ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2015
Quantitative Evaluation of Tumor Early Response to a Vascular-Disrupting Agent with Dynamic PET.
Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A perspective on the radiopharmaceutical requirements for imaging and therapy of glioblastoma.Theranostics · 2021Review
- [Molecular imaging and biology · 2019Article
- Comparison and evaluation of two RGD peptides labelled withOncotarget · 2018Article
- Clinical Application of Radiolabeled RGD Peptides for PET Imaging of Integrin αvβ3.Theranostics · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the early response of tumors to a vascular-disrupting agent (VDA) VEGF121/recombinant toxin gelonin (rGel) using dynamic [(18)F]FPPRGD2 positron emission tomography (PET) and kinetic parameter estimation. PROCEDURES: Two tumor xenograft models: U87MG (highly vascularized) and A549 (moderately vascularized), were selected, and both were randomized into treatment and control groups. Sixty-minute dynamic PET scans with [(18)F]FPPRGD2 that targets to integrin αvβ3 were performed at days 0 (baseline), 1, and 3 since VEGF121/rGel treatment started. Dynamic PET-derived binding potential (BPND) and parametric maps were compared with tumor uptake (%ID/g) and the static PET image at 1 h after the tracer administration.
resultsThe growth of U87MG tumor was obviously delayed upon VEGF121/rGel treatment. A549 tumor was not responsive to the same treatment. BPND of treated U87MG tumors decreased significantly at day 1 (p < 0.05), and the difference was more significant at day 3 (p < 0.01), compared with the control group. However, the tracer uptake (%ID/g) derived from static images at 1-h time point did not show significant difference between the treated and control tumors until day 3. Little difference in tracer uptake (%ID/g) or BPND was found between treated and control A549 tumors. Considering the tracer retention in tumor and the slower clearance due to damaged tumor vasculature after treatment, BPND representing the actual specific binding portion appears to be more sensitive and accurate than the semiquantitative parameters (such as %ID/g) derived from static images to assess the early response of tumor to VDA treatment.
conclusionsQuantitative analysis based on dynamic PET with [(18)F]FPPRGD2 shows advantages in distinguishing effective from ineffective treatment during the course of VEGF121/rGel therapy at early stage and is therefore more sensitive in assessing therapy response than static PET.
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.