Katharina Lückerath1, Andreea D Stuparu2, Liu Wei2, Woosuk Kim2, Caius G Radu2, Christine E Mona2, Jeremie Calais2, Matthew Rettig3, Robert E Reiter3, Johannes Czernin2, Roger Slavik2, Ken Herrmann2,4,5, Matthias Eiber2,6, Wolfgang P Fendler2. 1. Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California klueckerath@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany. 5. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany; and. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
To improve prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted theranostic approaches, robust murine models of prostate cancer are needed. However, important characteristics of preclinical PSMA imaging-that is, the reproducibility of the imaging signal and the relationship between quantitative cell surface PSMA expression and lesion detectability with small-animal PET/CT-have not been defined yet. Methods: Murine prostate cancer RM1 sublines (ras myc transformed cells of C57BL/6 prostate origin) expressing varying levels of human PSMA were injected into the shoulder of C57BL/6 mice on day 0. 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT was performed on days 7 and 8 and interpreted by 2 masked readers to determine interday and interreader reproducibility. PSMA expression was quantified on days 7 and 8 by flow cytometry of fine-needle aspiration tumor biopsy samples. Cell surface PSMA expression was correlated with PET signal. The threshold for PET positivity was based on the clinical Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (PROMISE) criteria. Results: The maximum and average percentages of injected 68Ga-PSMA11 activity per gram of tissue (%IA/g) correlated nearly perfectly as determined by 2 independent readers and on 2 separate days (intraclass correlation coefficient, 1.00/0.89 and 0.95/0.88, respectively). The number of PSMA molecules per cell increased from the RM1-yellow fluorescent protein subline (PSMA-; 2,000/cell) to the RM1-low subline (PSMA+; 17,000/cell), the RM1-medium subline (PSMA++; 22,000/cell), and the RM1-PGLS subline (PSMA-positive, green fluorescent protein-positive, and luciferase-positive; PSMA+++; 45,000/cell). Expression levels correlated with the visual positivity rate on 68Ga-PSMA11 PET and with the PSMA PET %IA/g. The PSMA threshold for PET positivity was approximately 20,000 per cell. Signal correlation was close at lower PSMA levels (RM1-low to RM1-medium; 10-23 %IA/g) but was lost at higher PSMA levels (RM1-medium to RM1-PGLS; 23-27 %IA/g). Conclusion: The in vivo relationship between 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT and PSMA expression level in a murine model of prostate cancer was robust for lower cell surface PSMA expression levels (≤22,000/cell). Thus, preclinical 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT can be used as an imaging biomarker to test PSMA-targeted interventions in murine models.
To improve prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted theranostic approaches, robust murine models of prostate cancer are needed. However, important characteristics of preclinical PSMA imaging-that is, the reproducibility of the imaging signal and the relationship between quantitative cell surface PSMA expression and lesion detectability with small-animal PET/CT-have not been defined yet. Methods:Murineprostate cancer RM1 sublines (ras myc transformed cells of C57BL/6 prostate origin) expressing varying levels of humanPSMA were injected into the shoulder of C57BL/6 mice on day 0. 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT was performed on days 7 and 8 and interpreted by 2 masked readers to determine interday and interreader reproducibility. PSMA expression was quantified on days 7 and 8 by flow cytometry of fine-needle aspiration tumor biopsy samples. Cell surface PSMA expression was correlated with PET signal. The threshold for PET positivity was based on the clinical Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (PROMISE) criteria. Results: The maximum and average percentages of injected 68Ga-PSMA11 activity per gram of tissue (%IA/g) correlated nearly perfectly as determined by 2 independent readers and on 2 separate days (intraclass correlation coefficient, 1.00/0.89 and 0.95/0.88, respectively). The number of PSMA molecules per cell increased from the RM1-yellow fluorescent protein subline (PSMA-; 2,000/cell) to the RM1-low subline (PSMA+; 17,000/cell), the RM1-medium subline (PSMA++; 22,000/cell), and the RM1-PGLS subline (PSMA-positive, green fluorescent protein-positive, and luciferase-positive; PSMA+++; 45,000/cell). Expression levels correlated with the visual positivity rate on 68Ga-PSMA11 PET and with the PSMAPET %IA/g. The PSMA threshold for PET positivity was approximately 20,000 per cell. Signal correlation was close at lower PSMA levels (RM1-low to RM1-medium; 10-23 %IA/g) but was lost at higher PSMA levels (RM1-medium to RM1-PGLS; 23-27 %IA/g). Conclusion: The in vivo relationship between 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT and PSMA expression level in a murine model of prostate cancer was robust for lower cell surface PSMA expression levels (≤22,000/cell). Thus, preclinical 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT can be used as an imaging biomarker to test PSMA-targeted interventions in murine models.
