Imaging of C-X-C Motif Chemokine Receptor 4 Expression in 690 Patients with Solid or Hematologic Neoplasms Using 68Ga-Pentixafor PET
Andreas K. Buck*1, Alexander Haug*2, Niklas Dreher1, Alessandro Lambertini1, Takahiro Higuchi1,3, Constantin Lapa4, Alexander Weich5, Martin G. Pomper®, Hans-Jürgen Wester7, Anja Zehndner1,8, Andreas Schirbel1, Samuel Samnick1, Marcus Hacker2, Verena Pichler9, Stefanie Hahner10, Martin Fassnacht10, Hermann Einsele11, Sebastian E. Serfling+1, and Rudolf A. Werner+1,6
1 Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany; 2 Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 3 Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan; 4Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany; 5 Department of Internal Medicine II, Gastroenterology and ENETS Center of Excellence, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany; 6The Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; 7 Pharmaceutical Radiochemistry, Technische Universität München, München, Germany; 8Pentixapharm Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany; 9Division for Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 10Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Department of Medicine I, University Hospital, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany; and 11 Department of Internal Medicine II, Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
In recent years, molecular imaging addressing the C-X-C motif chemo- kine receptor 4 (CXCR4) has increasingly been used in various clinical settings. Here, we aimed to assess radiopharmaceutical uptake and image contrast to determine the most relevant clinical applications for CXCR4-directed imaging. We also investigated the impact of specific activity on scan contrast. Methods: Patients (n = 690) with a variety of neoplasms underwent a total of 777 PET/CT scans with 68Ga-Pentixa- for, serving as the CXCR4-specific radioligand. A semiquantitative target lesion analysis was conducted (providing SUVmax and target- to-blood pool ratio [TBR], defined as SUVmax [from target lesion] divided by SUVmean [from blood pool]). The applied specific activity (in MBq/µg) was compared with semiquantitative assessments. Results: Of the 777 scans, 242 did not show discernible uptake in disease sites, leaving 535 PET scans (68.9%) for further analysis. Very high tracer uptake (SUVmax > 12) was found in multiple myeloma (n = 113), fol- lowed by adrenocortical carcinoma (n = 30), mantle cell lymphoma (n = 20), adrenocortical adenoma (n = 6), and small cell lung cancer (n = 12). Providing information on image contrast, comparable results for TBR were recorded, with TBR (>8) in multiple myeloma, mantle cell lymphoma, and acute lymphoblastoid leukemia (n = 6). When compar- ing specific activity with semiquantitative parameters, no significant correlation was found for SUVmax or TBR (P ≥ 0.612). Conclusion: In this large cohort, 68Ga-Pentixafor demonstrated high image contrast in a variety of neoplasms, particularly for hematologic malignancies, small cell lung cancer, and adrenocortical neoplasms. The present analysis may provide a roadmap for detecting patients who may benefit from CXCR4-targeted therapies.
Key Words: CXCR4; C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 4; 68Ga- Pentixafor; PET
*Contributed equally to this work.
+Contributed equally to this work.
Published online Mar. 3, 2022.
J Nucl Med 2022; 63:1687-1692 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.263693
B ecause of its pivotal role in cancer progression, the C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) orchestrates organ-specific tumor spread through several mechanisms. These include promotion of angiogenesis, growth of malignant cells, or inhibition of antitumor immune response (1). Numerous CXCR4-directed molecular imaging agents have been developed recently to define precisely the utility of CXCR4 as an anticancer target (2-5). Among them, the 68Ga-labeled radiotracer Pentixafor (cyclo(D-Tyr1-D-[NMe]Orn2(AMBS-68Ga- DOTA)-Arg3-Nal4-Gly5) demonstrated high selectivity for CXCR4 along with rapid renal excretion (6,7). Accordingly, 68Ga-Pentixafor has been used in a wide variety of clinical scenarios in oncology. These include in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), marginal zone lymphoma or solid tumor entities, such as small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancer, neuroendocrine neoplasms, and adrenocortical carcinoma (8-13). Of note, head-to-head compari- son with established imaging modalities or other reference radio- tracers revealed improved lesion detection rates by 68Ga-Pentixafor PET (8,14,15). This may promote wider adoption of this imaging agent in patients for whom existing modalities are lacking. Furth- ermore, 177Lu/90Y-Pentixather, a therapeutic counterpart to target CXCR4, has been applied for targeted radionuclide therapies in hema- tologic malignancies, such as MM or diffuse large B cell lymphoma (16,17). Such theranostic approaches have demonstrated not only a favorable outcome (16,17), but also tolerable adverse effects, although stem cell support is mandatory (18).
