Sven H Hausner1, Nadine Bauer2, Lina Y Hu2, Leah M Knight3, Julie L Sutcliffe4. 1. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California Davis, Davis, California. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California Davis, Davis, California. 3. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California. 4. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California jlsutcliffe@ucdavis.edu.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Radiotracers based on the peptide A20FMDV2 selectively target the cell surface receptor integrin αvβ6. This integrin has been identified as a prognostic indicator correlating with the severity of disease for several challenging malignancies. In previous studies of A20FMDV2 peptides labeled with 4-(18)F-fluorobenzoic acid ((18)F-FBA), we have shown that the introduction of poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) improves pharmacokinetics, including increased uptake in αvβ6-expressing tumors. The present study evaluated the effect of site-specific C-terminal or dual (N- and C-terminal) PEGylation, yielding (18)F-FBA-A20FMDV2-PEG28 (4) and (18)F-FBA-PEG28-A20FMDV2-PEG28 (5), on αvβ6-targeted tumor uptake and pharmacokinetics. The results are compared with (18)F-FBA -labeled A20FMDV2 radiotracers (1- 3) bearing either no PEG or different PEG units at the N terminus. METHODS: The radiotracers were prepared and radiolabeled on solid phase. Using 3 cell lines, DX3puroβ6 (αvβ6+), DX3puro (αvβ6-), and BxPC-3 (αvβ6+), we evaluated the radiotracers in vitro (serum stability; cell binding and internalization) and in vivo in mouse models bearing paired DX3puroβ6-DX3puro and, for 5, BxPC-3 xenografts. RESULTS: The size and location of the PEG units significantly affected αvβ6 targeting and pharmacokinetics. Although the C-terminally PEGylated 4 showed some improvements over the un-PEGylated (18)F-FBA-A20FMDV2 (1), it was the bi-terminally PEGylated 5 that displayed the more favorable combination of high αvβ6 affinity, selectivity, and pharmacokinetic profile. In vitro, 5 bound to αvβ6-expressing DX3puroβ6 and BxPC-3 cells with 60.5% ± 3.3% and 48.8% ± 8.3%, respectively, with a significant fraction of internalization (37.2% ± 4.0% and 37.6% ± 4.1% of total radioactivity, respectively). By comparison, in the DX3puro control 5: showed only 3.0% ± 0.5% binding and 0.9% ± 0.2% internalization. In vivo, 5: maintained high, αvβ6-directed binding in the paired DX3puroβ6-DX3puro model (1 h: DX3puroβ6, 2.3 ± 0.2 percentage injected dose per gram [%ID/g]; DX3puroβ6/DX3puro ratio, 6.5:1; 4 h: 10.7:1). In the pancreatic BxPC-3 model, uptake was 4.7 ± 0.9 %ID/g (1 h) despite small tumor sizes (20-80 mg). CONCLUSION: The bi-PEGylated radiotracer 5 showed a greatly improved pharmacokinetic profile, beyond what was predicted from individual N- or C-terminal PEGylation. It appears that the 2 PEG units acted synergistically to result in an improved metabolic profile including high αvβ6+ tumor uptake and retention.
