Targeted PET/MRI Imaging Super Probes: A Critical Review of Opportunities and Challenges

References

• Leeflang MMG, Allerberger F. How to: evaluate a diagnostic test. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;25(1):54–59. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2018.06.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Z-Y, Wang Y-X, Lin Y, et al. Advance of molecular imaging technology and targeted imaging agent in imaging and therapy. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:1–12. doi:10.1155/2014/819324
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picano E. Sustainability of medical imaging. Br Med J. 2004;328(7439):578–580. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7439.578
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stucht D, Danishad KA, Schulze P, Godenschweger F, Zaitsev M, Speck O. Highest resolution in vivo human brain MRI using prospective motion correction. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):1–17. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133921
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer-Marek G, Capala J. Can PET imaging facilitate optimization of cancer therapies? Curr Pharm Des. 2012;18(18):2657–2669. doi:10.2174/138161212800492813
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson CL, Heldebrant DJ, Bearden MD, Horner JA, Freeman CJ. The IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology. Vol. 114. Gold V ed. Research Triangle Park, NC: International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC); 2019. doi:10.1351/goldbook
   Google Scholar
• Weishaupt D, Köchli VD, Marincek B. How Does MRI Work? Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2006. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-37845-7
   Google Scholar
• Westbrook C, Talbot J. MRI in Practice. 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek J. Charakterystyki procesu anihilacji pozytonów w materii. 2000. doi:10.4103/0971-6203.25665
   Google Scholar
• Wadsak W, Mitterhauser M. Basics and principles of radiopharmaceuticals for PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73(3):461–469. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.12.022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treglia G, Salsano M. PET imaging using radiolabelled antibodies: future direction in tumor diagnosis and correlate applications. Res Rep Nucl Med. 2013;9. doi:10.2147/rrnm.s35186
   Google Scholar
• Yang CT, Ghosh KK, Padmanabhan P, et al. PET-MR and SPECT-MR multimodality probes: development and challenges. Theranostics. 2018;8(22):6210–6232. doi:10.7150/thno.26610
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamb J, Holland JP. Advanced methods for radiolabeling multimodality nanomedicines for SPECT/MRI and PET/MRI. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(3):382–389. doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.187419
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dammes N, Peer D. Monoclonal antibody-based molecular imaging strategies and theranostic opportunities. Theranostics. 2020;10(2):938–955. doi:10.7150/thno.37443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulte JWM, Kraitchman DL. Iron oxide MR contrast agents for molecular and cellular imaging. NMR Biomed. 2004;17(7):484–499. doi:10.1002/nbm.924
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estelrich J, Sánchez-Martín MJ, Busquets MA. Nanoparticles in magnetic resonance imaging: from simple to dual contrast agents. Int J Nanomed. 2015;10:1727–1741. doi:10.2147/IJN.S76501
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Na HB, Song IC, Hyeon T. Inorganic nanoparticles for MRI contrast agents. Adv Mater. 2009;21(21):2133–2148. doi:10.1002/adma.200802366
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood ML, Hardy PA. Proton relaxation enhancement. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;3(1):149–156. doi:10.1002/jmri.1880030127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloembergen N. Proton relaxation times in paramagnetic solutions. J Chem Phys. 1957;27(2):572–573. doi:10.1063/1.1743771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strandberg E, Westlund PO. 1H NMRD profile and ESR lineshape calculation for an isotropic electron spin system with S = 7/2. A generalized modified solomon-bloembergen-morgan theory for nonextreme-narrowing conditions. J Magn Reson. 1996;122(2):179–191. doi:10.1006/jmra.1996.0193
