Benedikt Feuerecker1,2,3, Maythinee Chantadisai4, Anne Allmann4, Robert Tauber5, Jakob Allmann4, Lisa Steinhelfer4, Isabel Rauscher4, Alexander Wurzer6, Hans-Jürgen Wester6, Wolfgang A Weber4,2, Calogero d'Alessandria4, Matthias Eiber4,2. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, München, Germany; benedikt.feuerecker@tum.de. 2. Partnersite München, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, München, Germany. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, München, Germany. 5. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, München, Germany; and. 6. Department of Pharmaceutical Radiochemistry, Technical University of Munich, Garching, Germany.
Abstract
Radiohybrid prostate-specific membrane antigen (rhPSMA) ligands allow for labeling with 18F and radiometals for endoradiotherapy. rhPSMA-7.3 has been designated as a lead compound with promising preclinical data for 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3, which has shown higher tumor uptake than 177Lu-PSMA I&T. In this retrospective analysis, we compared pretherapeutic clinical dosimetry data of both PSMA ligands. Methods: Six patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer underwent both 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 and 177Lu-PSMA I&T pretherapeutic dosimetry. Whole-body scintigraphy was performed at 1 h, 4 h, 24 h, 48 h, and 7 d after injection. Regions of interest covering the whole body, organs, bone marrow, and tumor lesions were drawn for each patient. Absorbed doses for individual patients and pretherapeutic applications were calculated using OLINDA/EXM. To facilitate the comparison of both ligands, we introduced the therapeutic index (TI), defined as the ratio of mean pretherapeutic doses to tumor lesions over relevant organs at risk. Results: Mean whole-body pretherapeutic effective doses for 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 and 177Lu-PSMA I&T were 0.12 ± 0.07 and 0.05 ± 0.03 Sv/GBq, respectively. Mean absorbed organ doses for 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 and 177Lu-PSMA I&T were, for example, 1.65 ± 0.28 and 0.73 ± 0.18 Gy/GBq for the kidneys, 0.19 ± 0.09 and 0.07 ± 0.03 Gy/GBq for the liver, 2.35 ± 0.78 and 0.80 ± 0.41 Gy/GBq for the parotid gland, and 0.67 ± 0.62 and 0.30 ± 0.27 Gy/GBq for the bone marrow, respectively. Tumor lesions received mean absorbed doses of 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 and 177Lu-PSMA I&T of 6.44 ± 6.44 and 2.64 ± 2.24 Gy/GBq, respectively. The mean TIs for the kidneys were 3.7 ± 2.2 and 3.6 ± 2.2 for 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 and 177Lu-PSMA I&T, respectively, and those for the bone marrow were 15.2 ± 10.2 and 15.1 ± 10.2 for 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 and 177Lu-PSMA I&T, respectively. Conclusion: Pretherapeutic clinical dosimetry confirmed preclinical results of mean absorbed doses for tumors that were 2-3 times higher for 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 than for 177Lu-PSMA I&T. Absorbed doses to normal organs also tended to be higher for 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3, resulting overall in similar average TIs for both radiopharmaceuticals with considerable interpatient variability. 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 has promise for a therapeutic efficacy similar to that of 177Lu-PSMA I&T at smaller amounts of injected activity, simplifying radiation safety measurements (especially for large patient numbers or dose escalation regimens).
