JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kassis, A. I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kassis, A. I.
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Vol. 44 No. 9 1479-1481
© 2003 by Society of Nuclear Medicine


Basic Science Investigations

Cancer Therapy with Auger Electrons: Are We Almost There?

Amin I. Kassis, PhD

Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

The biologic toxicity of internally deposited radionuclides can be attributed to radiation-induced ionizations and excitations, nuclear recoil, chemical transmutations, and local charge effects. {gamma}-Photons, x-ray photons, and energetic negatrons and positrons have a range of activity equivalent to many cell diameters and are characterized by low linear energy transfer and oxygen-dependent biologic effects. Radionuclides that decay by electron capture and/or internal conversion demonstrate an Auger effect; in this effect, extremely low-energy electrons (Auger, Coster-Kronig, and super-Coster-Kronig transitions) with subcellular ranges (nanometers) are produced. Monte Carlo calculations have been performed (15) to determine the electron spectra of commonly used Auger electron emitters, such as 99mTc (half-life [t1/2], 6.05 h), 111In (t1/2, 2.1 d), 123I (t1/2, 13.3 h), and 125I (t1/2, 60.5 d). For example, the average Auger and Coster-Kronig electron spectra of 111In, 123I, and 125I have totals of ~8, ~11, and ~20 electrons, respectively, with energies of approximately 12 eV to 24 keV (13). The ejection of the electrons leaves the decaying atoms transiently in a state of high positive charge. The burst of low-energy electrons results in highly localized energy deposition (106-109 cGy) in an extremely small volume (several cubic nanometers) around the decay site, and molecules in the immediate vicinity of the decaying atoms will be irradiated by these electrons. In addition, the dissipation of the potential energy associated with the high positive charge and its neutralization may act concomitantly and lead to some of the observed biologic effects.

Neglected initially for therapeutic purposes because of their low energy and consequent short range, Auger electron cascades are now being seriously considered. This shift in interest is, in part, a consequence of recent experimental findings that have altered some of the basic assumptions that previously limited the perceived therapeutic potential of Auger electron-emitting radionuclides.

Monte Carlo calculations, in which the low-energy, electron-emitting radionuclides (e.g., 125I) had been positioned within or at very short distances (nanometers) from cylindric, "naked," double-stranded DNA, had predicted that 1 double-strand break would be produced per decaying atom (6,7). Although these theoretic expectations were later substantiated in studies with short strands of synthetic oligonucleotides, plasmids, phages, and bacterial DNA (813), recent studies have demonstrated that the decay of 125I in mammalian cell DNA (i.e., supercompacted heterochromatin) leads to the production of >>1 double-strand break per decay (14,15).

For years, the deleterious effects of low-energy electron emitters in mammalian cells had been attributed solely to direct ionization of DNA, the quintessential genetic target. Here again, it has recently become apparent that the radiotoxicity of Auger electrons is caused mainly (~90%) by an indirect mechanism(s) (1619). These findings also constitute a radical shift in the understanding of the mechanisms underlying the radiotoxic effects of low-energy emitters.

The toxic effects of low-energy electron emitters had frequently been assumed to depend on the covalent binding of the Auger electron-emitting radionuclide to nuclear DNA (2024). Several investigators (2529), however, have shown that various agents (e.g., steroids, growth factors, and DNA intercalators) radiolabeled with such isotopes are also highly toxic to mammalian cells (exponential decrease in survival). These reports expand the portfolio of agents and approaches that can be used to target Auger electron-emitting radionuclides to tumor cells.

