Mark A Green1, Gary D Hutchins2, Clinton D Bahler3, Mark Tann2, Carla J Mathias2, Wendy Territo2, Justin Sims2, Heather Polson2, David Alexoff4, William C Eckelman4, Hank F Kung4, James W Fletcher2. 1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, 950 West Walnut Street; R2-E124, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. magreen@iu.edu. 2. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, 950 West Walnut Street; R2-E124, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. 3. Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 4. Five Eleven Pharma, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to evaluate radiation dosimetry for the prostate-specific membrane antigen targeted [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 radiopharmaceutical, and to initially assess agent performance in positron emission tomography (PET) detection of the site of disease in prostate cancer patients presenting with biochemical recurrence. PROCEDURES: Under IND 133,222 and an IRB-approved research protocol, we evaluated the biodistribution and pharmacokinetics of [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 with serial PET imaging following intravenous administration to ten prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence. The recruited subjects were all patients in whom a recent [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/X-ray computed tomography (CT) exam had been independently performed under IND 131,806 to assist in decision-making with regard to their clinical care. Voided urine was collected from each subject at ~ 60 min and ~ 140 min post-[68Ga]Ga-P16-093 injection and assayed for Ga-68 content. Following image segmentation to extract tissue time-activity curves and corresponding cumulated activity values, radiation dosimetry estimates were calculated using IDAC Dose 2.1. The prior [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT exam (whole-body PET imaging at 60 min post-injection, performed with contrast-enhanced diagnostic CT) served as a reference scan for comparison to the [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 findings. RESULTS: [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 PET images at 60 min post-injection provided diagnostic information that appeared equivalent to the subject's prior [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 scan. With both radiopharmaceuticals, sites of tumor recurrence were found in eight of the ten patients, identifying 16 lesions. The site of recurrence was not detected with either agent for the other two subjects. Bladder activity was consistently lower with [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 than [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11. The kidneys, spleen, salivary glands, and liver receive the highest radiation exposure from [68Ga]Ga-P16-093, with estimated doses of 1.7 × 10-1, 6.7 × 10-2, 6.5 × 10-2, and 5.6 × 10-2 mGy/MBq, respectively. The corresponding effective dose from [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 is 2.3 × 10-2 mSv/MBq. CONCLUSIONS: [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 provided diagnostic information that appeared equivalent to [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 in this limited series of ten prostate cancer patients presenting with biochemical recurrence, with the kidneys found to be the critical organ. Diminished tracer appearance in the urine represents a potential advantage of [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 over [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 for detection of lesions in the pelvis.
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to evaluate radiation dosimetry for the prostate-specific membrane antigen targeted [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 radiopharmaceutical, and to initially assess agent performance in positron emission tomography (PET) detection of the site of disease in prostate cancerpatients presenting with biochemical recurrence. PROCEDURES: Under IND 133,222 and an IRB-approved research protocol, we evaluated the biodistribution and pharmacokinetics of [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 with serial PET imaging following intravenous administration to ten prostate cancerpatients with biochemical recurrence. The recruited subjects were all patients in whom a recent [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/X-ray computed tomography (CT) exam had been independently performed under IND 131,806 to assist in decision-making with regard to their clinical care. Voided urine was collected from each subject at ~ 60 min and ~ 140 min post-[68Ga]Ga-P16-093 injection and assayed for Ga-68 content. Following image segmentation to extract tissue time-activity curves and corresponding cumulated activity values, radiation dosimetry estimates were calculated using IDAC Dose 2.1. The prior [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT exam (whole-body PET imaging at 60 min post-injection, performed with contrast-enhanced diagnostic CT) served as a reference scan for comparison to the [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 findings. RESULTS: [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 PET images at 60 min post-injection provided diagnostic information that appeared equivalent to the subject's prior [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 scan. With both radiopharmaceuticals, sites of tumor recurrence were found in eight of the ten patients, identifying 16 lesions. The site of recurrence was not detected with either agent for the other two subjects. Bladder activity was consistently lower with [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 than [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11. The kidneys, spleen, salivary glands, and liver receive the highest radiation exposure from [68Ga]Ga-P16-093, with estimated doses of 1.7 × 10-1, 6.7 × 10-2, 6.5 × 10-2, and 5.6 × 10-2 mGy/MBq, respectively. The corresponding effective dose from [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 is 2.3 × 10-2 mSv/MBq. CONCLUSIONS: [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 provided diagnostic information that appeared equivalent to [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 in this limited series of ten prostate cancerpatients presenting with biochemical recurrence, with the kidneys found to be the critical organ. Diminished tracer appearance in the urine represents a potential advantage of [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 over [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 for detection of lesions in the pelvis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer; Dosimetry; PSMA-targeted PET; Prostate cancer imaging; [68Ga]Ga-P16-093
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: Christoph Rischpler; Teresa I Beck; Shozo Okamoto; Anna M Schlitter; Karina Knorr; Markus Schwaiger; Jürgen Gschwend; Tobias Maurer; Philipp T Meyer; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mark A Green; Jacob A Eitel; James W Fletcher; Carla J Mathias; Mark A Tann; Thomas Gardner; Michael O Koch; Wendy Territo; Heather Polson; Gary D Hutchins Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Sebastian Zschaeck; Fabian Lohaus; Marcus Beck; Gregor Habl; Stephanie Kroeze; Constantinos Zamboglou; Stefan Alexander Koerber; Jürgen Debus; Tobias Hölscher; Peter Wust; Ute Ganswindt; Alexander D J Baur; Klaus Zöphel; Nikola Cihoric; Matthias Guckenberger; Stephanie E Combs; Anca Ligia Grosu; Pirus Ghadjar; Claus Belka Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Sashi Debnath; Ning Zhou; Mark McLaughlin; Samuel Rice; Anil K Pillai; Guiyang Hao; Xiankai Sun Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 5.923