Comparison of two peptide radiotracers for prostate carcinoma targeting

OBJECTIVES: Scintigraphy is generally not the first choice treatment for prostate cancer, although successful studies using bombesin analog radiopeptides have been performed. Recently, a novel peptide obtained using a phage display library demonstrated an affinity for prostate tumor cells. The aim of this study was to compare the use of a bombesin analog to that of a phage display library peptide (DUP-1) radiolabeled with technetium-99m for the treatment of prostate carcinoma. The peptides were first conjugated to S-acetyl-MAG3 with a 6-carbon spacer, namely aminohexanoic acid. METHODS: The technetium-99m labeling required a sodium tartrate buffer. Radiochemical evaluation was performed using ITLC and was confirmed by high-performance liquid chromatography. The coefficient partition was determined, and in vitro studies were performed using human prostate tumor cells. Biodistribution was evaluated in healthy animals at various time points and also in mice bearing tumors. RESULTS: The radiochemical purity of both radiotracers was greater than 95 percent. The DUP-1 tracer was more hydrophilic (log P = -2.41) than the bombesin tracer (log P = -0.39). The biodistribution evaluation confirmed this hydrophilicity by revealing the greater kidney uptake of DUP-1. The bombesin concentration in the pancreas was greater than that of DUP-1 due to specific gastrin-releasing peptide receptors. Bombesin internalization occurred for 78.32 percent of the total binding in tumor cells. The DUP-1 tracer showed very low binding to tumor cells during the in vitro evaluation, although tumor uptake for both tracers was similar. The tumors were primarily blocked by DUP1 and the bombesin radiotracer primarily targeted the pancreas. CONCLUSION: Further studies with the radiolabeled DUP-1 peptide are recommended. With further structural changes, this molecule could become an efficient alternative tracer for prostate tumor diagnosis.

Radiolabeled nano-peptides show specificity for an animal model of human PC3 prostate cancer cells

OBJECTIVES: Cancer has been investigated using various pre-targeting techniques or models focusing on radiobombesin analogues; however, both are not offered together. In this study, nano-bombesin labeling by a pre-targeting system was undertaken to develop an alternative approach for prostate tumor treatment. METHODS: A two-step pre-targeting system utilizing a combination of streptavidin (SA), biotinylated morpholino (B-MORF), biotinylated BBN (B-BBN) with two different spacers (b-Ala and PEG), and a radiolabeled cMORF was evaluated in vitro and in vivo. RESULTS: Final conjugation conditions consisted of a 1:1:2 ratio of SA:B-MORF:B-BBN, followed by addition of 99mTc-cMORF to compensate for free MORF. In vitro binding experiments with prostate cancer cells (PC-3) revealed that total binding was time-dependent for the Ala spacer but not for the PEG spacer. The highest accumulation (5.06 ± 1.98 percent) was achieved with 1 hour of incubation, decreasing as time progressed. Specific binding fell to 1.05 ± 0.35 percent. The pre-targeting biodistribution in healthy Swiss mice was measured at different time points, with the best responses observed for 7-h and 15-h incubations. The effector, 99mTc-MAG3-cMORF, was administered 2 h later. Strong kidney excretion was always documented. The greatest tumor uptake was 2.58 ± 0.59 percentID/g at 7 h for B-bAla-BBN, with a region of interest (ROI) value of 3.9 percent during imaging. The tumor/blood ratio was low due to the slow blood clearance; however, the tumor/muscle ratio was 5.95. CONCLUSIONS: The pre-targeting approach with a peptide was a viable concept. Further evaluation with modified sequences of MORF, including less cytosine, and additional test intervals could be worthwhile.