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 Shockley, T. R. Articles by Yarmush, M. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Shockley, T. R. Articles by Yarmush, M. L.

A Quantitative Analysis of Tumor specific Monoclonal Antibody Uptake by Human Melanoma Xenografts: Effects of Antibody Immunological Properties and Tumor Antigen Expression Levels¹

Department of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 [T. R. S.]; Departments of Pathology, Beth Israel Hospital and Harvard Medical School, and the Charles A. Dana Research Institute, Beth Israel Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02215 [K. L., J. A. N., H. F. D.]; Biomedical Engineering and Instrumentation Program, National Center for Research Resources, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 [C. S., R. L. D.]; Surgical Services and Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02215 [R. G. T., M. L. Y.]; and Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering and the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854 [M. L. Y.]

The time-dependent (5 min-72 h) localization of 3 radiolabeled antimelanoma monoclonal antibodies (MAbs 436, IND1, and 9.2.27) was studied in paired label experiments in small (4–12 mg) s.c. human melanoma xenografts (SK-MEL-2 and M21) in athymic nude mice. MAb 436 recognizes a M_r 125,000 cell surface melanoma-associated glycoprotein antigen (125 kDa-MAA); MAbs IND1 and 9.2.27 recognize a high molecular weight melanoma-associated antigen, but with equilibrium association constants differing by 2 orders of magnitude (10⁸–10¹⁰ M^-1). The two tumors were found to differ in their antigen expression levels and in both interstitial and vascular volumes. Accumulation of MAbs in both tumors was determined primarily by antigen expression levels and also by physiological factors such as vascular permeability and vascular volume; at the dose administered (20 µg/mouse), differences in MAb affinity among specific MAbs had minimal effect on accumulation. Quantitative flow cytometry measurements showed that antigen expression in vivo differed from that of cultured tumor cells. In vivo, expression of the M_r 125,000 MAA decreased by a factor of about 2.5 in both tumors. In contrast, the in vivo expression of the high molecular weight MAA decreased in M21 tumors but increased by 2.0–3.5-fold in SK-MEL-2 tumors. Data were analyzed using a three-compartment pharmacokinetic model (C. Sung et al., Cancer Res., 52:377–384, 1992) to provide plasma-to-tissue transport constants (k), the interstitial fluid flow rate (L), and estimates of the in vivo interstitial MAb binding site concentration (B_o). For all MAbs, the plasma-to-tissue transport constants were consistently greater for M21 tumors (0.44–0.85 µl/min/g) than for SK-MEL-2 tumors (0.28–0.66 µl/min/g), and values of k for both tumors were approximately 1 order of magnitude greater than those for skeletal muscle (0.06–0.08 µl/min/g). The model-estimated binding site concentration of melanomaspecific antibodies was 15–70 times lower than that predicted by experimental measurements of tumor antigen concentrations. Factors that may contribute to this discrepancy include inaccessibility of tumor cell binding sites to MAb and MAb catabolism. In summary, these results indicate that, for the MAb dose used in this study, variables pertaining to the tumor target (i.e., antigen expression levels, vascular volume, and vascular permeability) are the most important for determining MAb accumulation in tumors.

¹ This work was supported by grants from the Lucille P. Markey Charitable Trust (M. L. Y.), by the Whitaker Foundation for Biomedical Engineering (M.L.Y), and by NIH Research Grants CA-28471 and CA-50453 (H. F. D.).

² Present address: Baxter Healthcare Corp., Route 120 and Wilson Road, Mail Code WG1-3S, Round Lake, IL 60073.

³ To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854.

Received 6/19/91. Accepted 11/ 1/91.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. J. Lammerts van Bueren, W. K. Bleeker, H. O. Bogh, M. Houtkamp, J. Schuurman, J. G.J. van de Winkel, and P. W.H.I. Parren Effect of Target Dynamics on Pharmacokinetics of a Novel Therapeutic Antibody against the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor: Implications for the Mechanisms of Action. Cancer Res., August 1, 2006; 66(15): 7630 - 7638. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. Vallera, C. Li, N. Jin, A. Panoskaltsis-Mortari, and W. A. Hall Targeting Urokinase-Type Plasminogen Activator Receptor on Human Glioblastoma Tumors With Diphtheria Toxin Fusion Protein DTAT J Natl Cancer Inst, April 17, 2002; 94(8): 597 - 606. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]

				R Duncan, J K Coatsworth, and S Burtles Preclinical toxicology of a novel polymeric antitumour agent: HPMA copolymerdoxorubicin (PK1) Human and Experimental Toxicology, February 1, 1998; 17(2): 93 - 104. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Y. Mano, H. Suzuki, T. Terasaki, T. Iwahashi, K.-I. Ono, M. Naito, T. Tsuruo, and Y. Sugiyama Kinetic Analysis of the Disposition of MRK16, an Anti-P-glycoprotein Monoclonal Antibody, in Tumors: Comparison Between in Vitro and in Vivo Disposition J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., October 1, 1997; 283(1): 391 - 401. [Abstract] [Full Text]