Limits...
In vivo molecular imaging of chemokine receptor CXCR4 expression in patients with advanced multiple myeloma.

Philipp-Abbrederis K, Herrmann K, Knop S, Schottelius M, Eiber M, Lückerath K, Pietschmann E, Habringer S, Gerngroß C, Franke K, Rudelius M, Schirbel A, Lapa C, Schwamborn K, Steidle S, Hartmann E, Rosenwald A, Kropf S, Beer AJ, Peschel C, Einsele H, Buck AK, Schwaiger M, Götze K, Wester HJ, Keller U - EMBO Mol Med (2015)

Bottom Line: We evaluated the novel CXCR4 probe [(68)Ga]Pentixafor for in vivo mapping of CXCR4 expression density in mice xenografted with human CXCR4-positive MM cell lines and patients with advanced MM by means of positron emission tomography (PET). [(68)Ga]Pentixafor PET provided images with excellent specificity and contrast.In 10 of 14 patients with advanced MM [(68)Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT scans revealed MM manifestations, whereas only nine of 14 standard [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT scans were rated visually positive.Assessment of blood counts and standard CD34(+) flow cytometry did not reveal significant blood count changes associated with tracer application.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: III. Medical Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Visual comparison of [18F]FDG- and [68Ga]Pentixafor PET scansNumber of patients with visual positivity for the indicated PET tracer (total: n = 14).Number of patients (total n = 14) for whom imaging with [18F]FDG PET (FDG, n = 2) or [68Ga]Pentixafor PET (Pentixafor, n = 7) was superior, with comparable positivity (comparable, n = 3), and with dual imaging providing complementary visual information (complementary, n = 2).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4403048&req=5

fig04: Visual comparison of [18F]FDG- and [68Ga]Pentixafor PET scansNumber of patients with visual positivity for the indicated PET tracer (total: n = 14).Number of patients (total n = 14) for whom imaging with [18F]FDG PET (FDG, n = 2) or [68Ga]Pentixafor PET (Pentixafor, n = 7) was superior, with comparable positivity (comparable, n = 3), and with dual imaging providing complementary visual information (complementary, n = 2).

Mentions: To evaluate the suitability of [68Ga]Pentixafor for in vivo imaging of MM in patients and for its usefulness to select patients for future CXCR4-directed treatments, we visually analyzed 14 patients with histologically proven, advanced MM. The patient characteristics are shown in Table1. All patients gave written informed consent for receiving the [68Ga]Pentixafor PET as well as undergoing a standard [18F]FDG PET. Representative images of one [68Ga]Pentixafor PET-positive patient are shown in Fig3A–D. Representative images of one [68Ga]Pentixafor PET-negative patient are shown in Supplementary Fig S4. In summary, 9 of 14 (64%) [18F]FDG scans were rated visually positive, whereas 10 of 14 (71%) [68Ga]Pentixafor scans revealed disease manifestations (Fig4A). Visual comparison of [18F]FDG and [68Ga]Pentixafor scans resulted in comparable findings in 3 (21%) patients. In 7 patients (50%), the [68Ga]Pentixafor signal was superior to [18F]FDG identifying more tumor lesions, whereas in 2 patients (14%), [18F]FDG provided additional information compared to [68Ga]Pentixafor. In the remaining 2 patients (14%), [68Ga]Pentixafor and [18F]FDG provided complementary information regarding the detection of myeloma manifestations (Fig4B). More than three lesions were reported in 8 of 14 FDG scans and 8 of 14 [68Ga]Pentixafor PET scans. Extramedullary disease (EMD) was detected in 3 [68Ga]Pentixafor scans and in 2 [18F]FDG PET scans. In one patient, [68Ga]Pentixafor but not [18F]FDG identified EMD. In comparison with the PET scans, only 1 of 14 CT scans did not show MM manifestations resulting in 13 of 14 (93%) positive scans. More than three lesions were described in 10 of 14 patients, whereas EMD was only reported in 1 patient. An exemplary patient where [68Ga]Pentixafor imaging provided superior information is shown in Supplementary Fig S5.


