hCTMO1

Objective To assess the safety and targeting ability of the engineered human antibody (hCTMO1) in women with ovarian carcinoma.Design The monoclonal antibody labelled with Indium‐1 11 was administered to women with suspected primary or recurrent ovarian carcinoma six days pre‐operatively. The first group of women was given a dose of 0.1 mg per kg body weight of radiolabelled antibody. A second group of women received 1 mg per kg body weight and finally a third group was given 1 mg per kg body weight of unlabelled antibody followed one hour later by 0.1 mg per kg body weight of radiolabelled antibody. All the women were then imaged using a gamma camera one hour and up to 96 hours after injection.Participants Fourty‐four women in whom there was a high suspicion of primary ovarian carcinoma on the basis of ultrasound or CT imaging and serum CA125 and those in whom there was a suspicion of recurrent ovarian carcinoma after being treated for histologically confirmed carcinoma.Setting The Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham and University Hospital Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Results At the low dose of antibody the sensitivity for detection of ovarian carcinoma was 70%. After increasing the dose of antibody and also after pre‐dosing with unlabelled antibody the sensitivity increased to 100%, but there was a large number of false positive results at the higher dose, and therefore the specificity was low. The liver and bone marrow were the organs with the highest activities.Conclusion The genetically engineered antibody hCTMO1 is safe for use in women. This antibody effectively targets ovarian carcinoma and has greater potential as a vector for therapeutic use than as a diagnostic agent.

A comparison was made between the murine anti-MUC1 antibody BC2 (which reacts with the peptide epitope APDTR) and the "humanised" antibody hCTMO1 from CellTech, which reacts with the MUC1 epitope RPAP. Preliminary studies demonstrated that hCTMO1 was a "good" antibody whereas BC2 was not. Various parameters were determined and conclusions reached. (a) Affinity: the affinity of hCTMO1 was 2.60 x 10(7) M(-1) and that of BC2 was 1.36 x 10(7) M(-1); we did not consider these numbers to be substantially different, although hCTMO1 was clearly of higher affinity than BC2. (b) On/off rate at 4 degrees C: both antibodies bound effectively to the MUC-1 transfectant MOR5-CF2; the association rate for hCTMO1 was 3.8 times that of BC2 and the dissociation rate for BC2 was twice as fast as that of hCTMO1. (c) On/off rates at 37 degrees C: at 37 degrees C the association rate for hCTMO1 was greater than that of BC2. (d) Internalization: hCTMO1 was also more efficient at internalising bound antibody; 70% of bound hCTMO1 was internalised, whilst 6% of bound BC2 was internalised. From these studies it was clear that, while hCTMO1 was of similar affinity to BC2, the faster uptake and internalisation and lower off rate indicated that it was likely to be a superior antibody; this was proven in vivo. (e) Localisation: hCTMO1 bound much better in vivo than BC2 (68% compared to 28%). (f) Therapeutic experiments: BC2-idarubicin conjugates were essentially ineffective in eradicating tumours in mice whereas hCTMO1-idarubicin had a dramatic effect on breast cancer tumour cells growing in mice. We conclude that the simple measurements on/off rates and internalisation at 37 degrees C are the most important parameters to use to determine antibody effectiveness, prior to embarking on clinical studies.