Labelling and Clinical Performance of Human Leukocytes Labelled with 99mTc-HMPAO Using Leukokit® with Gelofusine versus Leukokit® with HES as Sedimentation Agent.

The scintigraphy with radiolabelled autologous leukocytes (WBCs) is considered the gold-standard technique for imaging infections. Leukokit® is a commercially available, disposable, sterile kit for labelling WBCs ex vivo. In this kit, WBCs isolation from red blood cells (RBCs) was performed using poly(O-2-hydroxyethyl)starch (HES) as the RBCs sedimentation agent. Due to its poor availability, HES has been recently replaced by Gelofusine as the RBC sedimentation agent. The aim of this study was to compare the labelling efficiency and the diagnostic accuracy of WBCs labelled with Leukokit® with HES vs Leukokit® with Gelofusine. WBCs were isolated using HES or Gelofusine for 45 minutes and then purified from platelets (PLTs) and labelled with 1.1 ± 0.3 GBq of freshly prepared 99mTc-HMPAO. The following parameters were evaluated: the number and type of recovered WBCs, RBCs contamination, PLTs contamination, vitality of neutrophils, and chemotactic properties of neutrophils. Clinical comparison was performed between 80 patients (33 males; age 67.5 ± 14.2) injected with 99mTc-HMPAO-WBCs, using HES as the sedimentation agent, and 92 patients (38 males; age 68.2 ± 12.8) injected with 99mTc-HMPAO-WBCs using Gelofusine as the sedimentation agent. Patients were affected by prosthetic joint infections, peripheral bone osteomyelitis, or vascular graft infection. We compared radiolabelling efficiency (LE), final recovery yield (RY), and diagnostic outcome based on microbiology or 2-year follow-up. Results showed that HES provides the lowest RBCs and PLTs contamination, but Gelofusine provides the highest WBC recovery. Both agents did not influence the chemotactic properties of WBCs, and no differences were found in terms of LE and RY. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were also not significantly different for WBCs labelled with both agents (diagnostic accuracy 90.9%, CI = 74.9-96.1 vs 98.3%, CI = 90.8-100, for HES and Gelofusine, respectively). In conclusion, Gelofusine can be considered a suitable alternative of HES for WBCs separation and labelling.

Study of Binding Kinetics and Specificity of 99mTc-SSS-Complex and 99mTc-HMPAO to Blood Cells.

Nuclear medicine offers several techniques and procedures to image infection, but radiolabelled autologous white blood cells (WBCs) are still the gold standard. These cells are usually labelled with 111In or 99mTc bound to a hydrophobic chelating agent that allows these isotopes to pass through the plasma membrane and enter in the cytoplasm. The most common compound in Europe is HMPAO that efficiently chelates 99mTc. However, up to 20-40% of the complex is released from the cells in the first few hours. The aim of this study was to radiolabel a new compound, (S3CPh)2 (S2CPh)-complex (SSS-complex) with 99mTc and compare its binding kinetics and specificity for WBC with HMPAO. The SSS-complex was labelled with 99mTc and analysed by iTLC and RP-HPLC. In vitro quality controls included a stability assay in serum and saline. Results showed a labelling efficiency of 95 ± 1.2% and 98 ± 1.4% for 99mTc-SSS-complex and 99mTc-HMPAO, respectively (p=ns). 99mTc-SSS-complex was stable in serum and in saline up to 24 h (94 ± 0.1%). Cell labelling experiments showed a higher incorporation of 99mTc-SSS-complex than 99mTc-HMPAO by granulocytes (62.6 ± 17.8% vs 40.5 ± 15%, p=0.05), lymphocytes (59.9 ± 22.2% vs 29.4 ± 13.5%; p=0.03), and platelets (44.4 ± 24% vs 20.5 ± 10.7%; p=ns), but the release of radiopharmaceutical from granulocytes at 1 h was lower for HMPAO than for SSS-complex (10.3 ± 1.9% vs 21.3 ± 1.8%; p=0.001). In conclusion, 99mTc-SSS-complex, although showing high labelling efficiency, radiochemical purity, and stability, is not a valid alternative to 99mTc-HMPAO, for example, in vivo white blood cells labelling because of high lymphocyte and platelet uptake and rapid washout from granulocytes.

Imaging bacteria with radiolabelled quinolones, cephalosporins and siderophores for imaging infection: a systematic review.

Bacterial infections are still one of the main causes of patient morbidity and mortality worldwide. Nowadays, many imaging techniques, like computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, are used to identify inflammatory processes, but, although they recognize anatomical modifications, they cannot easily distinguish bacterial infective foci from non bacterial infections. In nuclear medicine, many efforts have been made to develop specific radiopharmaceuticals to discriminate infection from sterile inflammation. Several compounds (antimicrobial peptides, leukocytes, cytokines, antibiotics…) have been radiolabelled and tested in vitro and in vivo, but none proved to be highly specific for bacteria. Indeed factors, including the number and strain of bacteria, the infection site, and the host condition may affect the specificity of tested radiopharmaceuticals. Ciprofloxacin has been proposed and intensively studied because of its easy radiolabelling method, broad spectrum, and low cost, but at the same time it presents some problems such as low stability or the risk of antibiotic resistance. Therefore, in the present review studies with ciprofloxacin and other radiolabelled antibiotics as possible substitutes of ciprofloxacin are reported. Among them we can distinguish different classes, such as cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, inhibitors of nucleic acid synthesis, inhibitors of bacterial cell wall synthesis and inhibitors of protein synthesis; then also others, like siderophores or maltodextrin-based probes, have been discussed as bacterial infection imaging agents. A systematic analysis was performed to report the main characteristics and differences of each antibiotic to provide an overview about the state of the art of imaging infection with radiolabelled antibiotics.