Literature DB >> 27539021

ImmunoPET to help stratify patients for targeted therapies and to improve drug development.

Françoise Kraeber-Bodere1, Clément Bailly1, Michel Chérel1,2, Jean-François Chatal3.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27539021      PMCID: PMC5047921          DOI: 10.1007/s00259-016-3458-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


× No keyword cloud information.
Malignant tumours usually display intratumoral heterogeneity as well as phenotypic and genotypic heterogeneity among patients. Consequently, there is the need to develop treatments appropriate to each patient [1]. Screening of tumour phenotypes requires biopsy, a procedure that is invasive and limited to accessible tumour sites. Moreover, it is difficult to obtain repeated biopsies from the same lesions to explore changes in properties and heterogeneity during therapy. There is therefore the need for new noninvasive diagnostic technologies such as molecular imaging to assess whole-body tumour phenotypes to allow more specific therapeutic strategies to be developed. There has been a considerable increase in the use of targeted therapies, including monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), in cancer management. A recent review found that there are more than 50 mAbs in advanced clinical development in oncology, including several antibody–drug conjugates and radiolabelled mAbs for radioimmunotherapy (RIT) [2]. Until now, only immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis and quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis of tumour biopsies have been able to identify patients with the highest chance of response to antibody-based therapy. However, these approaches do not allow whole-body mapping of tumour cell biomarker expression and do not assess biomarker accessibility. mAbs can be labelled with radionuclides and are promising probes for theranostic approaches, offering a noninvasive solution to quantitatively assess in vivo target expression, to select patients for expensive and potentially toxic therapies and to monitor responses [3]. mAbs were initially labelled with single-photon emitters, such as 131I or 111In, and were subsequently used in planar imaging or SPECT imaging procedures to improve RIT using dosimetry procedures. Accurate quantitative information can be obtained more readily using PET. The good spatial resolution of PET allows better delineation of tumours and organs than with SPECT. Additionally, key factors for the superiority of PET over SPECT and planar imaging include exact attenuation correction, precise scatter correction and high sensitivity, combined with the possibility of performing true whole-body imaging in a reasonable time. Marrying mAbs and PET emitters requires an appropriate match between the biological half-life of the protein and the physical half-life of the isotope [4]. The use of 18F or 68Ga with a short half-life is limited to small molecules such as antibody fragments that distribute rapidly in the body, whereas 89Zr and 124I are well suited to the labelling of larger molecules such as intact immunoglobulins. 64Cu with an intermediate half-life of 12.7 h can be used for labelling a large number of molecules of different sizes. In the present issue of EJNMMI, Sun et al. report the use of an anti-CD146 mAb labelled with 64Cu for quantitative immunoPET imaging of CD146 antigen expression in lung cancer models [5]. This antigen induces epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, has a favourable receptor density expression (125,000 receptors per cell) and may be associated with the metastatic potential of cells and their resistance to apoptosis. Moreover, it has low expression levels in normal tissues. Therefore, a mAb specific for this antigen (YY146) has good potential for therapeutic application. In a preclinical study the authors assessed six human lung cancer cell lines with different expression levels of CD146 and showed a strong correlation between tumour uptake of 64Cu-NOTA-YY146 and relative expression of CD146 in the tumour cell lines. This radioimmunoconjugate is consequently appropriate for immunoPET for quantitative evaluation of CD146 expression in lung cancers before therapy using coupled or uncoupled YY146 antibody. The first clinical proof that immunoPET is a powerful molecular diagnostic tool was reported by Divgi et al. The mAb girentuximab binds carbonic anhydrase IX, a cell-surface antigen highly and homogeneously expressed in more than 95 % of clear-cell renal cell carcinomas (ccRCC). In 26 presurgical patients with renal masses, immunoPET using 124I-girentuximab demonstrated a sensitivity of 94 % and a specificity of 100 %, with a negative predictive value of 90 % and a positive predictive value of 100 % [6]. These impressive results were corroborated in a phase III study, showing that 124I-girentuximab immunoPET discriminates the presence or absence of ccRCC with an accuracy at least comparable to that of biopsy analysis, suggesting that this invasive procedure with its inherent risks could be avoided [7]. Treatment strategies for individual patients could be tailored by using immunoPET. For example, anti-HER2 therapeutic agents are only effective in patients who have HER2-positive breast cancer as determined by IHC. It has been proven that mAbs labelled with 68Ga, 64Cu or 89Zr can noninvasively identify HER2-positive lesions and a few clinical studies have shown that immunoPET with 89Zr-mAbs is able to predict response to anti-HER2 antibody-based therapy [8-11]. In the ZEPHIR study, pretreatment PET using 89Zr-trastuzumab was assessed in 56 patients with IHC 3+ or FISH ≥2.2 HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer scheduled for treatment with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) [12]. 18F-FDG PET was performed at baseline and before cycle 2 of T-DM1. The study showed 29 % negative HER2 PET/CT. Based on RECIST1.1. criteria, immunoPET showed a positive predictive value of 72 % and a negative predictive value of 88 %, and FDG PET a positive predictive value of 96 % and a negative predictive value of 83 %. The two imaging techniques combined gave a predictive value of 100 % and enabled patients with time to treatment failure of 2.8 months to be discriminated from those with time to treatment failure of 15 months. In another study, the use of 89Zr-bevacizumab PET imaging for predicting response to combination therapy with carboplatin, paclitaxel and bevacizumab was assessed in seven patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. A positive but nonsignificant trend for a correlation between tumour uptake and progression-free and overall survival after treatment was found [13]. The same encouraging trend was found in ten patients with K-RAS advanced colorectal cancer who received 89Zr-cetuximab followed by treatment with cetuximab [14]. In other clinical applications such as 89Zr-bevacizumab followed by everolimus therapy in patients with neuroendocrine tumours [15], and 89Zr-fresolimumab followed by fresolimumab therapy in patients with high-grade glioma [16], no correlation was found between tumour uptake and clinical response. Based on these promising preliminary clinical results, it appears that immunoPET has a realistic potential for predicting responses to antibody-based therapy assuming that the biodistribution of the radioimmunoconjugate in immunoPET is the same as the biodistribution of the mAbs used for therapy. One serious drawback would be a negative immunoPET result predicting nonresponse to subsequent therapy in a patient who could have responded to the therapy, as has been shown in a few patients [14]. Randomized multicentre studies in stratified patients with different relevant indications are needed to demonstrate that immunoPET can be considered a true diagnostic companion. Moreover, molecular in vivo imaging plays an increasing role in the development of new drugs by pharmaceutical companies. In vivo imaging is an effective solution for the rapid assessment of drug candidates, which may be radiolabelled to monitor their pharmacokinetics and biodistribution during preclinical and early clinical phases. Indeed, immunoPET is a powerful innovation to improve knowledge about the in vivo behaviour of mAbs, and provides information regarding the quantitative variation in molecular targets during treatments. ImmunoPET could provide information about tumour targeting, pharmacokinetics and accumulation in critical normal organs to determine optimal dosing and the impact of preloading with unlabelled antibody for RIT [17]. Consideration of the cost and safety of immunoPET is also important. A cost approaching several thousand euros per patient would be acceptable if the benefit in patient selection for expensive therapies and in drug development could be confirmed. Regarding dosimetry, the internal radiation doses estimated for immunoPET are comparable to those from conventional imaging and are acceptable. Due to a shorter physical half-life, the dose delivered with 64Cu is lower than that with 89Zr. Indeed, the internal radiation dose from 64Cu-trastuzumab absorbed by the patient has been estimated to be 4.5 mSv, compared with 18 mSv from 89Zr-trastuzumab [10]. Using activities ranging from 370 to 740 MBq, the radiation dose absorbed from 18F-FDG PET has been estimated to be 7 to 14 mSv. In conclusion, we consider that immunoPET is a promising tool for personalized medicine, allowing better patient selection for antibody-based therapies and accelerating and improving drug development. Whilst this innovative technology is currently associated with a significant cost, this cost could become acceptable if the benefit in stratifying patients before expensive targeted therapies can be clearly demonstrated in large multicentre randomized clinical trials.
  17 in total

1.  64Cu-DOTA-trastuzumab PET imaging in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Kenji Tamura; Hiroaki Kurihara; Kan Yonemori; Hitoshi Tsuda; Junko Suzuki; Yuzuru Kono; Natsuki Honda; Makoto Kodaira; Harukaze Yamamoto; Mayu Yunokawa; Chikako Shimizu; Koki Hasegawa; Yousuke Kanayama; Satoshi Nozaki; Takayuki Kinoshita; Yasuhiro Wada; Shusaku Tazawa; Kazuhiro Takahashi; Yasuyoshi Watanabe; Yasuhiro Fujiwara
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Molecular imaging of HER2-expressing malignant tumors in breast cancer patients using synthetic 111In- or 68Ga-labeled affibody molecules.

Authors:  Richard P Baum; Vikas Prasad; Dirk Müller; Christiane Schuchardt; Anna Orlova; Anders Wennborg; Vladimir Tolmachev; Joachim Feldwisch
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  TGF-β Antibody Uptake in Recurrent High-Grade Glioma Imaged with 89Zr-Fresolimumab PET.

Authors:  Martha W den Hollander; Frederike Bensch; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Thijs H Oude Munnink; Roelien H Enting; Wilfred F A den Dunnen; Mart A A M Heesters; Frank A E Kruyt; Marjolijn N Lub-de Hooge; Jan Cees de Groot; Joseph Pearlberg; Jourik A Gietema; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Annemiek M E Walenkamp
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 4.  Antibody positron emission tomography imaging in anticancer drug development.

Authors:  Laetitia E Lamberts; Simon P Williams; Anton G T Terwisscha van Scheltinga; Marjolijn N Lub-de Hooge; Carolien P Schröder; Jourik A Gietema; Adrienne H Brouwers; Elisabeth G E de Vries
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-03-16       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  ImmunoPET for assessing the differential uptake of a CD146-specific monoclonal antibody in lung cancer.

Authors:  Haiyan Sun; Christopher G England; Reinier Hernandez; Stephen A Graves; Rebecca L Majewski; Anyanee Kamkaew; Dawei Jiang; Todd E Barnhart; Yunan Yang; Weibo Cai
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-06-25       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Positron emission tomography/computed tomography identification of clear cell renal cell carcinoma: results from the REDECT trial.

Authors:  Chaitanya R Divgi; Robert G Uzzo; Constantine Gatsonis; Roman Bartz; Silke Treutner; Jian Qin Yu; David Chen; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Steven Larson; Paul Bevan; Paul Russo
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-12-03       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Tumour targeting and radiation dose of radioimmunotherapy with (90)Y-rituximab in CD20+ B-cell lymphoma as predicted by (89)Zr-rituximab immuno-PET: impact of preloading with unlabelled rituximab.

Authors:  Kristoff Muylle; Patrick Flamen; Danielle J Vugts; Thomas Guiot; Ghanem Ghanem; Nathalie Meuleman; Pierre Bourgeois; Bruno Vanderlinden; Guus A M S van Dongen; Hendrik Everaert; Mélanie Vaes; Dominique Bron
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-03-20       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 8.  Tumor immunotargeting using innovative radionuclides.

Authors:  Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré; Caroline Rousseau; Caroline Bodet-Milin; Cédric Mathieu; François Guérard; Eric Frampas; Thomas Carlier; Nicolas Chouin; Ferid Haddad; Jean-François Chatal; Alain Faivre-Chauvet; Michel Chérel; Jacques Barbet
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 5.923

9.  Pilot study of (89)Zr-bevacizumab positron emission tomography in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Idris Bahce; Marc C Huisman; Eline E Verwer; Rogier Ooijevaar; Firdaouss Boutkourt; Danielle J Vugts; Guus Ams van Dongen; Ronald Boellaard; Egbert F Smit
Journal:  EJNMMI Res       Date:  2014-08-02       Impact factor: 3.138

Review 10.  Immuno-Positron Emission Tomography with Zirconium-89-Labeled Monoclonal Antibodies in Oncology: What Can We Learn from Initial Clinical Trials?

Authors:  Yvonne W S Jauw; C Willemien Menke-van der Houven van Oordt; Otto S Hoekstra; N Harry Hendrikse; Danielle J Vugts; Josée M Zijlstra; Marc C Huisman; Guus A M S van Dongen
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 5.810

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  Noninvasive PET Imaging of T cells.

Authors:  Weijun Wei; Dawei Jiang; Emily B Ehlerding; Quanyong Luo; Weibo Cai
Journal:  Trends Cancer       Date:  2018-04-17

2.  Fc-Mediated Anomalous Biodistribution of Therapeutic Antibodies in Immunodeficient Mouse Models.

Authors:  Sai Kiran Sharma; Andrew Chow; Sebastien Monette; Delphine Vivier; Jacob Pourat; Kimberly J Edwards; Thomas R Dilling; Dalya Abdel-Atti; Brian M Zeglis; John T Poirier; Jason S Lewis
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 12.701

3.  ImmunoPET imaging of CD38 in murine lymphoma models using 89Zr-labeled daratumumab.

Authors:  Lei Kang; Dawei Jiang; Christopher G England; Todd E Barnhart; Bo Yu; Zachary T Rosenkrans; Rongfu Wang; Jonathan W Engle; Xiaojie Xu; Peng Huang; Weibo Cai
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 4.  PET radiometals for antibody labeling.

Authors:  Eduardo Aluicio-Sarduy; Paul A Ellison; Todd E Barnhart; Weibo Cai; Robert Jerry Nickles; Jonathan W Engle
Journal:  J Labelled Comp Radiopharm       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 1.921

Review 5.  Immuno-PET for Clinical Theranostic Approaches.

Authors:  Clément Bailly; Pierre-François Cléry; Alain Faivre-Chauvet; Mickael Bourgeois; François Guérard; Ferid Haddad; Jacques Barbet; Michel Chérel; Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré; Thomas Carlier; Caroline Bodet-Milin
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 6.  PET Imaging for Initial Staging and Therapy Assessment in Multiple Myeloma Patients.

Authors:  Clément Bailly; Rodolphe Leforestier; Bastien Jamet; Thomas Carlier; Mickael Bourgeois; François Guérard; Cyrille Touzeau; Philippe Moreau; Michel Chérel; Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré; Caroline Bodet-Milin
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2017-02-18       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 7.  Topics of nuclear medicine research in Europe.

Authors:  Masayuki Inubushi; Tomohiro Kaneta; Takayoshi Ishimori; Etsuko Imabayashi; Atsutaka Okizaki; Naohiko Oku
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 2.668

Review 8.  Exploring Tumor Heterogeneity Using PET Imaging: The Big Picture.

Authors:  Clément Bailly; Caroline Bodet-Milin; Mickaël Bourgeois; Sébastien Gouard; Catherine Ansquer; Matthieu Barbaud; Jean-Charles Sébille; Michel Chérel; Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré; Thomas Carlier
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2019-08-31       Impact factor: 6.639

9.  Sensitivity of pretargeted immunoPET using 68Ga-peptide to detect colonic carcinoma liver metastases in a murine xenograft model: Comparison with 18FDG PET-CT.

Authors:  Yann Touchefeu; Eric Frampas; Fanny Foubert; Sébastien Gouard; Catherine Saï-Maurel; Michel Chérel; Alain Faivre-Chauvet; David M Goldenberg; Jacques Barbet; Clément Bailly; Caroline Bodet-Milin; Thomas Carlier; Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2018-06-08
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.