Authors: Clemens Kratochwil; Frank Bruchertseifer; Hendrik Rathke; Marcus Bronzel; Christos Apostolidis; Wilko Weichert; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel; Alfred Morgenstern Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kambiz Rahbar; Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Clemens Kratochwil; Uwe Haberkorn; Michael Schäfers; Markus Essler; Richard P Baum; Harshad R Kulkarni; Matthias Schmidt; Alexander Drzezga; Peter Bartenstein; Andreas Pfestroff; Markus Luster; Ulf Lützen; Marlies Marx; Vikas Prasad; Winfried Brenner; Alexander Heinzel; Felix M Mottaghy; Juri Ruf; Philipp Tobias Meyer; Martin Heuschkel; Maria Eveslage; Martin Bögemann; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Bernd Joachim Krause Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Tobias Maurer; Michael Souvatzoglou; Ambros J Beer; Alexander Ruffani; Bernhard Haller; Frank-Philipp Graner; Hubert Kübler; Uwe Haberkorn; Michael Eisenhut; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christian Vanhove; Jens P Bankstahl; Stefanie D Krämer; Eric Visser; Nicola Belcari; Stefaan Vandenberghe Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2015-11-11
Authors: Susanne Lütje; Sebastian Blex; Benedikt Gomez; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Lale Umutlu; Michael Forsting; Walter Jentzen; Andreas Bockisch; Thorsten D Poeppel; Axel Wetter Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Wolfgang P Fendler; Svenja Reinhardt; Harun Ilhan; Andreas Delker; Guido Böning; Franz J Gildehaus; Christian Stief; Peter Bartenstein; Christian Gratzke; Sebastian Lehner; Axel Rominger Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-01-10
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Ralph A Bundschuh; Lena Bundschuh; Stefano Fanti; Mehrbod S Javadi; Takahiro Higuchi; Alexander Weich; Kenneth J Pienta; Andreas K Buck; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Ken Herrmann; Constantin Lapa; Steven P Rowe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Frédéric Bois; Camille Noirot; Sébastien Dietemann; Ismini C Mainta; Thomas Zilli; Valentina Garibotto; Martin A Walter Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-12-15
Authors: Kyle Current; Catherine Meyer; Clara E Magyar; Christine E Mona; Joel Almajano; Roger Slavik; Andreea D Stuparu; Chloe Cheng; David W Dawson; Caius G Radu; Johannes Czernin; Katharina Lueckerath Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Hong Grafe; Maike E Lindemann; Verena Ruhlmann; Mark Oehmigen; Nader Hirmas; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Harald H Quick Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sarah Piron; Jeroen Verhoeven; Emma De Coster; Benedicte Descamps; Ken Kersemans; Leen Pieters; Anne Vral; Christian Vanhove; Filip De Vos Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Sangeeta Ray Banerjee; Ala Lisok; Il Minn; Anders Josefsson; Vivek Kumar; Mary Brummet; Srikanth Boinapally; Cory Brayton; Ronnie C Mease; George Sgouros; Robert F Hobbs; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Katharina Lückerath; Liu Wei; Wolfgang P Fendler; Susan Evans-Axelsson; Andreea D Stuparu; Roger Slavik; Christine E Mona; Jeremie Calais; Matthew Rettig; Robert E Reiter; Ken Herrmann; Caius G Radu; Johannes Czernin; Matthias Eiber Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 3.138