PURPOSE: G protein-coupled receptor agonists are being used as radiolabeled vectors for in vivo localization and therapy of tumors. Recently, somatostatin-based antagonists were shown to be superior to agonists. Here, we compare the new [111In/68Ga]-labeled bombesin-based antagonist RM1 with the agonist [111In]-AMBA for targeting the gastrin-releasing peptide receptor (GRPR). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: IC50, Kd values, and antagonist potency were determined using PC-3 and HEK-GRPR cells. Biodistribution and imaging studies were done in nude mice transplanted with the PC-3 tumor. The antagonist potency was assessed by evaluating the effects on calcium release and on receptor internalization monitored by immunofluorescence microscopy. RESULTS: The IC50 value of [(nat)In]-RM1 was 14 +/- 3.4 nmol/L. [(nat/111)In]-RM1 was found to bind to the GRPR with a Kd of 8.5 +/- 2.7 nmol/L compared with a Kd of 0.6 +/- 0.3 nmol/L of [111In]-AMBA. A higher maximum number of binding site value was observed for [111In]-RM1 (2.4 +/- 0.2 nmol/L) compared with [111In]-AMBA (0.7 +/- 0.1 nmol/L). [(nat)Lu]-AMBA is a potent agonist in the immunofluorescence-based internalization assay, whereas [(nat)In]-RM1 is inactive alone but efficiently antagonizes the bombesin effect. These data are confirmed by the calcium release assay. The pharmacokinetics showed a superiority of the radioantagonist with regard to the high tumor uptake (13.4 +/- 0.8% IA/g versus 3.69 +/- 0.75% IA/g at 4 hours after injection. as well as to all tumor-to-normal tissue ratios. CONCLUSION: Despite their relatively low GRPR affinity, the antagonists [111In/68Ga]-RM1 showed superior targeting properties compared with [111In]-AMBA. As found for somatostatin receptor-targeting radiopeptides, GRP-based radioantagonists seem to be superior to radioagonists for in vivo imaging and potentially also for targeted radiotherapy of GRPR-positive tumors.
PURPOSE: G protein-coupled receptor agonists are being used as radiolabeled vectors for in vivo localization and therapy of tumors. Recently, somatostatin-based antagonists were shown to be superior to agonists. Here, we compare the new [111In/68Ga]-labeled bombesin-based antagonist RM1 with the agonist [111In]-AMBA for targeting the gastrin-releasing peptide receptor (GRPR). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: IC50, Kd values, and antagonist potency were determined using PC-3 and HEK-GRPR cells. Biodistribution and imaging studies were done in nude mice transplanted with the PC-3 tumor. The antagonist potency was assessed by evaluating the effects on calcium release and on receptor internalization monitored by immunofluorescence microscopy. RESULTS: The IC50 value of [(nat)In]-RM1 was 14 +/- 3.4 nmol/L. [(nat/111)In]-RM1 was found to bind to the GRPR with a Kd of 8.5 +/- 2.7 nmol/L compared with a Kd of 0.6 +/- 0.3 nmol/L of [111In]-AMBA. A higher maximum number of binding site value was observed for [111In]-RM1 (2.4 +/- 0.2 nmol/L) compared with [111In]-AMBA (0.7 +/- 0.1 nmol/L). [(nat)Lu]-AMBA is a potent agonist in the immunofluorescence-based internalization assay, whereas [(nat)In]-RM1 is inactive alone but efficiently antagonizes the bombesin effect. These data are confirmed by the calcium release assay. The pharmacokinetics showed a superiority of the radioantagonist with regard to the high tumor uptake (13.4 +/- 0.8% IA/g versus 3.69 +/- 0.75% IA/g at 4 hours after injection. as well as to all tumor-to-normal tissue ratios. CONCLUSION: Despite their relatively low GRPR affinity, the antagonists [111In/68Ga]-RM1 showed superior targeting properties compared with [111In]-AMBA. As found for somatostatin receptor-targeting radiopeptides, GRP-based radioantagonists seem to be superior to radioagonists for in vivo imaging and potentially also for targeted radiotherapy of GRPR-positive tumors.
Authors: Jeffrey M Craft; Ravindra A De Silva; Kimberly A Lears; Rebecca Andrews; Kexian Liang; Samuel Achilefu; Buck E Rogers Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Christian Lohrmann; Hanwen Zhang; Daniel L J Thorek; Pooja Desai; Pat B Zanzonico; Joseph O'Donoghue; Christopher P Irwin; Thomas Reiner; Jan Grimm; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sarah Marie Schwarzenböck; Philipp Schmeja; Jens Kurth; Michael Souvatzoglou; Roman Nawroth; Uwe Treiber; Guenther Kundt; Sandra Berndt; Keith Graham; Reingard Senekowitsch-Schmidtke; Markus Schwaiger; Sibylle I Ziegler; Ludger Dinkelborg; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Bernd Joachim Krause Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Maarten Brom; Lieke Joosten; Wim J G Oyen; Martin Gotthardt; Otto C Boerman Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Jean Claude Reubi; Judit Erchegyi; Renzo Cescato; Beatrice Waser; Jean E Rivier Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-04-16 Impact factor: 9.236