Jie Zang1,2, Xinrong Fan3, Hao Wang1,2, Qingxing Liu1,2, Jingnan Wang1,2, Hui Li1,2, Fang Li1,2, Orit Jacobson4, Gang Niu4, Zhaohui Zhu5,6,7, Xiaoyuan Chen8. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Peking Union Medical College (PUMC) Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and PUMC, Beijing, 100730, China. 2. Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Targeted Diagnosis and Therapy in Nuclear Medicine, Beijing, 100730, China. 3. Department of Urology, Peking Union Medical College (PUMC) Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and PUMC, Beijing, 100730, China. 4. Laboratory of Molecular Imaging and Nanomedicine (LOMIN), National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Peking Union Medical College (PUMC) Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and PUMC, Beijing, 100730, China. 13611093752@163.com. 6. Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Targeted Diagnosis and Therapy in Nuclear Medicine, Beijing, 100730, China. 13611093752@163.com. 7. Laboratory of Molecular Imaging and Nanomedicine (LOMIN), National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. 13611093752@163.com. 8. Laboratory of Molecular Imaging and Nanomedicine (LOMIN), National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. shawn.chen@nih.gov.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This translational study is designed to assess the safety, dosimetry and therapeutic response to a single, low-dose of 177Lu-EB-PSMA-617 in comparison to 177Lu-PSMA-617 in patients with mCRPC. METHODS: Following institutional review board approval and informed consent, nine patients with mCRPC were recruited. Four patients accepted intravenous injection of 0.80-1.1 GBq (21.5-30 mCi) of 177Lu-EB-PSMA-617, then underwent serial whole-body planar and SPECT/CT imaging at 2, 24, 72, 120 and 168 h. The other five patients accepted intravenous injection of 1.30-1.42 GBq (35-38.4 mCi) 177Lu-PSMA-617, then underwent the same imaging procedures at 0.5, 2, 24, 48, and 72 h. All patients were evaluated by 68Ga-PSMA-617 PET/CT before and one month after the treatment. Dosimetry evaluation was compared in both patient groups. RESULTS: When the bone metastasis tumors with comparable baseline SUVmax in the range of 10.0-15.0 were selected from the two groups for comparison, the accumulated radioactivity of 177Lu-EB-PSMA-617 was about 3.02-fold higher than that of 177Lu-PSMA-617. Imaging dose of 177Lu-EB-PSMA-617 treatment showed significant decrease of 68Ga-PSMA-617 uptake within a month, which was not observed in patients imaged with 177Lu-PSMA-617 (SUV change: -32.43 ± 0.14% vs. 0.21 ± 0.37%; P = 0.002). 177Lu-EB-PSMA-617 also had higher absorbed doses in the red bone marrow and kidneys than 177Lu-PSMA-617 (0.0547 ± 0.0062 vs. 0.0084 ± 0.0057 mSv/MBq for red bone marrow, P < 0.01; 2.39 ± 0.69 vs. 0.39 ± 0.06 mSv/MBq for kidneys, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This first-in-human study demonstrated that 177Lu-EB-PSMA-617 had higher accumulation in mCRPC and that low imaging dose appears to be effective in treating tumors with high 68Ga-PSMA-617 uptakes. Elevated uptakes of 177Lu-EB-PSMA-617 in kidneys and red bone marrow were well tolerated at the administered low dose. Further investigations with increased dose and frequency of administration are warranted.
PURPOSE: This translational study is designed to assess the safety, dosimetry and therapeutic response to a single, low-dose of 177Lu-EB-PSMA-617 in comparison to 177Lu-PSMA-617 in patients with mCRPC. METHODS: Following institutional review board approval and informed consent, nine patients with mCRPC were recruited. Four patients accepted intravenous injection of 0.80-1.1 GBq (21.5-30 mCi) of 177Lu-EB-PSMA-617, then underwent serial whole-body planar and SPECT/CT imaging at 2, 24, 72, 120 and 168 h. The other five patients accepted intravenous injection of 1.30-1.42 GBq (35-38.4 mCi) 177Lu-PSMA-617, then underwent the same imaging procedures at 0.5, 2, 24, 48, and 72 h. All patients were evaluated by 68Ga-PSMA-617 PET/CT before and one month after the treatment. Dosimetry evaluation was compared in both patient groups. RESULTS: When the bone metastasis tumors with comparable baseline SUVmax in the range of 10.0-15.0 were selected from the two groups for comparison, the accumulated radioactivity of 177Lu-EB-PSMA-617 was about 3.02-fold higher than that of 177Lu-PSMA-617. Imaging dose of 177Lu-EB-PSMA-617 treatment showed significant decrease of 68Ga-PSMA-617 uptake within a month, which was not observed in patients imaged with 177Lu-PSMA-617 (SUV change: -32.43 ± 0.14% vs. 0.21 ± 0.37%; P = 0.002). 177Lu-EB-PSMA-617 also had higher absorbed doses in the red bone marrow and kidneys than 177Lu-PSMA-617 (0.0547 ± 0.0062 vs. 0.0084 ± 0.0057 mSv/MBq for red bone marrow, P < 0.01; 2.39 ± 0.69 vs. 0.39 ± 0.06 mSv/MBq for kidneys, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This first-in-human study demonstrated that 177Lu-EB-PSMA-617 had higher accumulation in mCRPC and that low imaging dose appears to be effective in treating tumors with high 68Ga-PSMA-617 uptakes. Elevated uptakes of 177Lu-EB-PSMA-617 in kidneys and red bone marrow were well tolerated at the administered low dose. Further investigations with increased dose and frequency of administration are warranted.
Authors: Kambiz Rahbar; Matthias Schmidt; Alexander Heinzel; Elisabeth Eppard; Axel Bode; Anna Yordanova; Michael Claesener; Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kambiz Rahbar; Axel Bode; Matthias Weckesser; Nemanja Avramovic; Michael Claesener; Lars Stegger; Martin Bögemann Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Martina Benešová; Martin Schäfer; Ulrike Bauder-Wüst; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Clemens Kratochwil; Walter Mier; Uwe Haberkorn; Klaus Kopka; Matthias Eder Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Xiaoxi Ling; Joseph D Latoche; Cindy J Choy; Brenda F Kurland; Charles M Laymon; Yijen Wu; Nathan Salamacha; Ding Shen; Jonathan J Geruntho; Lora H Rigatti; Hillarie P Windish; Beatrice Langton-Webster; Clifford E Berkman; Carolyn J Anderson Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Sangeeta Ray Banerjee; Vivek Kumar; Ala Lisok; Jian Chen; Il Minn; Mary Brummet; Srikanth Boinapally; Michael Cole; Ethel Ngen; Bryan Wharram; Cory Brayton; Robert F Hobbs; Martin G Pomper Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mohammad S Sadaghiani; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Rudolf A Werner; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin G Pomper; Lilja B Solnes; Michael A Gorin; Nae-Yuh Wang; Steven P Rowe Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ganesan Vaidyanathan; Ronnie C Mease; Il Minn; Jaeyeon Choi; Ying Chen; Hassan Shallal; Choong Mo Kang; Darryl McDougald; Vivek Kumar; Martin G Pomper; Michael R Zalutsky Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Teja Muralidhar Kalidindi; Sang-Gyu Lee; Katerina Jou; Goutam Chakraborty; Myrto Skafida; Scott T Tagawa; Neil H Bander; Heiko Schoder; Lisa Bodei; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Jason S Lewis; Steven M Larson; Joseph R Osborne; Naga Vara Kishore Pillarsetty Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: James M Kelly; Thomas M Jeitner; Shashikanth Ponnala; Clarence Williams; Anastasia Nikolopoulou; Stephen G DiMagno; John W Babich Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 3.488