Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
EditorialEditorial

PSMA-Targeted Radionuclide Therapy and Salivary Gland Toxicity: Why Does It Matter?

David Taïeb, Jean-Marc Foletti, Manuel Bardiès, Palma Rocchi, Rodney J. Hicks and Uwe Haberkorn
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2018, 59 (5) 747-748; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.207993
David Taïeb
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, La Timone University Hospital, CERIMED, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jean-Marc Foletti
2Aix-Marseille University, APHM, IFSTTAR, LBA, Hôpital de la Conception, Chirurgie Maxillo-Faciale, Marseille, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Manuel Bardiès
3Inserm, UMR1037, CRCT, Toulouse, France
4Université Toulouse III–Paul Sabatier, UMR1037, CRCT, Toulouse, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Palma Rocchi
5Inserm, UMR1068, CRCM, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rodney J. Hicks
6Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Uwe Haberkorn
7Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; and
8Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The promise of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–targeted radionuclide therapy is being demonstrated by a growing number of reports detailing institutional experience with various agents, and prospective clinical trials are in progress to further establish the safety and efficacy of this approach in advanced, castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Although extremely promising, PSMA-ligand therapy remains a noncurative treatment, and therefore, the prolongation of survival and amelioration of disease-related symptoms must be balanced against the direct toxicities of the treatment and their impact on quality of life. Of these, xerostomia is among the most common and debilitating, particularly for 225Ac-PSMA. The nature of this dysfunction is incompletely understood, and strategies for its prevention and treatment are still under evaluation.

The salivary glands are divided into major (parotid, submandibular, and sublingual glands) and accessory or minor groups. The amount of saliva secreted by the salivary glands is approximately 1 L/d (70% arising from the major salivary glands). The salivary pH ranges from 6.5 to 7. Saliva has complex functions that act together to inhibit oral bacterial overgrowth and to protect dentition. Although salivary compounds have been fully characterized, saliva still remains impossible to synthetize. Radiotherapy-induced xerostomia is multifactorial. The primary cause of irreversible hyposalivation is loss or impairment of acinar cells and their progressive replacement by connective tissue and fibrosis. The mechanisms involved are both the loss of functional glandular stem cells or progenitor cells and the impairment of microvasculature and parasympathetic innervation. Below the threshold of 50 Gy, severe dysfunction to gland tissue is rare, and radiation damage is generally transient and reversible. In irradiated patients, the saliva becomes more viscous and more acidic, which compromises its antibacterial action. Salivary hypofunction is the objective decline in salivary flow, whereas xerostomia is the subjective perception of dry mouth by the patient. Hyposalivation and its corollary xerostomia are common (68%–91%) in long-term irradiated patients with head and neck cancer. Hyposalivation exacerbates tooth decay and periodontal disease. Irradiated patients complain about problems with mastication, swallowing, sleep, and speech; a burning sensation in the mouth; and dysgeusia. Taken together, these symptoms severely impair the quality of life of patients. The morbidity of irradiation related to salivary gland dysfunction can be scored with specific grading systems developed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.

Similar side effects may be obtained by internal radiotherapy with small molecules targeting the PSMA, which are being used for therapy of metastasized prostate cancer. Although immunohistochemistry shows a rather heterogeneous PSMA staining with only low to moderate intensity, the uptake of radiolabeled small-molecule–based PSMA ligands is high, suggesting both specific and nonspecific tracer accumulation, with the mechanism of the latter remaining unclear. The frequency and extent of the resulting symptoms are dependent on the absorbed dose and the isotope used. In contrast to small molecules, radiolabeled anti-PSMA antibodies show only low uptake in the salivary glands (1), supporting the hypothesis that the accumulation of small-molecule inhibitors of PSMA is at least partially nonspecific.

