OBJECTIVES: Often peptides used in synthesis of radiopharmaceutical PET tracers are lipophilic and adhere to the walls of container closure systems (CCS) such that costly peptide and product are not fully recoverable after synthesis occurs. This investigation compares a standard United States Pharmacopeia (USP) Type I borosilicate glass CCS to a cyclic polyolefin copolymer Crystal Zenith(®) (CZ) CCS, for (68)Ga-chloride and (68)Ga-DOTATOC ([(68)Ga] Ga-DOTA-D-Phe1-Tyr3-octreotide) retention in the reaction vial after labeling. METHODS: (68)Gallium labeling of DOTATOC was conducted by adding (68)Ga-chloride, 2M HEPES (4-(2-hydroxyethyl)piperazine-1-ethanesulfonic acid) or 0.75 M sodium acetate, and 1-30 µg of DOTATOC into the CZ or glass CCS. The reaction mixture was heated for 15 min and cooled to room temperature. The crude reaction mixture was then withdrawn via syringe, for final processing. The CCS was then assayed using a dose calibrator to determine the amount of retained (68)Ga-DOTATOC. Statistical significance was assessed using an unpaired Student's t-test. RESULTS: In all experiments (n=72) with various amounts of peptide and different buffering systems, the CZ CCS retained less activity than the glass CCS. Using 2 M HEPES and 15 µg or 30 µg of DOTATOC, the CZ CCS retained approximately 10% less of the labeled DOTATOC compared to the glass CCS (p<0.05). Utilizing either a sodium acetate or a HEPES buffering system with 15 µg or 30 µg of DOTATOC, the CZ CCS retained approximately 2.5% less of the total reaction activity compared to the glass CCS (p<0.05). Product yield was equivalent in glass and CZ CCS under the same reaction conditions. Both the CZ and glass vials showed no retention of (68)Ga-chloride. CONCLUSION: For applications involving the labeling of peptides such as (68)Ga-DOTATOC, the CZ CCS compared to the glass CCS, results in an improved recovery of product.
OBJECTIVES: Often peptides used in synthesis of radiopharmaceutical PET tracers are lipophilic and adhere to the walls of container closure systems (CCS) such that costly peptide and product are not fully recoverable after synthesis occurs. This investigation compares a standard United States Pharmacopeia (USP) Type I borosilicate glass CCS to a cyclic polyolefin copolymer Crystal Zenith(®) (CZ) CCS, for (68)Ga-chloride and (68)Ga-DOTATOC ([(68)Ga] Ga-DOTA-D-Phe1-Tyr3-octreotide) retention in the reaction vial after labeling. METHODS: (68)Gallium labeling of DOTATOC was conducted by adding (68)Ga-chloride, 2M HEPES (4-(2-hydroxyethyl)piperazine-1-ethanesulfonic acid) or 0.75 M sodium acetate, and 1-30 µg of DOTATOC into the CZ or glass CCS. The reaction mixture was heated for 15 min and cooled to room temperature. The crude reaction mixture was then withdrawn via syringe, for final processing. The CCS was then assayed using a dose calibrator to determine the amount of retained (68)Ga-DOTATOC. Statistical significance was assessed using an unpaired Student's t-test. RESULTS: In all experiments (n=72) with various amounts of peptide and different buffering systems, the CZCCS retained less activity than the glass CCS. Using 2 M HEPES and 15 µg or 30 µg of DOTATOC, the CZCCS retained approximately 10% less of the labeled DOTATOC compared to the glass CCS (p<0.05). Utilizing either a sodium acetate or a HEPES buffering system with 15 µg or 30 µg of DOTATOC, the CZCCS retained approximately 2.5% less of the total reaction activity compared to the glass CCS (p<0.05). Product yield was equivalent in glass and CZCCS under the same reaction conditions. Both the CZ and glass vials showed no retention of (68)Ga-chloride. CONCLUSION: For applications involving the labeling of peptides such as (68)Ga-DOTATOC, the CZCCS compared to the glass CCS, results in an improved recovery of product.
Authors: Erik de Blois; Ho Sze Chan; Clive Naidoo; Deidre Prince; Eric P Krenning; Wouter A P Breeman Journal: Appl Radiat Isot Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 1.513
Authors: Paul M van Midwoud; Laurent Rieux; Rainer Bischoff; Elisabeth Verpoorte; Harm A G Niederländer Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Konstantin P Zhernosekov; Dimitry V Filosofov; Richard P Baum; Peter Aschoff; Heiner Bihl; Anatoli A Razbash; Markus Jahn; Mark Jennewein; Frank Rösch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-09-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Clemens Decristoforo; Roger Knopp; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Marco Rupprich; Thorsten Dreger; Andre Hess; Irene Virgolini; Roland Haubner Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Pedram Heidari; Alicia Szretter; Laura E Rushford; Maria Stevens; Lee Collier; Judit Sore; Jacob Hooker; Umar Mahmood Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-07-06
Authors: J Alaina Floyd; Jeremy M Shaver; Alison J Gillespie; Unjy Park; Richard S Rogers; Nancy S Nightlinger; Yuko Ogata; Jeffrey J James; Bruce A Kerwin Journal: J Pharm Sci Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 3.534