Patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum are incurable with standard chemotherapy agents, and new therapies are needed for more effective treatment of these diseases. Although encouraging results have been obtained in clinical studies using MABs3 or RIT for the treatment of patients with recurrent B-cell lymphoma (1), results of clinical RIT trials in solid tumors have been relatively disappointing. RIT trials for solid tumors have resulted in low response rates of shorter duration than observed in B-cell lymphoma (2). The efficacy of RIT in solid tumors using directly labeled MABs has been limited by a number of factors (2) including: (a) relatively low level and heterogeneous deposition of MAB in tumors; (b) relatively low and heterogeneous distribution of absorbed radiation doses in tumors; and (c) radioresistance of many solid tumors,resulting in the inability to deliver sufficient tumor doses with acceptable toxicity.

Pretargeting of RIT is a promising approach that has the potential to increase achievable tumor doses, improve tumor:normal tissue ratios,and therefore to increase the therapeutic index of pretargeted RIT compared with the use of directly labeled MABs. Pretargeting approaches dissociate the delivery of unlabeled antibody from the delivery of the radionuclide. This is potentially advantageous because the antibody that is administered first is not radiolabeled and therefore does not expose normal organs to radiation. The unlabeled antibody localizes in tumor and is then cleared from the circulation with a clearing agent. The radionuclide-hapten complex is then administered that reacts with the pretargeted antibody, thereby concentrating the radionuclide in the tumor. Pretargeting approaches use either bifunctional antibodies (3, 4, 5), a biotin-streptavidin approach, or similar high-affinity ligand systems (6, 7).

The optimal timing of administration of the radionuclide is achieved when the tumor:background ratio of unlabeled antibody is maximum. This is optimized by accelerated clearance of unlabeled antibody from circulation using a clearing agent based on the biotin-avidin or streptavidin system (8). Advantages of this system include the small molecular weight of biotin, which can quickly circulate throughout the body, and the high-binding affinity between biotin and avidin or streptavidin (1015m−1). Because the hapten-radionuclide complex is relatively small, it is cleared by the kidneys, and unbound radionuclide is cleared rapidly. Because biotin is a tetravalent molecule, the availability of four binding sites per streptavidin molecule also multiplies radionuclide deposition in tumor. Studies using both two- and three-step approaches have demonstrated that these pretargeting approaches permit the administration of much higher doses of radionuclide with acceptable toxicity than is possible with RIT using directly labeled antibodies (2, 9).

In the Phase II study reported here, a three-step pretargeting approach was used in which streptavidin-conjugated NR-LU-10 MAB was administered and allowed to localize in tumor. Next, a biotin-containing clearing agent was administered, followed by administration of yttrium-90-biotin. The murine MAB NR-LU-10 recognizes a noninternalizing Mr 40,000 glycoprotein antigen (Ep-CAM) expressed on several epithelial tumors,such as carcinomas of the lung, colon, breast, prostate, and ovary (10), as well as on some normal tissues including gastrointestinal epithelium. NR-LU-10 possesses two desirable characteristics for pretargeting: reactivity with a high percentage of tumor cells in a broad range of adenocarcinomas (11), and efficient in vivo tumor cell localization in both animal models and in humans (12).

Lastly, the therapeutic radionuclide (third component of therapy) was administered after confirmation of NR-LU-10/SA clearance from the blood. 90Y was selected for therapy because it is a pure β emitter with a half life of 64 h, a maximum energy of 2.28 MeV, an average energy of 0.935 MeV, and a mean range in tissue of∼2.5 mm. The pathlength over which 90% of the emitted energy is absorbed is 5.3 mm (14, 15, 16). 90Y was linked to biotin by the linker known as DOTA. Previously, studies have shown that DOTA binds to 90Y with a favorably high level of stability so that leaching (in vitro) is minimized (17).

The three steps of this pretargeting regimen (including doses of the components and the timing of their administration) were optimized in patients to maximize tumor:normal tissue ratios (13). A Phase I dose escalation trial was performed using this optimized regimen. The MTD was determined to be 110 mCi/m2. The dose-limiting toxicity at 140 mCi/m2 was GI toxicity. Two of three patients experienced grade 4 diarrhea requiring hospitalization and i.v. hydration. Two of four patients at the 120-mCi/m2 dose level also experienced grade 3/4 GI toxicity. One patient experienced grade 4 diarrhea requiring hospitalization, and another patient experienced grade 3 diarrhea requiring i.v. hydration. The onset of diarrhea occurred between 5 and 14 days after treatment with 90Y. Six subjects were treated at the 110-mCi/m2 cohort, with one grade 3 diarrhea unrelated to study medication. For this reason, the dose of 110 mCi/m2 was chosen to be the dose used in the Phase II study (18).

In the Phase II study reported here, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were treated with 110 mCi/m2 of 90Y-DOTA-biotin pretargeted by NR-LU-10/SA. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this therapy in this patient population. Secondary objectives included: evaluation of the duration of tumor responses; time to tumor progression; quality of life; and the incidence and titer of HAMAs,HASAs, and HACAs after a single dose of murine NR-LU-10/SA.

