Christian Lohrmann1, Hanwen Zhang2, Daniel L J Thorek3, Pooja Desai2, Pat B Zanzonico4, Joseph O'Donoghue4, Christopher P Irwin2, Thomas Reiner2, Jan Grimm5, Wolfgang A Weber5. 1. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York lohrmanl@mskcc.org. 2. Radiochemistry and Imaging Sciences Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; and. 5. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York Molecular Pharmacology and Chemistry Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: (90)Y has been used to label various new therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals. However, measuring the radiation dose delivered by (90)Y is challenging because of the absence of suitable γ emissions and its low abundance of positron emissions. For the treatment of prostate cancer, radiolabeled gastrin-releasing peptide receptor (GRPr) antagonists have yielded promising results in mouse models. In this study, we evaluated whether Cerenkov luminescence imaging (CLI) could be used to determine radiation doses of a (90)Y-labeled GRPr antagonist in nude mice. METHODS: Mice bearing subcutaneous prostate cancer xenografts were injected with 0.74-18.5 MBq of the (90)Y-labeled GRPr antagonist DOTA-AR and underwent in vivo and ex vivo CLI at 1-48 h after injection. After imaging, animals were sacrificed, their tumors and organs were harvested, and the activity concentration was measured by liquid scintillation counting. In a second set of experiments, Cerenkov photon counts for tumor and kidney on in vivo CLI were converted to activity concentrations using conversion factors determined from the first set of experiments. RESULTS: (90)Y-DOTA-AR concentration in the 3 tumor models ranged from 0.5% to 4.8% of the injected activity per gram at 1 h after injection and decreased to 0.05%-0.15 injected activity per gram by 48 h after injection. A positive correlation was found between tumor activity concentrations and in vivo CLI signal (r(2) = 0.94). A similar correlation was found for the renal activity concentration and in vivo Cerenkov luminescence (r(2) = 0.98). Other organs were not distinctly visualized on the in vivo images, but ex vivo CLI was also correlated with the radioactivity concentration (r(2) = 0.35-0.94). Using the time-activity curves from the second experiment, we calculated radiation doses to tumor and kidney of 0.33 ± 0.12 (range, 0.21-0.66) and 0.06 ± 0.01 (range, 0.05-0.08) Gy/MBq, respectively. CONCLUSION: CLI is a promising, low-cost modality to measure individual radiation doses of (90)Y-labeled compounds noninvasively. The use of Cerenkov imaging is expected to facilitate the development and comparison of (90)Y-labeled compounds for targeted radiotherapy.
UNLABELLED: (90)Y has been used to label various new therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals. However, measuring the radiation dose delivered by (90)Y is challenging because of the absence of suitable γ emissions and its low abundance of positron emissions. For the treatment of prostate cancer, radiolabeled gastrin-releasing peptide receptor (GRPr) antagonists have yielded promising results in mouse models. In this study, we evaluated whether Cerenkov luminescence imaging (CLI) could be used to determine radiation doses of a (90)Y-labeled GRPr antagonist in nude mice. METHODS:Mice bearing subcutaneous prostate cancer xenografts were injected with 0.74-18.5 MBq of the (90)Y-labeled GRPr antagonist DOTA-AR and underwent in vivo and ex vivo CLI at 1-48 h after injection. After imaging, animals were sacrificed, their tumors and organs were harvested, and the activity concentration was measured by liquid scintillation counting. In a second set of experiments, Cerenkov photon counts for tumor and kidney on in vivo CLI were converted to activity concentrations using conversion factors determined from the first set of experiments. RESULTS: (90)Y-DOTA-AR concentration in the 3 tumor models ranged from 0.5% to 4.8% of the injected activity per gram at 1 h after injection and decreased to 0.05%-0.15 injected activity per gram by 48 h after injection. A positive correlation was found between tumor activity concentrations and in vivo CLI signal (r(2) = 0.94). A similar correlation was found for the renal activity concentration and in vivo Cerenkov luminescence (r(2) = 0.98). Other organs were not distinctly visualized on the in vivo images, but ex vivo CLI was also correlated with the radioactivity concentration (r(2) = 0.35-0.94). Using the time-activity curves from the second experiment, we calculated radiation doses to tumor and kidney of 0.33 ± 0.12 (range, 0.21-0.66) and 0.06 ± 0.01 (range, 0.05-0.08) Gy/MBq, respectively. CONCLUSION: CLI is a promising, low-cost modality to measure individual radiation doses of (90)Y-labeled compounds noninvasively. The use of Cerenkov imaging is expected to facilitate the development and comparison of (90)Y-labeled compounds for targeted radiotherapy.
Authors: Franck Morschhauser; John Radford; Achiel Van Hoof; Barbara Botto; Ama Z S Rohatiner; Gilles Salles; Pierre Soubeyran; Herve Tilly; Angelika Bischof-Delaloye; Wim L J van Putten; Jelle W Kylstra; Anton Hagenbeek Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rebecca A Dumont; MariaLuisa Tamma; Friederike Braun; Sandra Borkowski; Jean Claude Reubi; Helmut Maecke; Wolfgang A Weber; Rosalba Mansi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Bradley J Beattie; Daniel L J Thorek; Charles R Schmidtlein; Keith S Pentlow; John L Humm; Andreas H Hielscher Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-02-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Adam K Glaser; Rongxiao Zhang; Jacqueline M Andreozzi; David J Gladstone; Brian W Pogue Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Alejandro D Arroyo; Andrea E Guzmán; Alexander V Kachur; Sarah J Saylor; Anatoliy V Popov; E James Delikatny Journal: J Fluor Chem Date: 2019-05-24 Impact factor: 2.050
Authors: Kwanghee Kim; Hanwen Zhang; Stephen La Rosa; Sylvia Jebiwott; Pooja Desai; Simon Kimm; Avigdor Scherz; Joseph A O'Donoghue; Wolfgang A Weber; Jonathan A Coleman Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Truc T Huynh; Ellen M van Dam; Sreeja Sreekumar; Cedric Mpoy; Benjamin J Blyth; Fenella Muntz; Matthew J Harris; Buck E Rogers Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) Date: 2022-06-08
Authors: Darpan N Pandya; Roy Hantgan; Mikalai M Budzevich; Nancy D Kock; David L Morse; Izadora Batista; Akiva Mintz; King C Li; Thaddeus J Wadas Journal: Theranostics Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 11.556