UNLABELLED: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a devastating malignancy in which imperfect imaging plays a primary role in diagnosis. Glypican-3 (GPC3) is an HCC-specific cell surface proteoglycan overexpressed in most HCCs. This paper presents the use of (89)Zr-conjugated monoclonal antibody against GPC3 ((89)Zr-αGPC3) for intrahepatic tumor localization using PET. METHODS: Polymerase chain reaction confirmed relative GPC3 expression in cell lines. In vitro binding, in vivo biodistribution, and small-animal PET studies were performed on GPC3-expressing HepG2 and non-GPC3-expressing HLF and RH7777 cells and orthotopic xenografts. RESULTS: (89)Zr-αGPC3 demonstrated antibody-dependent, antigen-specific tumor binding. HepG2 liver tumors exhibited high peak uptake (836.6 ± 86.6 percentage injected dose [%ID]/g) compared with background liver (27.5 ± 1.6 %ID/g). Tumor-to-liver contrast ratio was high and peaked at 32.5. The smallest HepG2 tumor (<1 mm) showed lower peak uptake (42.5 ± 6.4 %ID/g) and tumor-to-liver contrast (1.57) but was still clearly visible on PET. Day 7 tissue activity was still substantial in HepG2 tumors (466.4 ± 87.6 %ID/g) compared with control RH7777 tumors (3.9 ± 1.3 %ID/g, P < 0.01), indicating antigen specificity by (89)Zr-αGPC3. HepG2 tumor treated with unlabeled αGPC3 or heat-denatured (89)Zr-αGPC3 demonstrated tumor activity (2.1 %ID/g) comparable to that of control xenografts, confirming antibody dependency. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of using (89)Zr-αGPC3 to image HCC in the liver, as well as the qualitative determination of GPC3 expression via small-animal PET. The ability to clarify the identity of small liver lesions with an HCC-specific PET probe would provide clinicians with vital information that could significantly alter patient management, warranting further investigation for clinical translation.
UNLABELLED: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a devastating malignancy in which imperfect imaging plays a primary role in diagnosis. Glypican-3 (GPC3) is an HCC-specific cell surface proteoglycan overexpressed in most HCCs. This paper presents the use of (89)Zr-conjugated monoclonal antibody against GPC3 ((89)Zr-αGPC3) for intrahepatic tumor localization using PET. METHODS: Polymerase chain reaction confirmed relative GPC3 expression in cell lines. In vitro binding, in vivo biodistribution, and small-animal PET studies were performed on GPC3-expressing HepG2 and non-GPC3-expressing HLF and RH7777 cells and orthotopic xenografts. RESULTS: (89)Zr-αGPC3 demonstrated antibody-dependent, antigen-specific tumor binding. HepG2liver tumors exhibited high peak uptake (836.6 ± 86.6 percentage injected dose [%ID]/g) compared with background liver (27.5 ± 1.6 %ID/g). Tumor-to-liver contrast ratio was high and peaked at 32.5. The smallest HepG2tumor (<1 mm) showed lower peak uptake (42.5 ± 6.4 %ID/g) and tumor-to-liver contrast (1.57) but was still clearly visible on PET. Day 7 tissue activity was still substantial in HepG2 tumors (466.4 ± 87.6 %ID/g) compared with control RH7777 tumors (3.9 ± 1.3 %ID/g, P < 0.01), indicating antigen specificity by (89)Zr-αGPC3. HepG2tumor treated with unlabeled αGPC3 or heat-denatured (89)Zr-αGPC3 demonstrated tumor activity (2.1 %ID/g) comparable to that of control xenografts, confirming antibody dependency. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of using (89)Zr-αGPC3 to image HCC in the liver, as well as the qualitative determination of GPC3 expression via small-animal PET. The ability to clarify the identity of small liver lesions with an HCC-specific PET probe would provide clinicians with vital information that could significantly alter patient management, warranting further investigation for clinical translation.
Authors: Tapan K Nayak; Kayhan Garmestani; Kwamena E Baidoo; Diane E Milenic; Martin W Brechbiel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-05-19 Impact factor: 10.057
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: E C Dijkers; T H Oude Munnink; J G Kosterink; A H Brouwers; P L Jager; J R de Jong; G A van Dongen; C P Schröder; M N Lub-de Hooge; E G de Vries Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2010-03-31 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Jonathan G Sham; Forrest M Kievit; John R Grierson; Peter A Chiarelli; Robert S Miyaoka; Miqin Zhang; Raymond S Yeung; Satoshi Minoshima; James O Park Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Dean O Campbell; Akihiro Noda; Alla Verlinsky; Josh Snyder; Yuji Fujita; Yoshihiro Murakami; Hiroshi Fushiki; Sosuke Miyoshi; Sergio Lacayo; Edward Cabral; Peng Yang; David R Stover; Ingrid B J K Joseph Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Kui Wang; Forrest M Kievit; Jonathan G Sham; Mike Jeon; Zachary R Stephen; Arvind Bakthavatsalam; James O Park; Miqin Zhang Journal: Small Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 13.281
Authors: Francesco De Rose; Miriam Braeuer; Sten Braesch-Andersen; Angela M Otto; Katja Steiger; Sybille Reder; Sabine Mall; Stephan Nekolla; Markus Schwaiger; Wolfgang A Weber; Armando Bartolazzi; Calogero D'Alessandria Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 10.057