UNLABELLED: These studies highlight several factors that affect monoclonal antibody (Mab) localization to a tumor in the brain, including tumor permeability, nonspecific and specific binding, plasma half-life, radiolabeled antibody stability and the blood-brain barrier. METHODS: A pancarcinoma Mab [L6 IgG, F(ab')2 and Fab] and an irrelevant isotype-matched antibody [P1.17 IgG and F(ab')2] were given with and without osmotic blood-brain barrier disruption in a LX-1 human small-cell lung carcinoma intracerebral xenograft model. RESULTS: Intracerebral tumor size and permeability to antibody increased with the selection of 10, 14 or 17 days postinoculation when antibody was administered. Barrier disruption increased the delivery, particularly at earlier time points, which was dependent on antibody-specific and nonspecific binding and tumor permeability. Dehalogenation and/or antibody binding stability also appeared to affect the percent delivery. CONCLUSION: These studies demonstrate important variables that should be considered when clinical trials are designed or Mab delivery and localization in intracerebral tumor models are evaluated.
UNLABELLED: These studies highlight several factors that affect monoclonal antibody (Mab) localization to a tumor in the brain, including tumor permeability, nonspecific and specific binding, plasma half-life, radiolabeled antibody stability and the blood-brain barrier. METHODS: A pancarcinoma Mab [L6 IgG, F(ab')2 and Fab] and an irrelevant isotype-matched antibody [P1.17 IgG and F(ab')2] were given with and without osmotic blood-brain barrier disruption in a LX-1 humansmall-cell lung carcinoma intracerebral xenograft model. RESULTS:Intracerebral tumor size and permeability to antibody increased with the selection of 10, 14 or 17 days postinoculation when antibody was administered. Barrier disruption increased the delivery, particularly at earlier time points, which was dependent on antibody-specific and nonspecific binding and tumor permeability. Dehalogenation and/or antibody binding stability also appeared to affect the percent delivery. CONCLUSION: These studies demonstrate important variables that should be considered when clinical trials are designed or Mab delivery and localization in intracerebral tumor models are evaluated.
Authors: Thomas G Weber; Franz Osl; Anja Renner; Thomas Pöschinger; Stefanie Galbán; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Werner Scheuer Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Juyoun Jin; Kyeung Min Joo; Yoonhee Nam; Dae Hyun Kim; Se Jeong Lee; Mi-Young Jo; Younggeon Jin; Hyeong-Seok Kim; Soo Won Seo; Seok Jin Kim; DO-Hyun Nam; Won Seog Kim Journal: Exp Ther Med Date: 2010-08-26 Impact factor: 2.447
Authors: John A Boockvar; Apostolos J Tsiouris; Christoph P Hofstetter; Ilhami Kovanlikaya; Sherese Fralin; Kartik Kesavabhotla; Stephen M Seedial; Susan C Pannullo; Theodore H Schwartz; Philip Stieg; Robert D Zimmerman; Jared Knopman; Ronald J Scheff; Paul Christos; Shankar Vallabhajosula; Howard A Riina Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2010-10-22 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Kristoph Jahnke; Leslie L Muldoon; Csanad G Varallyay; Seth J Lewin; Robert D Brown; Dale F Kraemer; Carole Soussain; Edward A Neuwelt Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2009-01-21 Impact factor: 12.300