BACKGROUND: We previously described a two-antibody model of (64)Cu radioimmunotherapy to evaluate low-dose, solid-tumor response. This model was designed to test the hypothesis that cellular internalization is critical in causing tumor cell death by mechanisms in addition to radiation damage. The purpose of the present study was to estimate radiation dosimetry for both antibodies (mAbs) using positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, and evaluate the effect of internalization on tumor growth. RESULTS: Dosimetry was similar between therapy groups. Median time to tumor progression to 1 g ranged from 7 to 12 days for control groups and was 32 days for both treatment groups (p < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference existed between any control group or between the treatment groups. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In female nude mice bearing LS174T colon carcinoma xenografts, tumor dosimetry was calculated using serial PET images of three mice in each group of either internalizing (64)Cu-labeled DOTA-cBR96 (DOTA = 1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane-1,4,7,10-tetraacetic acid) or non-internalizing (64)Cu-labeled DOTA-cT84.66 from 3 to 48 h. For the therapy study, controls (n = 10) received saline, DOTA-cBR96, or DOTA-cT84.66. Treatment animals (n = 9) received 0.890 mCi of (64)Cu-labeled DOTA-cBR96 or 0.710 mCi of (64)Cu-labeled DOTA-cT84.66. Tumors were measured daily. CONCLUSIONS: PET imaging allows the use of (64)Cu for pre-therapy calculation of tumor dosimetry. In spite of highly similar tumor dosimetry, an internalizing antibody did not improve the outcome of (64)Cu radioimmunotherapy. Radioresistance of this tumor cell line and copper efflux may have confounded the study. Further investigations of the 2 therapeutic efficacy of (64)Cu-labeled mAbs will focus on interaction between (64)Cu and tumor suppressor genes and copper chaperones.
BACKGROUND: We previously described a two-antibody model of (64)Cu radioimmunotherapy to evaluate low-dose, solid-tumor response. This model was designed to test the hypothesis that cellular internalization is critical in causing tumor cell death by mechanisms in addition to radiation damage. The purpose of the present study was to estimate radiation dosimetry for both antibodies (mAbs) using positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, and evaluate the effect of internalization on tumor growth. RESULTS: Dosimetry was similar between therapy groups. Median time to tumor progression to 1 g ranged from 7 to 12 days for control groups and was 32 days for both treatment groups (p < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference existed between any control group or between the treatment groups. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In female nude mice bearing LS174T colon carcinoma xenografts, tumor dosimetry was calculated using serial PET images of three mice in each group of either internalizing (64)Cu-labeled DOTA-cBR96 (DOTA = 1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane-1,4,7,10-tetraacetic acid) or non-internalizing (64)Cu-labeled DOTA-cT84.66 from 3 to 48 h. For the therapy study, controls (n = 10) received saline, DOTA-cBR96, or DOTA-cT84.66. Treatment animals (n = 9) received 0.890 mCi of (64)Cu-labeled DOTA-cBR96 or 0.710 mCi of (64)Cu-labeled DOTA-cT84.66. Tumors were measured daily. CONCLUSIONS: PET imaging allows the use of (64)Cu for pre-therapy calculation of tumor dosimetry. In spite of highly similar tumor dosimetry, an internalizing antibody did not improve the outcome of (64)Cu radioimmunotherapy. Radioresistance of this tumor cell line and copper efflux may have confounded the study. Further investigations of the 2 therapeutic efficacy of (64)Cu-labeled mAbs will focus on interaction between (64)Cu and tumor suppressor genes and copper chaperones.
Authors: M Neumaier; L Shively; F S Chen; F J Gaida; C Ilgen; R J Paxton; J E Shively; A D Riggs Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1990-04-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: J S Lewis; M R Lewis; P D Cutler; A Srinivasan; M A Schmidt; S W Schwarz; M M Morris; J P Miller; C J Anderson Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: C J Anderson; F Dehdashti; P D Cutler; S W Schwarz; R Laforest; L A Bass; J S Lewis; D W McCarthy Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: A M Wu; P J Yazaki; S w Tsai; K Nguyen; A L Anderson; D W McCarthy; M J Welch; J E Shively; L E Williams; A A Raubitschek; J Y Wong; T Toyokuni; M E Phelps; S S Gambhir Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2000-07-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: C Andrew Boswell; Celeste A S Regino; Kwamena E Baidoo; Karen J Wong; Diane E Milenic; James A Kelley; Christopher C Lai; Martin W Brechbiel Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Date: 2008-12-06 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Mu Wang; Amy L Caruano; Michael R Lewis; Laura A Meyer; Robert P VanderWaal; Carolyn J Anderson Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2003-10-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Min Zhou; Yunyun Chen; Makoto Adachi; Xiaoxia Wen; Bill Erwin; Osama Mawlawi; Stephen Y Lai; Chun Li Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Jae-Ho Lee; Heejung Kim; Zhengsheng Yao; Sung-Jin Lee; Lawrence P Szajek; Luigi Grasso; Ira Pastan; Chang H Paik Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Anna Moroz; Chia-Yin Lee; Yung-Hua Wang; Jeffrey C Hsiao; Natalia Sevillano; Charles Truillet; Charles S Craik; Lawrence Fong; Cheng-I Wang; Michael J Evans Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Christina Schjoeth-Eskesen; Carsten Haagen Nielsen; Søren Heissel; Peter Højrup; Paul Robert Hansen; Nic Gillings; Andreas Kjaer Journal: J Labelled Comp Radiopharm Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 1.921
Authors: Daniel McLean; Michael J Cooke; Yuanfei Wang; David Green; Paul E Fraser; Peter St George-Hyslop; Molly S Shoichet Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-12-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Stefanie Nittka; Marcel A Krueger; John E Shively; Hanne Boll; Marc A Brockmann; Fabian Doyon; Bernd J Pichler; Michael Neumaier Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 3.240