Wojciech G Lesniak1, Chengyan Chu1,2, Anna Jablonska1,2, Yong Du1, Martin G Pomper1, Piotr Walczak1,2,3, Miroslaw Janowski4,2,5. 1. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Institute for Cell Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland; and. 4. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland mjanows1@jhmi.edu. 5. NeuroRepair Department, Mossakowski Medical Research Centre, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Abstract
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most aggressive and common type of brain cancer. Five-year survival rates are below 12%, even with the most aggressive trimodal therapies. Poor blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability of therapeutics is a major obstacle to efficacy. Intravenous administration of bevacizumab is the standard treatment for GBM. It has been recently demonstrated that a single intraarterial infusion of bevacizumab provides superior therapeutic outcomes in patients with recurrent GBM. Further GBM treatment benefits can be achieved through opening of the BBB before intraarterial infusion of bevacizumab. However, a rationale for intraarterial delivery and BBB opening when delivering antibodies is lacking. A method facilitating quantification of intraarterial delivery of bevacizumab is needed for more effective and personalized GBM treatment. Here, we demonstrate such a method using PET imaging of radiolabeled bevacizumab. Methods: Bevacizumab was conjugated with deferoxamine and subsequently radiolabeled with 89Zr. 89Zr-bevacizumab deferoxamine (89Zr-BVDFO) was prepared with a specific radioactivity of 81.4 ± 7.4 MBq/mg (2.2 ± 0.2 μCi/mg). Brain uptake of 89Zr-BVDFO on carotid artery and tail vein infusion with an intact BBB or with BBB opening with mannitol was initially monitored by dynamic PET, followed by whole-body PET/CT at 1 and 24 h after infusion. Th ex vivo biodistribution of 89Zr-BVDFO was also determined. Results: Intraarterial administration of 89Zr-BVDFO resulted in gradual accumulation of radioactivity in the ipsilateral hemisphere, with 9.16 ± 2.13 percentage injected dose/cm3 at the end of infusion. There was negligible signal observed in the contralateral hemisphere. BBB opening with mannitol before intraarterial infusion of 89Zr-BVDFO resulted in faster and higher uptake in the ipsilateral hemisphere (23.58 ± 4.46 percentage injected dose/cm3) and negligible uptake in the contralateral hemisphere. In contrast, intravenous infusion of 89Zr-BVDFO and subsequent BBB opening did not lead to uptake of radiotracer in the brain. The ex vivo biodistribution results validated the PET/CT studies. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that intraarterial delivery of bevacizumab into the brain across an osmotically opened BBB is effective, in contrast to the intravenous route.
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most aggressive and common type of brain cancer. Five-year survival rates are below 12%, even with the most aggressive trimodal therapies. Poor blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability of therapeutics is a major obstacle to efficacy. Intravenous administration of bevacizumab is the standard treatment for GBM. It has been recently demonstrated that a single intraarterial infusion of bevacizumab provides superior therapeutic outcomes in patients with recurrent GBM. Further GBM treatment benefits can be achieved through opening of the BBB before intraarterial infusion of bevacizumab. However, a rationale for intraarterial delivery and BBB opening when delivering antibodies is lacking. A method facilitating quantification of intraarterial delivery of bevacizumab is needed for more effective and personalized GBM treatment. Here, we demonstrate such a method using PET imaging of radiolabeled bevacizumab. Methods:Bevacizumab was conjugated with deferoxamine and subsequently radiolabeled with 89Zr. 89Zr-bevacizumab deferoxamine (89Zr-BVDFO) was prepared with a specific radioactivity of 81.4 ± 7.4 MBq/mg (2.2 ± 0.2 μCi/mg). Brain uptake of 89Zr-BVDFO on carotid artery and tail vein infusion with an intact BBB or with BBB opening with mannitol was initially monitored by dynamic PET, followed by whole-body PET/CT at 1 and 24 h after infusion. Th ex vivo biodistribution of 89Zr-BVDFO was also determined. Results: Intraarterial administration of 89Zr-BVDFO resulted in gradual accumulation of radioactivity in the ipsilateral hemisphere, with 9.16 ± 2.13 percentage injected dose/cm3 at the end of infusion. There was negligible signal observed in the contralateral hemisphere. BBB opening with mannitol before intraarterial infusion of 89Zr-BVDFO resulted in faster and higher uptake in the ipsilateral hemisphere (23.58 ± 4.46 percentage injected dose/cm3) and negligible uptake in the contralateral hemisphere. In contrast, intravenous infusion of 89Zr-BVDFO and subsequent BBB opening did not lead to uptake of radiotracer in the brain. The ex vivo biodistribution results validated the PET/CT studies. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that intraarterial delivery of bevacizumab into the brain across an osmotically opened BBB is effective, in contrast to the intravenous route.