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauffer RB. Paramagnetic metal complexes as water proton relaxation agents for NMR imaging: theory and design. Chem Rev. 1987;87(5):901–927. doi:10.1021/cr00081a003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terencio T, Roithová J, Brandès S, Rousselin Y, Penouilh MJ, Meyer M. A comparative IRMPD and DFT study of Fe3+ and UO22+ complexation with N-methylacetohydroxamic acid. Inorg Chem. 2018;57(3):1125–1135. doi:10.1021/acs.inorgchem.7b02567
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aryal S, Key J, Stigliano C, Landis MD, Lee DY, Decuzzi P. Positron emitting magnetic nanoconstructs for PET/MR imaging. Small. 2014;10(13):2688–2696. doi:10.1002/smll.201303933
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verwilst P, Park S, Yoon B, Kim JS. Recent advances in Gd-chelate based bimodal optical/MRI contrast agents. Chem Soc Rev. 2015;44(7):1791–1806. doi:10.1039/c4cs00336e
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caravan P, Ellison JJ, McMurry TJ, Lauffer RB. Gadolinium(III) chelates as MRI contrast agents: structure, dynamics, and applications. Chem Rev. 1999;99(9):2293–2352. doi:10.1021/cr980440x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rinck PA, Muller RN. Field strength and dose dependence of contrast enhancement by gadolinium-based MR contrast agents. Eur Radiol. 1999;9(5):998–1004. doi:10.1007/s003300050781
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellar KE, Fujii DK, Gunther WHH, Briley-Sæbø K, Spiller M, Koenig SH. ‘NC100150ʹ, a preparation of iron oxide nanoparticles ideal for positive-contrast MR angiography. Magma Magn Reson Mater Phys Biol Med. 1999;8(3):207–213. doi:10.1007/BF02594600
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taboada E, Rodríguez E, Roig A, Oró J, Roch A, Muller RN. Relaxometric and magnetic characterization of ultrasmall iron oxide nanoparticles with high magnetization. Evaluation as potential T1 magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents for molecular imaging. Langmuir. 2007;23(8):4583–4588. doi:10.1021/la063415s
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das S, Parga K, Chakraborty I, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging contrast enhancement in vitro and in vivo by octanuclear iron-oxo cluster-based agents. J Inorg Biochem. 2018;186:176–186. doi:10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2018.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marangon I, Ménard-Moyon C, Kolosnjaj-Tabi J, et al. Covalent functionalization of multi-walled carbon nanotubes with a gadolinium chelate for efficient T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Adv Funct Mater. 2014;24(45):7173–7186. doi:10.1002/adfm.201402234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ananta JS, Matson ML, Tang AM, et al. Single-walled carbon nanotube materials as T2-weighted MRI contrast agents. J Phys Chem C. 2009;113(45):19369–19372. doi:10.1021/jp907891n
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelking LR. Chapter 4 – protein structure. Textb Vet Physiol Chem. 2015;18–25. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-391909-0.50004-9
   Google Scholar
• Turgeon ML. Clinical Hematology: Theory and Procedures. 4th ed. Kraków: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Kim S, Chae MK, Yim MS, et al. Hybrid PET/MR imaging of tumors using an oleanolic acid-conjugated nanoparticle. Biomaterials. 2013;34(33):8114–8121. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.07.078
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen F, Ellison PA, Lewis CM, et al. Chelator-free synthesis of a dual-modality PET/MRI agent. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2013;23(1):1–7. doi:10.1002/anie.201306306.Chelator-Free
   Google Scholar
• Lee HY, Li Z, Chen K, et al. PET/MRI dual-modality tumor imaging using arginine-glycine-aspartic (RGD)-conjugated radiolabeled iron oxide nanoparticles. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(8):1371–1379. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.051243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi JS, Park JC, Nah H, et al. A hybrid nanoparticle probe for dual-modality positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Angew Chemie. 2008;47(33):6259–6262. doi:10.1002/anie.200801369
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi X, Shen L. Integrin α v β 3 receptor targeting PET/MRI dual-modal imaging probe based on the 64 Cu labeled manganese ferrite nanoparticles. J Inorg Biochem. 2018;186:257–263. doi:10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2018.06.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tu C, Ng TSC, Jacobs RE, Louie AY. Multimodality PET/MRI agents targeted to activated macrophages topical issue on metal-based MRI contrast agents. Guest editor: Valerie C. Pierre. J Biol Inorg Chem. 2014;19(2):247–258. doi:10.1007/s00775-013-1054-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frullano L, Catana C, Benner T, Sherry AD, Caravan P. Bimodal MR-PET agent for quantitative pH imaging. Angew Chemie. 2010;49(13):2382–2384. doi:10.1002/anie.201000075
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uppal R, Catana C, Ay I, Benner T, Sorensen AG, Caravan P. Bimodal thrombus imaging: simultaneous PET/MR imaging with a fibrin-targeted dual PET/MR probe—feasibility study in rat model. Radiology. 2011;258(3):812–820. doi:10.1148/radiol.10100881
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vologdin N, Rolla GA, Botta M, Tei L. Orthogonal synthesis of a heterodimeric ligand for the development of the GdIII-GaIII ditopic complex as a potential pH-sensitive MRI/PET probe. Org Biomol Chem. 2013;11(10):1683–1690. doi:10.1039/c2ob27200h
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devreux M, Henoumont C, Dioury F, et al. Bimodal probe for magnetic resonance imaging and photoacoustic imaging based on a PCTA-derived gadolinium(III) complex and ZW800-1. Eur J Inorg Chem. 2019;2019(29):3354–3365. doi:10.1002/ejic.201900387
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y-XJ. Superparamagnetic iron oxide based MRI contrast agents: current status of clinical application. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2011;1(1):35–40. doi:10.3978/j.issn.2223-4292.2011.08.03
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thorek DLJ, Ulmert D, Diop N-FM, et al. Non-invasive mapping of deep-tissue lymph nodes in live animals using a multimodal PET/MRI nanoparticle. Nat Commun. 2014;5(1):3097. doi:10.1038/ncomms4097
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch G, Colgan T, Wiens CN, et al. Relaxivity of ferumoxytol at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Invest Radiol. 2018;53(5):257–263. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000434
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarrett BR, Gustafsson B, Kukis DL, Louie AY. Synthesis of 64 Cu-labeled magnetic nanoparticles for multimodal imaging. Bioconjug Chem. 2008;19(7):1496–1504. doi:10.1021/bc800108v.Synthesis
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaus C, Rossin R, Welch MJ, Bao G. In vivo evaluation of 64Cu-labeled magnetic nanoparticles as a dual-modality PET/MR imaging agent. Bioconjug Chem. 2010;21(4):715–722. doi:10.1021/bc900511j
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang X, Hong H, Grailer JJ, et al. cRGD-functionalized, DOX-conjugated, and 64 Cu-labeled superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles for targeted anticancer drug delivery and PET/MR imaging. Biomaterials. 2011;32(17):4151. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.02.006.cRGD-functionalized
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locatelli E, Gil L, Israel LL, et al. Biocompatible nanocomposite for PET/MRI hybrid imaging. Int J Nanomedicine. 2012;7:6021–6033. doi:10.2147/IJN.S38107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong RM, Gilbert DA, Liu K, Louie AY. Rapid size-controlled synthesis of oxide nanoparticles. ACS Nano. 2012;6(4):3461–3467. doi:10.1021/nn300494k
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakravarty R, Valdovinos HF, Chen F, et al. Intrinsically germanium-69 labeled iron oxide nanoparticle: synthesis and in vivo dual-modality PET/MR imaging. Physiol Behav. 2014;176(1):100–106. doi:10.1002/adma.201401372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cui X, Belo S, Krüger D, et al. Aluminium hydroxide stabilised MnFe2O4 and Fe3O4 nanoparticles as dual-modality contrasts agent for MRI and PET imaging. Biomaterials. 2014;35(22):5840–5846. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Truillet C, Bouziotis P, Tsoukalas C, et al. Ultrasmall particles for Gd-MRI and 68Ga-PET dual imaging. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2015;10(4):309–319. doi:10.1002/cmmi.1633
