Companion Diagnostic 64Cu-Liposome Positron Emission Tomography Enables Characterization of Drug Delivery to Tumors and Predicts Response to Cancer Nanomedicines

Deposition of liposomal drugs into solid tumors is a potentially rate-limiting step for drug delivery and has substantial variability that may influence probability of response. Tumor deposition is a shared mechanism for liposomal therapeutics such that a single companion diagnostic agent may have utility in predicting response to multiple nanomedicines. Methods: We describe the development, characterization and preclinical proof-of-concept of the positron emission tomography (PET) agent, MM-DX-929, a drug-free untargeted 100 nm PEGylated liposome stably entrapping a chelated complex of 4-DEAP-ATSC and 64Cu (copper-64). MM-DX-929 is designed to mimic the biodistribution of similarly sized therapeutic agents and enable quantification of deposition in solid tumors. Results: MM-DX-929 demonstrated sufficient in vitro and in vivo stability with PET images accurately reflecting the disposition of liposome nanoparticles over the time scale of imaging. MM-DX-929 is also representative of the tumor deposition and intratumoral distribution of three different liposomal drugs, including targeted liposomes and those with different degrees of PEGylation. Furthermore, stratification using a single pre-treatment MM-DX-929 PET assessment of tumor deposition demonstrated that tumors with high MM-DX-929 deposition predicted significantly greater anti-tumor activity after multi-cycle treatments with different liposomal drugs. In contrast, MM-DX-929 tumor deposition was not prognostic in untreated tumor-bearing xenografts, nor predictive in animals treated with small molecule chemotherapeutics. Conclusions: These data illustrate the potential of MM-DX-929 PET as a companion diagnostic strategy to prospectively select patients likely to respond to liposomal drugs or nanomedicines of similar molecular size.

[1]  Karen Campbell,et al.  64Cu-MM-302 Positron Emission Tomography Quantifies Variability of Enhanced Permeability and Retention of Nanoparticles in Relation to Treatment Response in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer , 2017, Clinical Cancer Research.

[2]  R. Korn,et al.  Correlation between Ferumoxytol Uptake in Tumor Lesions by MRI and Response to Nanoliposomal Irinotecan in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors: A Pilot Study , 2017, Clinical Cancer Research.

[3]  Zahi A. Fayad,et al.  Nanoreporter PET predicts the efficacy of anti-cancer nanotherapy , 2016, Nature Communications.

[4]  Ashley M. Laughney,et al.  Predicting therapeutic nanomedicine efficacy using a companion magnetic resonance imaging nanoparticle , 2015, Science Translational Medicine.

[5]  Hiroshi Maeda,et al.  Toward a full understanding of the EPR effect in primary and metastatic tumors as well as issues related to its heterogeneity. , 2015, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[6]  U. Nielsen,et al.  Cyclophosphamide-Mediated Tumor Priming for Enhanced Delivery and Antitumor Activity of HER2-Targeted Liposomal Doxorubicin (MM-302) , 2015, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics.

[7]  Andreas Kjær,et al.  Positron Emission Tomography Based Elucidation of the Enhanced Permeability and Retention Effect in Dogs with Cancer Using Copper-64 Liposomes. , 2015, ACS nano.

[8]  B. Hendriks,et al.  Whole-body organ-level and kidney micro-dosimetric evaluations of 64Cu-loaded HER2/ErbB2-targeted liposomal doxorubicin (64Cu-MM-302) in rodents and primates , 2015, EJNMMI Research.

[9]  B. Hendriks,et al.  A gradient-loadable (64)Cu-chelator for quantifying tumor deposition kinetics of nanoliposomal therapeutics by positron emission tomography. , 2015, Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine.

[10]  U. Nielsen,et al.  Preclinical activity of nanoliposomal irinotecan is governed by tumor deposition and intratumor prodrug conversion. , 2014, Cancer research.

[11]  K. Greish,et al.  Nanomedicine for drug targeting: strategies beyond the enhanced permeability and retention effect , 2014, International journal of nanomedicine.

[12]  R. Jain,et al.  Challenges and key considerations of the enhanced permeability and retention effect for nanomedicine drug delivery in oncology. , 2013, Cancer research.

[13]  U. Nielsen,et al.  Multiscale Kinetic Modeling of Liposomal Doxorubicin Delivery Quantifies the Role of Tumor and Drug-Specific Parameters in Local Delivery to Tumors , 2012, CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology.

[14]  U. Nielsen,et al.  HER2-targeted liposomal doxorubicin displays enhanced anti-tumorigenic effects without associated cardiotoxicity. , 2012, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[15]  Kinam Park,et al.  Targeted drug delivery to tumors: myths, reality and possibility. , 2011, Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society.

[16]  R. Bellamkonda,et al.  Imaging nanoprobe for prediction of outcome of nanoparticle chemotherapy by using mammography. , 2009, Radiology.

[17]  Khaled Greish,et al.  Enhanced permeability and retention of macromolecular drugs in solid tumors: A royal gate for targeted anticancer nanomedicines , 2007, Journal of drug targeting.

[18]  U. Nielsen,et al.  Antibody targeting of long-circulating lipidic nanoparticles does not increase tumor localization but does increase internalization in animal models. , 2006, Cancer research.

[19]  John W. Park,et al.  Development of a highly active nanoliposomal irinotecan using a novel intraliposomal stabilization strategy. , 2006, Cancer research.

[20]  Raymond C Boston,et al.  A modified logistic model to describe gadolinium kinetics in breast tumors. , 2004, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[21]  R. Vile,et al.  Effective targeting of solid tumors in patients with locally advanced cancers by radiolabeled pegylated liposomes. , 2001, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[22]  D. Papahadjopoulos,et al.  Optimizing liposomes for delivery of chemotherapeutic agents to solid tumors. , 1999, Pharmacological reviews.

[23]  P M Carpenter,et al.  Characterization of N‐ethyl‐N‐nitrosourea‐induced malignant and benign breast tumors in rats by using three MR contrast agents , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[24]  D M Shames,et al.  Correlation of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with histologic tumor grade: comparison of macromolecular and small-molecular contrast media. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  R K Jain,et al.  Vascular permeability in a human tumor xenograft: molecular size dependence and cutoff size. , 1995, Cancer research.

[26]  R K Jain,et al.  Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for specific and nonspecific monoclonal antibodies and fragments in normal tissues and human tumor xenografts in nude mice. , 1994, Cancer research.

[27]  H. Maeda,et al.  A new concept for macromolecular therapeutics in cancer chemotherapy: mechanism of tumoritropic accumulation of proteins and the antitumor agent smancs. , 1986, Cancer research.