PURPOSE: To evaluate whether (89)Zr can be used as a PET surrogate label for quantification of (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan ((90)Y-Zevalin) biodistribution and dosimetry before myeloablative radioimmunotherapy. METHODS: Zevalin was labelled with (89)Zr by introducing N-succinyldesferal (N-sucDf) as a second chelate. For comparison of the in vitro stability of (89)Zr-Zevalin and (88)Y-Zevalin (as a substitute for (90)Y), samples were incubated in human serum at 37 degrees C up to 6 days. Biodistribution of (89)Zr-Zevalin and (88)Y-Zevalin was assessed at 24, 48, 72 and 144 h p.i. by co-injection in nude mice bearing the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) xenograft line Ramos. The clinical performance of (89)Zr-Zevalin-PET was evaluated via a pilot imaging study in a patient with NHL, who had undergone [(18)F]FDG-PET 2 weeks previously. RESULTS: Modification of Zevalin with N-sucDf resulted in an N-sucDf-to-antibody molar ratio of 0.83+/-0.04. After radiolabelling and purification, the radiochemical purity and immunoreactivity of (89)Zr-Zevalin always exceeded 95% and 80%, respectively. (89)Zr-Zevalin showed the same stability in serum as (88)Y-Zevalin, with a radiochemical purity >95% during a period of 6 days. The co-injected (89)Zr-Zevalin and (88)Y-Zevalin conjugates showed a very similar biodistribution, except for liver and bone accumulation at 72 and 144 h p.i., which was significantly higher for (89)Zr than for (88)Y. PET images obtained after injection of (89)Zr-Zevalin showed clear targeting of all known tumour lesions. CONCLUSION: (89)Zr-Zevalin and (88)Y-Zevalin showed a very similar biodistribution in mice, implying that (89)Zr-Zevalin-PET might be well suited for prediction of (90)Y-Zevalin biodistribution in a myeloablative setting.
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether (89)Zr can be used as a PET surrogate label for quantification of (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan ((90)Y-Zevalin) biodistribution and dosimetry before myeloablative radioimmunotherapy. METHODS: Zevalin was labelled with (89)Zr by introducing N-succinyldesferal (N-sucDf) as a second chelate. For comparison of the in vitro stability of (89)Zr-Zevalin and (88)Y-Zevalin (as a substitute for (90)Y), samples were incubated in human serum at 37 degrees C up to 6 days. Biodistribution of (89)Zr-Zevalin and (88)Y-Zevalin was assessed at 24, 48, 72 and 144 h p.i. by co-injection in nude mice bearing the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) xenograft line Ramos. The clinical performance of (89)Zr-Zevalin-PET was evaluated via a pilot imaging study in a patient with NHL, who had undergone [(18)F]FDG-PET 2 weeks previously. RESULTS: Modification of Zevalin with N-sucDf resulted in an N-sucDf-to-antibody molar ratio of 0.83+/-0.04. After radiolabelling and purification, the radiochemical purity and immunoreactivity of (89)Zr-Zevalin always exceeded 95% and 80%, respectively. (89)Zr-Zevalin showed the same stability in serum as (88)Y-Zevalin, with a radiochemical purity >95% during a period of 6 days. The co-injected (89)Zr-Zevalin and (88)Y-Zevalin conjugates showed a very similar biodistribution, except for liver and bone accumulation at 72 and 144 h p.i., which was significantly higher for (89)Zr than for (88)Y. PET images obtained after injection of (89)Zr-Zevalin showed clear targeting of all known tumour lesions. CONCLUSION: (89)Zr-Zevalin and (88)Y-Zevalin showed a very similar biodistribution in mice, implying that (89)Zr-Zevalin-PET might be well suited for prediction of (90)Y-Zevalin biodistribution in a myeloablative setting.
Authors: Iris Verel; Gerard W M Visser; Otto C Boerman; Julliette E M van Eerd; Ron Finn; Ronald Boellaard; Maria J W D Vosjan; Marijke Stigter-van Walsum; Gordon B Snow; Guus A M S van Dongen Journal: Cancer Biother Radiopharm Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 3.099
Authors: A Lövqvist; J L Humm; A Sheikh; R D Finn; J Koziorowski; S Ruan; K S Pentlow; A Jungbluth; S Welt; F T Lee; M W Brechbiel; S M Larson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Thomas E Witzig; Leo I Gordon; Fernando Cabanillas; Myron S Czuczman; Christos Emmanouilides; Robin Joyce; Brad L Pohlman; Nancy L Bartlett; Gregory A Wiseman; Norman Padre; Antonio J Grillo-López; Pratik Multani; Christine A White Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-05-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lars R Perk; Gerard W M Visser; Maria J W D Vosjan; Marijke Stigter-van Walsum; Bernard M Tijink; C René Leemans; Guus A M S van Dongen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Iris Verel; Gerard W M Visser; Ronald Boellaard; Otto C Boerman; Julliette van Eerd; Gordon B Snow; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Guus A M S van Dongen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Josée M Zijlstra; Otto S Hoekstra; Pieter G H M Raijmakers; Emile F I Comans; Jacobus J M van der Hoeven; Gerrit J J Teule; A Roelof Jonkhoff; Harm v Tinteren; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Peter C Huijgens Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Tapan K Nayak; Kayhan Garmestani; Kwamena E Baidoo; Diane E Milenic; Martin W Brechbiel Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Stephan Walrand; Glenn D Flux; Mark W Konijnenberg; Roelf Valkema; Eric P Krenning; Renaud Lhommel; Stanislas Pauwels; Francois Jamar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-03-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jason P Holland; Eloisi Caldas-Lopes; Vadim Divilov; Valerie A Longo; Tony Taldone; Danuta Zatorska; Gabriela Chiosis; Jason S Lewis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-01-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lars R Perk; Maria J W D Vosjan; Gerard W M Visser; Marianne Budde; Paul Jurek; Garry E Kiefer; Guus A M S van Dongen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-09-18 Impact factor: 9.236