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang BY, Moon SH, Seelam SR, et al. Development of a multimodal imaging probe by encapsulating iron oxide nanoparticles with functionalized amphiphiles for lymph node imaging. Nanomedicine. 2015;10(12):1899–1910. doi:10.2217/nnm.15.41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moon SH, Yang BY, Kim YJ, et al. Development of a complementary PET/MR dual-modal imaging probe for targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA). Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med. 2016;12(4):871–879. doi:10.1016/j.nano.2015.12.368
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellico J, Ruiz-Cabello J, Saiz-Alía M, et al. Fast synthesis and bioconjugation of 68Ga core-doped extremely small iron oxide nanoparticles for PET/MR imaging. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2016;11(3):203–210. doi:10.1002/cmmi.1681
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen Pham TH, Lengkeek NA, Greguric I, et al. Tunable and noncytotoxic PET/SPECT-MRI multimodality imaging probes using colloidally stable ligand-free superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. Int J Nanomed. 2017;12:899–909. doi:10.2147/IJN.S127171
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu J, Li H, Xiong Z, et al. Polyethyleneimine-coated manganese oxide nanoparticles for targeted tumor PET/MR imaging. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2018;10(41):34954–34964. doi:10.1021/acsami.8b12355
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thakare V, Tran VL, Natuzzi M, et al. Functionalization of theranostic AGuIX® nanoparticles for PET/MRI/optical imaging. RSC Adv. 2019;9(43):24811–24815. doi:10.1039/c9ra00365g
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gholami YH, Yuan H, Wilks MQ, et al. A radio-nano-platform for T1/T2 dual-mode PET-MR imaging. Int J Nanomed. 2020;15:1253–1266. doi:10.2147/IJN.S241971
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu F, Li X, Chen H, et al. Synthesis of heteronanostructures for multimodality molecular imaging-guided photothermal therapy. J Mater Chem B. 2020;8(44):10136–10145. doi:10.1039/d0tb02136a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw TB, Jeffree RL, Thomas P, et al. Diagnostic performance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of glioma. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019;63(5):650–656. doi:10.1111/1754-9485.12929
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groult H, Ruiz-Cabello J, Pellico J, et al. Parallel multifunctionalization of nanoparticles: a one-step modular approach for in vivo imaging. Bioconjug Chem. 2015;26(1):153–160. doi:10.1021/bc500536y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang M, Fan Q, Zhang R, et al. Dragon fruit-like biocage as an iron trapping nanoplatform for high efficiency targeted cancer multimodality imaging. Biomaterials. 2015;69:30–37. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.08.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas G, Boudon J, Maurizi L, et al. Innovative magnetic nanoparticles for PET/MRI bimodal imaging. ACS Omega. 2019;4(2):2637–2648. doi:10.1021/acsomega.8b03283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boros E, Bowen AM, Josephson L, Vasdev N, Holland JP. Chelate-free metal ion binding and heat-induced radiolabeling of iron oxide nanoparticles. Chem Sci. 2015;6(1):225–236. doi:10.1039/c4sc02778g
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torres Martin de Rosales R, Tavaré R, Paul RL, et al. Synthesis of 64 Cu II -Bis(dithiocarbamatebisphosphonate) and its conjugation with superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: in vivo evaluation as dual-modality PET-MRI agent. Angew Chemie. 2011;50(24):5509–5513. doi:10.1002/anie.201007894
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abou DS, Thorek DLJ, Ramos NN, et al. 89Zr-labeled paramagnetic octreotide-liposomes for PET-MR imaging of cancer. Pharm Res. 2013;30(3):878–888. doi:10.1007/s11095-012-0929-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desbois N, Michelin C, Chang Y, et al. Synthetic strategy for preparation of a folate corrole DOTA heterobimetallic Cu-Gd complex as a potential bimodal contrast agent in medical imaging. Tetrahedron Lett. 2015;56(51):7128–7131. doi:10.1016/j.tetlet.2015.11.032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Notni J, Hermann P, Dregely I, Wester HJ. Convenient synthesis of 68Ga-labeled gadolinium(III) complexes: towards bimodal responsive probes for functional imaging with PET/MRI. Chem a Eur J. 2013;19(38):12602–12606. doi:10.1002/chem.201302751
