Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2015; 25(04): 332-341
DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.169467
Molecular Imaging: PET/CT

Emerging clinical applications of PET based molecular imaging in oncology: the promising future potential for evolving personalized cancer care

Vandana K Dhingra
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Research Institute, Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
,
Abhishek Mahajan
Department of Radiology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Sandip Basu
Radiation Medicine Centre, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
› Author Affiliations Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This review focuses on the potential of advanced applications of functional molecular imaging in assessing tumor biology and cellular characteristics with emphasis on positron emission tomography (PET) applications with both 18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and non-FDG tracers. The inherent heterogeneity of cancer cells with their varied cellular biology and metabolic and receptor phenotypic expression in each individual patient and also intra-and inter-lesionally in the same individual mandates for transitioning from a generalized "same-size-fits-all" approach to personalized medicine in oncology. The past two decades have witnessed improvement of oncological imaging through CT, MR imaging, PET, subsequent movement through hybrid or fusion imaging with PET/CT and single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT-CT), and now toward the evolving PET/MR imaging. These recent developments have proven invaluable in enhancing oncology care and have the potential to help image the tumor biology at the cellular level, followed by providing a tailored treatment. Molecular imaging, integrated diagnostics or Radiomics, biology-driven interventional radiology and theranostics, all hold immense potential to serve as a guide to give "start and stop" treatment for a patient on an individual basis. This will likely have substantial impact on both treatment costs and outcomes. In this review, we bring forth the current trends in molecular imaging with established techniques (PET/CT), with particular emphasis on newer molecules (such as amino acid metabolism and hypoxia imaging, somatostatin receptor based imaging, and hormone receptor imaging) and further potential for FDG. An introductory discussion on the novel hybrid imaging techniques such as PET/MR is also made to understand the futuristic trends.

Keywords

Molecular imaging - oncology - personalized medicine - positron emission tomography/computerized tomography - positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance


