The Relationship of Metabolic Activity and αvβ3 Receptor Expression in Aggressive Breast Cancer Subtypes Tumors: A Preliminary Report

Résumé fourni par la source

Background/Aim: Angiogenesis imaging has been a valuable complement to metabolic imaging with 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoroglucose (FDG). In our longitudinal study, we investigated the tumour heterogeneity and the relationship between FDG and [68Ga]Ga-NODAGA-c(RGDfK)2 (RGD) accumulation in breast cancer xenografts. Materials and Methods: Two groups of cell lines, a fast-growing (4T1) and a slow-growing cell line (MDA-MB-HER2+), were inoculated into SCID mice. RGD and FDG scans were performed in all mice on separate days at four time points. Assessment of tumour uptake based on positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging images was performed using tumour/muscle ratios with the Muscle-Spacing Correction Method to minimize the partial volume effect of the urinary bladder. Results: In the 4T1 group, both radiopharmaceuticals visualized the highly heterogeneous structure of the tumours and showed correlations with tumour growth. Relative linear correlations between FDG and RGD tumour/muscle ratios were observed in all tumours, evident in both high and low-activity areas of 4T1 tumours. When comparing the two groups of different cell lines, SUV ratios in the 4T1 group were higher, especially with [18F]F-FDG. Our findings highlight the correlations between FDG and RGD, particularly in aggressive breast cancer. Conclusion: This preliminary study supports the combined use of FDG and RGD PET imaging to better characterize tumor heterogeneity and aggressiveness in breast cancer. The observed correlation between FDG and RGD uptake offers insights into the metabolic and vascular behavior of different cancer subtypes, highlighting distinct patterns in 4T1 and MDA-MB-HER2+ lines. This dual-tracer approach shows promise for tailoring therapies based on tumor subtype, though further studies with larger samples are needed to validate these initial findings.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.