UNLABELLED: Bone marrow is usually dose-limiting for radioimmunotherapy. In this study, we directly estimated red marrow activity concentration and the self-dose component of absorbed radiation dose to red marrow based on PET/CT of 2 different (124)I-labeled antibodies (cG250 and huA33) and compared the results with plasma activity concentration and plasma-based dose estimates. METHODS: Two groups of patients injected with (124)I-labeled monoclonal antibodies (11 patients with renal cancer receiving (124)I-cG250 and 5 patients with colorectal cancer receiving (124)I- huA33) were imaged by PET or PET/CT on 2 or 3 occasions after infusion. Regions of interest were drawn over several lumbar vertebrae, and red marrow activity concentration was quantified. Plasma activity concentration was also quantified using multiple patient blood samples. The red marrow-to-plasma activity concentration ratio (RMPR) was calculated at the times of imaging. The self-dose component of the absorbed radiation dose to the red marrow was estimated from the images, from the plasma measurements, and using a combination of both sets of measurements. RESULTS: RMPR was observed to increase with time for both groups of patients. Mean (±SD) time-dependent RMPR (RMPR(t)) for the cG250 group increased from 0.13 ± 0.06 immediately after infusion to 0.23 ± 0.09 at approximately 6 d after infusion. For the huA33 group, mean RMPR(t) was 0.10 ± 0.04 immediately after infusion, 0.13 ± 0.05 approximately 2 d after infusion, and 0.20 ± 0.09 approximately 7 d after infusion. Plasma-based estimates of red marrow self-dose tended to be greater than image-based values by, on average, 11% and 47% for cG250 and huA33, respectively, but by as much as -73% to 62% for individual patients. The hybrid method combining RMPR(t) and plasma activity concentration provided a closer match to the image-based dose estimates (average discrepancies, -2% and 18% for cG250 and huA33, respectively). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the assumption of time-independent proportionality between red marrow and plasma activity concentration may be too simplistic. Individualized imaged-based dosimetry is probably required for the optimal therapeutic delivery of radiolabeled antibodies, which does not compromise red marrow and may allow, for some patients, a substantial increase in administered activity and thus tumor dose.
UNLABELLED: Bone marrow is usually dose-limiting for radioimmunotherapy. In this study, we directly estimated red marrow activity concentration and the self-dose component of absorbed radiation dose to red marrow based on PET/CT of 2 different (124)I-labeled antibodies (cG250 and huA33) and compared the results with plasma activity concentration and plasma-based dose estimates. METHODS: Two groups of patients injected with (124)I-labeled monoclonal antibodies (11 patients with renal cancer receiving (124)I-cG250 and 5 patients with colorectal cancer receiving (124)I- huA33) were imaged by PET or PET/CT on 2 or 3 occasions after infusion. Regions of interest were drawn over several lumbar vertebrae, and red marrow activity concentration was quantified. Plasma activity concentration was also quantified using multiple patient blood samples. The red marrow-to-plasma activity concentration ratio (RMPR) was calculated at the times of imaging. The self-dose component of the absorbed radiation dose to the red marrow was estimated from the images, from the plasma measurements, and using a combination of both sets of measurements. RESULTS: RMPR was observed to increase with time for both groups of patients. Mean (±SD) time-dependent RMPR (RMPR(t)) for the cG250 group increased from 0.13 ± 0.06 immediately after infusion to 0.23 ± 0.09 at approximately 6 d after infusion. For the huA33 group, mean RMPR(t) was 0.10 ± 0.04 immediately after infusion, 0.13 ± 0.05 approximately 2 d after infusion, and 0.20 ± 0.09 approximately 7 d after infusion. Plasma-based estimates of red marrow self-dose tended to be greater than image-based values by, on average, 11% and 47% for cG250 and huA33, respectively, but by as much as -73% to 62% for individual patients. The hybrid method combining RMPR(t) and plasma activity concentration provided a closer match to the image-based dose estimates (average discrepancies, -2% and 18% for cG250 and huA33, respectively). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the assumption of time-independent proportionality between red marrow and plasma activity concentration may be too simplistic. Individualized imaged-based dosimetry is probably required for the optimal therapeutic delivery of radiolabeled antibodies, which does not compromise red marrow and may allow, for some patients, a substantial increase in administered activity and thus tumor dose.
Authors: Wesley E Bolch; Phillip W Patton; Didier A Rajon; Amish P Shah; Derek W Jokisch; Benjamin A Inglis Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jorge A Carrasquillo; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Joseph A O'Donoghue; John L Humm; Pat Zanzonico; Peter M Smith-Jones; Chaitanya R Divgi; Daniel A Pryma; Shutian Ruan; Nancy E Kemeny; Yuman Fong; Douglas Wong; Jaspreet S Jaggi; David A Scheinberg; Mithat Gonen; Katherine S Panageas; Gerd Ritter; Achim A Jungbluth; Lloyd J Old; Steven M Larson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-07-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: J A Siegel; D A Pawlyk; R E Lee; N L Sasso; J A Horowitz; R M Sharkey; D M Goldenberg Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1990-02-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: E Oosterwijk; N H Bander; C R Divgi; S Welt; J C Wakka; R D Finn; E A Carswell; S M Larson; S O Warnaar; G J Fleuren Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1993-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Scott M Knowles; Kirstin A Zettlitz; Richard Tavaré; Matthew M Rochefort; Felix B Salazar; David B Stout; Paul J Yazaki; Robert E Reiter; Anna M Wu Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kirstin A Zettlitz; Richard Tavaré; Scott M Knowles; Kristopher K Steward; John M Timmerman; Anna M Wu Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Donika Plyku; Robert F Hobbs; Kevin Huang; Frank Atkins; Carlos Garcia; George Sgouros; Douglas Van Nostrand Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Zhantong Wang; Orit Jacobson; Rui Tian; Ronnie C Mease; Dale O Kiesewetter; Gang Niu; Martin G Pomper; Xiaoyuan Chen Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Wietske Woliner-van der Weg; Rafke Schoffelen; Robert F Hobbs; Martin Gotthardt; David M Goldenberg; Robert M Sharkey; Cornelis H Slump; Winette Ta van der Graaf; Wim Jg Oyen; Otto C Boerman; George Sgouros; Eric P Visser Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2015-02-24
Authors: Fook T Lee; Ingrid J G Burvenich; Nancy Guo; Pece Kocovski; Henri Tochon-Danguy; Uwe Ackermann; Graeme J O'Keefe; Sylvia Gong; Angela Rigopoulos; Zhanqi Liu; Hui K Gan; Andrew M Scott Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 4.488