UNLABELLED: Radiotracers based on the peptide A20FMDV2 selectively target the cell surface receptor integrin αvβ6. This integrin has been identified as a prognostic indicator correlating with the severity of disease for several challenging malignancies. In previous studies of A20FMDV2 peptides labeled with 4-(18)F-fluorobenzoic acid ((18)F-FBA), we have shown that the introduction of poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) improves pharmacokinetics, including increased uptake in αvβ6-expressing tumors. The present study evaluated the effect of site-specific C-terminal or dual (N- and C-terminal) PEGylation, yielding (18)F-FBA-A20FMDV2-PEG28 (4) and (18)F-FBA-PEG28-A20FMDV2-PEG28 (5), on αvβ6-targeted tumor uptake and pharmacokinetics. The results are compared with (18)F-FBA -labeled A20FMDV2 radiotracers (1- 3) bearing either no PEG or different PEG units at the N terminus. METHODS: The radiotracers were prepared and radiolabeled on solid phase. Using 3 cell lines, DX3puroβ6 (αvβ6+), DX3puro (αvβ6-), and BxPC-3 (αvβ6+), we evaluated the radiotracers in vitro (serum stability; cell binding and internalization) and in vivo in mouse models bearing paired DX3puroβ6-DX3puro and, for 5, BxPC-3 xenografts. RESULTS: The size and location of the PEG units significantly affected αvβ6 targeting and pharmacokinetics. Although the C-terminally PEGylated 4 showed some improvements over the un-PEGylated (18)F-FBA-A20FMDV2 (1), it was the bi-terminally PEGylated 5 that displayed the more favorable combination of high αvβ6 affinity, selectivity, and pharmacokinetic profile. In vitro, 5 bound to αvβ6-expressing DX3puroβ6 and BxPC-3 cells with 60.5% ± 3.3% and 48.8% ± 8.3%, respectively, with a significant fraction of internalization (37.2% ± 4.0% and 37.6% ± 4.1% of total radioactivity, respectively). By comparison, in the DX3puro control 5: showed only 3.0% ± 0.5% binding and 0.9% ± 0.2% internalization. In vivo, 5: maintained high, αvβ6-directed binding in the paired DX3puroβ6-DX3puro model (1 h: DX3puroβ6, 2.3 ± 0.2 percentage injected dose per gram [%ID/g]; DX3puroβ6/DX3puro ratio, 6.5:1; 4 h: 10.7:1). In the pancreaticBxPC-3 model, uptake was 4.7 ± 0.9 %ID/g (1 h) despite small tumor sizes (20-80 mg). CONCLUSION: The bi-PEGylated radiotracer 5 showed a greatly improved pharmacokinetic profile, beyond what was predicted from individual N- or C-terminal PEGylation. It appears that the 2 PEG units acted synergistically to result in an improved metabolic profile including high αvβ6+ tumor uptake and retention.
Authors: B Sipos; D Hahn; A Carceller; J Piulats; J Hedderich; H Kalthoff; S L Goodman; M Kosmahl; G Klöppel Journal: Histopathology Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Sven H Hausner; David L Kukis; M Karen J Gagnon; Catherine E Stanecki; Riccardo Ferdani; John F Marshall; Carolyn J Anderson; Julie L Sutcliffe Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: D Logan; R Abu-Ghazaleh; W Blakemore; S Curry; T Jackson; A King; S Lea; R Lewis; J Newman; N Parry Journal: Nature Date: 1993-04-08 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Ajay N Singh; Michael J McGuire; Shunzi Li; Guiyang Hao; Amit Kumar; Xiankai Sun; Kathlynn C Brown Journal: Theranostics Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Sven H Hausner; Richard J Bold; Lina Y Cheuy; Helen K Chew; Megan E Daly; Ryan A Davis; Cameron C Foster; Edward J Kim; Julie L Sutcliffe Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Susanna W L de Geus; Leonora S F Boogerd; Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg; J Sven D Mieog; Willemieke S F J Tummers; Hendrica A J M Prevoo; Cornelis F M Sier; Hans Morreau; Bert A Bonsing; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Peter J K Kuppen Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Richard H Kimura; Ling Wang; Bin Shen; Li Huo; Willemieke Tummers; Fabian V Filipp; Haiwei Henry Guo; Thomas Haywood; Lotfi Abou-Elkacem; Lucia Baratto; Frezghi Habte; Rammohan Devulapally; Timothy H Witney; Yan Cheng; Suhas Tikole; Subhendu Chakraborti; Jay Nix; Christopher A Bonagura; Negin Hatami; Joshua J Mooney; Tushar Desai; Scott Turner; Richard S Gaster; Andrea Otte; Brendan C Visser; George A Poultsides; Jeffrey Norton; Walter Park; Mark Stolowitz; Kenneth Lau; Eric Yang; Arutselvan Natarajan; Ohad Ilovich; Shyam Srinivas; Ananth Srinivasan; Ramasamy Paulmurugan; Juergen Willmann; Frederick T Chin; Zhen Cheng; Andrei Iagaru; Fang Li; Sanjiv S Gambhir Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Anna Lucia Tornesello; Luigi Buonaguro; Maria Lina Tornesello; Franco Maria Buonaguro Journal: Molecules Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 4.411