UNLABELLED: Monoclonal antibodies (MoAb) labeled with 90Y are being used for radioimmunotherapy. Because 90Y is a beta emitter, quantitative information from imaging is suboptimal. With the concept of a "matched pair" of isotopes, 111In is used as a surrogate markerfor90Y. We evaluated the differences in biodistribution between 111In- and 90Y-labeled murine antiTac MoAb directed against the IL-2Ralpha receptor. METHODS: The antiTac was conjugated to the 2-(4-isothiocyanatobenzyl)-6-methyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (1B4M-DTPA, also known as MX-DTPA). Nine patients with adult T-cell leukemia were treated. Patients received approximately 185 MBq (5 mCi) 111In-labeled antiTac for imaging and 185-555 MBq (5-15 mCi) 90Y-labeled antiTac for therapy. The immunoreactivity of 111In-labeled antiTac was 90%+/-6%, whereas for 90Y-labeled antiTac, it was 74%+/-12%. RESULTS: The differences in blood and plasma kinetics of the two isotopes were small. The area undemeath the blood radioactivity curve was 1.91 percentage+/-0.58 percentage injected dose (%ID) x h/mL for 111In and 1.86%+/-0.64 %ID x h/mL for 90Y. Urinary excretion of 90Y was significantly greater than that of 111In in the first 24 h (P = 0.001), but later, the excretion of 111In was significantly greater (P = 0.001 to P = 0.04). Core biopsies of bone marrow showed a mean of 0.0029+/-0.0012 %ID/g for 111In, whereas the 90Y concentration was 0.0049+/-0.0021 %ID/g. Analyses of activity bound to circulating cells showed concentrations of 500-30,000 molecules of antiTac per cell. When cell-bound activity was corrected for immunoreactive fraction, the ratio of 111In to 90Y in circulating cells was 1.11+/-0.17. Three biopsies of tumor-involved skin showed ratios of 111In to 90Y of 0.7, 0.9 and 1.1. CONCLUSION: This study shows that differences typically ranging from 10% to 15% exist in the biodistribution between 111In- and 90Y-labeled antiTac. Thus, it appears that 111In can be used as a surrogate marker for 90Y when labeling antiTac with the 1 B4M chelate, although underestimates of the bone marrow radiation dose should be anticipated.
UNLABELLED: Monoclonal antibodies (MoAb) labeled with 90Y are being used for radioimmunotherapy. Because 90Y is a beta emitter, quantitative information from imaging is suboptimal. With the concept of a "matched pair" of isotopes, 111In is used as a surrogate markerfor90Y. We evaluated the differences in biodistribution between 111In- and 90Y-labeled murine antiTac MoAb directed against the IL-2Ralpha receptor. METHODS: The antiTac was conjugated to the 2-(4-isothiocyanatobenzyl)-6-methyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (1B4M-DTPA, also known as MX-DTPA). Nine patients with adult T-cell leukemia were treated. Patients received approximately 185 MBq (5 mCi) 111In-labeled antiTac for imaging and 185-555 MBq (5-15 mCi) 90Y-labeled antiTac for therapy. The immunoreactivity of 111In-labeled antiTac was 90%+/-6%, whereas for 90Y-labeled antiTac, it was 74%+/-12%. RESULTS: The differences in blood and plasma kinetics of the two isotopes were small. The area undemeath the blood radioactivity curve was 1.91 percentage+/-0.58 percentage injected dose (%ID) x h/mL for 111In and 1.86%+/-0.64 %ID x h/mL for 90Y. Urinary excretion of 90Y was significantly greater than that of 111In in the first 24 h (P = 0.001), but later, the excretion of 111In was significantly greater (P = 0.001 to P = 0.04). Core biopsies of bone marrow showed a mean of 0.0029+/-0.0012 %ID/g for 111In, whereas the 90Y concentration was 0.0049+/-0.0021 %ID/g. Analyses of activity bound to circulating cells showed concentrations of 500-30,000 molecules of antiTac per cell. When cell-bound activity was corrected for immunoreactive fraction, the ratio of 111In to 90Y in circulating cells was 1.11+/-0.17. Three biopsies of tumor-involved skin showed ratios of 111In to 90Y of 0.7, 0.9 and 1.1. CONCLUSION: This study shows that differences typically ranging from 10% to 15% exist in the biodistribution between 111In- and 90Y-labeled antiTac. Thus, it appears that 111In can be used as a surrogate marker for 90Y when labeling antiTac with the 1 B4M chelate, although underestimates of the bone marrow radiation dose should be anticipated.
Authors: Renaud Lhommel; Larry van Elmbt; Pierre Goffette; Marc Van den Eynde; François Jamar; Stanislas Pauwels; Stephan Walrand Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Hong Song; Robert F Hobbs; Ravy Vajravelu; David L Huso; Caroline Esaias; Christos Apostolidis; Alfred Morgenstern; George Sgouros Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: John E Janik; John C Morris; Deirdre O'Mahony; Stefania Pittaluga; Elaine S Jaffe; Christophe E Redon; William M Bonner; Martin W Brechbiel; Chang H Paik; Millie Whatley; Clara Chen; Jae-Ho Lee; Thomas A Fleisher; Maggie Brown; Jeffrey D White; Donn M Stewart; Suzanne Fioravanti; Cathryn C Lee; Carolyn K Goldman; Bonita R Bryant; Richard P Junghans; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Tat'Yana Worthy; Erin Corcoran; Kevin C Conlon; Thomas A Waldmann Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Kevin C Conlon; Claude Sportes; Martin W Brechbiel; Daniel H Fowler; Ronald Gress; Milos D Miljkovic; Clara C Chen; Millie A Whatley; Bonita R Bryant; Erin M Corcoran; Karen A Kurdziel; Stefania Pittaluga; Chang H Paik; Jae Ho Lee; Thomas A Fleisher; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Thomas A Waldmann Journal: Cancer Biother Radiopharm Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 3.099
Authors: In Soo Shin; Sang-Myung Lee; Hyung Sub Kim; Zhengsheng Yao; Celeste Regino; Noriko Sato; Kenneth T Cheng; Raffit Hassan; Melissa F Campo; Earl F Albone; Peter L Choyke; Ira Pastan; Chang H Paik Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Yubin Miao; Said D Figueroa; Darrell R Fisher; Herbert A Moore; Richard F Testa; Timothy J Hoffman; Thomas P Quinn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 10.057