ORIGINAL ARTICLES   

The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2016 December;60(4):413-23

Copyright © 2016 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Targeting osteomyelitis with complete [99mTc]besilesomab and fragmented [99mTc]sulesomab antibodies: kinetic evaluations

Stefan GRATZ ^{1, 2}, Patrik REIZE ³, Bendix KEMKE ², Wim U. KAMPEN ⁴, Markus LUSTER ¹, Helmut HÖFFKEN ¹ ✉

¹ Department of Nuclear Medicine, Philipps University, Marburg, Germany; ² Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiology, Bad Cannstatt Canter, Stuttgart, Germany; ³ Department of Trauma, Reconstructive and Orthopedic Surgery, Bad Cannstatt Center, Stuttgart, Germany; ⁴ Department of Nuclear Medicine, Spitalerhof Clinic, Hamburg, Germany

BACKGROUND: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the targeting of “pure” osteomyelitis (i.e., without surrounding soft tissue infection) by directly 99mTc-labelled complete immunoglobulin G (IgG) monoclonal antibody (MAb) ([99mTc]besilesomab) and by directly 99mTc-labelled fragment antigen-binding (FAb) MAb ([99mTc]sulesomab) in relation to their kinetic fate. A total of 73 patients with “pure” osteomyelitis were examined with [99mTc]besilesomab, (Scintimun®, IBA/CIS bio international, Saclay, France; N.=38) and [99mTc]sulesomab (LeukoScan®, Immunomedics Inc., Morris Plains, NJ, USA; N.=35).
METHODS: Kinetic data were deduced from whole-body and single-photon emission computed tomographic scans, performed 10 minutes to 24 hour p.i. (region-of-interest technique [ROI]).
RESULTS: In targeting “pure” osteomyelitis, sensitivities at 1-4 hours were found to be higher for [99mTc]sulesomab (44% and 80% for [99mTc]besilesomab and [99mTc]sulesomab, respectively) but at significantly lower target/background (T/B) ratios than with [99mTc]besilesomab (1.8±0.3 versus 1.4±0.5 for [99mTc]besilesomab and [99mTc]sulesomab respectively; P<0.01). With [99mTc]besilesomab, there was a continuous osteomyelitis uptake over 24 hours, whereas with [99mTc]sulesomab, the maximal uptake occurred mostly within 1-4 hours, with subsequent clearance being slower for antigen-bound activity than for nonspecific background. Hence, diagnosis was possible mostly after 4h with [99mTc]sulesomab but often not before 24 hours with [99mTc]besilesomab, the later increasing significantly (P<0.01) in sensitivity (87% and 84% for [99mTc]besilesomab and [99mTc]sulesomab, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: These results show that the higher sensitivity of [99mTc]sulesomab in osteomyelitis targeting at earlier p.i. times does not rely on an increased antibody uptake but on a more rapid clearance of nonspecific background activity due to faster metabolism and excretion. Intact [99mTc]besilesomab show a slow, continuous uptake, leading to higher T/B at later p.i. times, often beyond the imaging possibilities of 99mTc.