In vivo molecular imaging of chemokine receptor CXCR4 expression in patients with advanced multiple myeloma.

Philipp-Abbrederis K, Herrmann K, Knop S, Schottelius M, Eiber M, Lückerath K, Pietschmann E, Habringer S, Gerngroß C, Franke K, Rudelius M, Schirbel A, Lapa C, Schwamborn K, Steidle S, Hartmann E, Rosenwald A, Kropf S, Beer AJ, Peschel C, Einsele H, Buck AK, Schwaiger M, Götze K, Wester HJ, Keller U - EMBO Mol Med (2015)

Visual comparison of [18F]FDG- and [68Ga]Pentixafor PET scansNumber of patients with visual positivity for the indicated PET tracer (total: n = 14).Number of patients (total n = 14) for whom imaging with [18F]FDG PET (FDG, n = 2) or [68Ga]Pentixafor PET (Pentixafor, n = 7) was superior, with comparable positivity (comparable, n = 3), and with dual imaging providing complementary visual information (complementary, n = 2).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4403048&req=5

fig04: Visual comparison of [18F]FDG- and [68Ga]Pentixafor PET scansNumber of patients with visual positivity for the indicated PET tracer (total: n = 14).Number of patients (total n = 14) for whom imaging with [18F]FDG PET (FDG, n = 2) or [68Ga]Pentixafor PET (Pentixafor, n = 7) was superior, with comparable positivity (comparable, n = 3), and with dual imaging providing complementary visual information (complementary, n = 2).
Mentions: To evaluate the suitability of [68Ga]Pentixafor for in vivo imaging of MM in patients and for its usefulness to select patients for future CXCR4-directed treatments, we visually analyzed 14 patients with histologically proven, advanced MM. The patient characteristics are shown in Table1. All patients gave written informed consent for receiving the [68Ga]Pentixafor PET as well as undergoing a standard [18F]FDG PET. Representative images of one [68Ga]Pentixafor PET-positive patient are shown in Fig3A–D. Representative images of one [68Ga]Pentixafor PET-negative patient are shown in Supplementary Fig S4. In summary, 9 of 14 (64%) [18F]FDG scans were rated visually positive, whereas 10 of 14 (71%) [68Ga]Pentixafor scans revealed disease manifestations (Fig4A). Visual comparison of [18F]FDG and [68Ga]Pentixafor scans resulted in comparable findings in 3 (21%) patients. In 7 patients (50%), the [68Ga]Pentixafor signal was superior to [18F]FDG identifying more tumor lesions, whereas in 2 patients (14%), [18F]FDG provided additional information compared to [68Ga]Pentixafor. In the remaining 2 patients (14%), [68Ga]Pentixafor and [18F]FDG provided complementary information regarding the detection of myeloma manifestations (Fig4B). More than three lesions were reported in 8 of 14 FDG scans and 8 of 14 [68Ga]Pentixafor PET scans. Extramedullary disease (EMD) was detected in 3 [68Ga]Pentixafor scans and in 2 [18F]FDG PET scans. In one patient, [68Ga]Pentixafor but not [18F]FDG identified EMD. In comparison with the PET scans, only 1 of 14 CT scans did not show MM manifestations resulting in 13 of 14 (93%) positive scans. More than three lesions were described in 10 of 14 patients, whereas EMD was only reported in 1 patient. An exemplary patient where [68Ga]Pentixafor imaging provided superior information is shown in Supplementary Fig S5.

Bottom Line: We evaluated the novel CXCR4 probe [(68)Ga]Pentixafor for in vivo mapping of CXCR4 expression density in mice xenografted with human CXCR4-positive MM cell lines and patients with advanced MM by means of positron emission tomography (PET). [(68)Ga]Pentixafor PET provided images with excellent specificity and contrast.In 10 of 14 patients with advanced MM [(68)Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT scans revealed MM manifestations, whereas only nine of 14 standard [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT scans were rated visually positive.Assessment of blood counts and standard CD34(+) flow cytometry did not reveal significant blood count changes associated with tracer application.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: III. Medical Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus