Perspektiven und Methoden der Experimentellen Nuklearmedizin

Zusammenfassung

Die zentralen Aufgaben der experimentellen Nuklearmedizin liegen in der Entwicklung neuer Bildgebungsstrategien und Radioligandentherapien, in dem Erwerb eines tiefen molekularen Verständnisses für das Verhalten etablierter Radiopharmaka und der Entwicklung entsprechender Methodik für die Charakterisierung eben dieser. Die folgende Arbeit bietet einen Überblick über wichtige Parameter und Methoden der experimentellen Nuklearmedizin, die für die Realisierung einer erfolgreichen Bildgebungsstrategie und Radioligandentherapie essentiell sind.

Abstract

The central tasks of experimental nuclear medicine are the development of new imaging strategies and radioligand therapies, the acquisition of a deep molecular understanding of the behavior of established radiopharmaceuticals and the development of appropriate methodology for the characterization. The review provides an overview of key parameters and methods of experimental nuclear medicine that are essential for the realization of a successful imaging strategy and radioligand therapy.

Schlüsselwörter

Radiopharmakon - Zielstruktur - experimentelle Nuklearmedizin - Radioligandentherapie - molekulare Bildgebung

Keywords

radiotracer - target - experimental nuclear medicine - radioligand therapy - molecular imaging

