Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17160412›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2007

FDG small animal PET permits early detection of malignant cells in a xenograft murine model.

Cristina Nanni, Korinne Di Leo, Roberto Tonelli, Cinzia Pettinato, Domenico Rubello, Antonello Spinelli, Silvia Trespidi, Valentina Ambrosini, Paolo Castellucci, Mohsen Farsad and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Role of small animal PET for molecular imaging in pre-clinical studies.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2007
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Cristina NanniNuclear Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera di Bologna Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy.
Korinne Di LeoDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Bologna, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Roberto TonelliDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Bologna, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Cinzia PettinatoPhysics, Azienda Ospedaliera di Bologna Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy.
Domenico RubelloService of Nuclear Medicine and PET, Ospedale S. Maria della Misericordia, Viale Tre Martiri, 140, 45100, Rovigo, Italy. domenico.rubello@libero.it.
Antonello SpinelliNuclear Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera di Bologna Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy.
Silvia TrespidiNuclear Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera di Bologna Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy.
Valentina AmbrosiniNuclear Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera di Bologna Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy.
Paolo CastellucciNuclear Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera di Bologna Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy.
Mohsen FarsadNuclear Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera di Bologna Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy.
Roberto FranchiNuclear Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera di Bologna Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy.
Andrea PessionDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Bologna, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Stefano FantiNuclear Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera di Bologna Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy.
Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi · ITUniversity of Bologna · ITOspedale Santa Maria della Misericordia di Rovigo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe administration of new anticancer drugs in animal models is the first step from in vitro to in vivo pre-clinical protocols. At this stage it is crucial to ensure that cells are in the logarithmic phase of growth and to avoid vascular impairment, which can cause inhomogeneous distribution of the drug within the tumour and thus lead to bias in the final analysis of efficacy. In subcutaneous xenograft murine models, positivity for cancer is visually recognisable 2-3 weeks after inoculation, when a certain amount of necrosis is usually already present. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of FDG small animal PET for the early detection of malignant masses in a xenograft murine model of human rhabdomyosarcoma. A second goal was to analyse the metabolic behaviour of this xenograft tumour over time.

methodsWe studied 23 nude mice, in which 7 x 10(6) rhabdomyosarcoma cells (RH-30 cell line) were injected in the dorsal subcutaneous tissues. Each animal underwent four FDG PET scans (GE, eXplore Vista DR) under gas anaesthesia. The animals were studied 2, 5, 14 and 20 days after inoculation. We administered 20 MBq of FDG via the tail vein. Uptake time was 60 min, and acquisition time, 20 min. Images were reconstructed with OSEM 2D iterative reconstruction and the target to background ratio (TBR) was calculated for each tumour. Normal subcutaneous tissue had a TBR of 0.3. Necrosis was diagnosed when one or more cold areas were present within the mass. All the animals were sacrificed and histology was available to verify PET results. PET results were concordant with the findings of necropsy and histology in all cases.

resultsThe incidence of the tumour was 69.6% (16/23 animals); seven animals did not develop a malignant mass. Ten of the 23 animals had a positive PET scan 2 days after inoculation. Nine of these ten animals developed a tumour; the remaining animal became negative, at the third scan. The positive predictive value of the early PET scan was 90% (9/10 animals) while the negative predictive value was 46% (6/13 animals). In the whole group of animals, mean TBR increased scan by scan. There was a statistically significant difference in TBR between 2 and 20 days after inoculation. Necrosis was present at the second scan in two animals, at the third scan in six animals and at the fourth scan in 11 animals.

conclusionThe high positive predictive value of FDG PET 2 days after inoculation means that an animal with a first positive scan has a very high likelihood of developing a mass and can be treated at an early stage with an experimental drug. Animals negative at this point in time will never develop a mass or will eventually do so at a late phase. As 2 of the 16 (12.5%) positive animals had necrosis at the second scan, indicating a vascular mismatch, it may be argued that animals should be treated 2 days after inoculation to guarantee homogeneous vascularisation (thereby ensuring a good drug supply within the tumour) in all subjects.

Indexed as

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18AnimalsCell Line, TumorFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMiceMice, NudeNeoplasm TransplantationPositron-Emission TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsReproducibility of ResultsRhabdomyosarcomaSensitivity and SpecificityTime FactorsFluorodeoxyglucose F18Radiopharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID17160412
OpenAlexW1977780486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.