### Study Design.

Seventy-two h after administration of NR-LU-10/SA and 24 h after administration of clearing agent, patients received 0.5 mg of 90Y-DOTA-biotin labeled with 110 mCi/m2 90Y. The 90Y-DOTA-biotin was given in up to 60 ml of saline as a single, rapid i.v. bolus injection(15–20 s). Patients were again observed for acute toxicities and had vital signs monitored immediately prior to and 10, 30, and 60 min after administration of 90Y-DOTA-biotin and then as clinically indicated. Stools were tested for occult blood when clinically indicated. Patients were discharged when stable and when their level of emitted radiation met revised Nuclear Regulatory Commission release guidelines. They were discharged with Imodium and antiemetics to use at the first sign of any GI toxicity. Any patient experiencing ≥ grade 2 diarrhea was seen by a physician, and patients with grade 3 or 4 GI toxicity were referred to a gastroenterologist for evaluation.

90Y was obtained from the United States Department of Energy’s isotope production program at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Richland, Washington). Patients were treated with 90Y-DOTA-Biotin (110 mCi/m2) pretargeted by NR-LU-10/SA under BB-IND-5247. The NR-LU-10 was conjugated to SA and tested for general safety, sterility, pyrogenicity, polynucleotides, Mycoplasma, and adventitious virus contamination. The 90Y-DOTA-biotin was prepared as follows. The 90Y (1.3 × patient dose in mCi) was buffered with ammonium acetate and mixed. Ascorbic acid (0.05 ml) was then added to the reaction vial and mixed. Ammonium acetate buffer (0.8 ml) was subsequently added to the DOTA-biotin vial and mixed. Next,0.25 ml of the diluted DOTA-biotin vial was added to the vial and mixed. The shielded 90Y reaction vial was incubated in a water bath at 80°C for 60 min. After removal from the water bath, 0.06 ml from the diethylene triamine-pentaacetic acid vial was added to the reaction vial as a precautionary measure to scavenge any unchelated 90Y. The final dilution for patient administration was prepared by transferring the contents of the 90Y reaction vial into a 30-ml syringe containing 8 ml of PBS and 1.0 ml of ascorbic acid. Flushing of the vial with 15 ml of PBS ensured that the transfer was complete. The entire preparation was filtered through a 0.2 μm filter.

Quality control assays were then performed on a 0.3-ml aliquot from the 30-ml syringe as follows. Three release assays (LAL testing,determination of percentage of binding, and radiochemical purity) were performed on site prior to the release of the 90Y-DOTA-biotin. One safety assay (Relative Biotin Binding) was performed before the patient was injected with 90Y-DOTA-biotin. The LAL gel-clot method is a qualitative test for Gram-negative endotoxin. Gram-negative bacterial endotoxin catalyzes the activation of a proenzyme in the LAL. The initial rate of activation is determined by the concentration of endotoxin present. The activated enzyme (coagulase) hydrolyzes specific bonds within a clotting protein (coagulation) also present in LAL. Once hydrolyzed, the resultant coagulin self-associates and forms a gelatinous clot. This assay was performed using a positive product control for each sample tested. Typically, the assay sensitivity of the LAL kit (BioWhittaker, Inc., Walkersville, MD) ranged between 0.25 and 0.125 endotoxin units/ml, and the 90Y-DOTA-biotin was always less than this level of endotoxin. Determination of the percentage of binding was accomplished by measuring the percentage of binding of SA to biotin in a mixture of sample to its binding partner coated on agarose beads. Using radiolabeled samples, the percentage of the activity associated with the beads compared with the total activity was determined by a gamma counter. Briefly, 0.2 ml of avidin-coated beads were washed twice with 500 μl of PBS and reconstituted with 500μl of PBS. The patient preparation (10 μl of a 1:1000 dilution) was added to each of two Microfilterfuge tubes (one with the beads and one with 500 μl of PBS only), incubated for 10 min at room temperature,and centrifuged in a microcentrifuge for 20–30 s. The beads were washed twice with PBS. Then 900 μl of each filtrate were removed into separate test tubes and counted in the gamma counter. The percentage of binding was determined by comparing the cpm of the Microfilterfuge tube section associated with the beads to the total cpm of the sample:

$\%\ \mathrm{binding\ {=}\ }\ \frac{\mathrm{Total\ cpm\ {-}\ free\ cpm}}{\mathrm{Total\ cpm}}\mathrm{\ {\times}\ 100}$

### Dosimetry.

Dosimetric studies were not required by the protocol and were not routinely performed in this Phase II study. However, in three patients treated at Virginia Mason Medical Center, dosimetry studies were performed using 111In-DOTA-biotin, as described previously (20), in which absorbed radiation doses were estimated for normal organs and tissues, the whole body, and for tumor masses using methods that are consistent with those recommended by the MIRD Committee of The Society of Nuclear Medicine (21, 22, 23). These methods account for both the penetrating gamma and the nonpenetrating β radiation emitted by radioactivity distributed throughout the body. Dosimetry calculations were based on gamma-camera measurements of 111In-labeled-biotin in the major source organs, tumors, blood serum, and in the total body at various times after administration using methodology described previously (20, 24, 25, 26). These calculations were used to estimate the range of doses to normal organs and tissues delivered by 90Y-DOTA-biotin at the MTD in these patients to try to better understand the observed toxicity.

