4.7 Article

Vascular imaging of solid tumors in rats with a radioactive arsenic-labeled antibody that binds exposed phosphatidylserine

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 1377-1385

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1516

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P20 CA086334, CA70907, P50 CA070907, U24 CA126608] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [P41-RR02584] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We recently reported that anionic phospholipids, principally phosphatidylserine, become exposed on the external surface of vascular endothelial cells in tumors, probably in response to oxidative stresses present in the tumor microenvironment. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that a chimeric monoclonal antibody that binds phosphatidylserine could be labeled with radioactive arsenic isotopes and used for molecular imaging of solid tumors in rats. Experimental Design: Bavituximab was labeled with As-74 (beta(+), T-1/2 17.8 days) or As-77 (beta(-), T-1/2 1.6 days) using a novel procedure. The radionuclides of arsenic were selected because their long half-lives are consistent with the long biological half lives of antibodies in vivo and because their chemistry permits stable attachment to antibodies. The radiolabeled antibodies were tested for the ability to image subcutaneous Dunning prostate R3227-AT1 tumors in rats. Results: Clear images of the tumors were obtained using planar gamma-scintigraphy and positron emission tomography. Biodistribution studies confirmed the specific localization of bavituximab to the tumors. The tumor-to-liver ratio 72 h after injection was 22 for bavituximab compared with 1.5 for an isotype-matched control chimeric antibody of irrelevant specificity. Immunohistochemical studies showed that the bavituximab was labeling the tumor vascular endothelium. Conclusions: These results show that radioarsenic-labeled bavituximab has potential as a new tool for imaging the vasculature of solid tumors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据