Wenjia Zhu1, Yuejuan Cheng2, Ru Jia3, Hong Zhao4, Chunmei Bai2, Jianming Xu3, Shaobo Yao5, Li Huo6. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Targeted Diagnosis and Therapy in Nuclear Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, CAMS and PUMC, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Fifth Medical Center, General Hospital of PLA, Beijing, China. 4. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China; and. 5. Department Nuclear Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Targeted Diagnosis and Therapy in Nuclear Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, CAMS and PUMC, Beijing, China; huoli@pumch.cn.
Abstract
68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 (where LM3 is p-Cl-Phe-cyclo(d-Cys-Tyr-d-4-amino-Phe(carbamoyl)-Lys-Thr-Cys)d-Tyr-NH2) and 68Ga-DOTA-LM3 are somatostatin receptor subtype 2 (SSTR2)-specific antagonists used for PET/CT imaging. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety, biodistribution, and dosimetry of 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 and 68Ga-DOTA-LM3 in patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. Methods: Patients were equally randomized into 2 arms, with arm A receiving 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 and arm B receiving 68Ga-DOTA-LM3. Serial PET scans were acquired at 5, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 120 min after 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 (200 MBq ± 11 MBq/40 μg of total peptide mass) or 68Ga-DOTA-LM3 (172 MBq ± 21 MBq/40 μg of total peptide mass) injection. The biodistribution in normal organs, tumor uptake, and safety were assessed. Radiation dosimetry was calculated using OLINDA/EXM (version 1.0). Results: Sixteen patients, 8 in each arm, were recruited in the study. Both tracers were well tolerated in most patients. Two patients in arm B had nausea (grade 2), and one of them had vomiting (grade 1). The PET images of the other 14 patients were further analyzed. Significantly lower organ uptake was observed in the pituitary, parotids, liver, spleen, pancreas, adrenal, stomach, small intestine, and kidneys with 68Ga-DOTA-LM3 than with 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3. In total, 38 lesions were analyzed, including 18 with 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 and 20 with 68Ga-DOTA-LM3. Both tracers showed good tumor uptake and retention. With 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3, the tracer accumulation in tumor lesions increased by 138%, from an average SUVmax of 31.3 ± 19.7 at 5 min to 74.6 ± 56.3 at 2 h. With 68Ga-DOTA-LM3, the tumor uptake rapidly reached a high level at 5 min after injection, with an average SUVmax of 36.6 ± 23.6, and continued to increase to 45.3 ± 29.3 until 30 min after injection. The urinary bladder wall was the organ receiving the highest absorbed dose in both arms. The mean effective dose was 0.026 ± 0.003 mSv/MBq for 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 and 0.025 ± 0.002 mSv/MBq for 68Ga-DOTA-LM3. Conclusion: Both 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 and 68Ga-DOTA-LM3 show favorable biodistribution, high tumor uptake, and good tumor retention, resulting in high image contrast. The dosimetric data are comparable to those for other 68Ga-labeled SSTR2 antagonists. Further studies are required to look into the potential antagonistic effects of 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 and 68Ga-DOTA-LM3.
68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 (where LM3 is p-Cl-Phe-cyclo(d-Cys-Tyr-d-4-amino-Phe(carbamoyl)-Lys-Thr-Cys)d-Tyr-NH2) and 68Ga-DOTA-LM3 are somatostatin receptor subtype 2 (SSTR2)-specific antagonists used for PET/CT imaging. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety, biodistribution, and dosimetry of 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 and 68Ga-DOTA-LM3 in patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. Methods: Patients were equally randomized into 2 arms, with arm A receiving 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 and arm B receiving 68Ga-DOTA-LM3. Serial PET scans were acquired at 5, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 120 min after 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 (200 MBq ± 11 MBq/40 μg of total peptide mass) or 68Ga-DOTA-LM3 (172 MBq ± 21 MBq/40 μg of total peptide mass) injection. The biodistribution in normal organs, tumor uptake, and safety were assessed. Radiation dosimetry was calculated using OLINDA/EXM (version 1.0). Results: Sixteen patients, 8 in each arm, were recruited in the study. Both tracers were well tolerated in most patients. Two patients in arm B had nausea (grade 2), and one of them had vomiting (grade 1). The PET images of the other 14 patients were further analyzed. Significantly lower organ uptake was observed in the pituitary, parotids, liver, spleen, pancreas, adrenal, stomach, small intestine, and kidneys with 68Ga-DOTA-LM3 than with 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3. In total, 38 lesions were analyzed, including 18 with 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 and 20 with 68Ga-DOTA-LM3. Both tracers showed good tumor uptake and retention. With 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3, the tracer accumulation in tumor lesions increased by 138%, from an average SUVmax of 31.3 ± 19.7 at 5 min to 74.6 ± 56.3 at 2 h. With 68Ga-DOTA-LM3, the tumor uptake rapidly reached a high level at 5 min after injection, with an average SUVmax of 36.6 ± 23.6, and continued to increase to 45.3 ± 29.3 until 30 min after injection. The urinary bladder wall was the organ receiving the highest absorbed dose in both arms. The mean effective dose was 0.026 ± 0.003 mSv/MBq for 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 and 0.025 ± 0.002 mSv/MBq for 68Ga-DOTA-LM3. Conclusion: Both 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 and 68Ga-DOTA-LM3 show favorable biodistribution, high tumor uptake, and good tumor retention, resulting in high image contrast. The dosimetric data are comparable to those for other 68Ga-labeled SSTR2 antagonists. Further studies are required to look into the potential antagonistic effects of 68Ga-NODAGA-LM3 and 68Ga-DOTA-LM3.
Authors: Simone U Dalm; Julie Nonnekens; Gabriela N Doeswijk; Erik de Blois; Dik C van Gent; Mark W Konijnenberg; Marion de Jong Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mihaela Ginj; Hanwen Zhang; Beatrice Waser; Renzo Cescato; Damian Wild; Xuejuan Wang; Judit Erchegyi; Jean Rivier; Helmut R Mäcke; Jean Claude Reubi Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2006-10-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Melpomeni Fani; Luigi Del Pozzo; Keelara Abiraj; Rosalba Mansi; Maria Luisa Tamma; Renzo Cescato; Beatrice Waser; Wolfgang A Weber; Jean Claude Reubi; Helmut R Maecke Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Damian Wild; Melpomeni Fani; Martin Behe; Ingo Brink; Jean E F Rivier; Jean Claude Reubi; Helmut R Maecke; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Guillaume P Nicolas; Rosalba Mansi; Lisa McDougall; Jens Kaufmann; Hakim Bouterfa; Damian Wild; Melpomeni Fani Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Simone Krebs; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Diane Reidy; Bradley J Beattie; Serge K Lyashchenko; Jason S Lewis; Lisa Bodei; Wolfgang A Weber; Joseph A O'Donoghue Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Guillaume P Nicolas; Seval Beykan; Hakim Bouterfa; Jens Kaufmann; Andreas Bauman; Michael Lassmann; Jean Claude Reubi; Jean E F Rivier; Helmut R Maecke; Melpomeni Fani; Damian Wild Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 10.057