Publication History

Article published online:
10 June 2021

• Literatur

• 1 Wadsak W, Mitterhauser M. Basics and principles of radiopharmaceuticals for PET/CT. European journal of radiology 2010; 73: 461-469 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.12.022.
• 2 Pichler V, Berroteran-Infante N, Philippe C. et al. An Overview of PET Radiochemistry, Part 1: The Covalent Labels (18)F, (11)C, and (13)N. J Nucl Med 2018; 59: 1350-1354 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.117.190793.
• 3 Brandt M, Cardinale J, Aulsebrook ML. et al. An Overview of PET Radiochemistry, Part 2: Radiometals. J Nucl Med 2018; 59: 1500-1506 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.117.190801.
• 4 AGENCY IAE. Quality Control in the Production of Radiopharmaceuticals. Vienna: INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY; 2018
• 5 Balber T. Predictive value and limitations of preclinical methods in PET-tracer development. Dissertation. Wien: Universität Wien Fakultät für Lebenswissenschaften; 2019 DOI: 10.25365/thesis.56222
• 6 Owen DR, Yeo AJ, Gunn RN. et al. An 18-kDa translocator protein (TSPO) polymorphism explains differences in binding affinity of the PET radioligand PBR28. Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism 2012; 32: 1-5 DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2011.147.
• 7 Mitterhauser M, Wadsak W. Imaging biomarkers or biomarker imaging?. Pharmaceuticals 2014; 7: 765-778 DOI: 10.3390/ph7070765.
• 8 Ludwig JA, Weinstein JN. Biomarkers in Cancer Staging, Prognosis and Treatment Selection. Nat Rev Cancer 2005; 5: 845-856 DOI: 10.1038/nrc1739.
• 9 Rosenbaum DM, Rasmussen SG, Kobilka BK. The structure and function of G-protein-coupled receptors. Nature 2009; 459: 356-363 DOI: 10.1038/nature08144.
• 10 Vogel C, Marcotte EM. Insights into the regulation of protein abundance from proteomic and transcriptomic analyses. Nature Reviews Genetics 2012; 13: 227 DOI: 10.1038/nrg3185.
• 11 Koussounadis A, Langdon SP, Um IH. et al. Relationship between differentially expressed mRNA and mRNA-protein correlations in a xenograft model system. Scientific reports 2015; 5: 10775 DOI: 10.1038/srep10775.
• 12 Nordberg M, Duffus J, Templeton DM. Glossary of terms used in toxicokinetics (IUPAC Recommendations 2003). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2004; DOI: 10.1351/pac200476051033.
• 13 Pike VW. PET radiotracers: crossing the blood–brain barrier and surviving metabolism. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 2009; 30: 431-440 DOI: 10.1016/j.tips.2009.05.005.
• 14 Ettlinger DE, Wadsak W, Mien LK. et al. [18F]FETO: metabolic considerations. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging 2006; 33: 928-931 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-006-0123-5.
• 15 Haeusler D, Nics L, Mien LK. et al. [18F]FE@SUPPY and [18F]FE@SUPPY:2--metabolic considerations. Nucl Med Biol 2010; 37: 421-426 DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2010.01.001.
• 16 Rami-Mark C, Eberherr N, Berroteran-Infante N. et al. [(18)F]FMeNER-D2: A systematic in vitro analysis of radio-metabolism. Nucl Med Biol 2016; 43: 490-495 DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2016.05.004.
• 17 Kleiber M. Body size and metabolism. Hilgardia 1932; 6: 315-353
• 18 Ametamey SM, Honer M, Schubiger PA. Molecular Imaging with PET. Chem Rev 2008; 108: 1501-1516 DOI: 10.1021/cr0782426.
• 19 Maeda H, Wu J, Sawa T. et al. Tumor vascular permeability and the EPR effect in macromolecular therapeutics: a review. Journal of Controlled Release 2000; 65: 271-284 DOI: 10.1016/S0168-3659(99)00248-5.
• 20 Heneweer C, Holland JP, Divilov V. et al. Magnitude of enhanced permeability and retention effect in tumors with different phenotypes: 89Zr-albumin as a model system. J Nucl Med 2011; 52: 625-633 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.110.083998.
• 21 Vraka C, Mijailovic S, Frohlich V. et al. Expanding LogP: Present possibilities. Nucl Med Biol 2018; 58: 20-32 DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2017.11.007.
• 22 Valko K, Nunhuck S, Bevan C. et al. Fast gradient HPLC method to determine compounds binding to human serum albumin. Relationships with octanol/water and immobilized artificial membrane lipophilicity. J Pharm Sci 2003; 92: 2236-2248 DOI: 10.1002/jps.10494.
• 23 Tavares AA, Lewsey J, Dewar D. et al. Radiotracer properties determined by high performance liquid chromatography: a potential tool for brain radiotracer discovery. Nucl Med Biol 2012; 39: 127-135 DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2011.06.011.
• 24 Giaginis C, Tsantili-Kakoulidou A. Alternative measures of lipophilicity: from octanol-water partitioning to IAM retention. J Pharm Sci 2008; 97: 2984-3004 DOI: 10.1002/jps.21244.
• 25 Miller PW, Long NJ, Vilar R. et al. Synthesis of 11C, 18F, 15O, and 13N Radiolabels for Positron Emission Tomography. Angew Chem Int Ed 2008; 47: 8998-9033 DOI: 10.1002/anie.200800222.
• 26 Vraka C, Nics L, Wagner K-H. et al. LogP, a yesterdayʼs value?. Nucl Med Biol 2017; 50: 1-10 DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2017.03.003.
• 27 Donovan SF, Pescatore MC. Method for measuring the logarithm of the octanol–water partition coefficient by using short octadecyl–poly(vinyl alcohol) high-performance liquid chromatography columns. Journal of Chromatography A 2002; 952: 47-61 DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9673(02)00064-X.
• 28 Serdons K, Verbruggen A, Bormans GM. Developing new molecular imaging probes for PET. Methods 2009; 48: 104-111 DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2009.03.010.
• 29 Philippe CZM, Scherer T, Fürnsinn C. et al. MCHR1: a potential indicator for BAT activity. Nuklearmedizin 2016; 55: A78
• 30 Kathawala RJ, Gupta P, Ashby CR. et al. The modulation of ABC transporter-mediated multidrug resistance in cancer: A review of the past decade. Drug Resistance Updates 2015; 18: 1-17 DOI: 10.1016/j.drup.2014.11.002.
• 31 Philippe C, Zeilinger M, Dumanic M. et al. SNAPshots of the MCHR1: a Comparison Between the PET-Tracers [(18)F]FE@SNAP and [(11)C]SNAP-7941. Mol Imaging Biol 2019; 21: 257-268 DOI: 10.1007/s11307-018-1212-0.
• 32 Cheng Y, Prusoff WH. Relationship between the inhibition constant (K1) and the concentration of inhibitor which causes 50 per cent inhibition (I50) of an enzymatic reaction. Biochem Pharmacol 1973; 22: 3099-3108 DOI: 10.1016/0006-2952(73)90196-2.
• 33 Bigott-Hennkens HM, Dannoon S, Lewis MR. et al. In vitro receptor binding assays: general methods and considerations. Quart J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 52: 245-253
• 34 Lancelot S, Zimmer L. Small-animal positron emission tomography as a tool for neuropharmacology. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2010; 31: 411-417 DOI: 10.1016/j.tips.2010.06.002.
• 35 Qume M. Overview of ligand-receptor binding techniques. In: Receptor Binding Techniques. Springer; 1999: 3-23
• 36 Maguire JJ, Kuc RE, Davenport AP. Radioligand binding assays and their analysis. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, NJ) 2012; 897: 31-77 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-61779-909-9_3.
• 37 Zeilinger M, Pichler F, Nics L. et al. New approaches for the reliable in vitro assessment of binding affinity based on high-resolution real-time data acquisition of radioligand-receptor binding kinetics. EJNMMI research 2017; 7: 22 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-016-0249-9.
• 38 Hicks RJ, Dorow D, Roselt P. PET tracer development—a tale of mice and men. Cancer Imaging 2006; 6: S102-S106 DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2006.9098.
• 39 Chu X, Bleasby K, Evers R. Species differences in drug transporters and implications for translating preclinical findings to humans. Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology 2013; 9: 237-252 DOI: 10.1517/17425255.2013.741589.
• 40 Shalgunov V, Xiong M, L’Estrade ET. et al. Blocking of efflux transporters in rats improves translational validation of brain radioligands. EJNMMI research 2020; 10: 124 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-020-00718-x.
• 41 Simons BW, Turtle NF, Ulmert DH. et al. PSMA expression in the Hi-Myc model; extended utility of a representative model of prostate adenocarcinoma for biological insight and as a drug discovery tool. Prostate 2019; 79: 678-685 DOI: 10.1002/pros.23770.
• 42 Alstrup AK, Smith DF. Anaesthesia for positron emission tomography scanning of animal brains. Laboratory animals 2013; 47: 12-18 DOI: 10.1258/la.2012.011173.
• 43 Kyme AZ, Zhou VW, Meikle SR. et al. Optimised motion tracking for positron emission tomography studies of brain function in awake rats. PloS one 2011; 6: e21727 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021727.
• 44 Schulz D, Southekal S, Junnarkar SS. et al. Simultaneous assessment of rodent behavior and neurochemistry using a miniature positron emission tomograph. Nat Methods 2001; 8: 347-352 DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.1582.
• 45 Spangler-Bickell MG, de Laat B, Fulton R. et al. The effect of isoflurane on (18)F-FDG uptake in the rat brain: a fully conscious dynamic PET study using motion compensation. EJNMMI research 2016; 6: 86 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-016-0242-3.
• 46 Jagoda EM, Vaquero JJ, Seidel J. et al. Experiment assessment of mass effects in the rat: implications for small animal PET imaging. Nucl Med Biol 2004; 31: 771-779 DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2004.04.003.
• 47 Kung M-P, Kung HF. Mass effect of injected dose in small rodent imaging by SPECT and PET. Nucl Med Biol 2005; 32: 673-678 DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2005.04.002.