Publication History

Article published online:
30 July 2021

© 2015. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Basu S. Personalized versus evidence-based medicine with PET-based imaging. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2010;7:665-8.
  • 2 Mahajan A, Goh V, Basu S, Vaish R, Weeks AJ, Thakur MH, et al. Bench to bedside molecular functional imaging in translational cancer medicine: To image or to imagine? Clin Radiol 2015;70:1060-82.
  • 3 Dunphy MP, Lewis JS. Radiopharmaceuticals in preclinical and clinical development for monitoring of therapy with PET. J Nucl Med 2009;50 Suppl 1:106S-21S.
  • 4 Lastoria S, Maurea S, Caracò C, Vergara E, Maurelli L, Indolfi P, et al. Iodine-131 metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy for localization of lesions in children with neuroblastoma: Comparison with computed tomography and ultrasonography. Eur J Nucl Med 1993;20:1161-7.
  • 5 Blankenberg FG.In vivo detection of apoptosis. J Nucl Med 2008;49 Suppl 2:81S-95S.
  • 6 Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009;50 Suppl 1:122S-50S.
  • 7 Jadvar H, Alavi A, Gambhir SS. 18F-FDG uptake in lung, breast, and colon cancers: Molecular biology correlates and disease characterization. J Nucl Med 2009;50:1820-7.
  • 8 Basu S, Kumar R, Mavi A, Alavi A. Exploring tumor biology with fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography imaging in breast carcinoma. PET Clin 2009;4:381-9.
  • 9 Basu S, Chen W, Tchou J, Mavi A, Cermik T, Czerniecki B, et al. Comparison of triple-negative and estrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast carcinoma using quantitative fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose/positron emission tomography imaging parameters: A potentially useful method for disease characterization. Cancer 2008;112:995-1000.
  • 10 Wang W, Larson SM, Fazzari M, Tickoo SK, Kolbert K, Sgouros G, et al. Prognostic value of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographic scanning in patients with thyroid cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000;85:1107-13.
  • 11 Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Rigacci L, Specht L, Merli F, Hansen M, et al. Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: A report from a joint Italian-Danish study. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3746-52.
  • 12 Park JW, Kim JH, Kim SK, Kang KW, Park KW, Choi JI, et al. A prospective evaluation of 18F-FDG and 11C-acetate PET/CT for detection of primary and metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2008;49:1912-21.
  • 13 Basu S, Sirohi B, Shrikhande SV. Dual tracer imaging approach in assessing tumor biology and heterogeneity in neuroendocrine tumors: Its correlation with tumor proliferation index and possible multifaceted implications for personalized clinical management decisions, with focus on PRRT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2014;41:1492-6.
  • 14 Mees G, Dierckx R, Vangestel C, Van de Wiele C. Molecular imaging of hypoxia with radiolabelled agents. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36:1674-86.
  • 15 Calzada MJ, del Peso L. Hypoxia-inducible factors and cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 2007;9:278-89.
  • 16 Tehrani OS, Shields AF. PET imaging of proliferation with pyrimidines. J Nucl Med 2013;54:903-12.
  • 17 Shields AF, Grierson JR, Dohmen BM, Machulla HJ, Stayanoff JC, Lawhorn-Crews JM, et al. Imaging proliferation in vivo with [F-18]FLT and positron emission tomography. Nat Med 1998;4:1334-6.
  • 18 Frings V, Yaqub M, Hoyng LL, Golla SS, Windhorst AD, Schuit RC, et al. Assessment of simplified methods to measure 18F-FLT uptake changes in EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer patients undergoing EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment. J Nucl Med 2014;55:1417-23.
  • 19 Horn KP, Yap JT, Agarwal N, Morton KA, Kadrmas DJ, Beardmore B, et al. FDG and FLT-PET for early measurement of response to 37.5 mg daily sunitinib therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Imaging 2015;15:15.
  • 20 Comar D, Cartron J, Maziere M, Marazano C. Labelling and metabolism of methionine-methyl-11 C. Eur J Nucl Med 1976;1:11-4.
  • 21 Basu S, Alavi A. Molecular imaging (PET) of brain tumors. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2009;19:625-46.
  • 22 Kotzerke J, Prang J, Neumaier B, Volkmer B, Guhlmann A, Kleinschmidt K, et al. Experience with carbon-11 choline positron emission tomography in prostate carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:1415-9.
  • 23 Tsujikawa T, Yoshida Y, Mori T, Kurokawa T, Fujibayashi Y, Kotsuji F, et al. Uterine tumors: Pathophysiologic imaging with 16alpha-[18F]fluoro-17beta-estradiol and 18F fluorodeoxyglucose PET – Initial experience. Radiology 2008;248:599-605.
  • 24 Agus DB, Cordon-Cardo C, Fox W, Drobnjak M, Koff A, Golde DW, et al. Prostate cancer cell cycle regulators: Response to androgen withdrawal and development of androgen independence. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1869-76.
  • 25 Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:225-49.
  • 26 Effert PJ, Bares R, Handt S, Wolff JM, Büll U, Jakse G. Metabolic imaging of untreated prostate cancer by positron emission tomography with 18fluorine-labeled deoxyglucose. J Urol 1996;155:994-8.
  • 27 Antunes AA, Leite KR, Sousa-Canavez JM, Camara-Lopes LH, Srougi M. The role of prostate specific membrane antigen and pepsinogen C tissue expression as an adjunctive method to prostate cancer diagnosis. J Urol 2009;181:594-600.
  • 28 Chang SS, Reuter VE, Heston WD, Gaudin PB. Comparison of anti-prostate-specific membrane antigen antibodies and other immunomarkers in metastatic prostate carcinoma. Urology 2001;57:1179-83.
  • 29 Troyer JK, Beckett ML, Wright GL Jr. Location of prostate-specific membrane antigen in the LNCaP prostate carcinoma cell line. Prostate 1997;30:232-42.
  • 30 Tagawa ST, Milowsky MI, Morris M, Vallabhajosula S, Christos P, Akhtar NH, et al. Phase II study of lutetium-177-labeled anti-prostate-specific membrane antigen monoclonal antibody J591 for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:5182-91.
  • 31 Reubi JC, Maecke HR. Peptide-based probes for cancer imaging. J Nucl Med 2008;49:1735-8.
  • 32 Krenning EP, Kwekkeboom DJ, Bakker WH, Breeman WA, Kooij PP, Oei HY, et al. Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy with [111In-DTPA-D-Phe1]- and [123I-Tyr3]-octreotide: The Rotterdam experience with more than 1000 patients. Eur J Nucl Med 1993;20:716-31.
  • 33 Kenny LM, Coombes RC, Oulie I, Contractor KB, Miller M, Spinks TJ, et al. Phase I trial of the positron-emitting Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD) peptide radioligand 18F-AH111585 in breast cancer patients. J Nucl Med 2008;49:879-86.
  • 34 Philipp-Abbrederis K, Herrmann K, Knop S, Schottelius M, Eiber M, Lückerath K, et al. In vivo molecular imaging of chemokine receptor CXCR4 expression in patients with advanced multiple myeloma. EMBO Mol Med 2015;7:477-87.
  • 35 Heusch P, Buchbender C, Köhler J, Nensa F, Beiderwellen K, Kühl H, et al. Correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) with the standardized uptake value (SUV) in hybrid 18F-FDG PET/MRI in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) lesions: Initial results. Rofo 2013;185:1056-62.