The beneficial use of 68Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT, along with its poten- tial to identify patients eligible for treatment with ß-particle emitters, favors wider clinical use. However, before widespread adoption or clinical development programs leading to market authorization, com- prehensive characterization of its performance should be undertaken,
including assessment of radiopharmaceutical uptake and image con- trast among a broad spectrum of neoplasms. In our bicentric study, which, to our knowledge, enrolled the largest cohort of patients imaged with 68Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT or PET/MR to date, we aimed to assess radiopharmaceutical accumulation and image contrast in sev- eral cancers to determine the most relevant clinical applications. In addition, lower specific activity characterized by higher amounts of cold mass could hamper image interpretation (19), for example, by an increasing occupation of the (sub)cellular target by nonradiolabeled components. Thus, we also investigated the impact of specific activity on quantification.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patient Population
Patients from 2 study sites were included (University of Würzburg and Medical University of Vienna). Parts of this cohort have been described before to determine the diagnostic usefulness of 68Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT (7-9,11-14,20-26), without evaluation of image contrast (including impact of specific activity) or comparing uptake among all included diag- noses. Patients signed written informed consent forms before the examina- tion. Given the retrospective character of this study, the local ethics committee waived the need for further approval (no. 20210726 02).
Radiotracer Synthesis
Following good manufacturing practice, 68Ga-Pentixafor was pro- vided using a synthesis module (Scintomics) and disposable single-use cassette kits (ABX, Radeberg, Germany), as described previously (27). Peptide mass (in µg), activity (in MBq), and specific activity (in MBq/µg) of injected 68Ga-Pentixafor were recorded for each patient.
Imaging
68Ga-Pentixafor PET was performed either on a Siemens Biograph mCT (64 and 128, Siemens Medical Solutions) or on a Siemens Biograph mMR (Siemens Healthcare GmbH). Whole-body scans (covering the ver- tex of the skull to the proximal thighs) were conducted 60 min after injec- tion of 68Ga-Pentixafor. We also performed low-dose CT scanning for attenuation correction and anatomic coregistration (120 keV, 512 × 512 matrix, 5-mm slices, increment: 30 mm/s, pitch index: 0.8, and rotation time: 0.5 s). PET images were reconstructed including corrections for CT- based attenuation, random events, and scatter. For MRI, we applied an integrated radiofrequency coil including a multistation protocol (slice thickness, 2 mm), as previously described (12,28).
Image Interpretation
All scans were obtained for clinical or research purposes. As part of this study, all images were reanalyzed by readers who were masked to respective clinical information. At Würzburg, image interpretation was performed as a single-reader analysis, verified by an expert reader. At Vienna, an expert reader performed the assessment.
Semiquantitative Assessment. A target lesion (TL) assessment was performed by investigating the visually most intense TL on PET. Three-dimensional volumes of interest applying an isocontour thresh- old of 40% were placed on the TL, providing SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUV peak. A target-to-blood-pool ratio (TBR) was derived by placing a volume of interest over the aortic arch. TBR was then provided by dividing SUVmax (of the TL) by SUVmean (of the blood pool) (12).
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism (version 9.2.0, GraphPad Prism Software). Descriptive results are displayed as mean ± SD. Nonparametric Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to investigate associations between semiquantitative param- eters with specific activity (including an outlier correction using the
ROUT-Method). A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statisti- cally significant.
RESULTS
Highest Uptake in Hematologic Malignancies, SCLC, and Adrenocortical Neoplasms
