This prospective study evaluated the imaging performance of a novel pretargeting immunologic PET (immuno-PET) method in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)-positive metastatic breast cancer, compared with CT, bone MRI, and 18F-FDG PET. Methods: Twenty-three patients underwent whole-body immuno-PET after injection of 150 MBq of 68Ga-IMP288, a histamine-succinyl-glycine peptide given after initial targeting of a trivalent anti-CEA, bispecific, antipeptide antibody. The gold standards were histology and imaging follow-up. Tumor SUVs (SUVmax and SUVmean) were measured, and tumor burden was analyzed using total tumor volume and total lesion activity. Results: The total lesion sensitivity of immuno-PET and 18F-FDG PET were 94.7% (1,116/1,178) and 89.6% (1,056/1,178), respectively. Immuno-PET had a somewhat higher sensitivity than CT or 18F-FDG PET in lymph nodes (92.4% vs. 69.7% and 89.4%, respectively) and liver metastases (97.3% vs. 92.1% and 94.8%, respectively), whereas sensitivity was lower for lung metastases (48.3% vs. 100% and 75.9%, respectively). Immuno-PET showed higher sensitivity than MRI or 18F-FDG PET for bone lesions (95.8% vs. 90.7% and 89.3%, respectively). In contrast to 18F-FDG PET, immuno-PET disclosed brain metastases. Despite equivalent tumor SUVmax, SUVmean, and total tumor volume, total lesion activity was significantly higher with immuno-PET than with 18F-FDG PET (P = 0.009). Conclusion: Immuno-PET using anti-CEA/anti-IMP288 bispecific antibody, followed by 68Ga-IMP288, is a potentially sensitive theranostic imaging method for HER2-negative, CEA-positive metastatic breast cancer patients and warrants further research.
This prospective study evaluated the imaging performance of a novel pretargeting immunologic PET (immuno-PET) method in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)-positive metastatic breast cancer, compared with CT, bone MRI, and 18F-FDG PET. Methods: Twenty-three patients underwent whole-body immuno-PET after injection of 150 MBq of 68Ga-IMP288, a histamine-succinyl-glycine peptide given after initial targeting of a trivalent anti-CEA, bispecific, antipeptide antibody. The gold standards were histology and imaging follow-up. Tumor SUVs (SUVmax and SUVmean) were measured, and tumor burden was analyzed using total tumor volume and total lesion activity. Results: The total lesion sensitivity of immuno-PET and 18F-FDG PET were 94.7% (1,116/1,178) and 89.6% (1,056/1,178), respectively. Immuno-PET had a somewhat higher sensitivity than CT or 18F-FDG PET in lymph nodes (92.4% vs. 69.7% and 89.4%, respectively) and liver metastases (97.3% vs. 92.1% and 94.8%, respectively), whereas sensitivity was lower for lung metastases (48.3% vs. 100% and 75.9%, respectively). Immuno-PET showed higher sensitivity than MRI or 18F-FDG PET for bone lesions (95.8% vs. 90.7% and 89.3%, respectively). In contrast to 18F-FDG PET, immuno-PET disclosed brain metastases. Despite equivalent tumor SUVmax, SUVmean, and total tumor volume, total lesion activity was significantly higher with immuno-PET than with 18F-FDG PET (P = 0.009). Conclusion: Immuno-PET using anti-CEA/anti-IMP288 bispecific antibody, followed by 68Ga-IMP288, is a potentially sensitive theranostic imaging method for HER2-negative, CEA-positive metastatic breast cancerpatients and warrants further research.
Authors: Lanell M Peterson; Brenda F Kurland; Erin K Schubert; Jeanne M Link; V K Gadi; Jennifer M Specht; Janet F Eary; Peggy Porter; Lalitha K Shankar; David A Mankoff; Hannah M Linden Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Anton G T Terwisscha van Scheltinga; Paul Berghuis; Hilde H Nienhuis; Hetty Timmer-Bosscha; Linda Pot; Sietske B M Gaykema; Marjolijn N Lub-de Hooge; Jos G W Kosterink; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Carolien P Schröder Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2014-07-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Rafael Molina; Vivian Barak; Arie van Dalen; Michael J Duffy; Roland Einarsson; Massimo Gion; Helenka Goike; Rolf Lamerz; Marius Nap; György Sölétormos; Petra Stieber Journal: Tumour Biol Date: 2005 Nov-Dec
Authors: Caroline Bodet-Milin; Alain Faivre-Chauvet; Thomas Carlier; Aurore Rauscher; Mickael Bourgeois; Evelyne Cerato; Vincent Rohmer; Olivier Couturier; Delphine Drui; David M Goldenberg; Robert M Sharkey; Jacques Barbet; Francoise Kraeber-Bodere Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: W Böcker; G Schweikhart; K Pollow; R Kreienberg; A Klaubert; S Schröder; M Mitze; J Bahnsen; H E Stegner Journal: Pathol Res Pract Date: 1985-11 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Aditya Bardia; Ingrid A Mayer; Linda T Vahdat; Sara M Tolaney; Steven J Isakoff; Jennifer R Diamond; Joyce O'Shaughnessy; Rebecca L Moroose; Alessandro D Santin; Vandana G Abramson; Nikita C Shah; Hope S Rugo; David M Goldenberg; Ala M Sweidan; Robert Iannone; Sarah Washkowitz; Robert M Sharkey; William A Wegener; Kevin Kalinsky Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P Peltier; C Curtet; J F Chatal; J M Le Doussal; G Daniel; G Aillet; A Gruaz-Guyon; J Barbet; M Delaage Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1993-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: A G de Lucas; A J Schuhmacher; M Oteo; E Romero; J A Cámara; A de Martino; A G Arroyo; M Á Morcillo; M Squatrito; J L Martinez-Torrecuadrada; F Mulero Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tiara S Napier; Chanelle L Hunter; Patrick N Song; Benjamin M Larimer; Anna G Sorace Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2022-02-18 Impact factor: 6.321