Conclusions
CX-2009 is optimally capable of targeting CD166-expressing tumors when compared with its derivatives, implying that enzymatic activation inside the tumor, required to allow CD166 binding, does not limit tumor targeting. Because CX-2009 does not bind to mouse CD166, however, reduced targeting of healthy organs should be confirmed in ongoing clinical 89Zr-immuno-PET studies.
Methods
The tumor targeting potential of CX-2009 was assessed by performing 89Zr-immuno-PET/biodistribution/therapy studies in a CD166-positive H292 lung cancer mouse model. Head-to-head comparisons of CX-2009 with the Probody therapeutic without DM4 (CX-191), the unmasked antibody drug conjugate (ADC) CX-1031, and the parental mAb CX-090 were performed. All constructs were 89Zr labeled in a GMP compliant way, administered at 10, 110, or 510 µg, and ex vivo biodistribution was assessed at 24, 72, and 168 hours post-injection.
Results
Comparable biodistribution was observed for all constructs, confirmed with PET/CT. Tumors showed the highest uptake: 21.8 ± 2.3 ([89Zr]Zr-CX-2009), 21.8 ± 5.0 ([89Zr]Zr‑CX-191), 18.7 ± 2.5 ([89Zr]Zr-CX-1031) and 20.8 ± 0.9 %ID/g ([89Zr]Zr-CX-090) at 110 µg injected. Increasing the dose to 510 µg resulted in lower tumor uptake and higher blood levels for all constructs, suggesting receptor saturation. In addition, CX-2009 and CX-1031 showed similar therapeutic potential. Conclusions: CX-2009 is optimally capable of targeting CD166-expressing tumors when compared with its derivatives, implying that enzymatic activation inside the tumor, required to allow CD166 binding, does not limit tumor targeting. Because CX-2009 does not bind to mouse CD166, however, reduced targeting of healthy organs should be confirmed in ongoing clinical 89Zr-immuno-PET studies.