No adverse events were recorded after injection of 68Ga-Pentix- afor. Two hundred forty-two of 777 (31.1%) of the scans did not show discernible uptake, leaving 535 of 777 (68.9%) cases for fur- ther analysis (Table 1). As such, an overall number of 535 TLs were investigated. Among all TLs, SUVmax was 13.01 + 10.01 and the corresponding TBR was 8.59 + 15.98. The highest aver- age SUVmax (>12) was found in MM (n = 113), followed by adrenocortical carcinoma (n = 30), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; n = 20), adrenocortical adenoma (n = 6), and SCLC (n = 12; Figs. 1 and 2). The lowest average SUVmax (<6) was recorded in osteosarcoma (n = 1), followed by bladder cancer (n = 1),
| Diagnosis | No. of scans |
|---|---|
| Marginal zone lymphoma | 187 (35) |
| Multiple myeloma | 113 (21.1) |
| Chronic lymphocytic leukemia | 50 (9.3) |
| Adrenocortical carcinoma | 30 (5.6) |
| Neuroendocrine neoplasm | 30 (5.6) |
| Mantle cell lymphoma | 20 (3.7) |
| Desmoplastic small round cell tumor | 14 (2.6) |
| Myeloid disorders | 13 (2.4) |
| Small cell lung carcinoma | 12 (2.2) |
| B-cell lymphoma | 10 (1.9) |
| Acute myeloid leukemia | 9 (1.7) |
| Pancreas carcinoma | 8 (1.5) |
| Non-small cell lung carcinoma | 7 (1.3) |
| Adrenocortical adenoma | 6 (1.1) |
| Acute lymphoblastoid leukemia | 6 (1.1) |
| Liver carcinoma | 4 (0.7) |
| T-cell lymphoma | 3 (0.6) |
| Cholangiocarcinoma | 3 (0.6) |
| Head and neck cancer | 2 (0.4) |
| Colorectal cancer | 1 (0.2) |
| Pleural mesothelioma | 1 (0.2) |
| Renal cell carcinoma | 1 (0.2) |
| Ovarian cancer | 1 (0.2) |
| Ewing sarcoma | 1 (0.2) |
| Osteosarcoma | 1 (0.2) |
| Mediastinal tumor* | 1 (0.2) |
| Bladder cancer | 1 (0.2) |
| *Not otherwise specified. Data in parentheses are percentages. |
A
B
0
8
0
8
SUV
SUV
mediastinal tumor (not otherwise specified, n = 1), head and neck cancer (n = 2), and Ewing sarcoma (n = 1; Fig. 3). For SUVpeak, comparable results were achieved (Supplemental Fig. 1). More- over, high average TBR (>8) was recorded in MM, MCL, and
acute lymphoblastoid leukemia (n = 6). Low average TBR (<4) was observed in head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer (n = 1), osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, bladder cancer, renal cell carci- noma (n = 1), and mediastinal tumor (Fig. 4).
A
B
0
8
0
8
SUV
SUV
BP
Ewing sarcoma (n = 1)
Head and neck cancer (n = 2)
Mediastinal tumor (n = 1)
Bladder cancer (n = 1)
Osteosarcoma (n = 1)
Renal cell carcinoma (n = 1).
Pleural mesothelioma (n = 1)
Pancreas carcinoma (n = 8)
T-cell lymphoma (n = 3)
Colorectal cancer (n = 1)
AML (n = 9)
CCC (n = 3)
NSCLC (n = 7)
NEN (n = 30)
Myeloid disorders (n = 13)
Liver carcinoma (n = 4)
Ovarian cancer (n = 1)-
B-cell lymphoma (n = 10)
DSRCT (n = 14)
ALL (n = 6)
CLL (n = 50)
MZL (n = 187)
SCLC (n = 12)
Adrenocortical adenoma (n = 6)
Mantle cell lymphoma (n = 20)
Adrenocortical carcinoma (n = 30)
MM (n = 113)-
0
10
20
30
40
SUV max
No Relevant Impact of Specific Activity on Visual or Semiquantitative Assessment
Median injected peptide mass was 8.5 µg (range, 2.56-35.61 µg), injected activity was 143 MBq (range, 38-239 MBq), and specific activity was 15.39 MBq/µg (range, 2.19-43.70 MBq/µg). Comparing
Mediastinal tumor (n = 1)
Renal cell carcinoma (n = 1)
Bladder cancer (n = 1)
Ewing sarcoma (n = 1)
Osteosarcoma (n = 1)
Colorectal cancer (n = 1)
Head and neck cancer (n = 2)
Pancreas carcinoma (n = 8)
Pleural mesothelioma (n = 1)
NSCLC (n= 7)
NEN (n = 30)
AML (n = 9)
Ovarian cancer (n = 1)
T-cell lymphoma (n = 3)
Liver carcinoma (n = 4)
B-cell lymphoma (n = 10)
Myeloid disorders (n = 13)
Adrenocortical adenoma (n = 6)
CCC (n = 3)
CLL (n = 50)
MZL (n = 187)
DSRCT (n = 14)
SCLC (n = 12)
Adrenocortical carcinoma (n = 30)
ALL (n = 6)
Mantle cell lymphoma (n = 20)
MM (n = 113)
0
5
10
15
TBR
specific activity with semiquantitative param- eters, only SUVmean (p = - 0.138, P = 0.002), but none of the other correlative indi- ces, reached significance (SUVmax: p = 0.01, P = 0.832; TBR: p = 0.023, P = 0.612; SUV peak: p =- 0.087, P = 0.053; Fig. 5).
DISCUSSION
In the present bicentric study investigating a large cohort imaged with 68Ga-Pentixafor, discernible uptake in putative sites of disease was noted in more than 68% of the scans. Among neoplasms studied, we determined MM had the highest uptake (SUV), with adrenocortical carcinoma and MCL closely after. Comparable results were recorded for image contrast (TBR). Specific activity had no impact on a semiquantitative level, sup- porting the notion that an excellent read-out can be achieved, even after administration at low specific activities.
