Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleOncology

Pharmacokinetic Assessment of 18F-(2S,4R)-4-Fluoroglutamine in Patients with Cancer

Milan Grkovski, Reema Goel, Simone Krebs, Kevin D. Staton, James J. Harding, Ingo K. Mellinghoff, John L. Humm and Mark P.S. Dunphy
Journal of Nuclear Medicine March 2020, 61 (3) 357-366; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.229740
Milan Grkovski
1Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Reema Goel
2Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Simone Krebs
2Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kevin D. Staton
3Radiochemistry and Molecular Imaging Probe Core Facility, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James J. Harding
4Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ingo K. Mellinghoff
5Department of Neurology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John L. Humm
1Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark P.S. Dunphy
2Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    Schematic of 2C4K. Cp is plasma compartment, representing unmetabolized 18F-FGln that is available for transport across vasculature into tissue. First compartment represents nonspecifically bound 18F-fluoroglutamine that has been transported into tumor cells by ASCT2 and other transporters, whereas second compartment represents activity from 18F-fluoroglutamate (18F-FGlu), produced in first and rate-limiting step of glutaminolysis that is catalyzed by glutaminase.

  • FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    (A) Scatterplot of maximum intratumor K1-SUV1. K1 was the kinetic rate constant most closely correlated with SUV1 (measured on last dynamic 5-min frame, 25–30 min after injection). (B) Scatterplot of maximum intratumor k3-SUV3. (C) Waterfall chart of maximum intratumor K1 and k3. (D) Waterfall chart of maximum intratumor SUV1 and SUV3. In both waterfall charts, averages for normal brain tissue are shown as color-coded dashed lines.

  • FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    Lesions from 2 patients exhibiting different 18F-FGln pharmacokinetics despite having very similar SUV corrected by body weight (SUVbw) as measured at 190 min after injection. In both cases, axial view of last dynamic PET frame (5-min acquisition time, 25–30 min after injection) and last imaging frame (∼190 min after injection), fused with corresponding CT, is displayed. Gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MRI is included for comparison. Three time–activity curves are shown: for whole lesion; image-derived input function scaled by whole-blood activity concentration as measured from blood samples, patient-specific plasma fraction, and population-based metabolite fraction; and normal brain tissue. Contributions to total PET signal for tumor time–activity curves are shown for first compartment (C1) and second compartment (C2). (A) 52-y-old woman with confirmed diagnosis of astrocytoma. 18F-FGln PET/CT shows 2 cm3 lesion in right frontotemporal region. Mean intratumor K1, k2, k3, k4, and VT were 0.28 mL/min/g, 0.08 min−1, 0.002 min−1, 0.001 min−1, and 3.9 mL/cm3, respectively. Corresponding values for normal brain tissue were 0.02 mL/min/g, 0.09 min−1, 0.001 min−1, 0.001 min−1, and 0.5 mL/cm3, respectively. SUVbw at 30, 90, and 190 min was 4.0, 3.1, and 2.1, respectively. At these 3 time points, signal from second compartment contributed 3%, 14%, and 32% of total PET activity concentration. (B) 70-y-old woman with confirmed diagnosis of non–small cell lung cancer that metastasized to brain. PET image shows metastatic lesion in right parietal region. Mean intratumor K1, k2, k3, k4, and VT were 0.13 mL/min/g, 0.13 min−1, 0.09 min−1, 0.02 min−1, and 5.1 mL/cm3, respectively. Corresponding values for normal brain tissue were 0.01 mL/min/g, 0.05 min−1, 0.04 min−1, 0.004 min−1, and 0.7 mL/cm3, respectively. SUVbw at 30, 90, and 190 min was 1.9, 3.1, and 2.1, respectively. At these 3 time points, signal from second compartment contributed 66%, 82%, and 83%, respectively, of total PET activity concentration.

  • FIGURE 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4.

    (A) Scatterplot of baseline vs. follow-up mean intratumor k3 for 5 patients (8 lesions in total) who underwent 2 18F-FGln dynamic PET scans. Every patient is color-coded and annotated according to therapy received between baseline and follow-up PET. Line of identity is shown as dashed line. (B) Corresponding scatterplot of baseline vs. follow-up mean intratumor SUV as measured at 30 min after injection.

