Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 297–305 | Cite as

[68Ga]RGD Versus [18F]FDG PET Imaging in Monitoring Treatment Response of a Mouse Model of Human Glioblastoma Tumor with Bevacizumab and/or Temozolomide

  • Claire ProvostEmail author
  • Laura Rozenblum-Beddok
  • Valérie Nataf
  • Fatiha Merabtene
  • Aurélie Prignon
  • Jean-Noël Talbot



The aim of this study was to evaluate positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with [68Ga]NODAGA-c(RGDfK) ([68Ga]RGD), in comparison with 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose ([18F]FDG), for early monitoring of the efficacy of an antiangiogenic agent associated or not with chemotherapy, in a mouse model of glioblastoma (GB).


Mice bearing U87MG human GB cells line were parted into five groups of five mice each. One group was imaged at baseline before the treatment phase; another group was treated with bevacizumab (BVZ), another group with temozolomide (TMZ), another group with both agents, and the last one was the control group. Tumors growth and biological properties were evaluated by caliper measurements and PET imaging at three time points (baseline, during treatment t1 = 4–6 days and t2 = 10–12 days). At the end of the study, tumors were counted and analyzed by immunohistochemistry (CD31 to evaluate microvessel density).


The tumor volume assessed by caliper measurements was significantly greater at t1 in the control group than in the TMZ + BVZ-treated group or in the BVZ-treated group. At t2, tumor volume of all treated groups was significantly smaller than that of the control group. [18F]FDG PET failed to reflect this efficacy of treatment. In contrast, at t1, the [68Ga]RGD tumor uptake was concordant with tumor growth in controls and in treated groups. At t2, a significant increase in tumor uptake of [68Ga]RGD vs. t1 was only observed in the TMZ-treated group, reflecting a lack of angiogenesis inhibition, whereas TMZ + BVZ resulted in a dramatic tumor arrest, reduction in microvessel density and stable tumor [68Ga]RGD uptake.


[68Ga]RGD is a useful PET agent for in vivo angiogenesis imaging and can be useful for monitoring antiangiogenic treatment associated or not with chemotherapy.

Key words

PET Integrins αvβ3 Angiogenesis [68Ga]RGD [18F]FDG Bevacizumab Temozolomide 


Funding Information

The study was supported by the French Association Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie (ANRT) and PETNET Solutions SAS, Siemens healthineers.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Carmeliet P, Jain RK (2000) Angiogenesis in cancer and other diseases. Nature 407:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Folkman J (1971) Tumor angiogenesis: therapeutic implications. N Engl J Med 285:1182–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Folkman J (2007) Angiogenesis: an organizing principle for drug discovery? Nat Rev Drug Discov 6:273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Folkman J (2007) Is angiogenesis an organizing principle in biology and medicine? J Pediatr Surg 42:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ivy SP, Wick JY, Kaufman BM (2009) An overview of small-molecule inhibitors of VEGFR signaling. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 6:569–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tarallo V, De Falco S (2015) The vascular endothelial growth factors and receptors family: up to now the only target for anti-angiogenesis therapy. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 64:185–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bellou S, Pentheroudakis G, Murphy C, Fotsis T (2013) Anti-angiogenesis in cancer therapy: Hercules and hydra. Cancer Lett 338:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sennino B, McDonald DM (2012) Controlling escape from angiogenesis inhibitors. Nat Rev Cancer 12:699–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scott BJ, Quant EC, McNamara MB, Ryg PA, Batchelor TT, Wen PY (2010) Bevacizumab salvage therapy following progression in high-grade glioma patients treated with VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Neuro-Oncology 12:603–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ye W (2016) The complexity of translating anti-angiogenesis therapy from basic science to the clinic. Dev Cell 37:114–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Colavolpe C, Chinot O, Metellus P, Mancini J, Barrie M, Bequet-Boucard C, Tabouret E, Mundler O, Figarella-Branger D, Guedj E (2012) FDG-PET predicts survival in recurrent high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab and irinotecan. Neuro-Oncology 14:649–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goggi JL, Bejot R, Moonshi SS, Bhakoo KK (2013) Stratification of 18F-labeled PET imaging agents for the assessment of antiangiogenic therapy responses in tumors. J Nucl Med 54:1630–1636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bao X, Wang MW, Luo JM, Wang SY, Zhang YP, Zhang YJ (2016) Optimization of early response monitoring and prediction of cancer antiangiogenesis therapy via noninvasive PET molecular imaging strategies of multifactorial bioparameters. Theranostics 6:2084–2098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Corroyer-Dulmont A, Peres EA, Gerault AN, Savina A, Bouquet F, Divoux D, Toutain J, Ibazizène M, MacKenzie ET, Barré L, Bernaudin M, Petit E, Valable S (2016) Multimodal imaging based on MRI and PET reveals [18F]FLT PET as a specific and early indicator of treatment efficacy in a preclinical model of recurrent glioblastoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:682–694Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sheldrake HM, Patterson LH (2009) Function and antagonism of beta3 integrins in the development of cancer therapy. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 9:519–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Desgrosellier JS, Cheresh DA (2010) Integrins in cancer: biological implications and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer 10:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gaertner FC, Souvatzoglou M, Brix G, Beer AJ (2012) Imaging of hypoxia using PET and MRI. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 13:552–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Niu G, Chen X (2016) RGD PET: from lesion detection to therapy response monitoring. J Nucl Med 57:501–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang H, Liu N, Gao S, Hu X, Zhao W, Tao R, Chen Z, Zheng J, Sun X, Xu L, Li W, Yu J, Yuan S (2016) Can an 18F-ALF-NOTA-PRGD2 PET/CT scan predict treatment sensitivity to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma? J Nucl Med 57:524–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Iagaru A, Mosci C, Mittra E, Zaharchuk G, Fischbein N, Harsh G, Li G, Nagpal S, Recht L, Gambhir SS (2015) Glioblastoma multiforme recurrence: an exploratory study of 18F FPPRGD2 PET/CT. Radiology 277:497–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bozon-Petitprin A, Bacot S, Gauchez AS, Ahmadi M, Bourre JC, Marti-Batlle D, Perret P, Broisat A, Riou LM, Claron M, Boturyn D, Fagret D, Ghezzi C, Vuillez JP (2015) Targeted radionuclide therapy with RAFT-RGD radiolabelled with 90Y or 177Lu in a mouse model of αvβ3-expressing tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:252–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guo N, Zhang F, Zhang X, Guo J, Lang L, Kiesewetter DO, Niu G, Li Q, Chen X (2015) Quantitative evaluation of tumor early response to a vascular-disrupting agent with dynamic PET. Mol Imaging Biol 17:865–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cui Y, Liu H, Liang S, Zhang C, Cheng W, Hai W, Yin B, Wang D (2016) The feasibility of 18F-AlF-NOTA-PRGD2 PET/CT for monitoring early response of Endostar antiangiogenic therapy in human nasopharyngeal carcinoma xenograft model compared with 18F-FDG. Oncotarget 