A first iteration of PSMA-directed radionuclide therapy of advanced, castration-resistant prostate cancer used 131I. That study involved 28 patients and took place in the era before abiraterone and enzalutamide. Seven of these 28 patients treated with a single administration of 131I-labeled MIP1095 reported a slight to moderate xerostomia, and in 1 patient, mucositis was detected. These side effects recovered after 3–4 wk (2). Multiple administrations (≤3 fractions) were considered in a further 34 patients. In this analysis, xerostomia higher than grade 1 occurred more frequently in patients receiving a higher number of fractions. Again, most patients reported recovery from xerostomia after a few weeks. However, the duration of the symptoms was longer after the second or third therapy in most cases (3). Data for xerostomia after therapy with 177Lu-labeled PSMA-617 are available from different groups. In an analysis of 30 patients treated with 3 cycles of 6 GBq, most of the patients reported no relevant dysfunction of the salivary glands (4). Substitution of saliva (spray or gel) was prescribed for 2 patients who developed xerostomia after the third cycle. After the first and second cycles, only transient xerostomia was occasionally observed. Similar data were obtained from a multicenter analysis of 145 patients, with mild to moderate xerostomia reported for only 11 patients (8%) (5). It can thus be concluded that at therapeutically relevant activities, 177Lu-labeled PSMA rarely leads to symptoms. In contrast, although leading to excellent therapeutic effects—even with complete remissions in a considerable number of cases—225Ac may also lead to destruction of the salivary glands (6). This seems to be a function of the activity administered to the patient. Treatment activities of 50 kBq/kg were without toxicity but induced an insufficient antitumor response in patients with a high tumor burden. However, an increase in administered activity led to severe xerostomia, which became the dose-limiting toxicity if treatment activity exceeded 100 kBq/kg per cycle (6). From a dosimetry standpoint, there is wide interpatient variability both in tumors and in healthy tissues, including the salivary glands. The range of absorbed dose delivered to the salivary glands per administered activity of 177Lu-DKFZ-PSMA-617 varied from 0.8 to 2.5 Gy/GBq (4,7,8). Regardless of the methodology implemented, all approaches relied on planar imaging and used an OLINDA sphere module to evaluate the absorbed dose delivered to salivary or parotid glands. In a recent article, Kratochwil et al. reported dosimetric estimates for 225Ac-PSMA-617 based on extrapolation of the pharmacokinetics obtained with 177Lu-PSMA-617 reported in their previous article (6). Substitution of an α-emitter (225Ac) for a β-emitter (such as 177Lu) has dramatic dosimetric implications, with huge absorbed dose gradients.

Preventive strategies have not been successful in mitigating these side effects of salivary gland function (local cooling, lemon juice and vitamin C, or a displacement strategy using PMPA [2-(phosphonomethyl)pentane-1,5-dioic acid]) (9,10). Accordingly, other than developing ligands with lower salivary gland uptake, prospects for preventing salivary gland radiotoxicity appear limited, except by reducing the administered activity, which may compromise therapeutic efficacy. However, it may be that higher administered activities are achievable with the first cycle of treatment when tumor burden and PSMA-binding affinity are highest and provide the protective benefit of a tumor-sink effect on salivary uptake. Alternatively, radioprotectors, such as amifostine, could be considered but may also reduce radiosensitivity in tumor sites.

Accepting that some degree of salivary gland dysfunction is likely, therapeutic interventions to reduce its impact on quality of life become relevant. The first-line treatment for radiotherapy-induced salivary gland dysfunction in patients with head and neck cancer is the use of sialagogues, namely pilocarpine and cevimeline, with proven efficacy in all stages of hyposalivation. However, as muscarinic receptor agonists, their use is limited by poorly tolerated side effects. On the other hand, salivary substitutes and mouthwash have no proven effect on hyposalivation but can temporarily relieve xerostomia symptoms. It is likely that these approaches will be similarly effective in the setting of PSMA-related salivary gland toxicity.

Future prospects for salivary gland preservation may include intraglandular injection of botulinum toxin or compounds such as vitamin E and MnBuOE (Mn(III) meso-tetrakis(N-n-butoxyethylpyridinium-2-yl)porphyrin), as well as sialendoscopy, which has shown clinical improvement in patients with radioiodide-induced sialadenitis. The most promising approach to addressing the problem of radiation-induced hyposalivation appears likely to be therapies that lead to regeneration of salivary tissue, including intraglandular gene therapy (e.g., aquaporin 1, Sonic hedgehog), downregulation of key regulators of DNA damage-induced apoptosis (antisense therapy), and stem cell therapy.

At present, 177Lu- and 225Ac-labeled PSMA ligands are used predominantly after failure of all guideline-conforming therapies, and therefore treated patients usually have a limited life expectancy, which offsets the duration of possible side effects. Nevertheless, accumulating evidence suggests that stratification of risk of salivary gland toxicity balanced against the likelihood of therapeutic benefit is needed to select the appropriate patients for treatment, the optimal isotope, and the appropriate administered activity. Introduction of α-therapy earlier in the course of the disease should be done in the setting of prospective studies because a reduction of administered activity may be needed. However, a reduction of administered activity may limit therapeutic efficacy, which is a strong argument for a controlled systematic assessment of the therapeutic window.

Attempts to prevent xerostomia have been largely unsuccessful, and therefore more work is required to optimize administered activity in order to balance the risk of salivary toxicity against therapeutic effectiveness. Improved prospective radiation dosimetry models will need to be developed. Efforts to further improve our understanding of the mechanisms of nonspecific uptake of PSMA ligands in the salivary glands may lead to new preventive strategies, whereas improved treatments of salivary gland dysfunction, if these can be identified, are also important. We await the results of ongoing gene therapy trials with interest.

