abstract no. 1673, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  56. C. Nanni, S. Fanti, and D. Rubello, “18F-DOPA PET and PET/CT,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 1577–1579, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. A. Becherer, M. Szabó, G. Karanikas et al., “Imaging of advanced neuroendocrine tumors with 18F-FDOPA PET,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 1161–1167, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. L. M. Peterson, D. A. Mankoff, T. Lawton et al., “Quantitative imaging of estrogen receptor expression in breast cancer with PET and 18F-fluoroestradiol,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 367–374, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. G. Tomasi, F. Turkheimer, and E. Aboagye, “Importance of quantification for the analysis of PET data in oncology: review of current methods and trends for the future,” Molecular Imaging and Biology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 131–136, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. M. Vanderhoek, S. B. Perlman, and R. Jeraj, “Impact of different standardized uptake value measures on PET-based quantification of treatment response,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1188–1194, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. H. Watabe, Y. Ikoma, Y. Kimura, M. Naganawa, and M. Shidahara, “PET kinetic analysis—compartmental model,” Annals of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 583–588, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. L. G. Strauss, A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, and U. Haberkorn, “Shortened PET data acquisition protocol for the quantification of 18F-FDG kinetics,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 1933–1939, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. L. G. Strauss, L. Pan, C. Cheng, U. Haberkorn, and A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, “Shortened acquisition protocols for the quantitative assessment of the 2-tissue-compartment model using dynamic PET/CT18F-FDG studies,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 379–385, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. C. Burger, G. Goerres, S. Schoenes, A. Buck, A. Lonn, and G. von Schulthess, “PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511-keV attenuation coefficients,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 922–927, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. Clinical PET-CT in Radiology. Integrated Imaging in Oncology, Springer Science+Business Media, New York, NY, USA, 2011.
  66. A. C. Pfannenberg, P. Aschoff, K. Brechtel et al., “Low dose non-enhanced CT versus standard dose contrast-enhanced CT in combined PET/CT protocols for staging and therapy planning in non-small cell lung cancer,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 36–44, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. C. G. Cronin, P. Prakash, and M. A. Blake, “Oral and IV contrast agents for the CT portion of PET/CT,” The American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 195, no. 1, pp. W5–W13, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. S. K. Haerle, K. Strobel, N. Ahmad, A. Soltermann, D. T. Schmid, and S. J. Stoeckli, “Contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the assessment of necrotic lymph node metastases,” Head and Neck, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 324–329, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. E. Dizendorf, T. F. Hany, A. Buck, G. K. Von Schulthess, and C. Burger, “Cause and magnitude of the error induced by oral CT contrast agent in CT-based attenuation correction of PET emission studies,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 732–738, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. O. Mawlawi, J. J. Erasmus, R. F. Munden et al., “Quantifying the effect of IV contrast media on integrated PET/CT: clinical evaluation,” The American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 186, no. 2, pp. 308–319, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. Y. Liu, S. M. Sadowski, A. B. Weisbrod, E. Kebebew, R. M. Summers, and J. Yao, “Multimodal image driven patient specific tumor growth modeling,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 283–290, 2013. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus