科研之友
微信
新浪微博
Facebook
分享链接
摘要
Purpose To explore the value of a new simple lyophilized kit for labeling PRGD(2) peptide (F-18-ALF-NOTA-PRGD(2), denoted as F-18-alfatide) in the determination of metabolic tumor volume (MTV) with micro-PET in lewis lung carcinoma (LLC) tumor-bearing C57BL/6 mice verified by pathologic examination and compared with those using F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET. Methods All LLC tumor-bearing C57BL/6 mice underwent two attenuation-corrected whole-body micro-PET scans with the radiotracers F-18-alfatide and F-18-FDG within two days. F-18-alfatide metabolic tumor volume (V-RGD) and F-18-FDG metabolic tumor volume (V-FDG) were manually delineated slice by slice on PET images. Pathologic tumor volume (V-Path) was measured in vitro after the xenografts were removed. Results A total of 37 mice with NSCLC xenografts were enrolled and 33 of them underwent F-18-alfatide PET, and 35 of them underwent F-18-FDG PET and all underwent pathological examination. The mean +/- standard deviation of V-Path, V-RGD, and V-FDG were 0.59 +/- 0.32 cm(3) (range, 0.13 +/- 1.64 cm(3)), 0.61 +/- 0.37 cm(3) (range, 0.15 +/- 1.86 cm(3)), and 1.24 +/- 0.53 cm(3) (range, 0.17 +/- 2.20 cm(3)), respectively. V-Path vs. V-RGD, V-Path vs. V-FDG, and V-RGD vs. V-FDG comparisons were t = -0.145, P = 0.885, t = -6.239, P<0.001, and t = -5.661, P<0.001, respectively. No significant difference was found between V-Path and V-RGD. V-FDG was much larger than V-RGD and V-Path. V-RGD seemed more approximate to the pathologic gross tumor volume. Furthermore, V-Path was more strongly correlated with V-RGD (R = 0.964, P<0.001) than with VFDG (R = 0.584, P<0.001). Conclusions F-18-alfatide PET provided a better estimation of gross tumor volume than F-18-FDG PET in LLC tumor-bearing C57BL/6 mice.
