Antigenicity of Different Antigranulocytes Antibodies Assessed By Hama Follow-Up In Patients Undergoing Immunoscintigraphic Detection of Infections
In the last years increasing numbers of patients have being given murine monoclonal antibodies (Mabs) for radioimmunodetection (RID) and for immunotherapy. Especially, since the introduction of the immunoscintigraphy of infections (Locher 1986) antigranulocytes antibodies (AGAb) are administered in a rapidly growing scale for RID of infections and bone metastasis. Due to this, the problem of the potential human immunoreaction against murine Mabs, i.e. production of HAMA (human antimouse antibodies) has become more relevant (Courtenay-Luck 1986, Schroff 1985), because HAMA may influence the diagnostic outcome of immunoscintigraphy (Hertel 1990, Pimm 1985, van Kroonenburgh 1988). Despite that, in the recent literature there are only poor reports on HAMA follow-up in patients undergoing immunoscintigraphy of infections (Lind 1990). So we evaluated the clinical relevance of HAMA, and its determination in a larger number of patients by using various and differently labeled antigranulocytes antibodies.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Fritsche H (1990). Immunoscintographic follow-up studies with the 99m-Tc-marked monoclonal anti-CEA antibody BW 431/26. Act Med Austriac, 17: 44–46.Google Scholar
- Joseph K, Höffken H, Damann V (1987). In-vivo Markierung von Granulozyten mit 99mTc markierten monoklonalen Antikörpern: Erste klinische Ergebnisse. Nuccompact, 18: 223–226Google Scholar
- LaFontaine GS, Hansen HJ, Weiss BF, Goldenberg DM (1988). Enzyme immunoassay for the detection of circulating immunoglobulines in humans to mouse monoclonal antibody (HAMA). Presented at the Third International Conference of Monoclonal Antibody Immunoconjugates for Cancer: February 4–6.Google Scholar
- Locher JT, Seybold K, Andres RY, Schubiger PA, Mach JP, Buchegger F (1986). Imaging of inflammatory lesions after injection of radioiodinated monoclonal anti-granulocytes antibodies. Nucl Med Commun, 7: 695–670.Google Scholar