INTRODUCTION: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) cG250 recognizes carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX), overexpressed on clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). (124)I-cG250 is currently under clinical investigation for the detection of ccRCC. However, the (124)I label is rapidly excreted from the tumor cells after internalization of the radiolabeled mAb. We hypothesized that labeling cG250 with the residualizing positron emitter (89)Zr would lead to higher tumor uptake and more sensitive detection of ccRCC lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nude mice with CAIX-expressing ccRCC xenografts (SK-RC-52 or NU-12) were i.v. injected with (89)Zr-cG250 or (124)I-cG250. To determine specificity of (89)Zr-cG250 uptake in ccRCC, one control group was i.v. injected with (89)Zr-MOPC21 (irrelevant mAb). PET images were acquired using a small animal PET camera and the biodistribution of the radiolabeled mAb was determined. RESULTS: The ccRCC xenografts were clearly visualized after injection of (89)Zr-cG250 and (124)I-cG250. Tumor uptake of (89)Zr-cG250 was significantly higher compared with (124)I-cG250 in the NU-12 tumor model (114.7% ± 25.2% injected dose per gram (%ID/g) vs. 38.2 ± 18.3%ID/g, p=0.029), but in the SK-RC-52 the difference in tumor uptake was not significant (48.7 ± 15.2%ID/g vs. 32.0 ± 22.9%ID/g, p=0.26). SK-RC-52 tumors were not visualized with (89)Zr-MOPC21 (tumor uptake 3.0%ID/g). Intraperitoneal SK-RC-52 lesions as small as 7 mm(3) were visualized with (89)Zr-cG250 PET. CONCLUSION: ImmunoPET imaging with cG250 visualized s.c. and i.p. ccRCC lesions in murine models. This confirms the potential of cG250 immunoPET in the diagnosis and (re)staging of ccRCC. PET imaging of ccRCC tumors with (89)Zr-cG250 could be more sensitive than (124)I-cG250-PET.
INTRODUCTION: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) cG250 recognizes carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX), overexpressed on clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). (124)I-cG250 is currently under clinical investigation for the detection of ccRCC. However, the (124)I label is rapidly excreted from the tumor cells after internalization of the radiolabeled mAb. We hypothesized that labeling cG250 with the residualizing positron emitter (89)Zr would lead to higher tumor uptake and more sensitive detection of ccRCC lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Nude mice with CAIX-expressing ccRCC xenografts (SK-RC-52 or NU-12) were i.v. injected with (89)Zr-cG250 or (124)I-cG250. To determine specificity of (89)Zr-cG250 uptake in ccRCC, one control group was i.v. injected with (89)Zr-MOPC21 (irrelevant mAb). PET images were acquired using a small animal PET camera and the biodistribution of the radiolabeled mAb was determined. RESULTS: The ccRCC xenografts were clearly visualized after injection of (89)Zr-cG250 and (124)I-cG250. Tumor uptake of (89)Zr-cG250 was significantly higher compared with (124)I-cG250 in the NU-12 tumor model (114.7% ± 25.2% injected dose per gram (%ID/g) vs. 38.2 ± 18.3%ID/g, p=0.029), but in the SK-RC-52 the difference in tumor uptake was not significant (48.7 ± 15.2%ID/g vs. 32.0 ± 22.9%ID/g, p=0.26). SK-RC-52tumors were not visualized with (89)Zr-MOPC21 (tumor uptake 3.0%ID/g). Intraperitoneal SK-RC-52 lesions as small as 7 mm(3) were visualized with (89)Zr-cG250 PET. CONCLUSION: ImmunoPET imaging with cG250 visualized s.c. and i.p. ccRCC lesions in murine models. This confirms the potential of cG250 immunoPET in the diagnosis and (re)staging of ccRCC. PET imaging of ccRCC tumors with (89)Zr-cG250 could be more sensitive than (124)I-cG250-PET.
Authors: K Grabmaier; J L Vissers; M C De Weijert; J C Oosterwijk-Wakka; A Van Bokhoven; R H Brakenhoff; E Noessner; P A Mulders; G Merkx; C G Figdor; G J Adema; E Oosterwijk Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2000-03-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: M G Steffens; O C Boerman; P H de Mulder; W J Oyen; W C Buijs; J A Witjes; W J van den Broek; J C Oosterwijk-Wakka; F M Debruyne; F H Corstens; E Oosterwijk Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Adrienne H Brouwers; Wilhelmina C A M Buijs; Egbert Oosterwijk; Otto C Boerman; Carola Mala; Pieter H M De Mulder; Frans H M Corstens; Peter F A Mulders; Wim J G Oyen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-09-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Chaitanya R Divgi; Robert G Uzzo; Constantine Gatsonis; Roman Bartz; Silke Treutner; Jian Qin Yu; David Chen; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Steven Larson; Paul Bevan; Paul Russo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-12-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Adrienne H Brouwers; Julliëtte E M van Eerd; Cathelijne Frielink; Egbert Oosterwijk; Wim J G Oyen; Frans H M Corstens; Otto C Boerman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Iris Verel; Gerard W M Visser; Ronald Boellaard; Otto C Boerman; Julliette van Eerd; Gordon B Snow; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Guus A M S van Dongen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Nathan Lawrentschuk; Fook T Lee; Gareth Jones; Angela Rigopoulos; Angela Mountain; Graeme O'Keefe; Anthony T Papenfuss; Damien M Bolton; Ian D Davis; Andrew M Scott Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2009-06-12 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Iris Verel; Gerard W M Visser; Ronald Boellaard; Marijke Stigter-van Walsum; Gordon B Snow; Guus A M S van Dongen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sarah M Cheal; Blesida Punzalan; Michael G Doran; Michael J Evans; Joseph R Osborne; Jason S Lewis; Pat Zanzonico; Steven M Larson Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jimson W D'Souza; Harvey Hensley; Mohan Doss; Charles Beigarten; Michael Torgov; Tove Olafsen; Jian Q Yu; Matthew K Robinson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Floor C J van de Watering; Mark Rijpkema; Lars Perk; Ulrich Brinkmann; Wim J G Oyen; Otto C Boerman Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 3.411