4.7 Article

What is the Best Radionuclide for Immuno-PET of Multiple Myeloma? A Comparison Study Between 89Zr- and 64Cu-Labeled Anti-CD138 in a Preclinical Syngeneic Model

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms20102564

Keywords

multiple myeloma; immuno-PET; copper-64; zirconium-89; murine CD138

Funding

  1. French National Agency for Research [ANR-11-LABX-0018-01, ANR-11-LABX-0016-01, ANR-11-EQPX-0004, ANR-16-IDEX-0007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose (F-18-FDG) is a promising technique in multiple myeloma (MM), the development of other radiopharmaceuticals seems relevant. CD138 is currently used as a standard marker for the identification of myeloma cells and could be used in phenotype tumor imaging. In this study, we used an anti-CD138 murine antibody (9E7.4) radiolabeled with copper-64 (Cu-64) or zirconium-89 (Zr-89) and compared them in a syngeneic mouse model to select the optimal tracers for MM PET imaging. Then, 9E7.4 was conjugated to TE2A-benzyl isothiocyanate (TE2A) and desferrioxamine (DFO) chelators for Cu-64 and Zr-89 labeling, respectively. Cu-64-TE2A-9E7.4 and Zr-89-DFO-9E7.4 antibodies were evaluated by PET imaging and biodistribution studies in C57BL/KaLwRij mice bearing either 5T33-MM subcutaneous tumors or bone lesions and were compared to F-18-FDG-PET imaging. In biodistribution and PET studies, Cu-64-TE2A-9E7.4 and Zr-89-DFO-9E7.4 displayed comparable good tumor uptake of subcutaneous tumors. On the bone lesions, PET imaging with Cu-64-TE2A-9E7.4 and Zr-89-DFO-9E7.4 showed higher uptake than with F-18-FDG-PET. Comparison of both 9E7.4 conjugates revealed higher nonspecific bone uptakes of Zr-89-DFO-9E7.4 than Cu-64-TE2A-9E7.4. Because of free Zr-89's tropism for bone when using Zr-89-anti-CD138, Cu-64-anti-CD138 antibody had the most optimal tumor-to-nontarget tissue ratios for translation into humans as a specific new imaging radiopharmaceutical agent in MM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available