Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 187

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

An Imaging Comparison of 64Cu-ATSM and 60Cu-ATSM in Cancer of the Uterine Cervix

Open access
Lewis, Jason S., Laforest, Richard, Dehdashti, Farrokh, Grigsby, Perry W., Welch, Michael J., Siegel, Barry A.·2008·Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Tumor uptake of copper(II)-diacetyl-bis(N(4)-methylthiosemicarbazone) (copper-ATSM), a hypoxia-targeting radiopharmaceutical, assessed by PET has been found to correlate with prognosis in several human cancers. Wide clinical utility of this tracer will require its labeling with a copper radionuclide having a longer half-life than the (60)Cu used in studies to date. The purpose of this work was to obtain the requisite preclinical data for copper-ATSM to file an investigational new drug application, followed by a crossover comparison of PET image quality and tumor uptake with (60)Cu-ATSM and (64)Cu-ATSM in women with cancer of the uterine cervix. METHODS: The preclinical toxicology and pharmacology of a copper-ATSM formulation was examined using standard in vitro and in vivo assays, as well as 14-d toxicity studies in both rats and rabbits. For the clinical test-retest imaging study, 10 patients with cervical carcinoma underwent PET on separate days with (60)Cu-ATSM and (64)Cu-ATSM. Image quality was assessed qualitatively, and the tumor-to-muscle activity ratio was measured for each tracer. RESULTS: The toxicology and pharmacology data demonstrated that the formulation has an appropriate margin of safety for clinical use. In the patient study, we found that the image quality with (64)Cu-ATSM was better than that with (60)Cu-ATSM because of lower noise. In addition, we found that the pattern and magnitude of tumor uptake of (60)Cu-ATSM and (64)Cu-ATSM on studies separated by 1-9 d were similar. CONCLUSION: (64)Cu-ATSM appears to be a safe radiopharmaceutical that can be used to obtain high-quality images of tumor hypoxia in human cancers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2967/jnumed.108.051326

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 187

Metadata

Authors
Lewis, J. S., Laforest, R., Dehdashti, F., Grigsby, P. W., Welch, M. J., & Siegel, B. A.
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2008-06-13
Volume
49
Issue
7
Pages
1177-1182
ISSN
  • 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-662X
OpenAlex
W2167623148
Cited by
187
References
0
FWCI
10.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Imaging Comparison of 64Cu-ATSM and 60Cu-ATSM in Cancer of the Uterine Cervix. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2967/jnumed.108.051326
The paper
Lewis, J. S., Laforest, R., Dehdashti, F., Grigsby, P. W., Welch, M. J., & Siegel, B. A. (2008). An Imaging Comparison of 64Cu-ATSM and 60Cu-ATSM in Cancer of the Uterine Cervix. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.051326

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.