Show simple item record

Dosimetric comparison of bolus and continuous injections of CC49 monoclonal antibody in a colon cancer xenograft model Presented at the Sixth Conference on Radioimmunodetection and Radioimmunotherapy of Cancer, Princeton, New Jersey, October 10-12, 1996.

dc.contributor.authorRoberson, Peter L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorDudek, Stephenen_US
dc.contributor.authorBuchsbaum, Donald J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-04-19T13:30:10Z
dc.date.available2006-04-19T13:30:10Z
dc.date.issued1997-12-15en_US
dc.identifier.citationRoberson, Peter L.; Dudek, Stephen; Buchsbaum, Donald J. (1997)."Dosimetric comparison of bolus and continuous injections of CC49 monoclonal antibody in a colon cancer xenograft model Presented at the Sixth Conference on Radioimmunodetection and Radioimmunotherapy of Cancer, Princeton, New Jersey, October 10-12, 1996. ." Cancer 80(S12): 2567-2575. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/34347>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0008-543Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0142en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/34347
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=9406711&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND Improved understanding of dose and effective dose calculations may contribute to the optimization of fractionated radioimmunotherapy. METHODS Comparison three-dimensional tumor dosimetry was performed on athymic nude mice bearing established LS174T human colon carcinoma xenografts. Mice were given bolus intraperitoneal injections of 300 ΜCi 131 I-labeled CC49 monoclonal antibody once (Day 0) or three times (Days 0, 3, and 7) or continuous intraperitoneal infusion with miniosmotic pumps over 7 days. Serial section autoradiography was used to reconstruct tumor activity density distributions for Days 3, 4, 7, 10, and 11 (single injection); Days 3, 4, 7, 8, and 11 (3 injections); and Days 4, 7, 10, and 13 (pump). At least three tumors were reconstructed at each time point. Uptakes in blood and tumor were measured up to 14 days (single injection), 11 days (3 injections), or 16 days (pump) after injection. RESULTS Average dose values calculated from total activity uptake data only (assuming no energy loss external to the tumor) yielded 102 Gy (single injection), 158 Gy (three injections), and 47 Gy (pump). Average doses using three-dimensional dose calculations were 88 Gy, 139 Gy, and 40 Gy, respectively. The nonuniformity of dose deposition affects treatment outcome, because cell loss is an exponential function of dose. Using the linear quadratic model with fractional cell survival to define an effective dose, D eff were calculated to be 20 Gy, 23 Gy, and 14 Gy, respectively. Cell proliferation affects outcome for variable dose-rate treatments. With cell proliferation parameters set to reproduce single-fraction 60 Co recurrence results, D eff (for local control endpoint) were 8.9 Gy, 12.8 Gy, and 3.9 Gy, respectively. Three bolus injections compared with a single bolus injection were relatively less efficient in tumor uptake. However, three bolus injections resulted in a more uniform dose rate over a longer period, resulting in a 50% improvement in D eff . The slower dose delivery for pump infusion resulted in a significantly lower D eff , although dose-rate distributions were more uniform compared with the single bolus injection. CONCLUSIONS Improvement in dose-rate nonuniformities was observed for fractionated and continuous radiolabeled monoclonal antibody injections. Fractionated injections produced superior dosimetric results compared with single bolus or continuous injections. Cancer 1997; 80:2567-75. © 1997 American Cancer Society.en_US
dc.format.extent202659 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherLife and Medical Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.otherCancer Research, Oncology and Pathologyen_US
dc.titleDosimetric comparison of bolus and continuous injections of CC49 monoclonal antibody in a colon cancer xenograft model Presented at the Sixth Conference on Radioimmunodetection and Radioimmunotherapy of Cancer, Princeton, New Jersey, October 10-12, 1996.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOncology and Hematologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumThe University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan ; The University of Michigan Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, B2C490, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0010en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumThe University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherThe University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabamaen_US
dc.identifier.pmid9406711en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/34347/1/32_ftp.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19971215)80:12+<2567::AID-CNCR32>3.0.CO;2-8en_US
dc.identifier.sourceCanceren_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.