PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Caroline Rousseau
AU  - David M. Goldenberg
AU  - Mathilde Colombié
AU  - Jean-Charles Sébille
AU  - Philippe Meingan
AU  - Ludovic Ferrer
AU  - Pierre Baumgartner
AU  - Evelyne Cerato
AU  - Damien Masson
AU  - Mario Campone
AU  - Aurore Rauscher
AU  - Vincent Fleury
AU  - Catherine Labbe
AU  - Alain Faivre Chauvet
AU  - Jean-Sebastien Fresnel
AU  - Claire Toquet
AU  - Jacques Barbet
AU  - Robert M. Sharkey
AU  - Loic Campion
AU  - Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré
TI  - Initial Clinical Results of a Novel Immuno-PET Theranostic Probe in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Negative Breast Cancer
AID  - 10.2967/jnumed.119.236000
DP  - 2020 Aug 01
TA  - Journal of Nuclear Medicine
PG  - 1205--1211
VI  - 61
IP  - 8
4099  - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/61/8/1205.short
4100  - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/61/8/1205.full
SO  - J Nucl Med2020 Aug 01; 61
AB  - This prospective study evaluated the imaging performance of a novel pretargeting immunologic PET (immuno-PET) method in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)–positive metastatic breast cancer, compared with CT, bone MRI, and 18F-FDG PET. Methods: Twenty-three patients underwent whole-body immuno-PET after injection of 150 MBq of 68Ga-IMP288, a histamine-succinyl-glycine peptide given after initial targeting of a trivalent anti-CEA, bispecific, antipeptide antibody. The gold standards were histology and imaging follow-up. Tumor SUVs (SUVmax and SUVmean) were measured, and tumor burden was analyzed using total tumor volume and total lesion activity. Results: The total lesion sensitivity of immuno-PET and 18F-FDG PET were 94.7% (1,116/1,178) and 89.6% (1,056/1,178), respectively. Immuno-PET had a somewhat higher sensitivity than CT or 18F-FDG PET in lymph nodes (92.4% vs. 69.7% and 89.4%, respectively) and liver metastases (97.3% vs. 92.1% and 94.8%, respectively), whereas sensitivity was lower for lung metastases (48.3% vs. 100% and 75.9%, respectively). Immuno-PET showed higher sensitivity than MRI or 18F-FDG PET for bone lesions (95.8% vs. 90.7% and 89.3%, respectively). In contrast to 18F-FDG PET, immuno-PET disclosed brain metastases. Despite equivalent tumor SUVmax, SUVmean, and total tumor volume, total lesion activity was significantly higher with immuno-PET than with 18F-FDG PET (P = 0.009). Conclusion: Immuno-PET using anti-CEA/anti-IMP288 bispecific antibody, followed by 68Ga-IMP288, is a potentially sensitive theranostic imaging method for HER2-negative, CEA-positive metastatic breast cancer patients and warrants further research.