ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2007
FDG small animal PET permits early detection of malignant cells in a xenograft murine model.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodal Molecular Imaging: Current Status and Future Directions.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2018Review
- Sulforaphane induces apoptosis in rhabdomyosarcoma and restores TRAIL-sensitivity in the aggressive alveolar subtype leading to tumor elimination in mice.Cancer biology & therapy · 2014Article
- Utility of 3'-[(18)F]fluoro-3'-deoxythymidine as a PET tracer to monitor response to gene therapy in a xenograft model of head and neck carcinoma.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2013Article
- A comparison of imaging techniques to monitor tumor growth and cancer progression in living animals.International journal of molecular imaging · 2011Article
- High throughput static and dynamic small animal imaging using clinical PET/CT: potential preclinical applications.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2010Article
- Early evaluation of the effects of chemotherapy with longitudinal FDG small-animal PET in human testicular cancer xenografts: early flare response does not reflect refractory disease.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2009Article
- Usefulness of automatic quantification of immunochemical staining on whole tumor sections for correlation with oncological small animal PET studies: an example with cell proliferation, glucose transporter 1 and FDG.Molecular imaging and biology · 2008Article
- Role of small animal PET for molecular imaging in pre-clinical studies.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.