DISCLOSURE

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Footnotes

  • Published online Feb. 9, 2018.

  • © 2018 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Tagawa ST,
    2. Milowsky MI,
    3. Morris M,
    4. et al
    . Phase II study of lutetium-177-labeled anti-prostate-specific membrane antigen monoclonal antibody J591 for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:5182–5191.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Zechmann CM,
    2. Afshar-Oromieh A,
    3. Armor T,
    4. et al
    . Radiation dosimetry and first therapy results with a 124I/131I-labeled small molecule (MIP-1095) targeting PSMA for prostate cancer therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1280–1292.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Afshar-Oromieh A,
    2. Haberkorn U,
    3. Zechmann C,
    4. et al
    . Repeated PSMA-targeting radioligand therapy of metastatic prostate cancer with 131I-MIP-1095. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:950–959.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Kratochwil C,
    2. Giesel FL,
    3. Stefanova M,
    4. et al
    . PSMA-targeted radionuclide therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with 177Lu-labeled PSMA-617. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1170–1176.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Rahbar K,
    2. Ahmadzadehfar H,
    3. Kratochwil C,
    4. et al
    . German multicenter study investigating 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy in advanced prostate cancer patients. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:85–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Kratochwil C,
    2. Bruchertseifer F,
    3. Rathke H,
    4. et al
    . Targeted alpha-therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with 225Ac-PSMA-617: dosimetry estimate and empiric dose finding. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:1624–1631.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Delker A,
    2. Fendler WP,
    3. Kratochwil C,
    4. et al
    . Dosimetry for 177Lu-DKFZ-PSMA-617: a new radiopharmaceutical for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:42–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Yadav MP,
    2. Ballal S,
    3. Tripathi M,
    4. et al
    . Post-therapeutic dosimetry of 177Lu-DKFZ-PSMA-617 in the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2017;38:91–98.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Afshar-Oromieh A,
    2. Avtzi E,
    3. Giesel FL,
    4. et al
    . The diagnostic value of PET/CT imaging with the 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand HBED-CC in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:197–209.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Kratochwil C,
    2. Giesel FL,
    3. Leotta K,
    4. et al
    . PMPA for nephroprotection in PSMA-targeted radionuclide therapy of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:293–298.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  • Received for publication January 9, 2018.
  • Accepted for publication January 9, 2018.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 59 (5)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 59, Issue 5
May 1, 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
PSMA-Targeted Radionuclide Therapy and Salivary Gland Toxicity: Why Does It Matter?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
PSMA-Targeted Radionuclide Therapy and Salivary Gland Toxicity: Why Does It Matter?
David Taïeb, Jean-Marc Foletti, Manuel Bardiès, Palma Rocchi, Rodney J. Hicks, Uwe Haberkorn
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2018, 59 (5) 747-748; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.118.207993

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
PSMA-Targeted Radionuclide Therapy and Salivary Gland Toxicity: Why Does It Matter?
David Taïeb, Jean-Marc Foletti, Manuel Bardiès, Palma Rocchi, Rodney J. Hicks, Uwe Haberkorn
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2018, 59 (5) 747-748; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.118.207993
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The Mayo Clinic Salivary Tissue-Organoid Biobanking: A Resource for Salivary Regeneration Research
  • Renal and Multiorgan Safety of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in the VISION Dosimetry Substudy
  • Tandem Isotope Therapy with 225Ac- and 177Lu-PSMA-617 in a Murine Model of Prostate Cancer
  • A PSMA-targeted bispecific antibody for prostate cancer driven by a small-molecule targeting ligand
  • Safety, Biodistribution, and Radiation Dosimetry of 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 in Healthy Adult Volunteers
  • Radiation Dosimetry in 177Lu-PSMA-617 Therapy Using a Single Posttreatment SPECT/CT Scan: A Novel Methodology to Generate Time- and Tissue-Specific Dose Factors
  • Effect of External Cooling on 177Lu-PSMA Uptake by the Parotid Glands
  • First Clinicopathologic Evidence of a Non-PSMA-Related Uptake Mechanism for 68Ga-PSMA-11 in Salivary Glands
  • Evaluation of 111In-DOTA-5D3, a Surrogate SPECT Imaging Agent for Radioimmunotherapy of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen
  • Salivary Gland Toxicity of PSMA Radioligand Therapy: Relevance and Preventive Strategies
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Funding Reductions Threaten the Future of Medical Innovation
  • A Brief Report on the Results of the 2024 National Survey of Nuclear Medicine Conducted by the Chinese Society of Nuclear Medicine
  • FDA Approval of 18F-Flurpiridaz for PET: Stepping into a New Era of Myocardial Perfusion Imaging?
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire