This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sharkey, R. M. Articles by Goldenberg, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sharkey, R. M. Articles by Goldenberg, D. M.

Comparison of Tumor Targeting of Mouse Monoclonal and Goat Polyclonal Antibodies to Carcinoembryonic Antigen in the GW-39 Human Tumor-Hamster Host Model¹

Center for Molecular Medicine and Immunology [R. M. S., F. J. P., D. M. G.] at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, and Immunomedics, Inc. [D. S.], Newark, New Jersey 07103

We have evaluated 4 radioiodinated mouse monoclonal anticarcinoembryonic antigen antibodies (MAbs) by using the GW-39 human colorectal tumor xenograft transplanted i.m. in immunocompetent hamsters to determine whether there were any differences in their tumor localization properties. Additional comparisons were made to affinity-purified goat anticarcinoembryonic antigen antibody. Statistically significant differences were found in the percentage/g of tumor uptake and tumor/nontumor ratios among the antibodies, so that the antibodies could be ranked according to their tumor localization properties (NP-2 > NP-4 = goat antibody > NP-1 > NP-3). Although statistical differences were found, tumor/nontumor values generally were not distinguished by a factor of more than 1.5, suggesting that these differences may not be biologically significant. F(ab')₂ fragments of NP-2 were found to be superior to NP-4 F(ab')₂ fragments, giving tumor/liver and tumor/blood ratios of 16 and 11.5, respectively, within 3 days, in comparison to 5.4 and 3.8 for NP-4 F(ab')₂ fragments. Mixtures of all of the MAbs or a mixture of NP-2 and NP-4 did not improve tumor localization, in comparison to NP-2 alone. These studies suggest that mixtures of these anticarcinoembryonic antigen MAbs may not afford better tumor imaging than the use of a certain single antitumor MAb.

¹ Supported in part by NIH Grants CA 37218 and OIA CA 39841.

² To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Center for Molecular Medicine and Immunology, 1 Bruce St., Newark, NJ 07103.

Received 3/30/87. Revised 10/22/87. Accepted 12/29/87.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. S. Zuckier, E. Z. Berkowitz, R. J. Sattenberg, Q. H. Zhao, H. F. Deng, and M. D. Scharff Influence of Affinity and Antigen Density on Antibody Localization in a Modifiable Tumor Targeting Model Cancer Res., December 1, 2000; 60(24): 7008 - 7013. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				D. A. Berk, F. Yuan, M. Leunig, and R. K. Jain Direct in vivo measurement of targeted binding in a human tumor xenograft PNAS, March 4, 1997; 94(5): 1785 - 1790. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]