Page 116 - 89Zr-Immuno-PET:Towards a Clinical Tool to Guide Antibody-based Therapy in Cancer

Chapter 5
REFERENCES
1. Lamberts LE, Williams SP, Terwisscha van Scheltinga AGT, et al. Antibody positron emission tomography imaging in anticancer drug development. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1491-1504.
2. Pandit-Taskar N, O’Donoghue JA, Beylergil V, et al. 89Zr-huJ591 immuno-PET imaging in patients with advanced metastatic prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:2093-2105.
3. Jauw YWS, Menke-van der Houven van Oordt CW, Hoekstra OS, et al. Immuno-Positron Emission Tomography with Zirconium-89-Labeled Monoclonal Antibodies in Oncology: What Can We Learn from Initial Clinical Trials? Front Pharmacol. 2016;7:131.
4. Armstrong IS, James JM, Williams HA, Kelly MD, Matthews JC. The assessment of time-of-flight on image quality and quantification with reduced administered activity and scan times in 18F-FDG PET. Nucl Med Commun. 2015;36:728-737.
5. Bruijnen S, Tsang-A-Sjoe M, Raterman H, et al. B-cell imaging with zirconium-89 labelled rituximab PET-CT at baseline is associated with therapeutic response 24 weeks after initiation of rituximab treatment in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Arthritis Res Ther. 2016;18:266.
6. Hagens MH, Killestein J, Yaqub MM, et al. Cerebral rituximab uptake in multiple sclerosis: A 89Zr- immunoPET pilot study. Mult Scler. 2018;24:543-545.
7. Jauw YWS, Zijlstra JM, de Jong D, et al. Performance of 89Zr-Labeled-Rituximab-PET as an Imaging Biomarker to Assess CD20 Targeting: A Pilot Study in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0169828.
8. Menke-van der Houven van Oordt CW, Gootjes EC, Huisman MC, et al. 89Zr-cetuximab PET imaging in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Oncotarget. 2015;6:30384-30393.
9. Menke-van der Houven van Oordt CW, Gomez-Roca C, van Herpen C, et al. First-in-human phase I clinical trial of RG7356, an anti-CD44 humanized antibody, in patients with advanced, CD44- expressing solid tumors. Oncotarget. 2016;7:80046-80058.
10. Makris NE, Boellaard R, Visser EP, et al. Multicenter harmonization of 89Zr PET/CT performance. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:264-267.
11. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJG, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328-354.
12. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310.
13. Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015;25:141-151.
14. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill; 1994.
15. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50
Suppl 1:11S-20S.
16. Shah DK, Betts AM. Towards a platform PBPK model to characterize the plasma and tissue disposition
of monoclonal antibodies in preclinical species and human. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2012;39:67-
86.
17. Kletting P, Maaß C, Reske S, Beer AJ, Glatting G. Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling Is
Essential in 90Y-Labeled Anti-CD66 Radioimmunotherapy. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0127934.
18. Jauw Y, Hoekstra O, Mulder E, et al. Inter-observer agreement for tumor uptake quantification of 89Zr-
labeled anti-CD20 antibodies with PET. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1412-1412.
19. Lodge MA. Repeatability of SUV in Oncologic 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:523-532.
20. Kramer GM, Frings V, Hoetjes N, et al. Repeatability of Quantitative Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET/CT
Uptake Measures as Function of Uptake Interval and Lesion Selection in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Patients. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1343-1349.
21. Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Stroobants SG, et al. Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in
non-small cell lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1304-1309.
22. Gaykema SBM, Schröder CP, Vitfell-Rasmussen J, et al. 89Zr-trastuzumab and 89Zr-bevacizumab PET to evaluate the effect of the HSP90 inhibitor NVP-AUY922 in metastatic breast cancer patients. Clin
Cancer Res. 2014;20:3945-3954.
23. Lartizien C, Aubin J-B, Buvat I. Comparison of bootstrap resampling methods for 3-D PET imaging.
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010;29:1442-1454.
24. Markiewicz PJ, Reader AJ, Matthews JC. Assessment of bootstrap resampling performance for PET
data. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:279-299.
114