Phase 1 study of intraventricular 131I-omburtamab targeting B7H3 (CD276)-expressing CNS malignancies.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis for metastatic and recurrent tumors of the central nervous system (CNS) remains dismal, and the need for newer therapeutic targets and modalities is critical. The cell surface glycoprotein B7H3 is expressed on a range of solid tumors with a restricted expression on normal tissues. We hypothesized that compartmental radioimmunotherapy (cRIT) with the anti-B7H3 murine monoclonal antibody omburtamab injected intraventricularly could safely target CNS malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a phase I trial of intraventricular 131I-omburtamab using a standard 3 + 3 design. Eligibility criteria included adequate cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flow, no major organ toxicity, and for patients > dose level 6, availability of autologous stem cells. Patients initially received 74 MBq radioiodinated omburtamab to evaluate dosimetry and biodistribution followed by therapeutic 131I-omburtamab dose-escalated from 370 to 2960 MBq. Patients were monitored clinically and biochemically for toxicity graded using CTCAEv 3.0. Dosimetry was evaluated using serial CSF and blood sampling, and serial PET or gamma-camera scans. Patients could receive a second cycle in the absence of grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicity or progressive disease. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients received 100 radioiodinated omburtamab injections. Diagnoses included metastatic neuroblastoma (n = 16) and other B7H3-expressing solid tumors (n = 22). Thirty-five patients received at least 1 cycle of treatment with both dosimetry and therapy doses. Acute toxicities included < grade 4 self-limited headache, vomiting or fever, and biochemical abnormalities. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was the most common hematologic toxicity. Recommended phase 2 dose was 1850 MBq/injection. The median radiation dose to the CSF and blood by sampling was 1.01 and 0.04 mGy/MBq, respectively, showing a consistently high therapeutic advantage for CSF. Major organ exposure was well below maximum tolerated levels. In patients developing antidrug antibodies, blood clearance, and therefore therapeutic index, was significantly increased. In patients receiving cRIT for neuroblastoma, survival was markedly increased (median PFS 7.5 years) compared to historical data. CONCLUSIONS: cRIT with 131I-omburtamab is safe, has favorable dosimetry and may have a therapeutic benefit as adjuvant therapy for B7-H3-expressing leptomeningeal metastases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT00089245, August 5, 2004.

Feasibility of Administering High-Dose (131) I-MIBG Therapy to Children with High-Risk Neuroblastoma Without Lead-Lined Rooms.

BACKGROUND: Although (131) I-metaiodobenzylguanidine ((131) I-MIBG) therapy is increasingly used for children with high-risk neuroblastoma, a paucity of lead-lined rooms limits its wider use. We implemented radiation safety procedures to comply with New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene regulations for therapeutic radioisotopes and administered (131) I-MIBG using rolling lead shields. PROCEDURE: Patients received 0.67 GBq (18 mCi)/kg/dose (131) I-MIBG on an IRB-approved protocol (NCT00107289). Radiation safety procedures included private room with installation of rolling lead shields to maintain area dose rates ≤0.02 mSv/hr outside the room, patient isolation until dose rate <0.07 mSv/hr at 1 m, and retention of a urinary catheter with collection of urine in lead boxes. Parents were permitted in the patient's room behind lead shields, trained in radiation safety principles, and given real-time radiation monitors. RESULTS: Records on 16 (131) I-MIBG infusions among 10 patients (age 2-11 years) were reviewed. Mean ± standard deviation (131) I-MIBG administered was 17.67 ± 11.14 (range: 6.11-40.59) GBq. Mean maximum dose rates outside treatment rooms were 0.013 ± 0.008 mSv/hr. Median time-to-discharge was 3 days post-(131) I-MIBG. Exposure of medical staff and parents was below regulatory limits. Cumulative whole-body dose received by the physician, nurse, and radiation safety officer during treatment was 0.098 ± 0.058, 0.056 ± 0.045, 0.055 ± 0.050 mSv, respectively. Cumulative exposure to parents was 0.978 ± 0.579 mSv. Estimated annual radiation exposure for inpatient nurses was 0.096 ± 0.034 mSv/nurse. Thyroid bioassay scans on all medical personnel showed less than detectable activity. Contamination surveys were <200 dpm/100 cm(2) . CONCLUSIONS: The use of rolling lead shields and implementation of specific radiation safety procedures allows administration of high-dose (131) I-MIBG and may broaden its use without dedicated lead-lined rooms.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a radiation safety training intervention for oncology nurses: a pretest-intervention-posttest study.

BACKGROUND: Radiation, for either diagnosis or treatment, is used extensively in the field of oncology. An understanding of oncology radiation safety principles and how to apply them in practice is critical for nursing practice. Misconceptions about radiation are common, resulting in undue fears and concerns that may negatively impact patient care. Effectively educating nurses to help overcome these misconceptions is a challenge. Historically, radiation safety training programs for oncology nurses have been compliance-based and behavioral in philosophy. METHODS: A new radiation safety training initiative was developed for Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) adapting elements of current adult education theories to address common misconceptions and to enhance knowledge. A research design for evaluating the revised training program was also developed to assess whether the revised training program resulted in a measurable and/or statistically significant change in the knowledge or attitudes of nurses toward working with radiation. An evaluation research design based on a conceptual framework for measuring knowledge and attitude was developed and implemented using a pretest-intervention-posttest approach for 15% of the study population of 750 inpatient registered oncology nurses. RESULTS: As a result of the intervention program, there was a significant difference in nurse's cognitive knowledge as measured with the test instrument from pretest (58.9%) to posttest (71.6%). The evaluation also demonstrated that while positive nursing attitudes increased, the increase was significant for only 5 out of 9 of the areas evaluated. CONCLUSION: The training intervention was effective for increasing cognitive knowledge, but was less effective at improving overall attitudes. This evaluation provided insights into the effectiveness of training interventions on the radiation safety knowledge and attitude of oncology nurses.

Assessment of radiation safety instructions to patients based on measured dose rates following prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To validate radiation safety instructions to patients and to evaluate the potential radiation doses to members of the public after (125)I or (103)Pd prostate implantation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation dose rate measurements were made in the immediate postoperative period on 636 consecutive patients with stage T1-T2 prostate cancer who underwent transperineal (125)I or (103)Pd implantation at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center during the period from August 1995 through January 2003. RESULTS: The mean radiation dose rate at the anterior skin surface following a prostate implant was 37 microSv/hr for (125)I and 8 microSv/hr for (103)Pd. At 30 cm from the anterior skin surface, these dose rates were reduced to 6 microSv/hr for (125)I and 3 microSv/hr for (103)Pd. At 1 m from the anterior skin surface the dose rates from both types of implants were reduced to less than 1 microSv/hr. The effect of body weight on dose rates from (125)I sources was examined for a select sub-group of patients and the measured dose rate was found to decrease with increasing body weight. In another group of patients, dose rate measurements were made on both lateral skin surfaces and were less than 16.8 microSv/hr in all cases. Assuming a 33% occupancy factor and utilizing the mean measured dose rate for (125)I, the time required to reach an effective dose equivalent limit of 5 mSv for caregivers was estimated to be 19 days on contact with the skin surface. Using a similar calculation, the lifetime doses for (125)I at a distance of 30 cm from the anterior skin surface, as well as the lifetime doses for (103)Pd on contact with the skin surface and at 30 cm from the anterior skin surface can be shown to be less than 5 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: The large number of cases available for this study permits a validation of radiation safety recommendations and provides concrete information from which the permitted exposure times following implantation can be estimated. The data support the conclusion that patients treated with these implants do not represent a radiation risk to members of the public.