PURPOSE: Gallium-68 is a metallic positron emitter with a half-life of 68 min that is ideal for the in vivo use of small molecules, such as [68Ga-DOTA,Tyr3]octreotide, in the diagnostic imaging of somatostatin receptor-positive tumours. In preclinical studies it has shown a striking superiority over its 111In-labelled congener. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether third-generation somatostatin-based, radiogallium-labelled peptides show the same superiority. METHODS: Peptides were synthesised on solid phase. The receptor affinity was determined by in vitro receptor autoradiography. The internalisation rate was studied in AR4-2J and hsst-HEK-transfected cell lines. The pharmacokinetics was studied in a rat xenograft tumour model, AR4-2J. RESULTS: All peptides showed high affinities on hsst2, with the highest affinity for the Ga(III)-complexed peptides. On hsst3 the situation was reversed, with a trend towards lower affinity of the Ga(III) peptides. A significantly increased internalisation rate was found in sst2-expressing cells for all 67Ga-labelled peptides. Internalisation into HEK-sst3 was usually faster for the 111In-labelled peptides. No internalisation was found into sst5. Biodistribution studies employing [67Ga-DOTA,1-Nal3]octreotide in comparison to [111In-DOTA,1-Nal3]octreotide and [67Ga-DOTA,Tyr3]octreotide showed a significantly higher and receptor-mediated uptake of the two 67Ga-labelled peptides in the tumour and somatostatin receptor-positive tissues. A patient study illustrated the potential advantage of a broad receptor subtype profile radiopeptide over a high-affinity sst2-selective radiopeptide. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that 67/68Ga-DOTA-octapeptides show distinctly better preclinical, pharmacological performances than the 111In-labelled peptides, especially on sst2-expressing cells and the corresponding animal models. They may be excellent candidates for further development for clinical studies.
PURPOSE: Gallium-68 is a metallic positron emitter with a half-life of 68 min that is ideal for the in vivo use of small molecules, such as [68Ga-DOTA,Tyr3]octreotide, in the diagnostic imaging of somatostatin receptor-positive tumours. In preclinical studies it has shown a striking superiority over its 111In-labelled congener. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether third-generation somatostatin-based, radiogallium-labelled peptides show the same superiority. METHODS: Peptides were synthesised on solid phase. The receptor affinity was determined by in vitro receptor autoradiography. The internalisation rate was studied in AR4-2J and hsst-HEK-transfected cell lines. The pharmacokinetics was studied in a rat xenograft tumour model, AR4-2J. RESULTS: All peptides showed high affinities on hsst2, with the highest affinity for the Ga(III)-complexed peptides. On hsst3 the situation was reversed, with a trend towards lower affinity of the Ga(III) peptides. A significantly increased internalisation rate was found in sst2-expressing cells for all 67Ga-labelled peptides. Internalisation into HEK-sst3 was usually faster for the 111In-labelled peptides. No internalisation was found into sst5. Biodistribution studies employing [67Ga-DOTA,1-Nal3]octreotide in comparison to [111In-DOTA,1-Nal3]octreotide and [67Ga-DOTA,Tyr3]octreotide showed a significantly higher and receptor-mediated uptake of the two 67Ga-labelled peptides in the tumour and somatostatin receptor-positive tissues. A patient study illustrated the potential advantage of a broad receptor subtype profile radiopeptide over a high-affinity sst2-selective radiopeptide. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that 67/68Ga-DOTA-octapeptides show distinctly better preclinical, pharmacological performances than the 111In-labelled peptides, especially on sst2-expressing cells and the corresponding animal models. They may be excellent candidates for further development for clinical studies.
Authors: M Henze; J Schuhmacher; P Hipp; J Kowalski; D W Becker; J Doll; H R Mäcke; M Hofmann; J Debus; U Haberkorn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: H J Wester; M Schottelius; K Scheidhauer; G Meisetschläger; M Herz; F C Rau; J C Reubi; M Schwaiger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-11-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Dik J Kwekkeboom; Jan Mueller-Brand; Giovanni Paganelli; Lowell B Anthony; Stanislas Pauwels; Larry K Kvols; Thomas M O'dorisio; Roelf Valkema; Lisa Bodei; Marco Chinol; Helmut R Maecke; Eric P Krenning Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: C Andrew Boswell; Xiankai Sun; Weijun Niu; Gary R Weisman; Edward H Wong; Arnold L Rheingold; Carolyn J Anderson Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2004-03-11 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Jeffrey P Norenberg; Boudewijn J Krenning; Inge R H M Konings; Donna F Kusewitt; Tapan K Nayak; Tamara L Anderson; Marion de Jong; Kayhan Garmestani; Martin W Brechbiel; Larry K Kvols Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Irene Virgolini; Valentina Ambrosini; Jamshed B Bomanji; Richard P Baum; Stefano Fanti; Michael Gabriel; Nikolaos D Papathanasiou; Giovanna Pepe; Wim Oyen; Clemens De Cristoforo; Arturo Chiti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: C Pettinato; A Sarnelli; M Di Donna; S Civollani; C Nanni; G Montini; D Di Pierro; M Ferrari; M Marengo; C Bergamini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-09-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Yusuf Menda; Laura L Boles Ponto; Michael K Schultz; Gideon K D Zamba; G Leonard Watkins; David L Bushnell; Mark T Madsen; John J Sunderland; Michael M Graham; Thomas M O'Dorisio; M Sue O'Dorisio Journal: Pancreas Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.327