Advertisement

Assessment of exposure after injection of 99mTc-labeled intact monoclonal antibodies and their fragments into humans

  • Mostafa Y. A. Mostafa
  • Hesham M. H. Zakaly
  • Michael Zhukovsky
Article

Abstract

Human pharmacokinetics and internal radiation dosimetry of normal organs after injection with the 99mTc-labeled monoclonal antibody (intact and fragments) are simulated by the WinAct program and IDAC (Internal Dose Assessment by Computer) software. The WinAct program is used to calculate the cumulative activity in organs and tissues. The calculated cumulative activity is inputted to the IDAC software, an internal dosimetry program for nuclear medicine based on the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) adult reference voxel phantom, and the absorbed doses by the organs and tissues are estimated. The obtained absorbed doses for the 99mTc-labeled monoclonal antibody (intact and fragments) are compared with the published figures by ICRP-128. The WinAct program method to calculate the cumulative activity is more accurate, as the fraction distribution, Fs, is described and calculated for organs, not only for intake, as in the ICRP model, but also for elimination.

Keywords

Internal exposure 99mTc Cumulative activity Monoclonal antibodies Absorbed dose 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was partly supported by Act 211 of the Government of the Russian Federation (contract no 02. A03.21.0006) and the Centre of Excellence: Radiation and Nuclear Technologies.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Mostafa Y.A. Mostafa has received research grants from Act 211 of the Government of the Russian Federation (contract no 02. A03.21.0006) and the Centre of Excellence: Radiation and Nuclear Technologies. Hesham M.H. Zakaly declares that he has no conflict of interest. Michael Zhukovsky declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies on human participants or animals.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Andersson M, Johansson L, Minarik D, Mattsson S, Leide-Svegborn S. An internal radiation dosimetry computer program, IDAC 2.0, for estimation of patient doses from radiopharmaceuticals. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2014;162(3):299–305.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nct337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersson M, Minarik D, Johansson L, Mattsson S, Leide-Svegborn S. Improved estimates of the radiation absorbed dose to the urinary bladder wall. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:2173–82.  https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/59/9/2173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ören Ü, Hiller M, Andersson M. Idacstar. A MCNP application to perform realistic dose estimations from internal or external contamination of radiopharmaceuticals. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2017;174:406–11.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncw221.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cicek E, Dede B. Catecholase-like activity studies of Tc-99m radiopharmaceuticals. Acta Phys Pol A. 2016;129:213–5.  https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.129.213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arteaga MV, Caballero VM, Rengifo KM. Dosimetry of 99mTc (DTPA, DMSA and MAG3) used in renal function studies of newborns and children. Appl Radiat Isot. 2018;138:25–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2017.07.054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pfeiffer D. Health physics and radiological health. 4th ed. Med Phys. 2013.  https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4826186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ICRP. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:330.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bolch WE, Eckerman KF, Sgouros G, Thomas SR. MIRD pamphlet no. 21: a generalized schema for radiopharmaceutical dosimetry–standardization of nomenclature. J Nucl Med. 2009.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.056036.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Watson EE, Stabin MG, Siegel JA. MIRD formulation. Med Phys. 1993;20:511–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siegel JA, Thomas SR, Stubbs JB, Stabin MG, Hays MT, Koral KF, et al. MIRD pamphlet no. 16: techniques for quantitative radiopharmaceutical biodistribution data acquisition and analysis for use in human radiation dose estimates. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:37S–61S.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindenberg M, Turkbey I, Adler S, Do K, Kummar S, Kurdziel K, et al. Dosimetry and first human experience with 89Zr panitumumab. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1029-.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chiavenna SM, Jaworski JP, Vendrell A. State of the art in anti-cancer mAbs. J Biomed Sci 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12929-016-0311-y.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fischman AJ, Khaw BA, Strauss HW. Quo vadis radioimmune imaging. J Nucl Med. 1989;30:1911–5.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mattsson S, Johansson L, Leide Svegborn S, Liniecki J, Noßke D, Riklund K, et al. ICRP publication 128: radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals: a compendium of current information related to frequently used substances. Ann ICRP. 2015;44:7–321.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146645314558019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bischof Delaloye A, Delaloye B. Radiolabelled monoclonal antibodies in tumour imaging and therapy: out of fashion? Eur J Nucl Med. 1995.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00817285.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klibanov A, Martynov A, Slinkin M, Sakharov IY, Smirnov M, Muzykantov V, et al. Blood clearance of radiolabeled antibody: enhancement by lactosamination and treatment with biotin-avidin or anti-mouse IgG antibodies. J Nucl Med. 1988;29:1951–6.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mould DR, Sweeney KRD. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of monoclonal antibodies—mechanistic modeling applied to drug development. Curr Opin Drug Discov Dev. 2007;10:84–96.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dijkers EC, Oude Munnink TH, Kosterink JG, Brouwers a H, Jager PL, de Jong JR, et al. Biodistribution of 89Zr-trastuzumab and PET imaging of HER2-positive lesions in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87:586–92.  https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2010.12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carrasquillo JA, Pandit-Taskar N, O’Donoghue JA, Humm JL, Zanzonico P, Smith-Jones PM, et al. 124I-huA33 Antibody PET of colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1173–80.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.110.086165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Andersson M, Johansson L, Eckerman K, Mattsson S. IDAC-Dose 2.1, an internal dosimetry program for diagnostic nuclear medicine based on the ICRP adult reference voxel phantoms. EJNMMI Res. 2017;7:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-017-0339-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory, package of ORNL numerical solver (Windows version) for the coupled set of differential equations describing the kinetics of a radionuclide in the body WinAct v. 1.0, 2002. Retrieved from: https://www.ornl.gov/crpk/software
  22. 22.
    Andersson M, Johansson L, Eckerman K, Mattsson S. IDAC-Dose 2.1, an internal dosimetry program for diagnostic nuclear medicine based on the ICRP adult reference voxel phantoms. EJNMMI Res 2017;7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-017-0339-3.
  23. 23.
    ICRP. Adult reference computational phantoms ICRP. Ann ICRP. 2009;110:162.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2009.07.004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Experimental Physics, Institute of Physics and TechnologyUral Federal UniversityYekaterinburgRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Industrial ecology UB RASYekaterinburgRussia
  3. 3.Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assuit BranchAl-Azhar UniversityAssuitEgypt
  4. 4.Department of Physics, Faculty of ScienceMinia UniversityEl-MiniaEgypt

Personalised recommendations