MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121058401

A comparison of EGF and MAb 528 labeled with 111In for imaging human breast cancer.

2000· article· en· W2121058401 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonoclonal antibodyBreast cancerIn vitroBiodistributionChemistryEpidermal growth factorAntibodyEpidermal growth factor receptorCancerIn vivoCancer cellMolecular biologyReceptorMedicinePathologyInternal medicineImmunologyBiologyBiochemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Our objective was to compare 111In-labeled human epidermal growth factor (hEGF), a 53-amino acid peptide with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody (MAb) 528 (IgG2a) for imaging EGFR-positive breast cancer. METHODS: hEGF and MAb 528 were derivatized with diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA) and labeled with 111In acetate. Receptor binding assays were conducted in vitro against MDA-MB-468 human breast cancer cells. Biodistribution and tumor imaging studies were conducted after intravenous injection of the radiopharmaceuticals in athymic mice bearing subcutaneous MCF-7, MDA-MB-231, or MDA-MB-468 human breast cancer xenografts or in severe combined immunodeficiency mice implanted with a breast cancer metastasis (JW-97 cells). MCF-7, MDA-MB-231, JW-97, and MDA-MB-468 cells expressed 1.5 x 10(4), 1.3 x 10(5), 2.7 x 10(5), and 1.3 x 106 EGFR/cell, respectively in vitro. RESULTS: 111In-DTPA-hEGF and 111In-DTPA-MAb 528 bound with high affinity to MDA-MB-468 cells (Ka of 7.5 x 10(8) and 1.2 x 10(8) L/mol, respectively). 111In-DTPA-hEGF was eliminated rapidly from the blood with < 0.2% injected dose/g (%ID/g) circulating at 72 h after injection, whereas 111In-DTPA-MAb 528 was cleared more slowly (3%ID/g in the blood at 72 h). Maximum localization of 111In-DTPA-hEGF in MDA-MB-468 tumors (2.2 %ID/g) was 10-fold lower than with 111In-DTPA-MAb 528 (21.6 %ID/g). There was high uptake in the liver and kidneys for both radiopharmaceuticals. Tumor-to-blood ratios were greater for 111In-labeled hEGF than for MAb 528 (12:1 versus 6:1), but all other tumor-to-normal tissue ratios were higher for MAb 528. MDA-MB-468 and JW-97 tumors were imaged successfully with both radiopharmaceuticals, but tumors were more easily visualized using 111In-labeled MAb 528. There was no direct quantitative relationship between EGFR expression on breast cancer cell lines in vitro, and tumor uptake of the radiopharmaceuticals in vivo, but control studies showed that tumor uptake was receptor mediated. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the tumor uptake in vivo of receptor-binding radiopharmaceuticals is controlled to a greater extent by their elimination rate from the blood than by the level of receptor expression on the cancer cells. Radiolabeled anti-EGFR MAbs would be more effective for tumor imaging in cancer patients than peptide-based radiopharmaceuticals such as hEGF, because they exhibit higher tumor uptake at only moderately lower tumor-to-blood ratios.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it