OBJECTIVE: (18)F-FDG-PET is used worldwide for oncology patients. However, we sometimes encounter false positive cases of (18)F-FDG PET, such as moderate uptake in the inflammatory lesion, because (18)F-FDG accumulates not only in the cancer cells but also in the inflammatory cells (macrophage, granulation tissue, etc). To overcome this limitation of (18)F-FDG, we started to use (4-borono-2- [(18)F]fluoro- L-phenylalanine) (18)F-FBPA, an artificial amino acid tracer which is focusing attention as a tumor specific PET tracer. Physiological accumulation of (18)F-FBPA is limited in the kidney and urinary tract in humans, which enable preferable evaluation of uptake in the abdominal organs compared to (11)C-methionine ((11)C-MET). The purpose of this study was to evaluate (18)F-FBPA as a tumor specific tracer by in vitro cellular uptake analysis focusing on the selectivity of L-type amino acid transporter 1 (LAT1), which is specifically expressed in tumor cells, and in vivo PET analysis in rat xenograft and inflammation models compared to (18)F-FDG and (11)C-methionine. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Uptake inhibition and efflux experiments were performed in HEK293-LAT1 and LAT2 cells using cold BPA, cold (18)F-FBPA, and hot (18)F-FBPA to evaluate LAT affinity and transport capacity. Position emission tomography studies were performed in rat xenograft model of C6 glioma 2 weeks after the implantation (n=9, body weight=197±10.5g) and subcutaneous inflammation model 4 days after the injection of turpentine oil (n=9, body weight=197±14.4g). Uptake on static PET images were compared among (18)F-FBPA at 60-70min post injection, (18)F-FDG at 60-70min, and (11)C-MET at 20-30min in the tumors and the inflammatory lesions by maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax). RESULTS: Cellular uptake analysis showed no significant difference in inhibitory effect and efflux of LAT1 between cold (18)F-FBPA and cold BPA, suggesting the same affinity and transport capacity via LAT1. Uptake of (18)F-FBPA via LAT1 was superior to LAT2 by the concentration dependent uptake analysis. Position emission tomography analysis using SUVmax showed significantly higher accumulation of (18)F-FDG in the tumor and the inflammatory lesions (7.19±2.11 and 4.66±0.63, respectively) compared to (18)F-FBPA (3.23±0.40 and 1.86±0.19, respectively) and (11)C-MET (3.39±0.43 and 1.63±0.11, respectively) (P<0.01 by Tukey test). No significant difference was observed between (18)F-FBPA and (11)C-MET. CONCLUSIONS: (18)F-FBPA showed high selectivity of LAT1 by in vitro cellular uptake analysis, suggesting the potential as a tumor-specific substrate. In vivo PET analysis showed significantly lower uptake of (18)F-FBPA and (11)C-MET in the inflammatory lesions compared to (18)F-FDG, suggesting comparable utility of (18)F-FBPA PET to (11)C-MET PET in differentiating between the tumor and the inflammation.
|