Auger Electron-Based Radionuclide Therapy

  • F. F. (Russ) Knapp
  • Ashutosh Dash


The focuses of this chapter are to describe the decay processes which result in Auger electron emission and the potential expected importance of therapy with targeted radiopharmaceutical agents radiolabeled with Auger-emitting radioisotopes. Although not yet matured to the point for accepted clinical utility, interest in the therapeutic application of radiopharmaceuticals radiolabeled with Auger-emitting radioisotopes has remained an important intellectual and experimental area because of the great potential utility of these radioisotopes. There are in fact only a few Auger-emitting radioisotopes which are expected—at least within our current understanding—to have any practical utility for clinical therapy. However, these radioisotopes are discussed because of their unique decay properties and potential usefulness. In addition, comments on the issues associated with the production and processing technology required to provide Auger emitters modeling approaches for Auger electron-emitting radioisotopes are also briefly described. Because of the very short path lengths in soft tissue, dosimetric issues are required to assess the usefulness of these radioisotopes for individual cell-targeted therapy for the treatment of cancer in subsequent radiolabeling and biological studies. It is important that sufficient levels of these radioisotopes can be produced and made available in sufficiently high specific activity and radiopurity for development of targeting agents to assess the biological effectiveness of such proposed therapy.


Auger Electron Linear Energy Transfer Auger Therapy Auger Electron Spectrum Medical Internal Radiation Dose 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adelstein S, Kassis AI. Radiobiological implications of the macroscopic distribution of energy from radionuclides. Nucl Med Biol. 1987;14:165.Google Scholar
  2. Adelstein SJ, Kassis AI, Sastry KSR. Cellular vs. organ approaches to dose estimates. In: Schlafke-Stellson AT, Watson EE, editors. Proceedings of fourth international radiopharmaceutical dosimetry symposium. Springfield: NTS; 1986.Google Scholar
  3. American Cancer Society. 1996.
  4. Behr TM, Behe M, Lohr M, et al. Therapeutic advantages of Auger electron- over β-emitting radionuclides or radioiodine when conjugated to internalizing antibodies. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:753–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernhardt P, Forssell-Aronsson E, Jacobsson L, et al. Low-energy electron emitters for targeted radiotherapy of small tumours. Acta Oncol. 2001;40(5):602–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole A. Absorption of 20 eV to 50,000 eV electron beams in air and plastic. Radiat Res. 1969;38:7–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cullen DE. Program RELAX: a code designed to calculate atomic relaxation spectra of x-rays and electrons. UCRL-ID-110438. 1992.Google Scholar
  8. Cullen DE, Hubbell JH, Kissel L. EPDL97: the evaluated photon date library’97 version. UCRL-50400, vol. 6 (Rev. 5). 1997.Google Scholar
  9. Daghighian F, Barendswaard E, Welt S, et al. Enhancement of radiation dose to the nucleus by vesicular internalization of 125I-A33 Mab. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1052.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. de Jong M, Breeman WA, Bakker WH, et al. Comparison of 111In-labeled somatostatin analogues for tumor scintigraphy and radionuclide therapy. Cancer Res. 1998;58:437–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillman LT. EDISTR- A computer program to obtain a nuclear decay data base for radiation dosimetry. ORNL-TM-6689. 1980.Google Scholar
  12. Endo A, Yamaguchi Y, Eckerman KF. Development and assessment of new radioactive decay database used for dosimetry calculation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2003;105(1-4):565–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Epperson CE, Landolt RR, Kessler WV. Solvent-solvent extraction of rhodium-103m from ruthenium-103 employing a sulfate-carbon tetrachloride medium. Anal Chem. 1976;48(7):979–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaulden ME. Biological dosimetry of radionuclides and radiation hazards. J Nucl Med. 1983;24(2):160–4.Google Scholar
  15. Hendee WR. Particulate radiations emitted during electron capture and isomeric transitions. J Nucl Med. 1983;24(12):1192–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoeschele JD. Correlations of Physico-Chemical and Biological Properties with In Vivo Biodistribution Data for Platinum-195m-Labeled Chloroammineplatinum(II) Complexes. In: Martell AE, editor. Inorganic Chemistry in Biology and Medicine. ACS symposium series, vol. 140. American Chemical Society; 1980. p. 181–208.Google Scholar
  17. Hoeschele JD, Butler TA, Roberts JA. Microscale Synthesis and Biodistribution of Pt-195-Labeled Cis-Dichlorodiammineplatinum(II), Cis-DDP. In: Proceedings, Radiopharmaceuticals II: Second International Symposium on radiopharmaceuticals, Society of Nuclear Medicine. American Chemical Society; 1979. p. 173–82.Google Scholar
  18. Hoeschele JD, Butler TA, Roberts JA, Guyer CE. Analysis and refinement of the microsysnthesis of the 195mPt cis-DDP. Radiochim Acta. 1982;31:27.Google Scholar
  19. Hofer KG, van Loon N, Schneiderman MH, et al. The paradoxical nature of DNA damage and cell death induced by 125I decay. Radiat Res. 1992;130:121–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Howell RW, Rao DV, Hou DY, et al. The question of relative biological effectiveness and quality factor for Auger emitters incorporated into proliferating mammalian cells. Radiat Res. 1991;128:282–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Humm JL, Howell RW, Rao DV. Dosimetry of Auger-electron-emitting radionuclides: Report No. 3 of AAPM Nuclear Medicine Task Group No. 6. Med Phys. 1994;21:1901–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ICRP. Radionuclide transformations, publication 38. International commission on radiological protection. Oxford: Pergamon; 1983.Google Scholar