The toxicity and therapeutic potential of low-energy electron emitters had been thought to require the radiotargeting of each and every tumor cell (a direct consequence of the short range of the emitted electrons and therefore the absence of "cross-fire" irradiation of neighboring cells). This notion, too, has proven to be inaccurate, as the decay of such isotopes has recently been shown to lead to a "bystander effect," an in vivo, dose-independent inhibition or retardation of tumor growth in nonradiotargeted cells by a signal(s) produced in Auger electron-labeled cells (30). These in vivo findings should also have a dramatic impact on risk assessment after the administration of radiopharmaceuticals (all of which emit low-energy electrons) to patients, especially because dose estimations are traditionally performed by averaging the radiation dose to cells within a tissue or organ from radioactive atoms present on or within the cells (self-dose) and that from radionuclides present in or on other cells or in the extracellular fluids (cross-dose). Such radiation-absorbed dose estimates have always played an important role in determining the amount of radioactivity to be administered to patients in diagnostic or therapeutic procedures as well as in assessing environmental radiation risks, for example, radon inhalation. When a bystander effect is factored in, the actual radiobiologic response will be greater than that predicted by dosimetric estimates alone.

Most studies assessing the therapeutic efficacy of low-energy electron emitters were performed with the thymidine analog 5-iodo-2'-deoxyuridine (3133). In these studies, in which such DNA-incorporated Auger electron emitters were shown to be therapeutically very efficacious (4- to 6-log kill of tumor cells), the underlying assumption was the need to bring the Auger electron emitter into the cell nucleus and bind it covalently to DNA. Additional studies (3443) have invalidated the above assumption and established that for some carrier molecules internalized into the nuclei of tumor cells, covalent DNA binding is not necessary for toxicity and, consequently, that such molecules are potentially useful as carriers of Auger electron-emitting radionuclides and can be used in cancer therapy.

The article by Chen et al. (44) in this issue of The Journal of Nuclear Medicine is an excellent example of the use of an agent that is transferred to the nucleus but not covalently bound to DNA. The authors of this study examined the efficacy of 111In-labeled diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid–human epidermal growth factor (111In-DTPA-hEGF) for the treatment of breast tumors that overexpress the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In essence, mice were implanted subcutaneously with either EGFR-overexpressing tumor cells or tumor cells expressing a low level of EGFR and injected later with 111In-DTPA-hEGF, and the biodistribution and therapeutic efficacy of the radiopharmaceutical were determined.

This is a novel approach that relies on earlier results in which Reilly et al. (27) had demonstrated high and selective in vitro toxicity of 111In-DTPA-hEGF in EGFR-overexpressing breast tumor cells and rapid internalization of the radionuclide into the cytoplasm of tumor cells, with a proportion of the internalized 111In being present within the nuclei of these cells. The current article reports that the administration of 111In-DTPA-hEGF to mice bearing EGFR-overexpressing breast tumors leads to tumor size–dependent uptake (for tumors of 1–2 mg, >80% of the injected dose per gram; for tumors of 6–30 mg, ~5% of the injected dose per gram), a 3-fold decrease in the rate of growth of "large" (15 mm3) tumors and, most interesting, a profound regression of "small" (10 mm3) tumors. Specifically, these data suggest that this radiopharmaceutical (and other Auger electron-emitting therapeutic agents) may be most valuable in the treatment of small-volume breast cancer metastases, support the hypothesis purporting the appropriateness of carrier molecules that enable the intranuclear localization of Auger electron emitters, and provide the impetus needed for the development of other low-energy, electron emitter carriers in the fight against cancer.

It is clear that radiopharmaceuticals labeled with low-energy electron emitters will play a role as radiotherapeutic agents in the near future. The foundations for this optimism are the high toxicity and therapeutic efficacies reported; the ready availability of many no-carrier, low-energy, electron-emitting radionuclides with variable physical half-lives and known chemical properties; the low autoradiolysis of such radiopharmaceuticals (even at high specific activities); and the emission by many of these radionuclides of {gamma}-photons, which are suitable for imaging and as such will enable the rapid selection of radiopharmaceuticals with appropriate radiotargeting pharmacokinetics.

To paraphrase Regaud and Lacassagne (45), "the ideal agent for cancer therapy would consist of heavy elements capable of emitting radiations of molecular dimensions, which could be administered to the organism and selectively fixed in the protoplasm of cells one seeks to destroy. Although this is perhaps not impossible to achieve, the attempts so far have been unsuccessful." Certainly, the hope of these two pioneers will soon be achieved.


