We have located links that may give you full text access.
Synthesis and preclinical evaluation of novel 18 F-labeled Glu-urea-Glu-based PSMA inhibitors for prostate cancer imaging: a comparison with 18 F-DCFPyl and 18 F-PSMA-1007.
EJNMMI Research 2018 April 13
BACKGROUND: Due to its high and consistent expression in prostate cancer (PCa), the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) represents an ideal target for molecular imaging and targeted therapy using highly specific radiolabeled PSMA ligands. To address the continuously growing clinical demand for 18 F-labeled PSMA-probes, we developed two novel Glu-urea-Glu-(EuE)-based inhibitors, EuE-k-18 F-FBOA (1) and EuE-k-β-a-18 F-FPyl (2), both with optimized linker structure and different 18 F-labeled aromatic moieties. The inhibitors were evaluated in a comparative preclinical study with 18 F-DCFPyl and 18 F-PSMA-1007.
RESULTS: Radiolabeling procedures allowed preparation of (1) and (2) with high radiochemical yields (67 ± 7 and 53 ± 7%, d.c.) and purity (> 98%). When compared with 18 F-DCFPyl (IC50 = 12.3 ± 1.2 nM) and 18 F-PSMA-1007 (IC50 = 4.2 ± 0.5 nM), both metabolically stable EuE-based ligands showed commensurable or higher PSMA affinity (IC50 = 4.2 ± 0.4 nM (1), IC50 = 1.1 ± 0.2 nM (2)). Moreover, 1.4- and 2.7-fold higher internalization rates were observed for (1) and (2), respectively, resulting in markedly enhanced tumor accumulation in LNCaP-tumor-bearing mice ((1) 12.7 ± 2.0% IA/g, (2) 13.0° ± 1.0% IA/g vs. 7.3 ± 1.0% IA/g (18 F-DCFPyl), 7.1 ± 1.5% IA/g (18 F-PSMA-1007), 1 h p.i.). In contrast to (1), (2) showed higher kidney accumulation and delayed clearance kinetics. Due to the high hydrophilicity of both compounds, almost no unspecific uptake in non-target tissue was observed. In contrast, due to the less hydrophilic character (logP = - 1.6) and high plasma protein binding (98%), 18 F-PSMA-1007 showed uptake in non-target tissue and predominantly hepatobiliary excretion, whereas, 18 F-DCFPyl exhibited pharmacokinetics quite similar to those obtained with (1) and (2).
CONCLUSION: Both 18 F-labeled EuE-based PSMA ligands showed excellent in vitro and in vivo PSMA-targeting characteristics. The substantially higher tumor accumulation in mice compared to recently introduced 18 F-PSMA-1007 and 18 F-DCFPyl suggests their high value for preclinical studies investigating the effects on PSMA-expression. In contrast to (2), (1) seems to be more promising for further investigation, due to the more reliable 18 F-labeling procedure, the faster clearance kinetics with comparable high tumor uptake, resulting therefore in better high-contrast microPET imaging as early as 1 h p.i.
RESULTS: Radiolabeling procedures allowed preparation of (1) and (2) with high radiochemical yields (67 ± 7 and 53 ± 7%, d.c.) and purity (> 98%). When compared with 18 F-DCFPyl (IC50 = 12.3 ± 1.2 nM) and 18 F-PSMA-1007 (IC50 = 4.2 ± 0.5 nM), both metabolically stable EuE-based ligands showed commensurable or higher PSMA affinity (IC50 = 4.2 ± 0.4 nM (1), IC50 = 1.1 ± 0.2 nM (2)). Moreover, 1.4- and 2.7-fold higher internalization rates were observed for (1) and (2), respectively, resulting in markedly enhanced tumor accumulation in LNCaP-tumor-bearing mice ((1) 12.7 ± 2.0% IA/g, (2) 13.0° ± 1.0% IA/g vs. 7.3 ± 1.0% IA/g (18 F-DCFPyl), 7.1 ± 1.5% IA/g (18 F-PSMA-1007), 1 h p.i.). In contrast to (1), (2) showed higher kidney accumulation and delayed clearance kinetics. Due to the high hydrophilicity of both compounds, almost no unspecific uptake in non-target tissue was observed. In contrast, due to the less hydrophilic character (logP = - 1.6) and high plasma protein binding (98%), 18 F-PSMA-1007 showed uptake in non-target tissue and predominantly hepatobiliary excretion, whereas, 18 F-DCFPyl exhibited pharmacokinetics quite similar to those obtained with (1) and (2).
CONCLUSION: Both 18 F-labeled EuE-based PSMA ligands showed excellent in vitro and in vivo PSMA-targeting characteristics. The substantially higher tumor accumulation in mice compared to recently introduced 18 F-PSMA-1007 and 18 F-DCFPyl suggests their high value for preclinical studies investigating the effects on PSMA-expression. In contrast to (2), (1) seems to be more promising for further investigation, due to the more reliable 18 F-labeling procedure, the faster clearance kinetics with comparable high tumor uptake, resulting therefore in better high-contrast microPET imaging as early as 1 h p.i.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app