  23. Kassis AI, Sastry KS, Adelstein SJ. Kinetics of uptake, retention, and radiotoxicity of 125IUdR in mammalian cells: implications of localized energy deposition by Auger processes. Radiat Res. 1987;109(1):78–89.Google Scholar
  24. Krenning EP, Kooij PP, Pauwels S, et al. Somatostatin receptor: scintigraphy and radionuclide therapy. Digestion. 1996;57(Suppl 1):57–61.Google Scholar
  25. Makrigiorgos GM, Adelstein SJ, Kassis AI. Cellular radiation dosimetry and its implications for estimation of radiation risks. Illustrative results with technetium 99m-labeled microspheres and macroaggregates. JAMA. 1990a;264:592–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Makrigiorgos G, Adelstein SJ, Kassis AI. Auger electron emitters: insights gained from in vitro experiments. Radiat Environ Biophys. 1990b;29:75–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mariani G, Bodei L, Adelstein SJ, Kassis AI. Merging roles of radiometabolic therapy of tumors based on Auger electron emission. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1519–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mirzadeh S, Alexander CW, Knapp Jr FF. Evaluation of neutron inelastic scattering, [n, n′], for production of high spin 117mSn, 119mSn and 195mPt isotopes. Appl Radiat Isot. 1997;48:441–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Narra VR, Howell RW, Sastry KSR, et al. Auger electron emitters as tools for elucidating the location of the primary radiosensitive targets. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 1994;52:229–32.Google Scholar
  30. Paretzke HG. Quantitative mathematical models in radiation biology. In: Freeman GR, editor. Kinetics of inhomogeneous processes. New York: Wiley; 1987. p. 89–170.Google Scholar
  31. Pomplun E, Boox J, Dydejczyk A, Feinendegen LE. A microdosimetric interpretation of the radiobiological effectiveness of I-125 and the problem of quality factor. Radiat Environ Biophys. 1987;26:181–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rao DV, Govelitz GF, Sastry KSR. Radiotoxicity of thallium-201 in mouse testes: Inadequacy of conventional dosimetry. J Nucl Med. 1983;24:145–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Rao DV, Narra VR, Howell RW, Sastry KSR. Biological consequence of nuclear versus cytoplasmic decay of I-125: cysteamine as a radioprotector against Auger cascades in vivo. Radiat Res. 1990;124:188–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sastry KSR. Biological effects of the Auger emitter 125I: A review. Report No. 1 of AAPM Nuclear Medicine Committee Task Group No. 6. Med Phys. 1992;19:1361–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sastry KSR, Howell RW, Rao DV, et al. Dosimetry of Auger-emitters: physical and phenomenological approaches. In: Baverstock KF, Charlton DE, editors. DNA damage by Auger emitters. London: Taylor and Francis; 1988. p. 27–8.Google Scholar
  36. Skarnemark G, Odegaard-Jensen A, Nilsson J, et al. Production of 103mRh for cancer therapy. J Radioanal Nucl Chem. 2009;280(2):371–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SNM 2000 Annual Meeting: fusion is the theme as nuclear medicine enters the new century. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:13N–15N. Society of Nuclear Medicine:
  38. Szucs Z, van Rooyen J, Zeevaart JR. Recoil effect on beta-decaying in vivo generators, interpreted for 103Pd/103mRh. Appl Radiat Isot. 2009;67(7-8):1401–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Terriisol M, Patau JP, Eudaldo T. Application a la microddosimetrie et a la radiobiologie de la simulation due transport des electron de basse energie dans l’easu a l’etat liqide. In: Boox J, Ebert HG, Smith BGR, editors. Proceeding 6th symposium on microdosimetry. London: Harwood Academic; 1978. p. 179–81.Google Scholar
  40. US Department of Human Health Services. 2000. US cancer death info:
  41. Uusijärvi H, Bernhardt P, Rösch F, et al. Electron- and positron-emitting radiolanthanides for therapy: aspects of dosimetry and production. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(5):807–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. van Rooyen J, Szucs Z, Rijn Zeevaart J. A possible in vivo generator 103Pd/103mRh-recoil considerations. Appl Radiat Isot. 2008;66(10):1346–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weber DA, Eckerman KF, Dillman LT, Ryman JC. MIRD: radionuclide data and decay schemes. New York: Society of Nuclear Medicine; 1989.Google Scholar
  44. Wenzel M, Wu YF. Separation of [Rh-103m]-rhodocene derivatives from the parent [103Ru]ruthenocene derivatives and their organ distribution. Int J Rad Appl Instrum A. 1987;38(1):67–9 (German).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Willins JD, Sgouros G. Modeling analysis of platinum-195m for targeting individual blood-borne cells in adjuvant radiotherapy. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:315–9.Google Scholar
  46. Wright HA, Hamm RN, Turner JE, et al. Calculation of physical and chemical reactions with DNA in aqueous solution from Auger cascades. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 1990;31:59–62.Google Scholar
  47. Yasui LS, Hofer KG. Role of mitochondrial DNA in cell death induced by I-125 decay. Int J Radiat Biol. 1986;49:601–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yasui LS, Hofer KG, Warters RL. Inhomogeneity of the nucleus to 124IUdR cytotoxicity. Radiat Res. 1985;102:109–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zaider M, Brenner DJ, Wilson WE. Application of track structure calculations to radiobiology, 1. Monte Carlo simulation of proton tracks. Radiat Res. 1983;95:231–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. F. (Russ) Knapp
    • 1
  • Ashutosh Dash
    • 2
  1. 1.Nuclear Security and Isotope DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOAK RIDGEUSA
  2. 2.Isotope Production and Applications DivisionBhabha Atomic Research CentreMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations