PURPOSE: High tumor microvessel density correlates with a poor prognosis in multiple solid tumor types. The clinical gold standard for assessing microvessel density is CD105 immunohistochemistry on paraffin-embedded tumor specimens. The goal of this study was to develop an (89)Zr-based PET tracer for noninvasive imaging of CD105 expression. METHODS: TRC105, a chimeric anti-CD105 monoclonal antibody, was conjugated to p-isothiocyanatobenzyl-desferrioxamine (Df-Bz-NCS) and labeled with (89)Zr. FACS analysis and microscopy studies were performed to compare the CD105 binding affinity of TRC105 and Df-TRC105. PET imaging, biodistribution, blocking, and ex-vivo histology studies were performed on 4T1 murine breast tumor-bearing mice to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and tumor-targeting of (89)Zr-Df-TRC105. Another chimeric antibody, cetuximab, was used as an isotype-matched control. RESULTS: FACS analysis of HUVECs revealed no difference in CD105 binding affinity between TRC105 and Df-TRC105, which was further validated by fluorescence microscopy. (89)Zr labeling was achieved with high yield and specific activity. Serial PET imaging revealed that the 4T1 tumor uptake of (89)Zr-Df-TRC105 was 6.1 ± 1.2, 14.3 ± 1.2, 12.4 ± 1.5, 7.1 ± 0.9, and 5.2 ± 0.3 %ID/g at 5, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h after injection, respectively (n = 4), higher than all organs starting from 24 h after injection, which provided excellent tumor contrast. Biodistribution data as measured by gamma counting were consistent with the PET findings. Blocking experiments, control studies with (89)Zr-Df-cetuximab, and ex-vivo histology all confirmed the in vivo target specificity of (89)Zr-Df-TRC105. CONCLUSION: We report here the first successful PET imaging of CD105 expression with (89)Zr as the radiolabel. Rapid, persistent, CD105-specific uptake of (89)Zr-Df-TRC105 in the 4T1 tumor was observed.
PURPOSE:High tumor microvessel density correlates with a poor prognosis in multiple solid tumor types. The clinical gold standard for assessing microvessel density is CD105 immunohistochemistry on paraffin-embedded tumor specimens. The goal of this study was to develop an (89)Zr-based PET tracer for noninvasive imaging of CD105 expression. METHODS:TRC105, a chimeric anti-CD105 monoclonal antibody, was conjugated to p-isothiocyanatobenzyl-desferrioxamine (Df-Bz-NCS) and labeled with (89)Zr. FACS analysis and microscopy studies were performed to compare the CD105 binding affinity of TRC105 and Df-TRC105. PET imaging, biodistribution, blocking, and ex-vivo histology studies were performed on 4T1 murinebreast tumor-bearing mice to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and tumor-targeting of (89)Zr-Df-TRC105. Another chimeric antibody, cetuximab, was used as an isotype-matched control. RESULTS:FACS analysis of HUVECs revealed no difference in CD105 binding affinity between TRC105 and Df-TRC105, which was further validated by fluorescence microscopy. (89)Zr labeling was achieved with high yield and specific activity. Serial PET imaging revealed that the 4T1 tumor uptake of (89)Zr-Df-TRC105 was 6.1 ± 1.2, 14.3 ± 1.2, 12.4 ± 1.5, 7.1 ± 0.9, and 5.2 ± 0.3 %ID/g at 5, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h after injection, respectively (n = 4), higher than all organs starting from 24 h after injection, which provided excellent tumor contrast. Biodistribution data as measured by gamma counting were consistent with the PET findings. Blocking experiments, control studies with (89)Zr-Df-cetuximab, and ex-vivo histology all confirmed the in vivo target specificity of (89)Zr-Df-TRC105. CONCLUSION: We report here the first successful PET imaging of CD105 expression with (89)Zr as the radiolabel. Rapid, persistent, CD105-specific uptake of (89)Zr-Df-TRC105 in the 4T1 tumor was observed.
Authors: Maria J W D Vosjan; Lars R Perk; Gerard W M Visser; Marianne Budde; Paul Jurek; Garry E Kiefer; Guus A M S van Dongen Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Hao Hong; Yunan Yang; Yin Zhang; Jonathan W Engle; Todd E Barnhart; Robert J Nickles; Bryan R Leigh; Weibo Cai Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-03-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sandra Heskamp; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Janneke D M Molkenboer-Kuenen; Gerben M Franssen; Yvonne M H Versleijen-Jonkers; Wim J G Oyen; Winette T A van der Graaf; Otto C Boerman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jason P Holland; Vadim Divilov; Neil H Bander; Peter M Smith-Jones; Steven M Larson; Jason S Lewis Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-07-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Tyler J Bradshaw; Martin J Voorbach; David R Reuter; Anthony M Giamis; Sarah R Mudd; John D Beaver Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Stephen A Graves; Reinier Hernandez; Jesper Fonslet; Christopher G England; Hector F Valdovinos; Paul A Ellison; Todd E Barnhart; Dennis R Elema; Charles P Theuer; Weibo Cai; Robert J Nickles; Gregory W Severin Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Eva Koziolová; Shreya Goel; Petr Chytil; Olga Janoušková; Todd E Barnhart; Weibo Cai; Tomáš Etrych Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Hao Hong; Yin Zhang; Jonathan W Engle; Tapas R Nayak; Charles P Theuer; Robert J Nickles; Todd E Barnhart; Weibo Cai Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2012-03-03 Impact factor: 12.479