Positron emission tomography and pharmacokinetics of 2-[18F]-fluoroethyl choline for metabolic studies in breast cancer xenografts

References

• Podo F. Tumour phospholipid metabolism. NMR Biomed 1999;12:413–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliyahu G, Kreizman T, Degani H. Phosphocholine as a biomarker of breast cancer: Molecular and biochemical studies. Int J Cancer 2007;120:1721–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moestue SA, Borgan E, Huuse EM, Lindholm EM, Sitter B, Borresen-Dale AL, et al. Distinct choline metabolic profiles are associated with differences in gene expression for basal-like and luminal-like breast cancer xenograft models. BMC Cancer 2010;10:433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grinde MT, Skrbo N, Moestue SA, Rodland EA, Borgan E, Kristian A, et al. Interplay of choline metabolites and genes in patient-derived breast cancer xenografts. Breast Cancer Res 2014;16:R5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banez-Coronel M, Ramirez de Molina A, Rodriguez-Gonzalez A, Sarmentero J, Ramos MA, Garcia-Cabezas MA, et al. Choline kinase alpha depletion selectively kills tumoral cells. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 2008;8:709–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esmaeili M, Moestue SA, Hamans BC, Veltien A, Kristian A, Engebraten O, et al. In Vivo 31 P magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) for metabolic profiling of human breast cancer xenografts. J Magn Reson Imaging Epub2014 Feb 14.
   Google Scholar
• Tozaki M. Proton MR spectroscopy of the breast. Breast Cancer 2008;15:218–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice SL, Roney CA, Daumar P, Lewis JS. The next generation of positron emission tomography radiopharmaceuticals in oncology. Semin Nucl Med 2011;41:265–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hara T, Kosaka N, Kishi H. PET imaging of prostate cancer using carbon-11-choline. J Nucl Med 1998;39:990–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeGrado TR, Reiman RE, Price DT, Wang S, Coleman RE. Pharmacokinetics and radiation dosimetry of 18F-fluorocholine. J Nucl Med 2002;43:92–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brogsitter C, Zophel K, Kotzerke J. 18F-Choline, 11C-choline and 11C-acetate PET/CT: Comparative analysis for imaging prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40:18–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mertens K, Bolcaen J, Ham H, Deblaere K, Van den Broecke C, Boterberg T, et al. The optimal timing for imaging brain tumours and other brain lesions with 18F-labelled fluoromethylcholine: A dynamic positron emission tomography study. Nucl Med Comm 2012;33:954–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price DT, Coleman RE, Liao RP, Robertson CN, Polascik TJ, DeGrado TR. Comparison of [18 F]fluorocholine and [18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose for positron emission tomography of androgen dependent and androgen independent prostate cancer. J Urol 2002;168:273–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavola F, Janzen T, Giussani A, Facchinetti D, Veronese I, Uusijarvi-Lizana H, et al. Nonlinear compartmental model of 18F-choline. Nucl Med Biol 2012;39:261–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giussani A, Janzen T, Uusijarvi-Lizana H, Tavola F, Zankl M, Sydoff M, et al. A compartmental model for biokinetics and dosimetry of 18F-choline in prostate cancer patients. J Nucl Med 2012;53:985–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slaets D, De Vos F. Comparison between kinetic modelling and graphical analysis for the quantification of [18F]fluoromethylcholine uptake in mice. EJNMMI Res 2013;3:66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristian A, Nilsen L, Røe K, Revheim M-E, Engebråten O, Mælandsmo G, et al. Dynamic 18 F-FDG PET for assessment of tumor physiology in two breast carcinoma xenografts. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;47:173–80.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bergamaschi A, Hjortland GO, Triulzi T, Sørlie T, Johnsen H, Ree AH, et al. Molecular profiling and characterization of luminal-like and basal-like in vivo breast cancer xenograft models. Mol Oncol 2009;3:469–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marangoni E, Vincent-Salomon A, Auger N, Degeorges A, Assayag F, de Cremoux P, et al. A new model of patient tumor-derived breast cancer xenografts for preclinical assays. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:3989–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristian A, Revheim ME, Qu H, Maelandsmo GM, Engebraten O, Seierstad T, et al. Dynamic (18)F-FDG-PET for monitoring treatment effect following anti-angiogenic therapy in triple-negative breast cancer xenografts. Acta Oncol 2013;57:1566–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riss PJ, Hoehnemann S, Piel M, Roesch F. Two-step radiosynthesis of 18)F]FE-beta-CIT and [18F]PR04.MZ. J Labelled Comp Radiopharm 2013;56:356–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qi J, Leahy RM. Resolution and noise properties of MAP reconstruction for fully 3-D PET. Med Imaging 2000; 19:493–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roe K, Aleksandersen TB, Kristian A, Nilsen LB, Seierstad T, Qu H, et al. Preclinical dynamic 18F-FDG PET – tumor characterization and radiotherapy response assessment by kinetic compartment analysis. Acta Oncol 2010; 49:914–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riss PJ, Hong YT, Williamson D, Caprioli D, Sitnikov S, Ferrari V, et al. Validation and quantification of [18F]altanserin binding in the rat brain using blood input and reference tissue modeling. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2011;31:2334–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar