| Literature DB >> 28280855 |
Ali Afshar-Oromieh1,2, Uwe Haberkorn3,4, Christian Zechmann3, Thomas Armor5, Walter Mier3, Fabian Spohn3, Nils Debus3, Tim Holland-Letz6, John Babich7,8,9, Clemens Kratochwil3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeting radioligand therapy (RLT) was introduced in 2011. The first report described the antitumor and side effects of a single dose. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate toxicity and antitumor activity after single and repetitive therapies.Entities:
Keywords: Endoradiotherapy; PSMA; Prostate cancer; Prostate-specific membrane antigen
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28280855 PMCID: PMC5397661 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-017-3665-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging ISSN: 1619-7070 Impact factor: 9.236
Patients’ characteristics
| 1st Therapy | 2nd Therapy | 3rd Therapy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dose (GBq) | 4.2 ± 1.4 (1.9–7.2) | 3.2 ± 1.2 (2.0–6.4) | 2.4 ± 1.0 (1.5–3.5) |
| Time to PSA progression (d) | 116 ± 141 (18–735) | 62 ± 28 (28–117) | 42* |
| PSA baseline (ng/ml) | 261 (1.1–2109.0) | 212 (0.3–1497.0) | 480 (125.0–878.0) |
| Chemotherapy prior to PSMA therapy | CRPC | Age (mean, range) | |
| 14/34 (44%) | All patients | 68 (49–81) | |
| Types of PCa | |||
| Local PCa (3 patients) | Lymph node metastases (18 patients) | Visceral metastases (3 patients) | Bone metastases (28 patients) |
*Only one patient presented with PSA decline after the third cycle; all others presented with continuous progressive disease despite RLT
Fig. 1Patient no. 2 received three therapies with 131I-MIP-1095. Staging before and after each therapy was conducted with PSMA ligand PET/CT (124I-MIP-1095 and 68Ga-PSMA-11). The first two therapies reduced the tumor burden. However, the third therapy didn’t show a sufficient effect. The last two pictures on the right side show the rapid progress between September and November. The images of the PET scans show the maximum intensity projections, those of the therapies show the geometric mean of the gamma-ray co-emission which enables imaging during therapy
Fig. 2Best PSA response after the first, second and third therapies with 131I-MIP-1095. As demonstrated by this figure, the second and third therapies were significantly less effective compared to the first therapy. There was no association between the applied activity and the PSA response (first therapy: p = 0.70; second therapy: p = 0.74). Blue bars: patient group 1 (<3.5 GBq applied activity); black bars: patient group 2 (3.5–5.0 GBq applied activity); red bars: patient group 3 (>5 GBq applied activity)
PSA responses to the first, second and third therapies with 131I-MIP-1095
| Any PSA response | ≥25% PSA decline | ≥50% PSA decline | ≥75% PSA decline | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st therapy |
|
|
|
|
| 2nd therapy |
|
|
|
|
| 3rd therapy |
|
|
|
|
Dose-related PSA response and time to progression following endoradiotherapy with 131I-MIP-1095
| Group 1 (<3.5 GBq) | Group 2 (3.5–5.0 GBq) | Group 3 (>5.0 GBq) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Therapy | ( | ( | ( |
| Best PSA response ≥25% | 100% | 79% | 100% |
| Best PSA response ≥50% | 60% | 64% | 70% |
| Best PSA response ≥75% | 40% | 36% | 40% |