Authors: E A Neuwelt; E P Frenkel; J T Diehl; K R Maravilla; L H Vu; W K Clark; S I Rapoport; P A Barnett; S A Hill; S E Lewis; A L Ehle; C W Beyer; R J Moore Journal: Trans Am Neurol Assoc Date: 1979
Authors: J-K Burkhardt; H A Riina; B J Shin; J A Moliterno; C P Hofstetter; J A Boockvar Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Sietske B M Gaykema; Adrienne H Brouwers; Marjolijn N Lub-de Hooge; Rick G Pleijhuis; Hetty Timmer-Bosscha; Linda Pot; Gooitzen M van Dam; Sibylle B van der Meulen; Johan R de Jong; Joost Bart; Jakob de Vries; Liesbeth Jansen; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Carolien P Schröder Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Maria J W D Vosjan; Lars R Perk; Gerard W M Visser; Marianne Budde; Paul Jurek; Garry E Kiefer; Guus A M S van Dongen Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: W R Shapiro; S B Green; P C Burger; R G Selker; J C VanGilder; J T Robertson; J Mealey; J Ransohff; M S Mahaley Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 1992-05 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Jan-Karl Burkhardt; Alejandro Santillan; Christoph P Hofstetter; Paul Christos; Nick Berry; Benjamin J Shin; Conor P Foley; Demirkan B Gürsel; Douglas J Ballon; Y Pierre Gobin; John A Boockvar Journal: J Exp Ther Oncol Date: 2012
Authors: Wouter B Nagengast; Elisabeth G de Vries; Geke A Hospers; Nanno H Mulder; Johan R de Jong; Harry Hollema; Adrienne H Brouwers; Guus A van Dongen; Lars R Perk; Marjolijn N Lub-de Hooge Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-07-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michal Zawadzki; Jerzy Walecki; Boguslaw Kostkiewicz; Kacper Kostyra; Monica Smith Pearl; Meiyappan Solaiyappan; Piotr Walczak; Miroslaw Janowski Journal: BMJ Case Rep Date: 2019-01-24
Authors: Wojciech G Lesniak; Chengyan Chu; Anna Jablonska; Babak Behnam Azad; Olivier Zwaenepoel; Michal Zawadzki; Ala Lisok; Martin G Pomper; Piotr Walczak; Jan Gettemans; Miroslaw Janowski Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-06-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Raleigh M Linville; Jackson G DeStefano; Matt B Sklar; Chengyan Chu; Piotr Walczak; Peter C Searson Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 6.960
Authors: Raleigh M Linville; Alexander Komin; Xiaoyan Lan; Jackson G DeStefano; Chengyan Chu; Guanshu Liu; Piotr Walczak; Kalina Hristova; Peter C Searson Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 15.304
Authors: Alba Grayston; Yajie Zhang; Miguel Garcia-Gabilondo; Mercedes Arrúe; Abraham Martin; Peter Kopcansky; Milan Timko; Jozef Kovac; Oliver Strbak; Laura Castellote; Sara Belloli; Rosa M Moresco; Maria Picchio; Anna Roig; Anna Rosell Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 6.960