    FOOTNOTES
 
Received May 2, 2003; revision accepted May 20, 2003.

For correspondence or reprints contact: Amin I. Kassis, PhD, Goldenson Building, 220 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA 02115.

E-mail: amin_kassis{at}hms.harvard.edu


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Charlton DE, Booz J. A Monte Carlo treatment of the decay of 125I. Radiat Res. 1981;87:10–23.[Medline]
  2. Sastry KSR, Rao DV. Dosimetry of low energy electrons. In: Rao DV, Chandra R, Graham MC, eds. Physics of Nuclear Medicine: Recent Advances. Woodbury, NY: American Institute of Physics; 1984:169–208.
  3. Pomplun E, Booz J, Charlton DE. A Monte Carlo simulation of Auger cascades. Radiat Res. 1987;111:533–552.[Medline]
  4. Charlton DE, Pomplun E, Booz J. Some consequences of the Auger effect: fluorescence yield, charge potential, and energy imparted. Radiat Res. 1987;111:553–564.[Medline]
  5. Jönsson B-A, Strand S-E, Larsson BS. A quantitative autoradiographic study of the heterogeneous activity distribution of different indium-111-labeled radiopharmaceuticals in rat tissues. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:1825–1832.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Charlton DE, Humm JL. A method of calculating initial DNA strand breakage following the decay of incorporated 125I. Int J Radiat Biol. 1988;53:353–365.
  7. Humm JL, Charlton DE. A new calculational method to assess the therapeutic potential of Auger electron emission. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989;17:351–360.[Medline]
  8. Krisch RE, Ley RD. Induction of lethality and DNA breakage by the decay of iodine-125 in bacteriophage T4. Int J Radiat Biol. 1974;25:21–30.
  9. Krisch RE, Krasin F, Sauri CJ. DNA breakage, repair, and lethality accompanying 125I decay in microorganisms. Curr Top Radiat Res Q. 1977;12:355–368.
  10. Krisch RE, Flick MB, Trumbore CN. Radiation chemical mechanisms of single- and double-strand break formation in irradiated SV40 DNA. Radiat Res. 1991;126:251–259.[Medline]
  11. Kandaiya S, Lobachevsky PN, D’Cunha G, Martin RF. DNA strand breakage by 125I-decay in a synthetic oligodeoxynucleotide: fragment distribution and evaluation of DMSO protection effect. Acta Oncol. 1996;35:803–808.[Medline]
  12. Kassis AI, Harapanhalli RS, Adelstein SJ. Comparison of strand breaks in plasmid DNA after positional changes of Auger electron-emitting iodine-125. Radiat Res. 1999;151:167–176.[Medline]
  13. Kassis AI, Harapanhalli RS, Adelstein SJ. Strand breaks in plasmid DNA after positional changes of Auger electron-emitting iodine-125: direct compared to indirect effects. Radiat Res. 1999;152:530–538.[Medline]
  14. Walicka MA, Adelstein SJ, Kassis AI. Indirect mechanisms contribute to biological effects produced by decay of DNA-incorporated iodine-125 in mammalian cells in vitro: double-strand breaks. Radiat Res. 1998;149:134–141.[Medline]
  15. Kassis AI, Walicka MA, Adelstein SJ. Double-strand break yield following 125I decay: effects of DNA conformation. Acta Oncol. 2000;39:721–726.[Medline]
  16. Walicka MA, Adelstein SJ, Kassis AI. Indirect mechanisms contribute to biological effects produced by decay of DNA-incorporated iodine-125 in mammalian cells in vitro: clonogenic survival. Radiat Res. 1998;149:142–146.[Medline]
  17. Walicka MA, Ding Y, Roy AM, Harapanhalli RS, Adelstein SJ, Kassis AI. Cytotoxicity of [125I]iodoHoechst 33342: contribution of scavengeable effects. Int J Radiat Biol. 1999;75:1579–1587.[Medline]
  18. Walicka MA, Ding Y, Adelstein SJ, Kassis AI. Toxicity of DNA-incorporated iodine-125: quantifying the direct and indirect effects. Radiat Res. 2000;154:326–330.[Medline]
