-
淋巴瘤是最早发现的免疫系统恶性肿瘤之一,其发生主要与免疫应答过程中淋巴细胞增殖分化产生的免疫细胞的某种恶变有关,按组织病理学改变可分为霍奇金淋巴瘤(Hodgkin lymphoma,HL)和非霍奇金淋巴瘤(non-Hodgkin lymphoma,NHL)。18F-FDG通过示踪葡萄糖的摄取和磷酸化过程,可灵敏地显示机体中葡萄糖酵解水平较高的肿瘤组织,是目前临床上应用最广泛的代谢显像剂。18F-FDG PET/CT是目前临床使用最普遍的淋巴瘤显像技术,在淋巴瘤的诊疗决策,包括识别CT漏诊的肿瘤区域以实现准确分期、预测化疗患者的预后并确定可在巩固放疗中获益的患者中发挥着关键作用[1]。目前国际公认的淋巴瘤影像分期和疗效评价标准Lugano分类[2]强调了18F-FDG PET/CT显像的关键作用,推荐18F-FDG PET/CT作为所有18F-FDG摄取增高的淋巴瘤患者影像分期的“金标准”和NHL患者治疗中期和治疗结束后疗效评价的重要手段[3]。18F-FDG PET/CT显像在早期诊断淋巴瘤标准化疗导致的治疗相关心脏不良反应方面也具有一定的效能,可辅助临床医师调整治疗方案,尽量避免疾病进入心脏失代偿期[4]。
尽管18F-FDG PET/CT在淋巴瘤诊疗的各个阶段均发挥重要作用,但其也存在一些不足:(1)非恶性病变,如肉芽肿性炎症、化疗后淋巴样增生、脂肪坏死等均摄取18F-FDG,这可能导致肿瘤的分期产生误差或出现假阳性结果,影响18F-FDG PET/CT对淋巴瘤的预测价值;(2)18F-FDG PET/CT的诊断效能易受多种因素的干扰,如显像时患者的血糖水平、肿瘤的组织病理学亚型、实际的治疗方案等;(3)预测患者生存情况的肿瘤代谢体积(MTV)和病灶糖酵解总量(TLG),用于疗效评价的治疗前后SUVmax的下降值等重要的半定量分析参数缺乏标准化的检测规范与针对其效能的进一步的前瞻性试验的验证结果;(4)18F-FDG PET/CT对HL患者干细胞移植前后、中期治疗反应及预后等的评估效果较好,但对大部分NHL患者的评估效能缺乏充分的研究结果进行证明;(5)18F-FDG PET/CT在治疗后完全缓解的淋巴瘤患者的常规随访和疾病监测中没有明确的作用[1-2,5-8]。
PET/CT为淋巴瘤提供了一种动态的、个性化的诊疗手段,其面临的挑战在于如何更加精准地实现淋巴瘤的特异性靶向诊疗,即根据患者特点(年龄、健康状况、病程进展阶段、治疗反应)和肿瘤生物学特征(基因组、蛋白表达与分子表型、免疫微环境)制定更有针对性的诊疗策略。因此,越来越多的研究聚焦于非18F-FDG PET分子显像,研究人员探索通过非18F-FDG PET/CT或PET/MRI实现淋巴瘤靶向诊疗的优化方案。本文聚焦于其他生化代谢显像、放射免疫显像、受体显像等非18F-FDG PET分子显像技术在淋巴瘤中的显像特点和研究进展,探讨非18F-FDG显像剂的潜在应用价值,以期为淋巴瘤在核医学领域的基础研究和临床诊疗提供新的思路。
HTML
[1] | El-Galaly TC, Villa D, Gormsen LC, et al. FDG-PET/CT in the management of lymphomas: current status and future directions[J]. J Intern Med, 2018, 284(4): 358−376. DOI: 10.1111/joim.12813. | |
[2] | Ricard F, Cheson B, Barrington S, et al. Application of the Lugano classification for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the PRoLoG consensus initiative (Part 1-Clinical)[J]. J Nucl Med, 2023, 64(1): 102−108. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.122.264106. | |
[3] | 中华医学会核医学分会. 淋巴瘤18F-FDG PET/CT及PET/MR显像临床应用指南(2021版)[J]. 中华核医学与分子影像杂志, 2021, 41(3): 161−169. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321828-20210129-00018. | Chinese Society of Nuclear Medicine. Clinical practice guideline of 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MR in lymphoma (2021 edition)[J]. Chin J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2021, 41(3): 161−169. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321828-20210129-00018. |
[4] | 卫毛毛, 刘卫平, 袁婷婷, 等. 18F-FDG PET/CT早期诊断淋巴瘤治疗相关心脏毒性的应用[J]. 中华核医学与分子影像杂志, 2021, 41(11): 653−659. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321828-20200722- 00291. | Wei MM, Liu WP, Yuan TT, et al. Application of 18F-FDG PET/CT in early detection of therapy-associated cardiotoxicity in patients with lymphoma[J]. Chin J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2021, 41(11): 653−659. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321828-20200722- 00291. |
[5] | Gallamini A, Kurlapski M, Zaucha JM. FDG-PET/CT for the management of post-chemotherapy residual mass in Hodgkin lymphoma[J/OL]. Cancers (Basel), 2021, 13(16): 3952[2023-08-28]. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/13/16/3952. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13163952. | |
[6] | 乔文礼, 赵晋华. 淋巴瘤18F-FDG PET/CT及PET/MR显像临床应用指南(2021版)解读与展望[J]. 中华核医学与分子影像杂志, 2022, 42(4): 193−195. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321828-20220314-00070. | Qiao WL, Zhao JH. Interpretation and prospect of clinical practice guideline of 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MR in lymphoma (2021 edition)[J]. Chin J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2022, 42(4): 193−195. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321828-20220314-00070. |
[7] | Alderuccio JP, Kuker RA, Yang F, et al. Quantitative PET-based biomarkers in lymphoma: getting ready for primetime[J]. Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 2023, 20(9): 640−657. DOI: 10.1038/s41571-023-00799-2. | |
[8] | 乔文礼, 牛家华, 金文雅, 等. 自体干细胞移植前或后18F-FDG PET/CT显像及相关因素对经典霍奇金淋巴瘤预后的评估价值[J]. 中华核医学与分子影像杂志, 2020, 40(3): 147−152. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321828-20190729-00149. | Qiao WL, Niu JH, Jin WY, et al. Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging and related factors for patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma before or after autologous stem cell transplantation[J]. Chin J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2020, 40(3): 147−152. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321828-20190729-00149. |