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma R, Xu Y, Kim SW, et al. Carbon-11 radiolabeling of iron-oxide nanoparticles for dual-modality PET/MR imaging. Nanoscale. 2013;5(16):7476–7483. doi:10.1039/c3nr02519e
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naqvi S, Samim M, Abdin MZ, et al. Concentration-dependent toxicity of iron oxide nanoparticles mediated by increased oxidative stress. Int J Nanomed. 2010;5(1):983–989. doi:10.2147/IJN.S13244
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naghavi N, Ghoddusi J, Sadeghnia HR, Asadpour E, Asgary S. Genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of mineral trioxide aggregate and calcium enriched mixture cements on L929 mouse fibroblast cells. Dent Mater J. 2014;33(1):64–69. doi:10.4012/dmj.2013-123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abakumov MA, Semkina AS, Skorikov AS, et al. Toxicity of iron oxide nanoparticles: size and coating effects. J Biochem Mol Toxicol. 2018;32(12):1–6. doi:10.1002/jbt.22225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Alkasab TK, Narin O, et al. Incidence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis after adoption of restrictive gadolinium-based contrast agent guidelines. Radiology. 2011;260(1):105–111. doi:10.1148/radiol.11102340
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Kitajima K, Takenaka D. High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadoliniumbased contrast material. Radiology. 2014;270(3):834–841. doi:10.1148/radiol.13131669
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogosnitzky M, Branch S. Gadolinium-based contrast agent toxicity: a review of known and proposed mechanisms. BioMetals. 2016;29(3):365–376. doi:10.1007/s10534-016-9931-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey HB, Gowda V, Cheng G. Gadolinium deposition disease: a new risk management threat. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020;17(4):546–550. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2019.11.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radbruch A, Haase R, Kieslich PJ, et al. No signal intensity increase in the dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images after more than 20 serial injections of macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents. Radiology. 2017;282(3):699–707. doi:10.1148/radiol.2016162241
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banerjee SR, Pomper MG. Clinical applications of Gallium-68. Appl Radiat Isot. 2013;76:2–13. doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2013.01.039
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baum R, Rösch F. 1 st World Congress on Ga-68 and Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy (PRRNT), June 23–26, 2011, Zentralklinik Bad Berka, Germany. World J Nucl Med. 2011;10(1):5. doi:10.4103/1450-1147.82105
   Google Scholar
• Fani M, André JP, Maecke HR. 68Ga-PET: a powerful generator-based alternative to cyclotron-based PET radiopharmaceuticals. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2008;3(2):53–63. doi:10.1002/cmmi.232
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roesch F, Riss P. The renaissance of the 68Ge/68Ga radionuclide generator initiates new developments in 68Ga radiopharmaceutical chemistry. Curr Top Med Chem. 2012;10(16):1633–1668. doi:10.2174/156802610793176738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wadas TJ, Wong EH, Weisman GR, Anderson CJ. Coordinating radiometals of copper, gallium, indium, yttrium, and zirconium for PET and SPECT imaging of disease. Chem Rev. 2010;110(5):2858–2902. doi:10.1021/cr900325h
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rösch F, Baum RP. Generator-based PET radiopharmaceuticals for molecular imaging of tumours: on the way to THERANOSTICS. Dalt Trans. 2011;40(23):6104. doi:10.1039/c0dt01504k
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szydlo M, Pogoda D, Kowalski T, Pociegiel M, Jadwinski M, Amico AD. Synthesis and quality control of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT tracer used in prostate cancer imaging and comparison with 18F-fluorocholine as a reference point. J Pharm Sci Emerg Drugs. 2018;06(01). doi:10.4172/2380-9477.1000126
   Google Scholar
• Pauwels E, Cleeren F, Bormans G, Deroose CM. Somatostatin receptor PET ligands - The next generation for clinical practice. Am J Nucl Mol Imaging. 2018;8(5):311–331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuhmacher J, Zhang H, Doll J, et al. GRP receptor-targeted PET of a rat pancreas carcinoma xenograft in nude mice with a 68Ga-labeled bombesin (6–14) analog. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(4):691–699.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froidevaux S, Calame-christe M, Schuhmacher J, et al. A gallium-labeled DOTA-α -melanocyte– stimulating hormone analog for PET imaging of melanoma metastases. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(1):116–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(3):480–508. doi:10.2967/jnumed.107.047787
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timmers HJ, Chen CC, Carrasquillo JA, et al. Comparison of 18F-fluoro-L-DOPA, 18F-fluoro- deoxyglucose, and18F-fluorodopamine PET and 123I-MIBG scintigraphy in the localization of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94(12):4757–4767. doi:10.1210/jc.2009-1248
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias GM, Ramogida CF, Rousseau J, et al. 89Zr for antibody labeling and in vivo studies – a comparison between liquid and solid target production. Nucl Med Biol. 2018;58:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2017.11.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farooq M, Chupp T, Grange J, et al. Absolute magnetometry with He 3. Phys Rev Lett. 2020;124(22):223001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.223001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen D, Zhou Y, Yang D, et al. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging of glioblastoma using a functionalized gadofullerene nanoparticle. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2019;11(24):21343–21352. doi:10.1021/acsami.9b03542
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourquin J, Milosevic A, Hauser D, et al. Biodistribution, clearance, and long-term fate of clinically relevant nanomaterials. Adv Mater. 2018;30(19):1704307. doi:10.1002/adma.201704307
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarrett BR, Correa C, Ma KL, Louie AY. In vivo mapping of vascular inflammation using multimodal imaging. PLoS One. 2010;5(10):2–9. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uppal R, Ciesienski KL, Chonde DB, Loving GS, Caravan P. Discrete bimodal probes for thrombus imaging. J Am Chem Soc. 2012;134(26):10799–10802. doi:10.1021/ja3045635
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierre VC, Allen MJ, Caravan P. Contrast agents for MRI: 30+ years and where are we going? Topical issue on metal-based MRI contrast agents. Guest editor: Valérie C. Pierre. J Biol Inorg Chem. 2014;19(2):127–131. doi:10.1007/s00775-013-1074-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrow JR, Tóth É. Next-generation magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. Inorg Chem. 2017;56(11):6029–6034. doi:10.1021/acs.inorgchem.7b01277
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duimstra JA, Femia FJ, Meade TJ. A gadolinium chelate for detection of β-glucuronidase: a self-immolative approach. J Am Chem Soc. 2005;127(37):12847–12855. doi:10.1021/ja042162r
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hingorani DV, Bernstein AS, Pagel MD. A review of responsive MRI contrast agents: 2005–2014. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2015;10(4):245–265. doi:10.1002/cmmi.1629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuźnik N, Wyskocka M. Iron(III) contrast agent candidates for MRI: a survey of the structure-effect relationship in the last 15 years of studies. Eur J Inorg Chem. 2016;2016(4):445–458. doi:10.1002/ejic.201501166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wahsner J, Gale EM, Rodríguez-Rodríguez A, Caravan P. Chemistry of MRI contrast agents: current challenges and new frontiers. Chem Rev. 2019;119(2):957–1057. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00363
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar