Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33579381›Full record

ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2021

Pentixafor PET/CT for imaging of chemokine receptor 4 expression in esophageal cancer - a first clinical approach.

Philipp Linde, Christian Baues, Simone Wegen, Maike Trommer, Alexander Quaas, Johannes Rosenbrock, Eren Celik, Simone Marnitz, Christiane J Bruns, Thomas Fischer and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Advances in PET Imaging of the CXCR4 Receptor: [Seminars in nuclear medicine · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Current Status ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Philipp LindeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener St 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. philipp.linde@uk-koeln.de.
Christian BauesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener St 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Simone WegenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener St 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Maike TrommerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener St 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Alexander QuaasDepartment of Pathology, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Johannes RosenbrockDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener St 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Eren CelikDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener St 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Simone MarnitzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener St 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Christiane J BrunsDepartment of General, Visceral, Tumor and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Thomas FischerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Klaus SchomaeckerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Hans-Juergen WesterDepartment of Radiochemistry, Technische Universität München, Garching, Germany.
Alexander DrzezgaDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Lutz van HeekDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Carsten KobeDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
University Hospital Cologne · DEUniversity of Cologne · DETechnical University of Munich · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExpression of CXCR4, a chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor that plays a central role in tumor growth and metastasis of circulating tumor cells, has been described in a variety of solid tumors. A high expression of CXCR4 has a prognostic significance with regard to overall and progression-free survival and offers a starting point for targeted therapies. In this context, [68]Ga-Pentixafor-Positron Emission Tomography/Computer Tomography (PET/CT) offers promising possibility of imaging the CXCR4 expression profile. We set out to compare a [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET/CT and a [68Ga]Pentixafor-PET/CT in (re-)staging and radiation planning of patients with localized esophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this retrospective analysis, ten patients, with adeno- or squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (n = 3 and n = 7, respectively), which were scheduled for radio (chemo) therapy, were imaged using both Pentixafor and FDG PET/CT examinations. All lesions were visually rated as Pentixafor and FDG positive or negative. For both tracers, SUVmax was measured all lesions and compared to background. Additionally, immunohistochemistry of CXCR4 was obtained in patients undergoing surgery.

resultsFDG-positive tumor-suspicious lesions were detected in all patients and a total of 26 lesions were counted. The lesion-based analysis brought equal status in 14 lesions which were positive for both tracers while five lesions were FDG positive and Pentixafor negative and seven lesions were FDG negative, but Pentixafor positive. Histopathologic correlation was available in seven patients. The CXCR4 expression of four non-pretreated tumour lesion samples was confirmed immunohistochemically.

conclusionOur data shows that additional PET/CT imaging with Pentixafor for imaging the CXCR4 chemokine receptor is feasible but heterogeneous in both newly diagnosed and pretreated recurrent esophageal cancer. In addition, the Pentixafor PET/CT may serve as complementary tool for radiation field expansion in radiooncology.

Indexed as

AgedCoordination ComplexesEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMaleMiddle AgedMolecular ImagingPeptides, CyclicPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyReceptors, CXCR4Retrospective Studies68Ga-pentixaforCoordination ComplexesCXCR4 protein, humanFluorodeoxyglucose F18Peptides, CyclicReceptors, CXCR4CXCR4Esophageal cancerMolecular imagingPentixaforPET/CTRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID33579381
PMCPMC7881561
OpenAlexW3128462562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.