4.5 Article

Preclinical imaging of epidermal growth factor receptor with ABY-029 in soft-tissue sarcoma for fluorescence-guided surgery and tumor detection

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 119, Issue 8, Pages 1077-1086

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.25468

Keywords

AffibodyA (R) molecule; IRDye 700DX; IRDye 800CW; Odyssey CLx; Pearl Impulse; Solaris

Funding

  1. Hitchcock Foundation
  2. National Cancer Institute [R01 CA167413, R03 CA219445]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Objectives Fluorescence-guided surgery using epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) targeting has been performed successfully in clinical trials using a variety of fluorescent agents. We investigate ABY-029 (anti-EGFR AffibodyA (R) molecule labeled with IRDye 800CW) compared with a small-molecule perfusion agent, IRDye 700DX carboxylate, in a panel of soft-tissue sarcomas with varying levels of EGFR expression and vascularization. Methods Five xenograft soft-tissue sarcoma cell lines were implanted into immunosuppressed mice. ABY-029 and IRDye 700DX were each administered at 4.98 mu M. Fluorescence from in vivo and ex vivo (fresh and formalin-fixed) fixed tissues were compared. The performance of three fluorescence imaging systems was assessed for ex vivo tissues. Results ABY-029 is retained longer within tumor tissue and achieves higher tumor-to-background ratios both in vivo and ex vivo than IRDye 700DX. ABY-029 fluorescence is less susceptible to formalin fixation than IRDye 700DX, but both agents have disproportional signal loss in a variety of tissues. The Pearl Impulse provides the highest contrast-to-noise ratio, but all systems have individual advantages. Conclusions ABY-029 demonstrates promise to assist in wide local excision of soft-tissue sarcomas. Further clinical evaluation of in situ or freshly excised ex vivo tissues using fluorescence imaging systems is warranted.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available