Saleh M N, Tilden A B, Meredith R F, LoBuglio A F, Grizzle W E
Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Comprehensive Cancer Center, 35294-3300, USA.
Biotech Histochem. 1998 Jul;73(4):186-97. doi: 10.3109/10520299809141109.
In this study, we compare various methods for the detection of a tumor-associated target antigen and deposition of the bound therapeutic monoclonal antibody in patients enrolled in two separate trials, one involving the administration of two radiolabeled monoclonal antibodies and the other involving an unlabeled antibody. In the first trial, patients with TAG-72 expressing metastatic colon cancer scheduled for surgical intervention received radiolabeled murine and chimeric B72.3 antibody followed by radioimmune imaging and subsequent laparotomy. Normal and tumor tissues obtained at surgery were processed for routine histology, immunohistochemistry, radiometry, and autoradiography. Both anti-TAG-72 antibodies localized to known tumor sites as evidenced by radioimmune imaging. Resected tissue revealed a high tumor-to-normal radiolocalization ratio, and autoradiography demonstrated even deposition of the radiolabeled antibodies throughout the entire tumor deposit with sparing of surrounding normal tissue. In contrast, immunohistochemistry on the same sections revealed comparatively weak antigen expression and patchy antibody localization. In the second trial, patients with GD2 antigen expressing metastatic melanoma received the unlabeled chimeric anti-GD2 antibody C14.18. Immunologic detection of the GD2 antigen and C14.18 deposition was performed on biopsy section as well as on single cell suspension. FACS analysis of the single cell suspension proved more sensitive for the detection of bound antibody than immunohistochemistry, although both methods yielded comparable results for GD2 antigen expression. Our findings demonstrate that the optimal method for the detection of tumor-associated antigen and bound therapeutic antibody can vary depending upon the nature of the antibody (radiolabeled vs. unlabeled and murine vs. chimeric), fixation stability of the target antigen, and the type of pathologic material available for study.
在本研究中,我们比较了多种检测肿瘤相关靶抗原的方法,以及参与两项独立试验的患者体内结合的治疗性单克隆抗体的沉积情况。一项试验涉及给予两种放射性标记的单克隆抗体,另一项试验涉及给予一种未标记的抗体。在第一项试验中,计划接受手术干预的表达TAG-72的转移性结肠癌患者接受了放射性标记的鼠源和嵌合B72.3抗体,随后进行放射免疫显像及后续剖腹手术。手术获取的正常组织和肿瘤组织进行常规组织学、免疫组织化学、放射测量和放射自显影处理。放射免疫显像证明两种抗TAG-72抗体均定位于已知肿瘤部位。切除的组织显示肿瘤与正常组织的放射性定位比率很高,放射自显影表明放射性标记抗体在整个肿瘤沉积物中均匀沉积,周围正常组织未受累。相比之下,同一切片的免疫组织化学显示抗原表达相对较弱且抗体定位呈斑片状。在第二项试验中,表达GD2抗原的转移性黑色素瘤患者接受了未标记的嵌合抗GD2抗体C14.18。对活检切片以及单细胞悬液进行GD2抗原和C14.18沉积的免疫学检测。单细胞悬液的流式细胞术分析在检测结合抗体方面比免疫组织化学更敏感,尽管两种方法在GD2抗原表达方面产生的结果相当。我们的研究结果表明,检测肿瘤相关抗原和结合的治疗性抗体的最佳方法可能因抗体的性质(放射性标记与未标记、鼠源与嵌合)、靶抗原的固定稳定性以及可用于研究病理材料的类型而异。