Michael S Hofman1,2, Peter Eu3,2, Price Jackson4, Emily Hong2, David Binns2, Amir Iravani2, Declan Murphy5, Catherine Mitchell6, Shankar Siva3,7, Rodney J Hicks3,2, Jennifer D Young8, Philip J Blower8, Gregory E Mullen8,9. 1. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia michael.hofman@petermac.org. 2. Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Medical Physics, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Uro-Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 6. Histopathology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 7. Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 8. Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom; and. 9. Theragnostics Ltd., Bracknell, United Kingdom.
Abstract
68Ga-labeled urea-based inhibitors of the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), such as 68Ga-labeled N,N'-bis(2-hydroxybenzyl)ethylenediamine-N,N'-diacetic acid (HBED)-PSMA-11, are promising small molecules for targeting prostate cancer. A new radiopharmaceutical, 68Ga-labeled tris(hydroxypyridinone) (THP)-PSMA, has a simplified design for single-step kit-based radiolabeling. It features the THP ligand, which forms complexes with 68Ga3+ rapidly at a low concentration, at room temperature, and over a wide pH range, enabling direct elution from a 68Ge/68Ga generator into a lyophilized radiopharmaceutical kit in 1 step without manipulation. The aim of this phase 1 study was to assess the safety and biodistribution of 68Ga-THP-PSMA. Methods: Cohort A comprised 8 patients who had proven prostate cancer and were scheduled to undergo prostatectomy; they had Gleason scores of 7-10 and a mean prostate-specific antigen level of 7.8 μg/L (range, 5.4-10.6 μg/L). They underwent PET/CT after the administration of 68Ga-THP-PSMA. All patients proceeded to prostatectomy (7 with pelvic nodal dissection). Dosimetry from multi-time-point PET imaging was performed with OLINDA/EXM. Cohort B comprised 6 patients who had positive 68Ga-HBED-PSMA-11 PET/CT scanning results and underwent comparative 68Ga-THP-PSMA scanning. All patients were monitored for adverse events. Results: No adverse events occurred. In cohort A, 6 of 8 patients had focal uptake in the prostate (at 2 h: average SUVmax, 5.1; range, 2.4-9.2) and correlative 3+ staining of prostatectomy specimens on PSMA immunohistochemistry. The 2 68Ga-THP-PSMA scans with negative results had only 1+/2+ staining. The mean effective dose was 2.07E-02 mSv/MBq. In cohort B, 68Ga-THP-PSMA had lower physiologic background uptake than 68Ga-HBED-PSMA-11 (in the parotid glands, the mean SUVmax for 68Ga-THP-PSMA was 3.6 [compared with 19.2 for 68Ga-HBED-PSMA-11]; the respective corresponding values in the liver were 2.7 and 6.3, and those in the spleen were 2.7 and 10.5; P < 0.001 for all). In 5 of 6 patients, there was concordance in the number of metastases identified with 68Ga-HBED-PSMA-11 and 68Ga-THP-PSMA. Thirteen of 15 nodal abnormalities were subcentimeter. In 22 malignant lesions, the tumor-to-liver contrast with 68Ga-THP-PSMA was similar to that with 68Ga-HBED-PSMA (4.7 and 5.4, respectively; P = 0.15), despite a higher SUVmax for 68Ga-HBED-PSMA than for 68Ga-THP-PSMA (30.3 and 10.7, respectively; P < 0.01). Conclusion: 68Ga-THP-PSMA is safe and has a favorable biodistribution for clinical imaging. Observed focal uptake in the prostate was localized to PSMA-expressing malignant tissue on histopathology. Metastatic PSMA-avid foci were also visualized with 68Ga-THP-PSMA PET. Single-step production from a Good Manufacturing Practice cold kit may enable rapid adoption.