  • FIGURE 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 5.

    A 68-y-old man with confirmed diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme. (A) Baseline (BL) 18F-FGln dynamic PET was performed after right parietal occipital craniotomy for resection of heterogeneously enhancing mass centered in right occipital lobe (arrow). Follow-up (FU) 18F-FGln dynamic PET was performed 13 wk after initiation of treatment with nivolumab and radiotherapy. Gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MRI scans were performed 3 and 4 d before BL and FU PET, respectively. When compared with BL MRI scan, enhancing nodule extending toward trigone of right lateral ventricle on FU MRI scan is enlarged and exhibits higher uptake at all imaging time points. (B) Time–activity curves from BL and FU PET for tumor, image-derived input function scaled by whole-blood activity concentration as measured from blood samples, patient-specific plasma fraction and population-based metabolite fraction, and normal brain tissue. Mean intratumor K1, k2, k3, k4 and VT as calculated from BL PET was 0.07 mL/min/g, 0.05 min−1, 0.02 min−1, 0.02 min−1, and 2.1 mL/cm3, respectively. Corresponding values as calculated from FU PET were 0.16 mL/min/g, 0.11 min−1, 0.10 min−1, 0.10 min−1, and 2.9 mL/cm3, respectively. (C) Signal from second compartment contributed 23%, 40%, and 47% of total PET activity at 30, 86, and 176 min on BL scan and 50%, 53%, and 53% at 30, 98, and 182 min on FU scan. SUVbw = SUV corrected by body weight.

  • FIGURE 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 6.

    A 23-y-old man with confirmed diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. (A) Baseline (BL) and follow-up (FU) 18F-FGln dynamic PET, showing pulmonary metastasis in right lung (arrow). FU scan was performed 4 wk after initiation of therapy with glutaminase inhibitor CB-839. Acquisition was shortened to 15-min because of patient discomfort. (B) Time–activity curves from BL and FU PET for highlighted lesion and image-derived input function scaled by whole-blood activity concentration as measured from blood samples, patient-specific plasma fraction, and population-based metabolite fraction. Mean intratumor K1, k2, k3, k4 and VT as calculated from BL PET were 0.43 mL/min/g, 0.25 min−1, 0.20 min−1, 0.04 min−1, and 9.1 mL/cm3, respectively. Corresponding values as calculated from FU PET were 0.44 mL/min/g, 0.12 min−1, 0.001 min−1, 0.000 min−1, and 4.4 mL/cm3, respectively. (C) Signal from second compartment contributed 80%, 83%, and 83% of total PET activity at 30, 75, and 170 min on BL scan and 2%, 17%, and 31% at 15, 105, and 185 min on FU scan. SUVbw = SUV corrected by body weight.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Subject Demographics and Clinical Characteristics (n = 41)

    CharacteristicData
    Sex (n)
     Male21
     Female20
    Age at baseline 18F-FGln PET (y)
     <408
     40–496
     50–5912
     60–698
     70–797
    Cancer (n)
     Glioblastoma multiforme14
     Astrocytoma6
     Lung cancer6
     Pancreatic cancer4
     Breast cancer3
     Oligodendroglioma2
     Prostate cancer2
     Colon cancer1
     Ependymoma1
     Diffuse large B cell lymphoma1
     Renal cell carcinoma1
    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Mean Intratumor Values for Metrics Derived from Baseline 18F-FGln Dynamic PET, as Calculated with Reversible 2C4K

    MetricAll lesions (n = 50)All brain lesions (n = 35)Primary brain lesions (n = 26)Brain metastases (n = 9)All thoracic/abdominal lesions (n = 15)Normal brain tissue (n = 26)
    SUV12.5 ± 1.2 (0.6–6.3)2.1 ± 0.9 (0.6–4.0)2.3 ± 0.9 (0.6–4.0)1.7 ± 0.6 (0.6–2.9)3.4 ± 1.5 (1.4–6.3)0.3 ± 0.1 (0.2–0.4)
    SUV22.2 ± 0.9 (0.7–4.8)2.1 ± 0.7 (0.7–3.6)2.1 ± 0.7 (0.7–3.6)2.0 ± 0.6 (1.0–3.0)2.5 ± 1.2 (1.0–4.8)0.3 ± 0.1 (0.2–0.4)
    SUV3*1.7 ± 0.5 (0.7–2.6)1.6 ± 0.5 (0.8–2.6)1.6 ± 0.5 (0.8–2.6)1.9 ± 0.4 (1.5–2.5)1.8 ± 0.5 (0.9–2.3)0.4 ± 0.1 (0.3–0.5)
    vB0.07 ± 0.05 (0.01–0.22)0.06 ± 0.04 (0.01–0.19)0.05 ± 0.04 (0.01–0.19)0.07 ± 0.04 (0.02–0.16)0.10 ± 0.07 (0.01–0.22)0.03 ± 0.01 (0.01–0.07)
    K1 (mL/min/g)0.15 ± 0.10 (0.02–0.42)0.10 ± 0.06 (0.02–0.24)0.10 ± 0.07 (0.02–0.28)0.09 ± 0.05 (0.02–0.15)0.27 ± 0.09 (0.18–0.42)0.01 ± 0.00 (0.00–0.01)
    k2 (min−1)0.11 ± 0.11 (0.01–0.56)0.06 ± 0.06 (0.01–0.24)0.06 ± 0.05 (0.01–0.22)0.08 ± 0.07 (0.01–0.24)0.21 ± 0.14 (0.06–0.56)0.05 ± 0.04 (0.02–0.20)
    k3 (min−1)0.06 ± 0.07 (0.00–0.27)0.04 ± 0.06 (0.00–0.21)0.02 ± 0.04 (0.00–0.15)0.08 ± 0.08 (0.01–0.21)0.10 ± 0.10 (0.00–0.27)0.02 ± 0.01 (0.01–0.04)
    k4 (min−1)0.02 ± 0.03 (0.00–0.10)0.02 ± 0.02 (0.00–0.10)0.01 ± 0.02 (0.00–0.06)0.03 ± 0.03 (0.00–0.10)0.03 ± 0.03 (0.00–0.10)0.003 ± 0.003 (0.000–0.009)
    VT (mL/cm3)3.7 ± 1.7 (1.8–10.0)3.6 ± 1.6 (1.8 ± 10.0)3.3 ± 1.6 (1.8–10.0)4.3 ± 1.4 (2.8–7.0)4.2 ± 2.0 (2.0–9.1)0.6 ± 0.2 (0.3–1.3)
    • ↵* SUV3 was not measured in 10 lesions.

    • vB = pharmacokinetic model with blood fraction component.

    • SUV1, SUV2, and SUV3 are SUV, corrected by body weight, as calculated from last 5-min frame of 30-min dynamic PET acquisition, from ∼100-min PET acquisition, and from ∼190-min PET acquisition, respectively. Data are mean ± SD, followed by range in parentheses.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Spearman ρ Between Metrics Derived from Dynamic Data (2C4K model) and SUVmax for Small Intratumor Area of Highest 18F-FGln Uptake

    Metric30 min (SUV1)100 min (SUV2)190 min (SUV3)Δ (SUV3 − SUV1)
    K10.710.630.51−0.65
    k20.380.360.48−0.28
    k30.130.250.380.13
    k40.140.260.26−0.10
    VT0.480.610.53−0.27
    • SUVmax is corrected by body weight.

    • View popup
    TABLE 4

    Reproducibility of Metrics Derived from Truncated 30-Minute 18F-FGln Dynamic PET Compared with Full 3-Hour Dataset

    MetricICCMean difference
    K1 (mL/min/g)0.96−0.01 (−0.07, 0.05)
    k2 (min−1)0.63−0.03 (−0.20, 0.15)
    k3 (min−1)−0.01−0.06 (−0.42, 0.30)
    k4 (min−1)−0.09−0.03 (−0.21, 0.15)
    VT (mL/cm3)0.750.90 (−0.77, 2.57)
    • ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient.

    • Data in parentheses are lower and upper limits of agreement. Kinetic rate constants were derived using 2C4K model.

    • View popup
    TABLE 5

    Treatment Information for Patients Who Underwent Second 18F-FGln Dynamic PET Scan

    Patient no.CancerTherapyTime between first and second scans (d)Dosing
    1Renal cell carcinomaCB-83955400 mg 3 times daily
    2Non–small cell lung cancerCB-83927400 mg 3 times daily
    3Glioblastoma multiformeNivolumab + radiotherapy92200 mg 1 time daily
    4Glioblastoma multiformePembrolizumab68200 mg 1 time daily
    5Glioblastoma multiformeTAK-228493 mg 1 time daily*
    • ↵* Patient self-discontinued trial after 1 mo.

    • FOV = field of view for dynamic PET scan.

    • View popup
    TABLE 6

    Mean Intratumor Values for Metrics Derived from Early-Response 18F-FGln Dynamic PET Scans with 2C4K Model

    MetricAll lesions (n = 8)Corresponding 8 lesions on baseline
    SUV13.5 ± 1.5 (2.0–7.1)3.2 ± 1.5 (1.8–6.3)
    SUV23.0 ± 1.2 (2.0–5.7)2.8 ± 1.1 (1.5–4.8)
    vB0.17 ± 0.10 (0.03–0.30)0.12 ± 0.06 (0.04–0.19)
    K1 (mL/min/g)0.21 ± 0.16 (0.04–0.46)0.23 ± 0.12 (0.07–0.43)
    k2 (min−1)0.09 ± 0.04 (0.03–0.13)0.15 ± 0.10 (0.04–0.30)
    k3 (min−1)0.05 ± 0.06 (0.00–0.14)0.09 ± 0.09 (0.00–0.23)
    k4 (min−1)0.03 ± 0.03 (0.00–0.10)0.02 ± 0.02 (0.00–0.06)
    VT (mL/cm3)3.4 ± 1.5 (1.3–5.6)4.7 ± 2.2 (2.2–9.1)
    • SUV1 and SUV2 are SUV, corrected by body weight, as calculated from last 5-min frame of 30-min dynamic PET acquisition and from ∼100-min PET acquisition, respectively. SUV3 is not reported because only 2 patients had ∼190-min postinjection acquisitions on both first and second 18F-FGln dynamic PET. Data are mean ± SD, followed by range in parentheses.

    • vB = pharmacokinetic model with blood fraction component.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 61 (3)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 61, Issue 3
March 1, 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Pharmacokinetic Assessment of 18F-(2S,4R)-4-Fluoroglutamine in Patients with Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Pharmacokinetic Assessment of 18F-(2S,4R)-4-Fluoroglutamine in Patients with Cancer
Milan Grkovski, Reema Goel, Simone Krebs, Kevin D. Staton, James J. Harding, Ingo K. Mellinghoff, John L. Humm, Mark P.S. Dunphy
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Mar 2020, 61 (3) 357-366; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.229740

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Pharmacokinetic Assessment of 18F-(2S,4R)-4-Fluoroglutamine in Patients with Cancer
Milan Grkovski, Reema Goel, Simone Krebs, Kevin D. Staton, James J. Harding, Ingo K. Mellinghoff, John L. Humm, Mark P.S. Dunphy
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Mar 2020, 61 (3) 357-366; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.229740
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Imaging Tumor Metabolism
  • First-in-Human PET Imaging and Estimated Radiation Dosimetry of L-[5-11C]-Glutamine in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
  • Sex Differences in Brain Tumor Glutamine Metabolism Reveal Sex-Specific Vulnerabilities to Treatment
  • Kinetic Modeling of 18F-(2S,4R)4-Fluoroglutamine in Mouse Models of Breast Cancer to Estimate Glutamine Pool Size as an Indicator of Tumor Glutamine Metabolism
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Oncology

  • Role of F18-FDG PET/CT in non-cutaneous melanomas.
  • The role of Lymphoscintigraphy in Breast Cancer Reccurence
  • Utility of bone scans in patients with RCC
Show more Oncology

Clinical

  • TauIQ: A Canonical Image Based Algorithm to Quantify Tau PET Scans
  • Dual PET Imaging in Bronchial Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: The NETPET Score as a Prognostic Biomarker
  • Addition of 131I-MIBG to PRRT (90Y-DOTATOC) for Personalized Treatment of Selected Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors
Show more Clinical

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • glutamine
  • metabolism
  • glutaminolysis
  • dynamic PET
  • kinetic modeling
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire