Eric Wehrenberg-Klee1, N Selcan Turker1, Pedram Heidari1, Benjamin Larimer1, Dejan Juric2, José Baselga3, Maurizio Scaltriti3, Umar Mahmood4. 1. Department of Radiology, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and. 3. Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program (HOPP), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Department of Radiology, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts umahmood@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Inhibitors of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/protein kinase B/mammalian target of rapamycin (PI3K/AKT/mTOR) pathway hold promise for the treatment of breast cancer, but resistance to these treatments can arise via feedback loops that increase surface expression of the receptor tyrosine kinases (RTK) epidermal growth factor receptor 1 (EGFR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3), leading to persistent growth pathway signaling. We developed PET probes that provide a method of imaging this response in vivo, determining which tumors may use this escape pathway while avoiding the need for repeated biopsies. METHODS: Anti-EGFR-F(ab')2 and anti-HER3-F(ab')2 were generated from monoclonal antibodies by enzymatic digestion, conjugated to DOTA, and labeled with (64)Cu. A panel of breast cancer cell lines was treated with increasing concentrations of the AKT inhibitor GDC-0068 or the PI3K inhibitor GDC-0941. Pre- and posttreatment expression of EGFR and HER3 was compared using Western blot and correlated to probe accumulation with binding studies. Nude mice xenografts of HCC-70 or MDA-MB-468 were treated with either AKT inhibitor or PI3K inhibitor and imaged with either EGFR or HER3 PET probe. RESULTS: Changes in HER3 and EGFR PET probe accumulation correlate to RTK expression change as assessed by Western blot (R(2) of 0.85-0.98). EGFR PET probe PET/CT imaging of HCC70 tumors shows an SUV of 0.32 ± 0.03 for vehicle-, 0.50 ± 0.01 for GDC-0941-, and 0.62 ± 0.01 for GDC-0068-treated tumors, respectively (P < 0.01 for both comparisons to vehicle). HER3 PET probe PET/CT imaging of MDAMB468 tumors shows an SUV of 0.35 ± 0.02 for vehicle- and 0.73 ± 0.05 for GDC-0068-treated tumors (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our imaging studies, using PET probes specific to EGFR and HER3, show that changes in RTK expression indicative of resistance to PI3K and AKT inhibitors can be seen within days of therapy initiation and are of sufficient magnitude as to allow reliable clinical interpretation. Noninvasive PET monitoring of these RTK feedback loops should help to rapidly assess resistance to PI3K and AKT inhibitors and guide selection of an appropriate combinatorial therapeutic regimen on an individual patient basis.
UNLABELLED: Inhibitors of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/protein kinase B/mammalian target of rapamycin (PI3K/AKT/mTOR) pathway hold promise for the treatment of breast cancer, but resistance to these treatments can arise via feedback loops that increase surface expression of the receptor tyrosine kinases (RTK) epidermal growth factor receptor 1 (EGFR) and humanepidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3), leading to persistent growth pathway signaling. We developed PET probes that provide a method of imaging this response in vivo, determining which tumors may use this escape pathway while avoiding the need for repeated biopsies. METHODS: Anti-EGFR-F(ab')2 and anti-HER3-F(ab')2 were generated from monoclonal antibodies by enzymatic digestion, conjugated to DOTA, and labeled with (64)Cu. A panel of breast cancer cell lines was treated with increasing concentrations of the AKT inhibitor GDC-0068 or the PI3K inhibitor GDC-0941. Pre- and posttreatment expression of EGFR and HER3 was compared using Western blot and correlated to probe accumulation with binding studies. Nude mice xenografts of HCC-70 or MDA-MB-468 were treated with either AKT inhibitor or PI3K inhibitor and imaged with either EGFR or HER3 PET probe. RESULTS: Changes in HER3 and EGFR PET probe accumulation correlate to RTK expression change as assessed by Western blot (R(2) of 0.85-0.98). EGFR PET probe PET/CT imaging of HCC70 tumors shows an SUV of 0.32 ± 0.03 for vehicle-, 0.50 ± 0.01 for GDC-0941-, and 0.62 ± 0.01 for GDC-0068-treated tumors, respectively (P < 0.01 for both comparisons to vehicle). HER3 PET probe PET/CT imaging of MDAMB468 tumors shows an SUV of 0.35 ± 0.02 for vehicle- and 0.73 ± 0.05 for GDC-0068-treated tumors (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our imaging studies, using PET probes specific to EGFR and HER3, show that changes in RTK expression indicative of resistance to PI3K and AKT inhibitors can be seen within days of therapy initiation and are of sufficient magnitude as to allow reliable clinical interpretation. Noninvasive PET monitoring of these RTK feedback loops should help to rapidly assess resistance to PI3K and AKT inhibitors and guide selection of an appropriate combinatorial therapeutic regimen on an individual patient basis.
Authors: Anindita Chakrabarty; Violeta Sánchez; María G Kuba; Cammie Rinehart; Carlos L Arteaga Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Sara A Hurvitz; Florence Dalenc; Mario Campone; Ruth M O'Regan; Vivianne C Tjan-Heijnen; Joseph Gligorov; Antonio Llombart; Haresh Jhangiani; Hamid R Mirshahidi; Elizabeth Tan-Chiu; Sara Miao; Mona El-Hashimy; Jeremie Lincy; Tetiana Taran; Jean-Charles Soria; Tarek Sahmoud; Fabrice André Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 4.872
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: Shadi A Esfahani; Cody Callahan; Nicholas J Rotile; Pedram Heidari; Umar Mahmood; Peter D Caravan; Aaron K Grant; Yi-Fen Yen Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 3.484
Authors: Martin Pool; H Rudolf de Boer; Marjolijn N Lub-de Hooge; Marcel A T M van Vugt; Elisabeth G E de Vries Journal: Theranostics Date: 2017-05-27 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Martin Pool; Arjan Kol; Steven de Jong; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Marjolijn N Lub-de Hooge; Anton G T Terwisscha van Scheltinga Journal: MAbs Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 5.857
Authors: Brooke N McKnight; Akhila N W Kuda-Wedagedara; Kuntal K Sevak; Dalya Abdel-Atti; Wendy N Wiesend; Anson Ku; Dakshnamurthy Selvakumar; Sean D Carlin; Jason S Lewis; Nerissa T Viola-Villegas Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Barbara Salvatore; Maria Grazia Caprio; Billy Samuel Hill; Annachiara Sarnella; Giovanni Nicola Roviello; Antonella Zannetti Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Sara S Rinne; Charles Dahlsson Leitao; Zahra Saleh-Nihad; Bogdan Mitran; Vladimir Tolmachev; Stefan Ståhl; John Löfblom; Anna Orlova Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 5.923