Radiohybrid prostate-specific membrane antigen (rhPSMA) ligands allow for labeling with 18F and radiometals for endoradiotherapy. rhPSMA-7.3 has been designated as a lead compound with promising preclinical data for 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3, which has shown higher tumor uptake than 177Lu-PSMA I&T. In this retrospective analysis, we compared pretherapeutic clinical dosimetry data of both PSMA ligands. Methods: Six patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer underwent both 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 and 177Lu-PSMA I&T pretherapeutic dosimetry. Whole-body scintigraphy was performed at 1 h, 4 h, 24 h, 48 h, and 7 d after injection. Regions of interest covering the whole body, organs, bone marrow, and tumor lesions were drawn for each patient. Absorbed doses for individual patients and pretherapeutic applications were calculated using OLINDA/EXM. To facilitate the comparison of both ligands, we introduced the therapeutic index (TI), defined as the ratio of mean pretherapeutic doses to tumor lesions over relevant organs at risk. Results: Mean whole-body pretherapeutic effective doses for 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 and 177Lu-PSMA I&T were 0.12 ± 0.07 and 0.05 ± 0.03 Sv/GBq, respectively. Mean absorbed organ doses for 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 and 177Lu-PSMA I&T were, for example, 1.65 ± 0.28 and 0.73 ± 0.18 Gy/GBq for the kidneys, 0.19 ± 0.09 and 0.07 ± 0.03 Gy/GBq for the liver, 2.35 ± 0.78 and 0.80 ± 0.41 Gy/GBq for the parotid gland, and 0.67 ± 0.62 and 0.30 ± 0.27 Gy/GBq for the bone marrow, respectively. Tumor lesions received mean absorbed doses of 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 and 177Lu-PSMA I&T of 6.44 ± 6.44 and 2.64 ± 2.24 Gy/GBq, respectively. The mean TIs for the kidneys were 3.7 ± 2.2 and 3.6 ± 2.2 for 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 and 177Lu-PSMA I&T, respectively, and those for the bone marrow were 15.2 ± 10.2 and 15.1 ± 10.2 for 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 and 177Lu-PSMA I&T, respectively. Conclusion: Pretherapeutic clinical dosimetry confirmed preclinical results of mean absorbed doses for tumors that were 2-3 times higher for 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 than for 177Lu-PSMA I&T. Absorbed doses to normal organs also tended to be higher for 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3, resulting overall in similar average TIs for both radiopharmaceuticals with considerable interpatient variability. 177Lu-rhPSMA-7.3 has promise for a therapeutic efficacy similar to that of 177Lu-PSMA I&T at smaller amounts of injected activity, simplifying radiation safety measurements (especially for large patient numbers or dose escalation regimens).
Authors: Andreas Delker; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Clemens Kratochwil; Anika Brunegraf; Astrid Gosewisch; Franz Josef Gildehaus; Stefan Tritschler; Christian Georg Stief; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn; Peter Bartenstein; Guido Böning Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Clemens Kratochwil; Frederik L Giesel; Melsa Stefanova; Martina Benešová; Marcus Bronzel; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Walter Mier; Matthias Eder; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michael S Hofman; John Violet; Rodney J Hicks; Justin Ferdinandus; Sue Ping Thang; Tim Akhurst; Amir Iravani; Grace Kong; Aravind Ravi Kumar; Declan G Murphy; Peter Eu; Price Jackson; Mark Scalzo; Scott G Williams; Shahneen Sandhu Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: So Won Oh; Alexander Wurzer; Eugene J Teoh; Sohee Oh; Thomas Langbein; Markus Krönke; Michael Herz; Saskia Kropf; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Wolfgang A Weber; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Susanne Lütje; Sandra Heskamp; Alexander S Cornelissen; Thorsten D Poeppel; Sebastiaan A M W van den Broek; Sandra Rosenbaum-Krumme; Andreas Bockisch; Martin Gotthardt; Mark Rijpkema; Otto C Boerman Journal: Theranostics Date: 2015-10-18 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Alexander Wurzer; Mara Parzinger; Matthias Konrad; Roswitha Beck; Thomas Günther; Veronika Felber; Stefanie Färber; Daniel Di Carlo; Hans-Jürgen Wester Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Oliver Sartor; Johann de Bono; Kim N Chi; Karim Fizazi; Ken Herrmann; Kambiz Rahbar; Scott T Tagawa; Luke T Nordquist; Nitin Vaishampayan; Ghassan El-Haddad; Chandler H Park; Tomasz M Beer; Alison Armour; Wendy J Pérez-Contreras; Michelle DeSilvio; Euloge Kpamegan; Germo Gericke; Richard A Messmann; Michael J Morris; Bernd J Krause Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 91.245