PURPOSE: Two variants of Annexin A5 (Cys2-AnxA5 and Cys165-AnxA5) were labelled with Gallium-68 in order to evaluate their biological properties. PROCEDURES: Biodistribution and pharmacokinetics of the radiotracers were studied with μPET in healthy mice and in a mouse model of hepatic apoptosis. μPET imaging after IV injection of the tracers in combination with μMRI was performed in Daudi tumor bearing mice before and after treatment with a combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. RESULTS: The biodistribution data indicated a fast urinary clearance with only minor hepatobilliary clearance, although a high retention in the kidneys was observed. Animals treated with anti-Fas showed a 3 to 8 times higher liver uptake as compared to healthy animals. Tumor uptake of (68)Ga-Cys2-AnxA5 and (68)Ga-Cys165-AnxA5 was low but significantly increased after therapy. CONCLUSION: Both (68)Ga-Cys2-AnxA5 and (68)Ga-Cys165-AnxA5 show a clear binding to apoptotic cells and are promising tracers for rapid evaluation of cancer therapy.
PURPOSE: Two variants of Annexin A5 (Cys2-AnxA5 and Cys165-AnxA5) were labelled with Gallium-68 in order to evaluate their biological properties. PROCEDURES: Biodistribution and pharmacokinetics of the radiotracers were studied with μPET in healthy mice and in a mouse model of hepatic apoptosis. μPET imaging after IV injection of the tracers in combination with μMRI was performed in Daudi tumor bearing mice before and after treatment with a combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. RESULTS: The biodistribution data indicated a fast urinary clearance with only minor hepatobilliary clearance, although a high retention in the kidneys was observed. Animals treated with anti-Fas showed a 3 to 8 times higher liver uptake as compared to healthy animals. Tumor uptake of (68)Ga-Cys2-AnxA5 and (68)Ga-Cys165-AnxA5 was low but significantly increased after therapy. CONCLUSION: Both (68)Ga-Cys2-AnxA5 and (68)Ga-Cys165-AnxA5 show a clear binding to apoptotic cells and are promising tracers for rapid evaluation of cancer therapy.
Authors: Leonie Wyffels; Brian D Gray; Christy Barber; Koon Y Pak; Safiyyah Forbes; Jeffrey A Mattis; James M Woolfenden; Zhonglin Liu Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Eftychia Koumarianou; Tatiana A Slastnikova; Marek Pruszynski; Andrey A Rosenkranz; Ganesan Vaidyanathan; Alexander S Sobolev; Michael R Zalutsky Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Matthew R Hight; Yiu-Yin Cheung; Michael L Nickels; Eric S Dawson; Ping Zhao; Samir Saleh; Jason R Buck; Dewei Tang; M Kay Washington; Robert J Coffey; H Charles Manning Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Seth T Gammon; Brian J Engel; Gregory J Gores; Erik Cressman; David Piwnica-Worms; Steven W Millward Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Brian J Engel; Seth T Gammon; Rajan Chaudhari; Zhen Lu; Federica Pisaneschi; Hailing Yang; Argentina Ornelas; Victoria Yan; Lindsay Kelderhouse; Amer M Najjar; William P Tong; Shuxing Zhang; David Piwnica-Worms; Robert C Bast; Steven W Millward Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2018-08-31 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: M De Saint-Hubert; M Bauwens; N Deckers; M Drummen; K Douma; P Granton; G Hendrikx; D Kusters; J Bucerius; C P M Reutelingsperger; F M Mottaghy Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: María Antonia Lizarbe; Juan I Barrasa; Nieves Olmo; Francisco Gavilanes; Javier Turnay Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 5.923