Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28797928›Full record

ArticleNuclear medicine and biology2017

Comparison of planar, PET and well-counter measurements of total tumor radioactivity in a mouse xenograft model.

Michael V Green, Jurgen Seidel, Mark R Williams, Karen J Wong, Anita Ton, Falguni Basuli, Peter L Choyke, Elaine M Jagoda

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nuclear medicine and biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 90% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Advances in Preclinical PET.Seminars in nuclear medicine · 2022
    Review
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Michael V GreenMolecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Contractor to Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Frederick, MD. Electronic address: greenmich@nih.gov.
Jurgen SeidelMolecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Contractor to Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Frederick, MD.
Mark R WilliamsMolecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Contractor to Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Frederick, MD.
Karen J WongMolecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Anita TonMolecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Falguni BasuliImaging Probe Development Center, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Peter L ChoykeMolecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Elaine M JagodaMolecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
National Institutes of Health · USFrederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research · USLeidos Biomedical Research Inc. (United States)Leidos (United States) · USNational Heart Lung and Blood Institute · US

Funding

Intracellular In vivo ImagingZIABC010657 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI CHOYKE, PETER L · 2009 to 2025
$20.3M
Instrumentation for microSPECT and microPET imagingZIABC010668 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI CHOYKE, PETER L · 2009 to 2025
$11.0M
CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CIntramural NIH HHS ZIA BC010668NCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001E
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionQuantitative small animal radionuclide imaging studies are often carried out with the intention of estimating the total radioactivity content of various tissues such as the radioactivity content of mouse xenograft tumors exposed to putative diagnostic or therapeutic agents. We show that for at least one specific application, positron projection imaging (PPI) and PET yield comparable estimates of absolute total tumor activity and that both of these estimates are highly correlated with direct well-counting of these same tumors. These findings further suggest that in this particular application, PPI is a far more efficient data acquisition and processing methodology than PET.

methodsForty-one athymic mice were implanted with PC3 human prostate cancer cells transfected with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA (+)) and one additional animal (for a total of 42) with a control blank vector (PSMA (-)). All animals were injected with [

resultsPET, PPI and well-counter estimates of total tumor radioactivity were highly correlated (R

conclusionTotal mouse xenograft tumor radioactivity can be measured with PET or PPI with an accuracy comparable to well counting if certain experimental and pharmacokinetic conditions are met. In this particular application, PPI is significantly more efficient than PET in making these measurements.

Indexed as

Cell Transformation, NeoplasticAnimalsHumansMaleMicePositron-Emission TomographyProstatic NeoplasmsRadioactive TracersRadioactivityRadioactive TracersCancer drug bio-distribution studiesMouse tumor xenografts modelsQuantitative PETQuantitative planar imaging

Identifiers

PMID28797928
PMCPMC5610094
OpenAlexW2726868750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.