  19. Walicka MA, Adelstein SJ, Kassis AI. Chemical modification of 5-[125I]iodo-2'-deoxyuridine toxicity in mammalian cells in vitro. Int J Radiat Biol. 2001;77:625–630.[Medline]
  20. Hofer KG, Hughes WL. Radiotoxicity of intranuclear tritium, 125iodine and 131iodine. Radiat Res. 1971;47:94–109.[Medline]
  21. Hofer KG, Harris CR, Smith JM. Radiotoxicity of intracellular 67Ga, 125I and 3H: nuclear versus cytoplasmic radiation effects in murine L1210 leukaemia. Int J Radiat Biol. 1975;28:225–241.
  22. Chan PC, Lisco E, Lisco H, Adelstein SJ. The radiotoxicity of iodine-125 in mammalian cells. II. A comparative study on cell survival and cytogenetic responses to 125IUdR, 131IUdR, and 3HTdR. Radiat Res. 1976;67:332–343.[Medline]
  23. Kassis AI, Sastry KSR, Adelstein SJ. Kinetics of uptake, retention, and radiotoxicity of 125IUdR in mammalian cells: implications of localized energy deposition by Auger processes. Radiat Res. 1987;109:78–89.[Medline]
  24. Kassis AI, Fayad F, Kinsey BM, Sastry KSR, Taube RA, Adelstein SJ. Radiotoxicity of 125I in mammalian cells. Radiat Res. 1987;111:305–318.[Medline]
  25. Bloomer WD, McLaughlin WH, Weichselbaum RR, et al. Iodine-125-labelled tamoxifen is differentially cytotoxic to cells containing oestrogen receptors. Int J Radiat Biol. 1980;38:197–202.
  26. Kassis AI, Fayad F, Kinsey BM, Sastry KSR, Adelstein SJ. Radiotoxicity of an 125I-labeled DNA intercalator in mammalian cells. Radiat Res. 1989;118:283–294.[Medline]
  27. Reilly RM, Kiarash R, Cameron RG, et al. 111In-Labeled EGF is selectively radiotoxic to human breast cancer cells overexpressing EGFR. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:429–438.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Yasui LS, Hughes A, DeSombre ER. Relative biological effectiveness of accumulated 125IdU and 125I-estrogen decays in estrogen receptor-expressing MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. Radiat Res. 2001;155:328–334.[Medline]
  29. Yasui LS, Hughes A, DeSombre ER. Cytotoxicity of 125I-oestrogen decay in non-oestrogen receptor-expressing human breast cancer cells, MDA-231 and oestrogen receptor-expressing MCF-7 cells. Int J Radiat Biol. 2001;77:955–962.[Medline]
  30. Xue LY, Butler NJ, Makrigiorgos GM, Adelstein SJ, Kassis AI. Bystander effect produced by radiolabeled tumor cells in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99:13765–13770.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Bloomer WD, Adelstein SJ. 5-125I-Iododeoxyuridine as prototype for radionuclide therapy with Auger emitters. Nature. 1977;265:620–621.[Medline]
  32. Baranowska-Kortylewicz J, Makrigiorgos GM, Van den Abbeele AD, Berman RM, Adelstein SJ, Kassis AI. 5-[123I]Iodo-2'-deoxyuridine in the radiotherapy of an early ascites tumor model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21:1541–1551.[Medline]
  33. Kassis AI, Dahman BA, Adelstein SJ. In vivo therapy of neoplastic meningitis with methotrexate and 5-[125I]iodo-2'-deoxyuridine. Acta Oncol. 2000;39:731–737.[Medline]
  34. Sisson JC, Shapiro B, Hutchinson RJ, et al. Treatment of neuroblastoma with [125I]metaiodobenzylguanidine. J Nucl Biol Med. 1991;35:255–259.
  35. Brady LW, Miyamoto C, Woo DV, et al. Malignant astrocytomas treated with iodine-125 labeled monoclonal antibody 425 against epidermal growth factor receptor: a phase II trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;22:225–230.[Medline]