The S values (the absorbed dose per unit cumulated activity in cGy per μCi-h, or Gy per Becquerel-s) used for these calculations were the same as those that were used previously in the International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 30 (27)and implemented in MIRDOSE2 computer software (Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, TN). S values for tumors were estimated by extrapolation using normal organs of similar size and location in the body. Published S values are not available for mucosal tissue of the small and large intestines. Therefore, we calculated the S values from first principles using a mathematical model of the intestinal wall, mucosa of the wall, and lumen (bowel contents). These S values were calculated (28) for 90Y activity deposited in the mucosa, the wall, or lumen using a Monte Carlo code (EGS4, Stanford Linear Accelerator, Palo Alto, CA). The small and large intestines were modeled as parallel-packed cylinders (>30 cm length) for these calculations. We assumed a wall thickness for small intestine of 0.35 cm, which includes a mucosa of 0.06-cm thickness. We assumed a small intestine luminal diameter of 0.57 mm. Radiation absorbed doses to mucosa were then obtained by multiplying the calculated Svalues by the cumulated activities, Ã, that were obtained from 111In gamma camera measurements for 90Y in the small or large intestines.

### Clinical Parameters Monitored.

After treatment, a number of parameters were followed. These included blood counts, chemistry panels, thyroid function tests, pancreatic enzyme levels, urine analyses, carcinoembryonic antigen levels, and HAMA/HASA/HACA tests. Patients were seen for follow-up examinations at least every 2 weeks for the first 3 months and then monthly until disease progression was documented. The exact timing of these visits was determined in part by the patient’s clinical status. A toxicity assessment, with special emphasis on gastrointestinal toxicity, was performed three times/week for 3 weeks after 90Y administration. An electrocardiogram was performed at baseline and at the time patients went off study. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life assessment was performed on day 1, weeks 4, 8, and 12, and then every 3 months as long as the patients remained on study. Restaging was performed at weeks 4–6 and 8–10 after treatment and then every 2 months until progression and was based on physical examination and a variety of radiographic studies including chest, abdominal, and pelvic computed tomography scans. Standard response criteria were used and defined as follows: a complete response was defined as disappearance of all clinical evidence of tumor by physical examination,roentgenography, and computed tomography scans for a minimum of 4 weeks. A PR was a 50% or greater decrease in the sum of the product of the diameters of the measurable sentinel lesions for a minimum of 4 weeks without any increase in size of other lesions and the appearance of no new lesions. Stable disease was any change in the size of the sentinel lesions not meeting the criteria of a complete response or PR or progression. Progressive disease was a 25% or greater increase in the sum of the product of the diameters of the measurable sentinel lesions and/or the appearance of a new lesion. The duration of response was the number of days between the first documentation of a PR or complete response and the first documentation of progression of disease.

### HAMA/HASA/HACA Response.

Patients were monitored for the production of HAMA, HASA, and HACA. Antiglobulin levels were measured in patient sera using an ELISA as described previously (29). Briefly, streptavidin,NR-LU-10, or NR-LU-10/SA was used as a capture antigen for HASA, HAMA,and HACA, respectively. In each case, antigen was coated on 96-well polyvinyl microtiter plates (Falcon Plastics, Oxnard, CA) in PBS (Sigma Chemical, St. Louis, MO). Patient sera was added in 4-fold dilutions to wells in PBS containing 0.5% Tween and 4% chicken serum (PCT buffer). After washing unbound sera components, peroxidase-labeled goat antihuman (heavy and light chain) antibody was added in PCT for each of the three assays. After additional washes, the chromogen substrate,2,2′ azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiozoline-6-sulfonic acid, was added, and color development was monitored spectrophotometrically. Relative reactivity was determined by measuring the HASA, HAMA, and HACA immune response relative to a pooled serum source of untreated normal individuals. To be considered a positive response, posttreatment levels needed to be at least 2-fold higher than pretreatment levels.

### Clinical Responses.

The clinical responses are summarized in Table 2. The actual dose administered is shown for each patient, as well as the subsequent best response and FFP in months. The response rate was 8% with two PRs in patients 20 and 21 with FFP of 16 weeks. Four patients (16%) had stable disease with FFP of 10–20 weeks, as determined by tumor measurements made at the study sites.

### Toxicity.

Hematological toxicity was less severe and is summarized in Table 4. The numbers of patient with grades 1–4 leukopenia, granulocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia are shown. There were more patients with grade 4 thrombocytopenia than grade 4 neutropenia. Mean nadir counts are based on absolute nadir counts or the lowest count that occurred prior to the initiation of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in three patients or platelet transfusions in three patients. Nadirs generally occurred between 5 and 6 weeks after treatment and usually resolved by approximately 6–8 weeks after treatment (Table 5).

### Human Antimouse, SA, and Conjugate Responses.

All patients had a positive antibody response to the mouse antibody(HAMA), SA (HASA), and conjugate (HACA), defined as an increase ≥2 SD above the mean of a control population in measured normal human serum units. Positive antibody responses were observed in 70–80% of patients by 2 weeks after treatment and in all patients by 4–5 weeks after treatment.