68Ga-labeled urea-based inhibitors of the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), such as 68Ga-labeled N,N'-bis(2-hydroxybenzyl)ethylenediamine-N,N'-diacetic acid (HBED)-PSMA-11, are promising small molecules for targeting prostate cancer. A new radiopharmaceutical, 68Ga-labeled tris(hydroxypyridinone) (THP)-PSMA, has a simplified design for single-step kit-based radiolabeling. It features the THP ligand, which forms complexes with 68Ga3+ rapidly at a low concentration, at room temperature, and over a wide pH range, enabling direct elution from a 68Ge/68Ga generator into a lyophilized radiopharmaceutical kit in 1 step without manipulation. The aim of this phase 1 study was to assess the safety and biodistribution of 68Ga-THP-PSMA. Methods: Cohort A comprised 8 patients who had proven prostate cancer and were scheduled to undergo prostatectomy; they had Gleason scores of 7-10 and a mean prostate-specific antigen level of 7.8 μg/L (range, 5.4-10.6 μg/L). They underwent PET/CT after the administration of 68Ga-THP-PSMA. All patients proceeded to prostatectomy (7 with pelvic nodal dissection). Dosimetry from multi-time-point PET imaging was performed with OLINDA/EXM. Cohort B comprised 6 patients who had positive 68Ga-HBED-PSMA-11 PET/CT scanning results and underwent comparative 68Ga-THP-PSMA scanning. All patients were monitored for adverse events. Results: No adverse events occurred. In cohort A, 6 of 8 patients had focal uptake in the prostate (at 2 h: average SUVmax, 5.1; range, 2.4-9.2) and correlative 3+ staining of prostatectomy specimens on PSMA immunohistochemistry. The 2 68Ga-THP-PSMA scans with negative results had only 1+/2+ staining. The mean effective dose was 2.07E-02 mSv/MBq. In cohort B, 68Ga-THP-PSMA had lower physiologic background uptake than 68Ga-HBED-PSMA-11 (in the parotid glands, the mean SUVmax for 68Ga-THP-PSMA was 3.6 [compared with 19.2 for 68Ga-HBED-PSMA-11]; the respective corresponding values in the liver were 2.7 and 6.3, and those in the spleen were 2.7 and 10.5; P < 0.001 for all). In 5 of 6 patients, there was concordance in the number of metastases identified with 68Ga-HBED-PSMA-11 and 68Ga-THP-PSMA. Thirteen of 15 nodal abnormalities were subcentimeter. In 22 malignant lesions, the tumor-to-liver contrast with 68Ga-THP-PSMA was similar to that with 68Ga-HBED-PSMA (4.7 and 5.4, respectively; P = 0.15), despite a higher SUVmax for 68Ga-HBED-PSMA than for 68Ga-THP-PSMA (30.3 and 10.7, respectively; P < 0.01). Conclusion:68Ga-THP-PSMA is safe and has a favorable biodistribution for clinical imaging. Observed focal uptake in the prostate was localized to PSMA-expressing malignant tissue on histopathology. Metastatic PSMA-avid foci were also visualized with 68Ga-THP-PSMA PET. Single-step production from a Good Manufacturing Practice cold kit may enable rapid adoption.
Authors: Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Mohsen Beheshti; Jamshed Bomanji; Francesco Ceci; Steven Cho; Frederik Giesel; Uwe Haberkorn; Thomas A Hope; Klaus Kopka; Bernd J Krause; Felix M Mottaghy; Heiko Schöder; John Sunderland; Simon Wan; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Stefano Fanti; Ken Herrmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Pim J van Leeuwen; Phillip Stricker; George Hruby; Andrew Kneebone; Francis Ting; Ben Thompson; Quoc Nguyen; Bao Ho; Louise Emmett Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-01-24 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Lars Budäus; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Georg Salomon; Uwe Michl; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Thomas Steuber; Clemens Rosenbaum Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: A Afshar-Oromieh; A Malcher; M Eder; M Eisenhut; H G Linhart; B A Hadaschik; T Holland-Letz; F L Giesel; C Kratochwil; S Haufe; U Haberkorn; C M Zechmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Martin Schäfer; Ulrike Bauder-Wüst; Karin Leotta; Frederic Zoller; Walter Mier; Uwe Haberkorn; Michael Eisenhut; Matthias Eder Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Giuseppe Floresta; Siham Memdouh; Truc Pham; Michelle T Ma; Philip J Blower; Robert C Hider; Vincenzo Abbate; Agostino Cilibrizzi Journal: Dalton Trans Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 4.569
Authors: Muhamad Faiz Bin Othman; Elise Verger; Ines Costa; Meena Tanapirakgul; Margaret S Cooper; Cinzia Imberti; Valerie J Lewington; Philip J Blower; Samantha Y A Terry Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Asim Afaq; Heather Payne; Reena Davda; John Hines; Gary J R Cook; Marie Meagher; Dimitrios Priftakis; Victoria S Warbey; Anand Kelkar; Clement Orczyk; Anita Mitra; Sarah Needleman; Michael Ferris; Greg Mullen; Jamshed Bomanji Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Cinzia Imberti; Yu-Lin Chen; Calum A Foley; Michelle T Ma; Brett M Paterson; Yifu Wang; Jennifer D Young; Robert C Hider; Philip J Blower Journal: Dalton Trans Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 4.390
Authors: Meghana Kulkarni; Simon Hughes; Andrew Mallia; Victoria Gibson; Jennifer Young; Ajay Aggarwal; Stephen Morris; Ben Challacombe; Rick Popert; Christian Brown; Paul Cathcart; Prokar Dasgupta; Victoria S Warbey; Gary J R Cook Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Giuseppe Floresta; George P Keeling; Siham Memdouh; Levente K Meszaros; Rafael T M de Rosales; Vincenzo Abbate Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2021-04-01
Authors: George P Keeling; Billie Sherin; Jana Kim; Belinda San Juan; Tilmann Grus; Thomas R Eykyn; Frank Rösch; Gareth E Smith; Philip J Blower; Samantha Y A Terry; Rafael T M de Rosales Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2020-08-27 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Cinzia Imberti; Pierre Adumeau; Julia E Blower; Fahad Al Salemee; Julia Baguña Torres; Jason S Lewis; Brian M Zeglis; Samantha Y A Terry; Philip J Blower Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-02-22 Impact factor: 5.923