Angiogenesis imaging study using interim [

Angiogenesis FDG K5 Lymphoma PET/CT RGD

Journal

EJNMMI research
ISSN: 2191-219X
Titre abrégé: EJNMMI Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101560946

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 Apr 2021
Historique:
received: 18 01 2021
accepted: 19 03 2021
entrez: 13 4 2021
pubmed: 14 4 2021
medline: 14 4 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Our aim was to measure the impact of two cycles of standard chemotherapy on tumoural neoangiogenesis by [ Eighteen patients had both C0 FDG and RGD PET. Twelve patients had both C2 FDG and RGD, completed the treatment protocol and were included in end-of-treatment analysis. No statistical difference was found in RGD uptake of normal organs before and after chemotherapy for SUVmax and SUVmean. On C0 RGD, apart from classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL; n = 5) and grey zone lymphoma (GZL; n = 1), other lymphoma sub-types (n = 12) had low RGD uptake (p < 0.001). Regarding FDG, there was no significant difference for SUVmax, SUVmean and MTV at C0 and C2 between patients with cHL and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). At C2 RGD, non-responders had higher SUVmax and SUVmean compared to responders (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in RGD ATV between responders and non-responders. Our study showed significant higher initial RGD uptake in patients presenting with cHL and GZL compared to NHL. Non-responder also had higher post-chemotherapy RGD uptake compared to responders. Issues raised by RGD uptake, particularly in cHL, are yet to be explored and need to be confirmed in a larger population.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Our aim was to measure the impact of two cycles of standard chemotherapy on tumoural neoangiogenesis by [
RESULTS RESULTS
Eighteen patients had both C0 FDG and RGD PET. Twelve patients had both C2 FDG and RGD, completed the treatment protocol and were included in end-of-treatment analysis. No statistical difference was found in RGD uptake of normal organs before and after chemotherapy for SUVmax and SUVmean. On C0 RGD, apart from classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL; n = 5) and grey zone lymphoma (GZL; n = 1), other lymphoma sub-types (n = 12) had low RGD uptake (p < 0.001). Regarding FDG, there was no significant difference for SUVmax, SUVmean and MTV at C0 and C2 between patients with cHL and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). At C2 RGD, non-responders had higher SUVmax and SUVmean compared to responders (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in RGD ATV between responders and non-responders.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our study showed significant higher initial RGD uptake in patients presenting with cHL and GZL compared to NHL. Non-responder also had higher post-chemotherapy RGD uptake compared to responders. Issues raised by RGD uptake, particularly in cHL, are yet to be explored and need to be confirmed in a larger population.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33846870
doi: 10.1186/s13550-021-00776-9
pii: 10.1186/s13550-021-00776-9
pmc: PMC8041962
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

37

Références

Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Aug;43(9):1621-9
pubmed: 26922351
J Immunother. 2009 Jun;32(5):508-12
pubmed: 19609243
J Nucl Med. 2013 Sep;54(9):1543-50
pubmed: 23918733
J Nucl Med. 2012 May;53(5):787-95
pubmed: 22499613
Theranostics. 2011 Jan 17;1:48-57
pubmed: 21547152
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Apr;46(4):940-947
pubmed: 30187104
Blood. 2002 Jun 15;99(12):4283-97
pubmed: 12036854
Science. 1987 Oct 23;238(4826):491-7
pubmed: 2821619
Haematologica. 2014 Aug;99(8):1343-9
pubmed: 24895339
J Pathol. 2002 Aug;197(5):677-83
pubmed: 12210089
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Aug;44(Suppl 1):97-110
pubmed: 28411336
J Nucl Med. 2008 Jan;49(1):22-9
pubmed: 18077538
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(7):1436-1447
pubmed: 28379322
Semin Cancer Biol. 2000 Oct;10(5):345-50
pubmed: 11100882
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):328-54
pubmed: 25452219
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2002 Jun;1(6):415-26
pubmed: 12119743
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Aug;41(8):1534-43
pubmed: 24652232

Auteurs

David Tonnelet (D)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Cancer Center, Rouen University Hospital & QuantIF-LITIS, University of Rouen, 1 rue d'amiens, 76000, Rouen, France. David.tonnelet@chb.unicancer.fr.

M D Pierre Bohn (MDP)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Cancer Center, Rouen University Hospital & QuantIF-LITIS, University of Rouen, 1 rue d'amiens, 76000, Rouen, France.

Stephanie Becker (S)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Cancer Center, Rouen University Hospital & QuantIF-LITIS, University of Rouen, 1 rue d'amiens, 76000, Rouen, France.

Pierre Decazes (P)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Cancer Center, Rouen University Hospital & QuantIF-LITIS, University of Rouen, 1 rue d'amiens, 76000, Rouen, France.

Vincent Camus (V)

Inserm U1245 and Department of Hematology, Henri Becquerel Cancer Center, Rouen University Hospital & QuantIF-LITIS, University of Rouen, Rouen, France.

Sebastien Thureau (S)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Cancer Center, Rouen University Hospital & QuantIF-LITIS, University of Rouen, 1 rue d'amiens, 76000, Rouen, France.
Depatment of Radiotherapy Henri Becquerel Cancer Center, Rouen University Hospital & QuantIF-LITIS, University of Rouen, Rouen, France.

Hervé Tilly (H)

Inserm U1245 and Department of Hematology, Henri Becquerel Cancer Center, Rouen University Hospital & QuantIF-LITIS, University of Rouen, Rouen, France.

Fabrice Jardin (F)

Inserm U1245 and Department of Hematology, Henri Becquerel Cancer Center, Rouen University Hospital & QuantIF-LITIS, University of Rouen, Rouen, France.

Pierre Vera (P)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Cancer Center, Rouen University Hospital & QuantIF-LITIS, University of Rouen, 1 rue d'amiens, 76000, Rouen, France.

Classifications MeSH