### Dosimetry.

Three patients treated at Virginia Mason Medical Center on the Phase II study underwent dosimetry studies with estimated doses to the small intestine (standard MIRD calculation), kidney, and bone marrow of 2102 ± 591 cGy, 2864 ± 840 cGy, and 33 ± 8 cGy,respectively. Tumor doses were estimated for two of these patients at 479 cGy (patient 6, lung mass) and 2885 cGy (patient 8, liver lesion). A tumor dose was not calculated for the third patient (patient 7)because of poor imaging of disease in that patient.

Pretargeting approaches for RIT of solid tumors provide an opportunity to significantly increase the therapeutic index of pretargeted RIT compared with the use of directly labeled MABs. Unfortunately, the results of the Phase II trial described here are disappointing because of the inability to deliver sufficiently high doses to tumor and because of dose-limiting normal tissue toxicity secondary to reactivity of the antibody with normal tissues. Nevertheless, proof of principle was demonstrated for the pretargeting approach, with clearance of ≥95% of circulating antibody to serum levels <5 μg/ml of biotin bonding conjugate, and useful information was obtained that will allow for improved RIT using similar approaches in the future.

The response rate in the Phase II study was similar to that observed in the Phase I study for patients treated at ≥80 mCi/m2, with PR rates of 8% (current study) and 9% (Phase I study), respectively. However, only 16% of patients in the Phase II study had stable disease compared with 54% of patients in the Phase I study treated with ≥80 mCi/m2 90Y-DOTA-biotin, who achieved either a minor response (2 patients) or stable disease (16 patients). Furthermore, the mean FFP for responses was shorter in the current study. The discrepancy in responses between the two studies may be attributable in part to the histology and associated natural history of the disease types studied, because only 22% of the patients in the Phase I study had colorectal cancer (29%had prostate cancer and 22% had ovarian cancer, with the remaining 27% comprised of breast, kidney, lung, cervix, and endometrial cancers).

The incidence and severity of GI and hematological toxicity at the MTD,determined by the previous Phase I trial (18), were surprising and not predicted by the results of that study. In the Phase I trial, 40 patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of a variety of sites were treated in a dose escalation study (dose increments 5–20 mCi/m2), with total doses ranging from 25 to 140 mCi/m2 90Y-DOTA-biotin. In an interim analysis,grade 3/4 diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia occurred in 4, 3, 7, and 4 of 40 patients, respectively. The dose-limiting toxicity in this Phase I trial was diarrhea at a dose level of 140 mCi/m2 90Y. The reason for the discrepancy in the toxicity results of the Phases I and II studies is unclear but could be attributable in part to small numbers of patients at each dose level in the Phase I trial as well as to the heterogenicity of tumor types in the Phase I trial as compared with the Phase II trial. The patients in the Phase II study were not more unfavorable than those treated in the Phase I study in terms of the extent of prior myelosuppressive therapy or the presence of risk factors for GI toxicity (prior abdominal or pelvic radiation therapy and/or laparotomy). The observed renal toxicity was also not predicted by the prior Phase I study, perhaps because there were only small numbers of patients treated at high doses, with many not surviving long enough to develop late toxicities of treatment. Of note, one of the patients treated previously in the Phase I study with 140 mCi/m2 now has a diminished creatinine clearance. In the Phase II study, the timing of onset of elevated serum creatinine levels is consistent with radiation-induced nephritis (30).

Estimated doses to bowel, kidney, and bone marrow from the Phase I study were 10.6 ± 3.9 cGy/mCi, 11.5 ± 4.2 cGy/mCi, and 0.15 ± 0.06 cGy/mCi, respectively. Similarly, doses estimated for small intestine (standard MIRD calculation), kidney, and bone marrow for three patients in the Phase II study were 2102 ± 591 cGy,2864 ± 840 cGy, and 33 ± 8 cGy, respectively. Because dosimetry studies were not performed routinely as part of this Phase II study, doses to these normal tissues were also estimated by extrapolation from the Phase I experience. For patients receiving 110 mCi/m2, assuming a body surface area of 2.0 m2, the average estimated dose to the kidney and bone marrow could have ranged between 1606 and 3454 (mean, 2530) cGy and 11–55 (mean, 33) cGy, respectively. Using a new model for calculating radiation absorbed dose to intestinal tissues for the three Phase II study patients above (28), Fisher et al.(28) have estimated the dose to the wall of the small intestine in the GI tract to be 59 ± 2.0 cGy/mCi (compared with 9.4 ± 2.5 cGy/mCi as predicted by standard MIRD calculations for the small intestine, which assumes that the activity resides in the bowel contents as compared with the tissue itself), with doses for the large intestine slightly >50% of the dose to the small intestine(because of the greater mass of the large intestinal wall). Therefore,these patients in the Phase II study received on average a small intestinal wall dose of 13,334 cGy. This is because of cross-reactivity of the NR-LU-10 antibody with the bowel epithelium and not because of GI excretion of the 90Y-DOTA-biotin. NR-LU-10 also cross-reacted with kidney tubules; therefore kidney doses were secondary to both renal excretion of 90Y as well as to the targeting of bound NR-LU-10/SA by 90Y-DOTA-biotin. Given that conservative estimates of tolerable whole-organ doses from conventional (high-dose rate) radiation therapy are 1500–1700 cGy for kidneys and 4000–4500 cGy for the small bowel (31), the doses to these organs in this study may have greatly exceeded these “tolerable” ranges in many patients. These dose estimates are more than sufficient to explain the observed toxicity. If these estimates are accurate, it is in fact surprising that more toxicity was not observed and demonstrates the impact of dose rate effects on toxicity. RIT results in continuous exponentially decreasing low-dose-rate radiation. Little has been known about normal organ tolerance to low-dose-rate radiation, and these observations provide new insight into the radiobiology and toxicity of this form of therapy. It is important to emphasize, however, that dose estimates for radioimmunotherapy lack the precision of the dosimetric methodology used to calculate tumor and normal tissue doses from conventional external beam radiation therapy. It is possible that the imprecision associated with estimating doses in this study could have resulted in overestimation of doses to normal tissue, which would affect our interpretation of the findings with regard to expected toxicity as a function of dose rate.

In this study, proof of principle was obtained for the pretargeting approach used with documentation of excellent clearance of circulating antibody. New information about normal tissue tolerance to low-dose-rate irradiation was obtained that will help to provide useful guidelines for future study designs. Clearly, future studies should use antibodies directed to a different antigenic target because reactivity of the NR-LU-10 MAB with normal GI epithelium and collecting tubules in the kidney clearly contributed to toxicity. Ideally, the targeted tumor antigen should have highly restricted expression in normal tissues. Efficacy may be further improved by using less immunogenic agents(e.g., chimeric or humanized MABs) that may allow for multidose fractionated RIT. The tumor-targeting vehicle should be multivalent and highly tumor avid, yet small enough to penetrate into tumors from the vasculature and rapidly clear from normal organs. If this is possible, a formal clearance step may not be necessary. The high-affinity interactions between the tumor-targeting vehicle and the radionuclide should be mediated by nonimmunogenic proteins, again ideally of human origin, and the high-affinity interactions should not involve potential cross-reactivity with host elements, such as endogenous biotin. Pretargeted RIT remains a promising area of clinical investigation that merits further study. Modifications of the pretargeting strategy, such as those described above, will enable pretargeted RIT to achieve its full potential.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1

Supported in part by Human Health Service Grant M01-RR00070, General Clinical Research Centers, National Center for Research Resources, NIH, and a grant from the Janssen Research Foundation.

3

The abbreviations used are: MAB,monoclonal antibody; RIT, radioimmunotherapy; SA streptavidin; DOTA,tetra-azacyclododecanetetra-acetic acid; MTD, maximum tolerated dose;GI, gastrointestinal; HAMA, human antimouse antibody; HASA, human antistreptavidin antibody; HACA, human anticonjugate antibody; LAL, Limulus amebocyte lysate; MIRD, Medical Internal Radiation Dose; FFP, freedom from progression; PR, partial response.

Table 1

Patient profile

mCi/m2Total mCi
53/M 93 186 No Ld
47/M 110 223 No L, P
52/F 110 163 Yes (pelvis) L, P
74/M 127 248 No Pd, ADd
51/M 75 159 No L, TA
65/M 106 244 No P, TA
60/F 111 243 A, C No L, P
54/M 102 191 No L, AD, AA
45/M 110 185 A× 2, C Yes (pelvis, L2–L4)
10 66/F 111 214 A, C No Ld, P, AA, S, BO
11 51/F 100 176 A, F No L, P
12 59/M 110 214 G, C, A, D No Ld, PA
13 73/F 97 169 G, A, H, C No L, P, TAd
14 37/F 86 150 Yes (proximal femur/hip) L, P, PM
15 55/F 110 176 G, A, F No Ld
16 46/F 104 200 A, F No L, AM
17 56/F 114 214 Yes (pelvis) Ld, P, PM, BO
18 63/F 117 182 A, C Yes (pelvis, PALN)e Ld, AA
19 57/M 109 212 A, G, C No
20 72/F 110 215 A, C, D No Ld, P, TA
21 74/F 109 187 A, G No Ld
22 67/M 111 194 No Ld, P
23 52/M 109 219 No PM, AM
24 61/M 108 236 A, C No PM, AA
25 50/M 113 193 A, C No L, P, PM
mCi/m2Total mCi
53/M 93 186 No Ld
47/M 110 223 No L, P
52/F 110 163 Yes (pelvis) L, P
74/M 127 248 No Pd, ADd
51/M 75 159 No L, TA
65/M 106 244 No P, TA
60/F 111 243 A, C No L, P
54/M 102 191 No L, AD, AA
45/M 110 185 A× 2, C Yes (pelvis, L2–L4)
10 66/F 111 214 A, C No Ld, P, AA, S, BO
11 51/F 100 176 A, F No L, P
12 59/M 110 214 G, C, A, D No Ld, PA
13 73/F 97 169 G, A, H, C No L, P, TAd
14 37/F 86 150 Yes (proximal femur/hip) L, P, PM
15 55/F 110 176 G, A, F No Ld
16 46/F 104 200 A, F No L, AM
17 56/F 114 214 Yes (pelvis) Ld, P, PM, BO
18 63/F 117 182 A, C Yes (pelvis, PALN)e Ld, AA
19 57/M 109 212 A, G, C No
20 72/F 110 215 A, C, D No Ld, P, TA
21 74/F 109 187 A, G No Ld
22 67/M 111 194 No Ld, P
23 52/M 109 219 No PM, AM
24 61/M 108 236 A, C No PM, AA
25 50/M 113 193 A, C No L, P, PM
a

