INTRODUCTION: Prostate-specific membrane antigen is a transmembrane glycoprotein highly expressed in many prostate cancers and can be targeted with radiolabeled antibodies for diagnosis and treatment of this disease. To serve as a radioimmunotherapeutic agent, a kinetically inert conjugate is desired to maximize tumor uptake and tumor radiation dose with minimal nonspecific exposure to bone marrow and other major organs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we assessed the pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of the 7E11 monoclonal antibody (MAb) radiolabeled with the lutetium-177 ((177)Lu)-tetraazacyclododecanetetraacetic acid conjugate system ((177)Lu-7E11) versus those of the 7E11 MAb radiolabeled with the indium-111 ((111)In)/glycyl-tyrosyl-(N,-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid)/lysine hydrochloride conjugate system ((111)In-7E11, also known as ProstaScint) to determine the feasibility of using (111)In-7E11 as a pre-therapeutic agent for (177)Lu-7E11 radioimmunotherapy. Pharmacokinetic and biodistribution studies of (177)Lu-7E11 in lymph node cancer of the prostate (LNCaP) xenograft mice were performed at 2, 8, 12, 24, 72, and 168 h after radiopharmaceutical administration. For (111)In-7E11, pharmacokinetic and biodistribution studies were performed at 8, 24, and 72 h. Parallel studies of (177)Lu-7E11 in non-tumor-bearing mice at 8, 24, and 72 h post-injection served as controls. Gamma scintigraphy was performed, followed by autoradiography and tissue counting, to demonstrate and quantify the distributions of radioconjugated MAb in the tumor and normal tissues. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Both (177)Lu- and (111)In-7E11 conjugates demonstrated an early blood pool phase in which uptake was dominated by the blood, lung, spleen and liver, followed by uptake and retention of the radiolabeled antibody in the tumor which was most prominent at 24 h. Total accumulation of radioconjugated MAb in tumor at 24 h was greater in the case of (177)Lu-7E11 in comparison to that of (111)In-7E11. Continued accumulation in tumor was observed for the entire time course studied for both (177)Lu-7E11 and (111)In-7E11. The liver was the only major organ demonstrating a significant difference in accumulation between the two conjugates. In conclusion, pharmacokinetic and biodistribution studies of (177)Lu-7E11 in LNCaP xenograft mouse models support its potential application as a radioimmunotherapeutic agent targeting prostate cancer, and the distribution and tumor uptake of (111)In-7E11 appear to be similar to those of (177)Lu-7E11, supporting its use as a pre-therapeutic tool to assess the potential accumulation of (177)Lu-7E11 radioimmunotherapeutic at sites of prostate cancer. However, the different accumulation patterns of the (111)In and (177)Lu immunoconjugates in liver will likely prevent the use of (111)In-7E11 as a true dosimetry tool for (177)Lu-7E11 radioimmunotherapy.
INTRODUCTION: Prostate-specific membrane antigen is a transmembrane glycoprotein highly expressed in many prostate cancers and can be targeted with radiolabeled antibodies for diagnosis and treatment of this disease. To serve as a radioimmunotherapeutic agent, a kinetically inert conjugate is desired to maximize tumor uptake and tumor radiation dose with minimal nonspecific exposure to bone marrow and other major organs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we assessed the pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of the 7E11 monoclonal antibody (MAb) radiolabeled with the lutetium-177 ((177)Lu)-tetraazacyclododecanetetraacetic acid conjugate system ((177)Lu-7E11) versus those of the 7E11 MAb radiolabeled with the indium-111 ((111)In)/glycyl-tyrosyl-(N,-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid)/lysine hydrochloride conjugate system ((111)In-7E11, also known as ProstaScint) to determine the feasibility of using (111)In-7E11 as a pre-therapeutic agent for (177)Lu-7E11 radioimmunotherapy. Pharmacokinetic and biodistribution studies of (177)Lu-7E11 in lymph node cancer of the prostate (LNCaP) xenograft mice were performed at 2, 8, 12, 24, 72, and 168 h after radiopharmaceutical administration. For (111)In-7E11, pharmacokinetic and biodistribution studies were performed at 8, 24, and 72 h. Parallel studies of (177)Lu-7E11 in non-tumor-bearing mice at 8, 24, and 72 h post-injection served as controls. Gamma scintigraphy was performed, followed by autoradiography and tissue counting, to demonstrate and quantify the distributions of radioconjugated MAb in the tumor and normal tissues. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Both (177)Lu- and (111)In-7E11 conjugates demonstrated an early blood pool phase in which uptake was dominated by the blood, lung, spleen and liver, followed by uptake and retention of the radiolabeled antibody in the tumor which was most prominent at 24 h. Total accumulation of radioconjugated MAb in tumor at 24 h was greater in the case of (177)Lu-7E11 in comparison to that of (111)In-7E11. Continued accumulation in tumor was observed for the entire time course studied for both (177)Lu-7E11 and (111)In-7E11. The liver was the only major organ demonstrating a significant difference in accumulation between the two conjugates. In conclusion, pharmacokinetic and biodistribution studies of (177)Lu-7E11 in LNCaP xenograft mouse models support its potential application as a radioimmunotherapeutic agent targeting prostate cancer, and the distribution and tumor uptake of (111)In-7E11 appear to be similar to those of (177)Lu-7E11, supporting its use as a pre-therapeutic tool to assess the potential accumulation of (177)Lu-7E11 radioimmunotherapeutic at sites of prostate cancer. However, the different accumulation patterns of the (111)In and (177)Lu immunoconjugates in liver will likely prevent the use of (111)In-7E11 as a true dosimetry tool for (177)Lu-7E11 radioimmunotherapy.
Authors: G L Wright; B M Grob; C Haley; K Grossman; K Newhall; D Petrylak; J Troyer; A Konchuba; P F Schellhammer; R Moriarty Journal: Urology Date: 1996-08 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: P M Smith-Jones; S Vallabahajosula; S J Goldsmith; V Navarro; C J Hunter; D Bastidas; N H Bander Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2000-09-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Youngho Seo; Kenneth H Wong; Mingshan Sun; Benjamin L Franc; Randall A Hawkins; Bruce H Hasegawa Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Matthew I Milowsky; David M Nanus; Lale Kostakoglu; Shankar Vallabhajosula; Stanley J Goldsmith; Neil H Bander Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M R Feneley; H Jan; M Granowska; S J Mather; D Ellison; J Glass; M Coptcoat; R S Kirby; C Ogden; R T D Oliver; D F Badenoch; F I Chinegwundoh; V H Nargund; A M I Paris; K E Britton Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Neil H Bander; Edouard J Trabulsi; Lale Kostakoglu; Daniel Yao; Shankar Vallabhajosula; Peter Smith-Jones; Maureen A Joyce; Matthew Milowsky; David M Nanus; Stanley J Goldsmith Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alessandro Ruggiero; Jason P Holland; Tvrtko Hudolin; Larissa Shenker; Anna Koulova; Neil H Bander; Jason S Lewis; Jan Grimm Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jessie R Nedrow; Anders Josefsson; Sunju Park; Tom Bäck; Robert F Hobbs; Cory Brayton; Frank Bruchertseifer; Alfred Morgenstern; George Sgouros Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Colin T Huang; Xin Guo; Cyril Bařinka; Shawn E Lupold; Martin G Pomper; Kathleen Gabrielson; Venu Raman; Dmitri Artemov; Sudath Hapuarachchige Journal: Mol Pharm Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 4.939