PURPOSE: Targeting the c-Met receptor with monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) is an appealing approach for cancer diagnosis and treatment because this receptor plays a prominent role in tumour invasion and metastasis. Positron emission tomography (PET) might be a powerful tool for guidance of therapy with anti-Met MAbs like the recently described MAb DN30 because it allows accurate quantitative imaging of tumour targeting (immuno-PET). We considered the potential of PET with either (89)Zr-labelled (residualising radionuclide) or (124)I-labelled (non-residualising radionuclide) DN30 for imaging of Met-expressing tumours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The biodistribution of co-injected (89)Zr-DN30 and iodine-labelled DN30 was compared in nude mice bearing either the human gastric cancer line GLT-16 (high Met expression) or the head-and-neck cancer line FaDu (low Met expression). PET images were acquired in both xenograft models up to 4 days post-injection (p.i.) and used for quantification of tumour uptake. RESULTS: Biodistribution studies in GTL-16-tumour-bearing mice revealed that (89)Zr-DN30 achieved much higher tumour uptake levels than iodine-labelled DN30 (e.g. 19.6%ID/g vs 5.3%ID/g, 5 days p.i.), while blood levels were similar, indicating internalisation of DN30. Therefore, (89)Zr-DN30 was selected for PET imaging of GLT-16-bearing mice. Tumours as small as 11 mg were readily visualised with immuno-PET. A distinctive lower (89)Zr uptake was observed in FaDu compared to GTL-16 xenografts (e.g. 7.8%ID/g vs 18.1%ID/g, 3 days p.i.). Nevertheless, FaDu xenografts were also clearly visualised with (89)Zr-DN30 immuno-PET. An excellent correlation was found between PET-image-derived (89)Zr tumour uptake and ex-vivo-assessed (89)Zr tumour uptake (R(2)=0.98). CONCLUSIONS: The long-lived positron emitter (89)Zr seems attractive for PET-guided development of therapeutic anti-c-Met MAbs.
PURPOSE: Targeting the c-Met receptor with monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) is an appealing approach for cancer diagnosis and treatment because this receptor plays a prominent role in tumour invasion and metastasis. Positron emission tomography (PET) might be a powerful tool for guidance of therapy with anti-Met MAbs like the recently described MAb DN30 because it allows accurate quantitative imaging of tumour targeting (immuno-PET). We considered the potential of PET with either (89)Zr-labelled (residualising radionuclide) or (124)I-labelled (non-residualising radionuclide) DN30 for imaging of Met-expressing tumours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The biodistribution of co-injected (89)Zr-DN30 and iodine-labelled DN30 was compared in nude mice bearing either the humangastric cancer line GLT-16 (high Met expression) or the head-and-neck cancer line FaDu (low Met expression). PET images were acquired in both xenograft models up to 4 days post-injection (p.i.) and used for quantification of tumour uptake. RESULTS: Biodistribution studies in GTL-16-tumour-bearing mice revealed that (89)Zr-DN30 achieved much higher tumour uptake levels than iodine-labelled DN30 (e.g. 19.6%ID/g vs 5.3%ID/g, 5 days p.i.), while blood levels were similar, indicating internalisation of DN30. Therefore, (89)Zr-DN30 was selected for PET imaging of GLT-16-bearing mice. Tumours as small as 11 mg were readily visualised with immuno-PET. A distinctive lower (89)Zr uptake was observed in FaDu compared to GTL-16 xenografts (e.g. 7.8%ID/g vs 18.1%ID/g, 3 days p.i.). Nevertheless, FaDu xenografts were also clearly visualised with (89)Zr-DN30 immuno-PET. An excellent correlation was found between PET-image-derived (89)Zr tumour uptake and ex-vivo-assessed (89)Zr tumour uptake (R(2)=0.98). CONCLUSIONS: The long-lived positron emitter (89)Zr seems attractive for PET-guided development of therapeutic anti-c-Met MAbs.
Authors: L Schmidt; F M Duh; F Chen; T Kishida; G Glenn; P Choyke; S W Scherer; Z Zhuang; I Lubensky; M Dean; R Allikmets; A Chidambaram; U R Bergerheim; J T Feltis; C Casadevall; A Zamarron; M Bernues; S Richard; C J Lips; M M Walther; L C Tsui; L Geil; M L Orcutt; T Stackhouse; J Lipan; L Slife; H Brauch; J Decker; G Niehans; M D Hughson; H Moch; S Storkel; M I Lerman; W M Linehan; B Zbar Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 38.330
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: M F Di Renzo; M Olivero; A Giacomini; H Porte; E Chastre; L Mirossay; B Nordlinger; S Bretti; S Bottardi; S Giordano Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Wouter B Nagengast; Elisabeth G de Vries; Geke A Hospers; Nanno H Mulder; Johan R de Jong; Harry Hollema; Adrienne H Brouwers; Guus A van Dongen; Lars R Perk; Marjolijn N Lub-de Hooge Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-07-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: S Fan; J A Wang; R Q Yuan; S Rockwell; J Andres; A Zlatapolskiy; I D Goldberg; E M Rosen Journal: Oncogene Date: 1998-07-16 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Jan-Philip Meyer; Kimberly J Edwards; Paul Kozlowski; Marina V Backer; Joseph M Backer; Jason S Lewis Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Haiming Luo; Hao Hong; Michael R Slater; Stephen A Graves; Sixiang Shi; Yunan Yang; Robert J Nickles; Frank Fan; Weibo Cai Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 10.057
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