  36. DeSombre ER, Hughes A, Shafii B, et al. Estrogen receptor-directed radiotoxicity with Auger electron-emitting nuclides: E-17{alpha}-[123I] iodovinyl-11ß-methoxyestradiol and CHO-ER cells. In: Howell RW, Narra VR, Sastry KSR, Rao DV, eds. Biophysical Aspects of Auger Processes. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Symposium Series No. 8. Woodbury, NY: American Institute of Physics; 1992:352–371.
  37. Snelling L, Miyamoto CT, Bender H, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor 425 monoclonal antibodies radiolabeled with iodine-125 in the adjuvant treatment of high-grade astrocytomas. Hybridoma. 1995;14:111–114.[Medline]
  38. Breeman WAP, de Jong M, Bernard B, et al. Tissue distribution and metabolism of radioiodinated DTPA0, D-Tyr1 and Tyr3 derivatives of octreotide in rats. Anticancer Res. 1998;18:83–89.[Medline]
  39. de Jong M, Bakker WH, Breeman WAP, et al. Pre-clinical comparison of [DTPA0] octreotide, [DTPA0, Tyr3] octreotide and [DOTA0, Tyr3] octreotide as carriers for somatostatin receptor-targeted scintigraphy and radionuclide therapy. Int J Cancer. 1998;75:406–411.[Medline]
  40. Meyers MO, Anthony CT, Coy DH, et al. Multiply radioiodinated somatostatin analogs induce receptor-specific cytotoxicity. J Surg Res. 1998;76:154–158.[Medline]
  41. Kwekkeboom DJ, Kooij PP, Bakker WH, Mäcke HR, Krenning EP. Comparison of 111In-DOTA-Tyr3-octreotide and 111In-DTPA-octreotide in the same patients: biodistribution, kinetics, organ and tumor uptake. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:762–767.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. DeSombre ER, Hughes A, Hanson RN, Kearney T. Therapy of estrogen receptor-positive micrometastases in the peritoneal cavity with Auger electron-emitting estrogens: theoretical and practical considerations. Acta Oncol. 2000;39:659–666.[Medline]
  43. Janson ET, Westlin J-E, Öhrvall U, Öberg K, Lukinius A. Nuclear localization of 111In after intravenous injection of [111In-DTPA-D-Phe1]-octreotide in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1514–1518.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Chen P, Cameron R, Wang J, Vallis KA, Reilly RM. Antitumor effects and normal tissue toxicity of 111In-labeled epidermal growth factor administered to athymic mice bearing epidermal growth factor receptor-positive human breast cancer xenografts. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1469–1478.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Regaud C, Lacassagne A. La radiosensibilité cellulaire envisagée dans ses manifestations générales. Radiophysiol Radiother. 1927;1:95–116.



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JNMHome page
S. N. Reske, S. Deisenhofer, G. Glatting, B. D. Zlatopolskiy, A. Morgenroth, A. T. J. Vogg, A. K. Buck, and C. Friesen
123I-ITdU-Mediated Nanoirradiation of DNA Efficiently Induces Cell Kill in HL60 Leukemia Cells and in Doxorubicin-, {beta}-, or {gamma}-Radiation-Resistant Cell Lines
J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2007; 48(6): 1000 - 1007.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
C. A. Boswell and M. W. Brechbiel
Auger Electrons: Lethal, Low Energy, and Coming Soon to a Tumor Cell Nucleus Near You
J. Nucl. Med., December 1, 2005; 46(12): 1946 - 1947.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
M. Ginj, K. Hinni, S. Tschumi, S. Schulz, and H. R. Maecke
Trifunctional Somatostatin-Based Derivatives Designed for Targeted Radiotherapy Using Auger Electron Emitters
J. Nucl. Med., December 1, 2005; 46(12): 2097 - 2103.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kassis, A. I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kassis, A. I.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE