Neal Luther1, Zhiping Zhou1, Pat Zanzonico1, Nai-Kong Cheung1, John Humm1, Mark A Edgar1, Mark M Souweidane1. 1. Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York (N.L., Z.Z.); Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York (P.Z., J.H.); Department of Pediatrics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York (N.-K.C.); Department of Pathology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia (M.A.E.); Department of Neurological Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York (M.M.S.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reasons for failure in prior human glioma convection-enhanced delivery (CED) clinical trials remain unclear. Concentration-dependent volume of distribution (Vd) measurement of CED-infused agents in the human brain is challenging and highlights a potential technical shortcoming. Activity of iodine isotope 124 ((124)I ) in tissue can be directly measured in vivo with high resolution via PET. With the potential therapeutic utility of radioimmunotherapy, we postulate (124)I conjugated to the antiglioma monoclonal antibody 8H9 may serve as a "theragnostic" agent delivered via CED to diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. METHODS: Fifteen rats underwent CED of 0.1-1.0 mCi of (131)I-8H9 to the pons for toxicity evaluation. Six additional rats underwent CED of 10 µCi of (124)I-8H9 to the pons for dosimetry, with serial microPET performed for 1 week. Two primates underwent CED of gadolinium-albumin and 1.0 mCi of (124)I-8H9 to the pons for safety and dosimetry analysis. Serial postoperative PET, blood, and CSF radioactivity counts were performed. RESULTS: One rat (1.0 mCi (131)I-8H9 infusion) suffered toxicity necessitating early sacrifice. PET analysis in rats yielded a pontine absorbed dose of 37 Gy/mCi. In primates, no toxicity was observed, and absorbed pontine dose was 3.8 Gy/mCi. Activity decreased 10-fold with 48 h following CED in both animal models. Mean Vd was 0.14 cc(3) (volume of infusion [Vi] to Vd ratio = 14) in the rat and 6.2 cc(3) (Vd/Vi = 9.5) in primate. CONCLUSION: The safety and feasibility of (124)I dosimetry following CED via PET is demonstrated, establishing a preclinical framework for a trial evaluating CED of (124)I-8H9 for diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma.
BACKGROUND: Reasons for failure in prior humanglioma convection-enhanced delivery (CED) clinical trials remain unclear. Concentration-dependent volume of distribution (Vd) measurement of CED-infused agents in the human brain is challenging and highlights a potential technical shortcoming. Activity of iodine isotope 124 ((124)I ) in tissue can be directly measured in vivo with high resolution via PET. With the potential therapeutic utility of radioimmunotherapy, we postulate (124)I conjugated to the antiglioma monoclonal antibody 8H9 may serve as a "theragnostic" agent delivered via CED to diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. METHODS: Fifteen rats underwent CED of 0.1-1.0 mCi of (131)I-8H9 to the pons for toxicity evaluation. Six additional rats underwent CED of 10 µCi of (124)I-8H9 to the pons for dosimetry, with serial microPET performed for 1 week. Two primates underwent CED of gadolinium-albumin and 1.0 mCi of (124)I-8H9 to the pons for safety and dosimetry analysis. Serial postoperative PET, blood, and CSF radioactivity counts were performed. RESULTS: One rat (1.0 mCi (131)I-8H9 infusion) suffered toxicity necessitating early sacrifice. PET analysis in rats yielded a pontine absorbed dose of 37 Gy/mCi. In primates, no toxicity was observed, and absorbed pontine dose was 3.8 Gy/mCi. Activity decreased 10-fold with 48 h following CED in both animal models. Mean Vd was 0.14 cc(3) (volume of infusion [Vi] to Vd ratio = 14) in the rat and 6.2 cc(3) (Vd/Vi = 9.5) in primate. CONCLUSION: The safety and feasibility of (124)I dosimetry following CED via PET is demonstrated, establishing a preclinical framework for a trial evaluating CED of (124)I-8H9 for diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma.
Authors: Russell R Lonser; Stuart Walbridge; Kayhan Garmestani; John A Butman; Hugh A Walters; Alexander O Vortmeyer; Paul F Morrison; Martin W Brechbiel; Edward H Oldfield Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Seema N Sanghavi; Michael N Needle; Mark D Krailo; J Russell Geyer; Joann Ater; Minesh P Mehta Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: John H Sampson; Gamal Akabani; Gary E Archer; Darell D Bigner; Mitchel S Berger; Allan H Friedman; Henry S Friedman; James E Herndon; Sandeep Kunwar; Steve Marcus; Roger E McLendon; Alison Paolino; Kara Penne; James Provenzale; Jennifer Quinn; David A Reardon; Jeremy Rich; Timothy Stenzel; Sandra Tourt-Uhlig; Carol Wikstrand; Terence Wong; Roger Williams; Fan Yuan; Michael R Zalutsky; Ira Pastan Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: John Glod; Gilbert J Rahme; Harpreet Kaur; Eric H Raabe; Eugene I Hwang; Mark A Israel Journal: J Pediatr Hematol Oncol Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 1.289
Authors: Stephen A Jannetti; Giuseppe Carlucci; Brandon Carney; Susanne Kossatz; Larissa Shenker; Lukas M Carter; Beatriz Salinas; Christian Brand; Ahmad Sadique; Patrick L Donabedian; Kristen M Cunanan; Mithat Gönen; Vladimir Ponomarev; Brian M Zeglis; Mark M Souweidane; Jason S Lewis; Wolfgang A Weber; John L Humm; Thomas Reiner Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sangbin Lim; Hao Liu; Luciana Madeira da Silva; Ritu Arora; Zixing Liu; Joshua B Phillips; David C Schmitt; Tung Vu; Steven McClellan; Yifeng Lin; Wensheng Lin; Gary A Piazza; Oystein Fodstad; Ming Tan Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Erik A Rodriguez; Ye Wang; Jessica L Crisp; David R Vera; Roger Y Tsien; Richard Ting Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Umberto Tosi; Christopher S Marnell; Raymond Chang; William C Cho; Richard Ting; Uday B Maachani; Mark M Souweidane Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 5.923