b

Specific regimens (all are systemic unless otherwise stated; excludes other investigational agents, vaccines, and vitamins): A, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) + leucovorin; B, 5-FU +levamisole; C, irinotecan; D, mitomycin-C; E, 5-FU; F, oxaliplatin,5-FU + leucovorin; G, intrahepatic 5-fluro-2-deoxyuridine(FUDR) ± leucovorin ± decadron; H, cyclophosphamide.

c

L, liver; P, pulmonary; TA, thoracic adenopathy; AA, abdominal adenopathy; PA, pelvic adenopathy; AM,abdominal mass; PM, pelvic mass; S, splenomegaly; AD, adrenal mass; BO,bone (probably underreported because bone scans were not required by the study).

d

>5.0 cm in at least one dimension.

e

PALN, para-aortic lymph-nodes.

Table 2

Clinical responses

PatientDosage Total mCiBest responseaFFP (weeks)
186 Pd
223 Pd
163 Sd 20
248 Pd
159 Pd
244 Pd
243 Sd 14
191 Pd
185 Pd 10
10 214 Pdb
11 176 Pd
12 214 Pd
13 169 Pd
14 150 Sd 12
15 176 Pd
16 200 Sdc 10
17 214 Pd
18 182 Pd
19 212 Pd
20 215 PR 16
21 187 PR 16
22 194 Pd
23 219 Pd
24 236 Pd
25 193 Pd
PatientDosage Total mCiBest responseaFFP (weeks)
186 Pd
223 Pd
163 Sd 20
248 Pd
159 Pd
244 Pd
243 Sd 14
191 Pd
185 Pd 10
10 214 Pdb
11 176 Pd
12 214 Pd
13 169 Pd
14 150 Sd 12
15 176 Pd
16 200 Sdc 10
17 214 Pd
18 182 Pd
19 212 Pd
20 215 PR 16
21 187 PR 16
22 194 Pd
23 219 Pd
24 236 Pd
25 193 Pd
a

Pd, progressive disease; Sd, stable disease.

b

Expired 2 weeks after treatment (grade 5 toxicity).

c

Minor response with >25% but <50% tumor shrinkage.

Table 3

No. of patients with acute nonhematological toxicity by grade

Symptoms
Nausea 11
Cough
Diarrhea 10 4 (1 grade 5)
Vomiting
Tachycardia
Anorexia
Fever
Fatigue
Dyspnea
Dehydration
Taste changes
Stomatitis
Edema/ascites
Back pain
Abdominal cramping
Abdominal pain
Laboratory abnormalitiesa
Elev. BUNb
Elev. Creatininec 1d
LDHf
Alkaline phosphatase 12
SGOTg 11
SGPTh
GGTi 10
Bilirubin 3j
Symptoms
Nausea 11
Cough
Diarrhea 10 4 (1 grade 5)
Vomiting
Tachycardia
Anorexia
Fever
Fatigue
Dyspnea
Dehydration
Taste changes
Stomatitis
Edema/ascites
Back pain
Abdominal cramping
Abdominal pain
Laboratory abnormalitiesa
Elev. BUNb
Elev. Creatininec 1d
LDHf
Alkaline phosphatase 12
SGOTg 11
SGPTh
GGTi 10
Bilirubin 3j
a

Exclusive of baseline elevations (e.g.,preexisting grade 1 toxicity).

b

Blood urea nitrogen.

c

Acute toxicity only [excludes two patients(no. 2 and 3) with elevated creatinine 7–8 months after treatment].

d

Unrelated to study drug.

e

Patient 10.

f

Lactate dehydrogenase.

g

Serum aspartate aminotransferase.

h

Serum alanine aminotransferase.

i

Gamma glutamyl transferase.

j

Patients 5, 14, and 23.

Table 4

No. of patients with hematological toxicity by grade

Leukopenia
Granulocytopenia 2a
Thrombocytopenia 10 4b
Anemia 11
Leukopenia
Granulocytopenia 2a
Thrombocytopenia 10 4b
Anemia 11
a

Mean duration of grade 4 granulocytopenia was 1 week.

b

Mean duration of grade 4 thrombocytopenia was 2 weeks (range, 1–3 weeks).

Table 5

Blood count nadirs (mean ± SD)

Pretreatment counts × 103/mm3CountNadir onset (wk)aResolutionb
WBC 7.1 ± 2.6 3.2 ± 1.6 5.8 ± 1.8 8.1 ± 1.6
Platelets 243.2 ± 92.6 77.4 ± 72.7 5.2 ± 1.4 6.8 ± 1.3
Pretreatment counts × 103/mm3CountNadir onset (wk)aResolutionb
WBC 7.1 ± 2.6 3.2 ± 1.6 5.8 ± 1.8 8.1 ± 1.6
Platelets 243.2 ± 92.6 77.4 ± 72.7 5.2 ± 1.4 6.8 ± 1.3
a

Weeks after treatment at which nadir occurred.

b

Weeks after treatment at which counts had returned to pretreatment levels or to within the normal range.

We thank Janssen Pharmaceutical Research Foundation and NeoRx Corporation for provision of the NR-LU-10/SA, clearing agent, chelator,and radionuclides. We are indebted to the following individuals at each of the four sites that participated in the trial for logistic,clinical, and data management support as follows: Stanford University:Dr. John French (technical assistance), Mary Jo Pearl (nursing assistance), Dr. Philippe Similon (clinical trial coordination), Dr. Michael Lane and Dr. Steven Heiss (tumor measurements) and Dr. Steve Eulau, Dr. Scott Williams, and the General Clinical Research Center staff (assistance with patient care); Fox Chase Cancer Center: Calvin Shaller (radiolabeling), Gwen Yeslow, and Kristin Padavic-Shaller(nurse coordination), Mary Beard (data management), and Dr. Philip Moldofsky (administration of 90Y-biotin);University of Nebraska Medical Center: Dr. Sam Augustine(radiopharmacy), Dr. Lisa Gobar (Nuclear Medicine), Mary Capadano(clinical coordinator), and Kay Bliss (laboratory support); Virginia Mason Medical Center: Sandy Wolf (nursing assistance) and Cheryl Clark Weaver (data management); and NeoRx Corporation: for support of the Virginia Mason Medical Center clinical site and to the following individuals at NeoRx Corporation for the following services to all clinical sites: Chris Seiler (project management), Dr. Fu-min Su and Steve Kitts (technical assistance), and Peng Hsiao (antiglobulin testing). We also thank Kathleen Cain for assistance with preparation of the manuscript.

