4.8 Article

Glutamine-based PET imaging facilitates enhanced metabolic evaluation of gliomas in vivo

期刊

SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 7, 期 274, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa1009

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cancer Dream Team Translational Research Grant [SU2C-AACR-DT0509]
  2. Entertainment Industry Foundation
  3. MSKCC Brain Tumor Center
  4. National Cancer Institute (NCI) [K08 CA181475]
  5. National Institute of General Medical Sciences Medical Scientist Training Program (NIGMS MSTP) [GM07739]
  6. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) [F31 NS076028]
  7. NCI [P50 CA086438, R01-CA164490]
  8. NIH [R01 NS080944]
  9. NIH Cancer Center [P30 CA08748]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glucose and glutamine are the two principal nutrients that cancer cells use to proliferate and survive. Many cancers show altered glucose metabolism, which constitutes the basis for in vivo positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-18-FDG). However, F-18-FDG is ineffective in evaluating gliomas because of high background uptake in the brain. Glutamine metabolism is also altered in many cancers, and we demonstrate that PET imaging in vivo with the glutamine analog 4-F-18-(2S, 4R)-fluoroglutamine (F-18-FGln) shows high uptake in gliomas but low background brain uptake, facilitating clear tumor delineation. Chemo/radiation therapy reduced F-18-FGln tumor avidity, corresponding with decreased tumor burden. F-18-FGln uptake was not observed in animals with a permeable blood-brain barrier or neuroinflammation. We translated these findings to human subjects, where F-18-FGln showed high tumor/background ratios with minimal uptake in the surrounding brain in human glioma patients with progressive disease. These data suggest that F-18-FGln is avidly taken up by gliomas, can be used to assess metabolic nutrient uptake in gliomas in vivo, and may serve as a valuable tool in the clinical management of gliomas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据