A Craig Lockhart1,2, Yongjian Liu3,4, Farrokh Dehdashti3,4, Richard Laforest3,4, Joel Picus3,5, Jennifer Frye4, Lauren Trull5, Stefanie Belanger5, Madhuri Desai6, Syed Mahmood6, Jeanne Mendell6, Michael J Welch3,4, Barry A Siegel3,4. 1. Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8056, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. alockhar@dom.wustl.edu. 2. Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8056, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. alockhar@dom.wustl.edu. 3. Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8056, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 4. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8056, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 5. Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8056, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 6. Daiichi-Sankyo Pharma Development, Edison, NJ, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety, dosimetry, and apparent receptor occupancy (RO) of [(64)Cu]DOTA-patritumab, a radiolabeled monoclonal antibody directed against HER3/ERBB3 in subjects with advanced solid tumors. PROCEDURES: Dosimetry subjects (n = 5) received [(64)Cu]DOTA-patritumab and underwent positron emission tomography (PET)/X-ray computed tomography (CT) at 3, 24, and 48 h. Evaluable RO subjects (n = 3 out of 6) received [(64)Cu]DOTA-patritumab at day 1 and day 8 (after 9.0 mg/kg patritumab) followed by PET/CT at 24 h post-injection. Endpoints included safety, tumor uptake, and efficacy. RESULTS: The tumor SUVmax (± SD) was 5.6 ± 4.5, 3.3 ± 1.7, and 3.0 ± 1.1 at 3, 24, and 48 h in dosimetry subjects. The effective dose and critical organ dose (liver) averaged 0.044 ± 0.008 mSv/MBq and 0.46 ± 0.086 mGy/MBq, respectively. In RO subjects, tumor-to-blood ratio decreased from 1.00 ± 0.32 at baseline to 0.57 ± 0.17 after stable patritumab, corresponding to a RO of 42.1 ± 3. CONCLUSIONS: [(64)Cu]DOTA-patritumab was safe. These limited results suggest that this PET-based method can be used to determine tumor-apparent RO.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety, dosimetry, and apparent receptor occupancy (RO) of [(64)Cu]DOTA-patritumab, a radiolabeled monoclonal antibody directed against HER3/ERBB3 in subjects with advanced solid tumors. PROCEDURES: Dosimetry subjects (n = 5) received [(64)Cu]DOTA-patritumab and underwent positron emission tomography (PET)/X-ray computed tomography (CT) at 3, 24, and 48 h. Evaluable RO subjects (n = 3 out of 6) received [(64)Cu]DOTA-patritumab at day 1 and day 8 (after 9.0 mg/kg patritumab) followed by PET/CT at 24 h post-injection. Endpoints included safety, tumor uptake, and efficacy. RESULTS: The tumor SUVmax (± SD) was 5.6 ± 4.5, 3.3 ± 1.7, and 3.0 ± 1.1 at 3, 24, and 48 h in dosimetry subjects. The effective dose and critical organ dose (liver) averaged 0.044 ± 0.008 mSv/MBq and 0.46 ± 0.086 mGy/MBq, respectively. In RO subjects, tumor-to-blood ratio decreased from 1.00 ± 0.32 at baseline to 0.57 ± 0.17 after stable patritumab, corresponding to a RO of 42.1 ± 3. CONCLUSIONS: [(64)Cu]DOTA-patritumab was safe. These limited results suggest that this PET-based method can be used to determine tumor-apparent RO.
Authors: Elizabeth Buck; Alexandra Eyzaguirre; John D Haley; Neil W Gibson; Pablo Cagnoni; Kenneth K Iwata Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Patricia LoRusso; Pasi A Jänne; Moacyr Oliveira; Naiyer Rizvi; Lisa Malburg; Vicki Keedy; Lorrin Yee; Catherine Copigneaux; Thore Hettmann; Chi-Yuan Wu; Agnes Ang; Abdel-Baset Halim; Robert A Beckman; Darrin Beaupre; Jordan Berlin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Saiyada N F Rizvi; Otto J Visser; Maria J W D Vosjan; Arthur van Lingen; Otto S Hoekstra; Josée M Zijlstra; Peter C Huijgens; Guus A M S van Dongen; Mark Lubberink Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Y Liu; W Li; H P Luehmann; Y Zhao; L Detering; D H Sultan; H-M Hsiao; A S Krupnick; A E Gelman; C Combadiere; R J Gropler; S L Brody; D Kreisel Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Carlos D Martins; Chiara Da Pieve; Thomas A Burley; Rhodri Smith; Daniela M Ciobota; Louis Allott; Kevin J Harrington; Wim J G Oyen; Graham Smith; Gabriela Kramer-Marek Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Frederike Bensch; Laetitia E Lamberts; Michaël M Smeenk; Annelies Jorritsma-Smit; Marjolijn N Lub-de Hooge; Anton G T Terwisscha van Scheltinga; Johan R de Jong; Jourik A Gietema; Carolien P Schröder; Marlene Thomas; Wolfgang Jacob; Keelara Abiraj; Celine Adessi; Georgina Meneses-Lorente; Ian James; Martin Weisser; Adrienne H Brouwers; Elisabeth G E de Vries Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 12.531