1
Davis, T., and Knox, S. J. Radioimmunoconjugate therapy of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In: L. Grossbard (ed.), Monoclonal Antibody-based Therapy of Cancer, pp. 113–136. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1998.
2
Meredith, R. F., and Knox, S. J. Radioimmunotherapy. In: J. E. Tepper and L. L. Gunderson (eds.), Clinical Radiation Oncology, Chapter 15. Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill-Livingstone, in press, 2000.
3
Stickney D. R., Slater J. B., Kirk G. A., Ahlem C., Chang C. H., Frincke J. M. Bifunctional antibody: ZCE/CHH indium-111 BLEDTA-IV clinical imaging in colorectal cancer.
,
2
:
1
-13,
1989
.
4
Bosslet, K., Steinstraesser, A., Hermentin, P., Kuhlman, L., Broynck, A., Magerstaedt, M., Seeman, G., Schwarz, A., and Sedlacek, H. H. Generation of bispecific monoclonal antibodies for two-phase radioimmunotherapy. In: A. A. Epenetos (ed.), Monoclonal Antibodies: Applications in Clinical Oncology, pp. 167- 178. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991.
5
Chatal J. F., Faivre-Chauvet A., Bardies M. Bifunctional antibodies for radioimmunotherapy.
Hybridoma
,
14
:
125
-128,
1995
.
6
Paganelli, G., Magnani, P., Siccardi, A. G., and Fazio, F. Clinical application of the avidin-biotin system for tumor targeting. In: D. M. Goldenberg (ed.), Cancer Therapy with Radiolabeled Antibodies, pp. 239–254. Boca Raton: CRC Press, Inc., 1995.
7
Paganelli, G., Magnani, P., and Fazio, F. Monoclonal antibody pretargeting techniques: the avidin-biotin system in clinical oncology. In: A. A. Epenetos (ed.), Monoclonal Antibodies 2: Applications to Clinical Oncology, pp. 171–178. London: Chapman and Hall, 1993.
8
Sinitsyn V. V., Mamontova A. G., Checkneva Y. Y., Shnyra A. A., Domogatsky S. P. Rapid blood clearance of biotinylated IgG after infusion of avidin.
J. Nucl. Med.
,
30
:
66
-69,
1989
.
9
Breitz, H. B., Weiden, P. L., Fritzberg, A. R., Reno, J. M., and Abrams, P. G. Radiolabeled monoclonal antibodies for localization and treatment of metastatic cancer. In: R. K. Oldham (ed.), Principles of Cancer Biotherapy, Ed. 3, pp. 348–368. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.
10
Okabe T., Kaizu T., Fujisawa J., Watanabe J., Kojima K., Yamashita T., Takaku F. Monoclonal antibodies to surface antigens of small cell carcinoma of the lung.
Cancer Res.
,
44
:
5273
-5278,
1984
.
11
Pearson J. W., Sivan G., Manger R., Wiltrout R. H., Morgan A. C., Jr., Longo D. Enhanced therapeutic efficacy of an immunotoxin in combination with chemotherapy against an i.p. human tumor xenograft in athymic mice.
Cancer Res.
,
49
:
4990
-4995,
1989
.
12
Beaumier P. L., Venkateasan P., Vanderheyden J-L., Burgua W. D., Kunz L. L., Fritzberg A. R., Abrams P. G., Morgan A. C. 186 Re radioimmunotherapy of small cell lung carcinoma xenografts in nude mice.
Cancer Res.
,
51
:
676
-681,
1991
.
13
Breitz, H. B., Weiden, P. L., Beaumier, P. L., Axworthy, D. B., Seiler, C., Su, F-M., Graves, S., Bryan, K., and Reno, J. M. Clinical optimization of pretargeted radioimmunotherapy (PRIT™) with antibody-streptavidin conjugate and 90Y-DOTA-biotin. J. Nucl. Med., in press, 2000.
14
Press, O. W., Eary, J. F., Appelbaum, F. R., and Bernstein, I. D. Radiolabeled antibody therapy of lymphomas. In: V. T. DeVita, S. Hellman, and S. A. Rosenberg (eds.), Biological Therapy of Cancer, pp. 1–13. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1994.
15
Simpkin D. J., Mackie T. R. EGS4 Monte Carlo determination of the β dose kernel in water.
Med. Phys. (NY)
,
17
:
179
-186,
1990
.
16
Prestwich W. V., Nunes J., Kwok C. S. Beta dose point kernels for radionuclides of potential use in radioimmunotherapy.
J. Nucl. Med.
,
30
:
1036
-1046,
1989
.
17
Meares C. F., Moi M. K., Diril H., Kukis D. L., McCall M. J., Deshapnde S. V., DeNardo S. J., Snook D., Epenetos A. A. Macrocyclic chelates of radiometals for diagnosis and therapy.
Br. J. Cancer
,
62(Suppl.X)
:
21
-26,
1990
.
18
Murtha A., Weiden P., Knox S. J., Breitz H., Goris M., Axworthy D., Seiler C., Beaumier P., Bryan K., Reno J. Phase I dose escalation trial of pretargeted radioimmunotherapy (PRIT) with 90Yttrium.
Proc. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol.
,
17
:
438a
1998
.
19
Pearson T. C., Guthrie D. L., Simpson J., Chinn S., Barosi G., Ferrant A., Lewis S. M., Najean Y. Interruption of measured red cell mass and plasma volume in adults: Expert Panel on Radionuclides of the International Council for Standardization in Hematology.
Br. J. Haematol.
,
89
:
748
-756,
1995
.
20
Breitz H. B., Fisher D. R., Goris M. L., Knox S., Ratliff B., Murtha A. D., Weiden P. L. Radiation absorbed dose estimation for 90Y-DOTA-biotin with pretargeted NR-LU-10/SA.
,
14
:
381
-395,
1999
.
21
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Methods of assessment of absorbed dose in clinical use of radionuclides. ICRU Report No. 32. Washington, DC: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, 1979.
22
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). The experimental basis for absorbed dose calculations in medical uses of radionuclides. NCRP Report No. 83, Bethesda, Maryland: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1985.
23
Loevinger, R., Budinger, T. F., and Watson, E. E. MIRD primer for absorbed dose calculations. New York: The Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc., 1988.
24
Fisher D. R., Badger C. C., Breitz H., Eary J. F., Durham J. S., Hui T. E., Hill R. L., Nelp W. B. Internal radiation dosimetry for clinical testing of radiolabeled monoclonal antibodies.
,
4
:
655
-664,
1991
.
25
Siegel J. A., Wessels B. W., Watson E. E., Stabin M. G., Vriesendorp H. M., Bradley E. W., Badger C. C., Brill A. B., Kwok C. S., Stickney D. R., Eckerman K. F., Fisher D. R., Buchsbaum D. J., Order S. E. Bone marrow dosimetry and toxicity for radioimmunotherapy.
,
3
:
213
-233,
1990
.
26
Breitz H. B., Fisher D. R., Wessels B. W. Marrow toxicity and radiation absorbed dose estimates from rhenium-186-labeled monoclonal antibody.
J. Nucl. Med.
,
39
:
1746
-1751,
1998
.
27
International Commission on Radiological Protection. Limits for intakes of radionuclides by workers. ICRP Publication 30. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1979.
28
Fisher D. R., Rajon D., Bolch W. E., Breitz H. D. Dosimetry model for radiolabeled antibodies in gastro-intestinal mucosa.
,
13
:
301
1998
.
29
Breitz H. B., Weiden P. L., Vanderheyden J-L., Appelbaum J. W., Bjorn M. J., Fer M. F., Wolf S. B., Ratliff B. A., Seiler C. A., Foisie D. C. Clinical experience with Re-186-labeled monoclonal antibodies for radioimmunotherapy: results of Phase I trials.
J. Nucl. Med.
,
33
:
1099
-1112,
1992
.
30
Rubin P., Constine L. S., Williams J. P. Late effects of cancer treatment: radiation and drug toxicity Ed. 3 Perez C. A. Brady L. W. eds. .
Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology
,
:
155
-211, Lippincott-Raven New York
1998
.
31
Hoppe R. T. The non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas: pathology, staging and treatment.
Curr. Prob. Cancer
,
6
:
364
-447,
1987
.