[9] | Nikaki A, Papadopoulos V, Valotassiou V, et al. Evaluation of the performance of 18F-fluorothymidine positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FLT-PET/CT) in metastatic brain lesions[J/OL]. Diagnostics (Basel), 2019, 9(1): 17[2023-08-28]. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/9/1/17. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics9010017. | |
[10] | Wang RM, Zhu HY, Chen YM, et al. Standardized uptake value based evaluation of lymphoma by FDG and FLT PET/CT[J]. Hematol Oncol, 2014, 32(3): 126−132. DOI: 10.1002/hon.2093. | |
[11] | Sachpekidis C, Goldschmidt H, Kopka K, et al. Assessment of glucose metabolism and cellular proliferation in multiple myeloma: a first report on combined 18F-FDG and 18F-FLT PET/CT imaging[J/OL]. EJNMMI Res, 2018, 8(1): 28[2023-08-28]. https://ejnmmires.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13550-018-0383-7. DOI: 10.1186/s13550-018-0383-7. | |
[12] | Zanoni L, Broccoli A, Lambertini A, et al. Role of 18F-FLT PET/CT in suspected recurrent or residual lymphoma: final results of a pilot prospective trial[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2019, 46(8): 1661−1671. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-019-04323-6. | |
[13] | He Q, Zhang LQ, Zhang B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 13N-ammonia PET, 11C-methionine PET and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET: a comparative study in patients with suspected cerebral glioma[J/OL]. BMC Cancer, 2019, 19(1): 332[2023-08-28]. https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-019-5560-1. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-5560-1. | |
[14] | Ahn SY, Kwon SY, Jung SH, et al. Prognostic significance of interim 11C-methionine PET/CT in primary central nervous system lymphoma[J]. Clin Nucl Med, 2018, 43(8): e259−e264. DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000002154. | |
[15] | Tsuchiya J, Yamamoto M, Bae H, et al. Tumor identification of less aggressive or indolent lymphoma with whole-body 11C-acetate PET/CT[J]. Clin Nucl Med, 2019, 44(4): 276−281. DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000002464. | |
[16] | Rieger K, De Filippi R, Lindén O, et al. 90-yttrium-ibritumomab Tiuxetan as first-line treatment for follicular lymphoma: updated efficacy and safety results at an extended median follow-up of 96 years[J]. Ann Hematol, 2022, 101(4): 781−788. DOI: 10.1007/s00277-022-04781-3. | |
[17] | Lugtenburg PJ, Zijlstra JM, Doorduijn JK, et al. Rituximab-PECC induction followed by 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan consolidation in relapsed or refractory DLBCL patients who are ineligible for or have failed ASCT: results from a phase Ⅱ HOVON study[J]. Br J Haematol, 2019, 187(3): 347−355. DOI: 10.1111/bjh.16087. | |
[18] | Rylova SN, Del Pozzo L, Klingeberg C, et al. Immuno-PET imaging of CD30-positive lymphoma using 89Zr-desferrioxamine-labeled CD30-specific AC-10 antibody[J]. J Nucl Med, 2016, 57(1): 96−102. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.162735. | |
[19] | Altunay B, Morgenroth A, Beheshti M, et al. HER2-directed antibodies, affibodies and nanobodies as drug-delivery vehicles in breast cancer with a specific focus on radioimmunotherapy and radioimmunoimaging[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2021, 48(5): 1371−1389. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-05094-1. | |
[20] | Buck AK, Serfling SE, Lindner T, et al. CXCR4-targeted theranostics in oncology[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2022, 49(12): 4133−4144. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-022-05849-y. | |
[21] | Albano D, Dondi F, Bertagna F, et al. The role of [68Ga]Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT or PET/MRI in lymphoma: a systematic review[J/OL]. Cancers (Basel), 2022, 14(15): 3814[2023-08-28]. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/14/15/3814. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14153814. | |
[22] | Duell J, Krummenast F, Schirbel A, et al. Improved primary staging of marginal-zone lymphoma by addition of CXCR4-directed PET/CT[J]. J Nucl Med, 2021, 62(10): 1415−1421. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.257279. | |
[23] | Luo YP, Cao XX, Pan QQ, et al. 68Ga-pentixafor PET/CT for imaging of chemokine receptor 4 expression in Waldenström Macroglobulinemia/Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma: comparison to 18F-FDG PET/CT[J]. J Nucl Med, 2019, 60(12): 1724−1729. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.226134. | |
[24] | Chen ZY, Yang AP, Zhang JY, et al. CXCR4-directed PET/CT with [68Ga]Pentixafor in central nervous system lymphoma: a comparison with [18F]FDG PET/CT[J]. Mol Imaging Biol, 2022, 24(3): 416−424. DOI: 10.1007/s11307-021-01664-3. | |
[25] | Volpe A, Nagle VL, Lewis JS, et al. Predicting CAR-T cell Immunotherapy success through ImmunoPET[J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2021, 27(4): 911−912. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4297. | |
[26] | Simonetta F, Alam IS, Lohmeyer JK, et al. Molecular imaging of chimeric antigen receptor T cells by ICOS-ImmunoPET[J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2021, 27(4): 1058−1068. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2770. | |
[27] | 汪静. FAPI有望开创核素靶向诊疗的新时代[J]. 中华核医学与分子影像杂志, 2021, 41(12): 705−708. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321828-20211102-00380. | Wang J. FAPI will lead to a new era for radionuclide theranostics[J]. Chin J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2021, 41(12): 705−708. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321828-20211102-00380. |
[28] | Dendl K, Koerber SA, Kratochwil C, et al. FAP and FAPI-PET/CT in malignant and non-malignant diseases: a perfect symbiosis?[J/OL]. Cancers (Basel), 2021, 13(19): 4946[2023-08-28]. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/13/19/4946. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13194946. | |
[29] | Lan LJ, Liu HX, Wang YW, et al. The potential utility of [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 as a novel broad-spectrum oncological and non-oncological imaging agent—comparison with [18F]FDG[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2022, 49(3): 963−979. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-021-05522-w. | |
[30] | Jin X, Wei MM, Wang SL, et al. Detecting fibroblast activation proteins in lymphoma using 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT[J]. J Nucl Med, 2022, 63(2): 212−217. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.262134. | |
[31] | Chen XT, Wang SL, Lai YM, et al. Fibroblast activation protein and glycolysis in lymphoma diagnosis: comparison of 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT[J]. J Nucl Med, 2023, 64(9): 1399−1405. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.123.265530. | |
[32] | Gagliardi M, Ashizawa AT. Making sense of antisense oligonucleotide therapeutics targeting Bcl-2[J/OL]. Pharmaceutics, 2022, 14(1): 97[2023-08-28]. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4923/14/1/97. DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14010097. | |
[33] | Liu DF, Xia Q, Ding D, et al. Radiolabeling of functional oligonucleotides for molecular imaging[J/OL]. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2022, 10: 986412[2023-08-28]. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2022.986412/full. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.986412. | |
[34] | McKay MJ, Taubman KL, Foroudi F, et al. Molecular imaging using PET/CT for radiation therapy planning for adult cancers: current status and expanding applications[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2018, 102(4): 783−791. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.03.013. | |
[35] | Yang Q, Luo YP, Zhang Y, et al. Baseline [18F]FDG PET/CT may predict the outcome of newly diagnosed follicular lymphoma in patients managed with initial "watch-and-wait" approach[J]. Eur Radiol, 2022, 32(8): 5568−5576. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08624-7. | |
[36] | Pan QQ, Cao XX, Luo YP, et al. Chemokine receptor 4-targeted 68Ga-pentixafor PET/CT in response assessment of Waldenström Macroglobulinemia/Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma: comparison to 18F-FDG PET/CT[J]. Clin Nucl Med, 2021, 46(9): 732−737. DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000003760. | |
[37] | Mayerhoefer ME, Raderer M, Lamm W, et al. CXCR4 PET imaging of mantle cell lymphoma using [68Ga]Pentixafor: comparison with [18F]FDG-PET[J/OL]. Theranostics, 2021, 11(2): 567−578[2023-08-28]. https://www.thno.org/v11p0567.htm. DOI: 10.7150/thno.48620. | |
[38] | Sharda E, Patel RS, Juárez-Salcedo LM, et al. Adverse events of radioimmunotherapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Leuk Res, 2021, 108: 106615. DOI: 10.1016/j.leukres.2021.106615. |