| Any PSA response | 100% | 86% | 100% |
| TTP (PSA; days)* | 63 ± 24 (28–90; 75) | 153 ± 210 (18–735; 65) | 91 ± 24 (28–91; 56) |
| 2nd Therapy | ( | ( | ( |
| Best PSA response ≥25% | 50% | 57% | 100% |
| Best PSA response ≥50% | 29% | 57% | 50% |
| Best PSA response ≥75% | 7% | 14% | 0% |
| Any PSA response | 57% | 71% | 100% |
| TTP (PSA; days)* | 53 ± 24 (28–91; 50) | 74 ± 41 (29–117; 74) | 57 ± 24 (28–91; 56) |
| 3rd Therapy | ( | ( | |
| Best PSA response ≥25% | 0% | 100% | – |
| Best PSA response ≥50% | 0% | 0% | – |
| Best PSA response ≥75% | 0% | 0% | – |
| Any PSA response | 0% | 100% | – |
| TTP (PSA; days)* | 42∼ | – | – |
*TTP: time to progression of PSA in days. ∼Only one patient presented with PSA decline after the third cycle; all others presented with continuous progressive disease despite RLT
Fig. 3Average time to PSA progression following 1–3 RLT with 131I-MIP-1095. There was no association between applied radioactivity and the time to progression (first therapy: p = 0.19; second therapy: p = 0.61)
Fig. 4Clinically relevant hematologic toxicity was observed with regard to platelets and leucocytes. W0-W10: average values of the pretherapeutical state (W0) to 10 weeks after therapy administration (W10)
Side effects and effects on bone pain of endoradiotherapy with 131I-MIP-1095
| 1st Therapy | 2nd Therapy | 3rd Therapy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thrombopenia | No relevant toxicity in 28 patients (82.4%) | No relevant toxicity in 15 patients (65.2%) | No relevant toxicity in 2 patients (66.6%) |
| (CTC Grade) | Grade 1 in 3 patients (8.58%) | Grade 1 in 2 patients (8.7%) | – |
| Grade 2 in 1 patients (2.9%) | Grade 2 in 3 patients (13.0%) | – | |
| Grade 3 in 2 patients (5.9%) | Grade 3 in 2 patients (8.7%) | – | |
| – | – | Grade 4 in 1 patient (33.3%) | |
| – | Grade 1 → Grade 3 in 1 patient (4.3%) | – | |
| Leukopenia | No relevant toxicity in 20 patients (58.8%) | No relevant toxicity in 11 patients (47.8%) | No relevant toxicity in 1 patient (33.3%) |
| Grade 1 in 8 patients (23.5%) | Grade 1 in 6 patients (26.0%) | Grade 1 in 1 patient (33.3%) | |
| Grade 2 in 5 patients (14.7%) | Grade 2 in 4 patients (17.4%) | Grade 2 in 1 patient (33.3%) | |
| Grade 3 in 1 patient (2.9%) | – | – | |
| – | Grade 1 → grade 2 in 2 patient (8.7%) | – | |
| Xerostonia | Grade 0 in 4 patients (11.8%) | Grade 0 in 0 patient (0.0%) | Grade 0 in 0 patients (0.0%) |
| Grade 1 in 24 patients (70.6%) | Grade 1 in 14 patients (60.9%) | Grade 1 in 2 patients (66.6%) | |
| Grade 2 in 6 patients (17.6%) | Grade 2 in 6 patients (26.1%) | Grade 2 in 0 patients (0.0%) | |
| Grade 3 in 0 patients (0.0%) | Grade 3 in 3 patients (13.0%) | Grade 3 in 1 patient (33.3%) | |
| Dysgeusia | None | 1 Patient (4.3%) | None |
| Xerophthalmia | None | 1 Patient (4.3%) | None |
| Fatigue | 2 Patients (5.9%) | 2 Patients (8.7%) | 1 Patient (33.3%) |
| Bone pain | Pain prior to therapy: 16 patients (47%) | Pain prior to therapy: 11 patients (47.8%) | Pain prior to therapy: 2 patients (66.6%) |
| Reduction after therapy: 15 patients (93.8%) | Reduction after therapy: 3 patients (27.3%) | Reduction after therapy: 0 patients (0%) | |
| Uncharged intensity after therapy: 1 patient (6.2%) | Uncharged intensity after therapy: 8 patients (72.7%) | Uncharged intensity after therapy: 2 patients (100%) |