7:27243–27254Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kazmierczak PM, Todica A, Gildehaus FJ, Hirner-Eppeneder H, Brendel M, Eschbach RS, Hellmann M, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Wester HJ, Kropf S, Rominger A, Cyran CC (2016) 68Ga-TRAP-(RGD)3 hybrid imaging for the in vivo monitoring of αvβ3-integrin expression as biomarker of anti-angiogenic therapy effects in experimental breast cancer. PLoS One 11:e0168248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rylova SN, Barnucz E, Fani M, Braun F, Werner M, Lassmann S, Maecke HR, Weber WA (2014) Does imaging αvβ3 integrin expression with PET detect changes in angiogenesis during bevacizumab therapy? J Nucl Med 55:1878–1884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Battle MR, Goggi JL, Allen L, Barnett J, Morrison MS (2011) Monitoring tumor response to antiangiogenic sunitinib therapy with 18F-fluciclatide, an 18F-labeled αvβ3-integrin and αvβ5-integrin imaging agent. J Nucl Med 52:424–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eo JS, Jeong JM (2016) Angiogenesis imaging using 68Ga-RGD PET/CT: therapeutic implications. Semin Nucl Med 46:419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Haubner R, Maschauer S, Prante O (2014) PET radiopharmaceuticals for imaging integrin expression: tracers in clinical studies and recent developments. Biomed Res Int 2014:871609Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Knetsch PA, Petrik M, Griessinger CM, Rangger C, Fani M, Kesenheimer C, von Guggenberg E, Pichler BJ, Virgolini I, Decristoforo C, Haubner R (2011) [68Ga]NODAGA-RGD for imaging αvβ3 integrin expression. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:1303–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Haubner R, Finkenstedt A, Stegmayr A, Rangger C, Decristoforo C, Zoller H, Virgolini IJ (2016) [68Ga]NODAGA-RGD—metabolic stability, biodistribution, and dosimetry data from patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and liver cirrhosis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:2005–2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Provost C, Prignon A, Rozenblum-Beddok L, Bruyer Q, Dumont S, Merabtene F, Nataf V, Bouteiller C, Talbot JN (2018) Comparison and evaluation of two RGD peptides labelled with 68Ga or 18F for PET imaging of angiogenesis in animal models of human glioblastoma or lung carcinoma. Oncotarget 9:19307–19316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Frosina G (2016) Non-routine tracers for PET imaging of high-grade glioma. Anticancer Res 36:3253–3260Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kreisl TN, Smith P, Sul J, Salgado C, Iwamoto FM, Shih JH, Fine HA (2013) Continuous daily sunitinib for recurrent glioblastoma. J Neuro-Oncol 111:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Corroyer-Dulmont A, Peres EA, Petit E et al (2013) Detection of glioblastoma response to temozolomide combined with bevacizumab based on muMRI and muPET imaging reveals [18F]-fluoro-L-thymidine as an early and robust predictive marker for treatment efficacy. Neuro-Oncology 15:41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Omuro A, Beal K, Gutin P, Karimi S, Correa DD, Kaley TJ, DeAngelis LM, Chan TA, Gavrilovic IT, Nolan C, Hormigo A, Lassman AB, Mellinghoff I, Grommes C, Reiner AS, Panageas KS, Baser RE, Tabar V, Pentsova E, Sanchez J, Barradas-Panchal R, Zhang J, Faivre G, Brennan CW, Abrey LE, Huse JT (2014) Phase II study of bevacizumab, temozolomide, and hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Clin Cancer Res 20:5023–5031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Huang J, Frischer JS, Serur A, Kadenhe A, Yokoi A, McCrudden KW, New T, O'Toole K, Zabski S, Rudge JS, Holash J, Yancopoulos GD, Yamashiro DJ, Kandel JJ (2003) Regression of established tumors and metastases by potent vascular endothelial growth factor blockade. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:7785–7790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Inai T, Mancuso M, Hashizume H, Baffert F, Haskell A, Baluk P, Hu-Lowe DD, Shalinsky DR, Thurston G, Yancopoulos GD, McDonald DM (2004) Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling in cancer causes loss of endothelial fenestrations, regression of tumor vessels, and appearance of basement membrane ghosts. Am J Pathol 165:35–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Beal K, Abrey LE, Gutin PH (2011) Antiangiogenic agents in the treatment of recurrent or newly diagnosed glioblastoma: analysis of single-agent and combined modality approaches. Radiat Oncol 6:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hombach-Klonisch S, Mehrpour M, Shojaei S, Harlos C, Pitz M, Hamai A, Siemianowicz K, Likus W, Wiechec E, Toyota BD, Hoshyar R, Seyfoori A, Sepehri Z, Ande SR, Khadem F, Akbari M, Gorman AM, Samali A, Klonisch T, Ghavami S (2018) Glioblastoma and chemoresistance to alkylating agents: involvement of apoptosis, autophagy, and unfolded protein response. Pharmacol Ther 184:13-41Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Xue W, Du X, Wu H, Liu H, Xie T, Tong H, Chen X, Guo Y, Zhang W (2017) Aberrant glioblastoma neovascularization patterns and their correlation with DCE-MRI-derived parameters following temozolomide and bevacizumab treatment. Sci Rep 7:13894CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Molecular Imaging Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Imagerie Moléculaire Positonique (LIMP), UMS 28UPMC - Sorbonne UniversitésParisFrance
  2. 2.Service de Médecine Nucléaire et RadiopharmacieHôpital Tenon, AP-HPParisFrance
  3. 3.Plateforme d’Histomorphologie Service d’Anatomie PathologiqueHôpital Saint Antoine, AP-HPParisFrance

Personalised recommendations