| Literature DB >> 30737299 |
Hsiou-Ting Kuo1,2, Mathieu L Lepage3, Kuo-Shyan Lin4,2, Jinhe Pan1, Zhengxing Zhang1, Zhibo Liu3, Alla Pryyma3, Chengcheng Zhang1, Helen Merkens1,2, Aron Roxin1,3, David M Perrin5, François Bénard4,2.
Abstract
After the identification of the high-affinity glutamate-ureido scaffold, the design of several potent 18F- and 68Ga-labeled tracers has allowed spectacular progress in imaging recurrent prostate cancer by targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA). We evaluated a series of PSMA-targeting probes that are 18F-labeled in a single step for PET imaging of prostate cancer.Entities:
Keywords: 18F labeling; 18F-trifluoroborate; PSMA; positron emission tomography; prostate cancer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30737299 PMCID: PMC6681697 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.118.216598
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nucl Med ISSN: 0161-5505 Impact factor: 10.057
FIGURE 1.Trifluoroborate probes resembling scaffolds of DCFPhL, DCFPyL, and PSMA-617. In red: AMBF3 prosthetic; in blue: pyrBF3 prosthetic.
Activity Yield, Molar Activity, Partition Coefficient, and Binding Affinity of 18F-Labeled PSMA Radiotracers
| Tracer | Activity yield | Molar activity | LogD7.4 ( | Ki (nM) ( |
| 18F-DCFPyL | 12 ± 3 ( | 118 ± 37 ( | −3.12 ± 0.22 | 2.0 ± 0.8 |
| 18F- | 7 ± 4 ( | 70 ± 19 ( | −3.43 ± 0.35 | 14.4 ± 2.7 |
| 18F- | 4 ± 2 ( | 89 ± 26 ( | −4.26 ± 0.04 | 11.8 ± 0.9 |
| 18F- | 5 ± 1 ( | 56 ± 15 ( | −4.01 ± 0.14 | 25.9 ± 5.7 |
| 18F- | 16 ± 2 ( | 148 ± 89 ( | −3.34 ± 0.02 | 27.6 ± 3.8 |
| 18F- | 13 ± 10 ( | 137 ± 22 ( | −3.52 ± 0.21 | 1.14 ± 0.26 |
| 18F- | 15 ± 2 ( | 278 ± 73 ( | −2.28 ± 0.01 | 1.90 ± 0.68 |
| 18F- | 10 ± 5 ( | 92 ± 22 ( | −3.24 ± 0.03 | 16.5 ± 5.5 |
| 18F- | 7 ± 6 ( | 211 ± 48 ( | −3.58 ± 0.36 | 0.22 ± 0.01 |
Activity yields are reported at end of synthesis (1 h for DCFPyL, 40 min for 1–8) (with no correction for decay).
Molar activities are reported at time of quality control injection, shortly after end of synthesis.
Changes in Activity Yield and Molar Activity with Higher Quantities of Precursor Material
| Tracer | Activity yield (%) | Molar activity (GBq/μmol) |
| 18F- | 4 ± 2 | 89 ± 26 |
| 34 ± 9 | 13.3 ± 0.74 | |
| Change | × 8.5 | ÷ 6.7 |
FIGURE 2.(A) Competitive inhibition curves of DCFPyL and 1–8. (B) Values of LogD7.4 for DCFPyL and 1–8 (error bars reflect SD).
FIGURE 3.PET/CT images (maximum-intensity projections) of LNCaP tumor–bearing mice at 1 h after injection, with and without blocking by coinjection of unlabeled DCFPyL. Arrows locate tumors.
FIGURE 4.Uptake values for tumor (A), kidney (B), and intestine (C) for compounds 1–8 and DCFPyL; in black: DCFPyL; in red: AMBF3 derivatives; in blue: pyrBF3 derivatives (error bars reflect SD values, significance of differences with 18F-DCFPyL indicated at top of bars: **P < 0.01; ****P < 0.0001; ns = not significant). Full data available in Supplemental Data section.
FIGURE 5.Contrast ratios (tumor-to-muscle in A and tumor-to-blood in B) for compounds 1–8 and DCFPyL at 1 h after injection; in black: DCFPyL; in red: AMBF3 derivatives; in blue: pyrBF3 derivatives (error bars reflect SD values, significance of differences with 18F-DCFPyL indicated at top of bars: ****P < 0.0001).
FIGURE 6.PET/CT images (maximum-intensity projections in black on white to display background activity), comparing 18F-DCFPyL (A) with 18F-8 (B), showing similar image contrast with lower liver accumulation for compound 8. Maximum of scale corresponds to 10 %ID/g for both radiotracers.