A growing body of evidence supports the clinical utility of CXCR4-targeted 68Ga- Pentixafor PET/CT in a variety of disease entities, including hematologic malignancies (7,22) and solid tumors (29). Some of these studies also revealed that 68Ga-Pentixafor provided an increased detection rate at sites of disease when compared with conventional imaging or other PET agents such as 18F-FDG or somatostatin receptor-directed radiophar- maceuticals, thereby indicating that this agent can image malignan- cies that lack a more suitable modality (15,23,26). Here we aimed to provide a precise cohort of neoplasms that exhibit high tracer avidity and excellent TBR. By investigating 690 patients with 35 different types of cancer, we demonstrated that 68Ga-Pentixafor PET exhibits the most intense uptake in hemato- logic malignancies, such as MM, MCL, or acute lymphoblastoid leukemia. 68Ga-Pentix- afor PET did not perform as well in solid tumors. Nevertheless, a TBR of more than 4 was still achieved in certain cases, for exam- ple, adrenal, SCLC, liver, ovarian, neuro- endocrine neoplasms, or pancreatic cancer (Fig. 4). We also checked whether low spe- cific activity may have hampered image con- trast (19), for example, by an increasing occupancy of the target by carrier. However, we ruled out a relevant impact on a semi- quantitative level (Fig. 5). This is also in line with previous affinity studies, demonstrating that 68Ga-Pentixafor completely interacts with 20 45 50 the binding pocket of CXCR4 (30). Nonethe- less, novel second-generation radiotracers based on iodoCPCR4 analogs with altered linker structure may further increase tumor retention (31).
Increased CXCR4 expression on the tumor cells has been tightly linked to poor outcome in hematologic malignancies and
A
B
30
20
p =0.01
P= 0.832
p =0.023
P= 0.612
15-
20
max
SUV
TBR
10-
10
5.
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
SAC (MBq/µg)
SAC (MBq/µg)
solid tumors (32,33), suggesting it as a viable therapeutic target. For example, the stromal cell-derived factor 1 neutralizing agent Olaptesed pegol (NOX-A12) or the CXCR4 antagonist Plerixafor have each been used in patients with refractory MM. In clinical phase I/II studies, such drugs achieved an overall response rate in almost half of the patients (Plerixafor) or partial response in 68% (NOX-A12) (34,35). Theranostic approaches based on 68Ga- Pentixafor scan results have also been conducted using the ther- apeutic analogs 177Lu/90Y-Pentixather (16,18). Although there is no study reporting an association between PET-based SUV max and absorbed doses in lesions on CXCR4-directed imaging and radionuclide therapies to date, the markedly increased SUVmax observed in certain cases suggests that a substantial fraction of patients may also be eligible for CXCR4-directed radioligand thera- pies. However, CXCR4-targeted endoradiotherapy causes bone marrow ablation and, thus, subsequent stem cell support is needed (18), further emphasizing the importance of well-established algo- rithms for adequate patient selection.
Future studies should also evaluate the ability of CXCR4- directed molecular imaging to assess the retention capacities of nonradiolabeled CXCR4 neutralizing agents in vivo, preferably before treatment onset. For instance, a phase I study evaluating the CXCR4 inhibitor LY2510924 in patients with advanced solid can- cers revealed favorable antitumor activity (36). Of note, a substan- tial patient fraction treated with this “cold” CXCR4 inhibitor had clinical diagnoses identical to those in the present study, for example, ovarian, lung, or pancreatic cancer (all demonstrating SUVmax > 6). As such, a baseline 68Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT reveal- ing increased CXCR4 expression at disease sites may allow identifi- cation of patients who would most likely be suitable for nonradiolabeled CXCR4-directed drugs, including LY2510924 (36). This would then further expand the theranostic concept be- yond identifying patients for treatment with ß-emitters, but also to selecting individuals for nonradiolabeled CXCR4-targeted thera- peutic options.
Our study has several limitations. We included both CT- and MR-based hybrid imaging, which may provide an additional vari- able that could be controlled better in future studies. Despite inves- tigating the largest cohort to date, prospective trials should also be undertaken. In addition, the numbers of investigated patients per tumor entity substantially varied. Thus, resulting low numbers of cases and inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity of in vivo CXCR4 expression may have biased the results presented herein. Future studies should therefore consider more balanced subgroups enroll- ing comparable numbers of patients diagnosed with the identical tumor entity.
CONCLUSION
We found high uptake and image contrast for a variety of neoplasms imaged with 68Ga-Pentixafor PET, such as MM and MCL, but also for adrenal neoplasms and SCLC. These results suggest clinical scenar- ios in which 68Ga-Pentixafor PET may prove beneficial for directing CXCR4-tar- geted therapies.
DISCLOSURE
Hans-Jürgen Wester is founder and share- holder of Scintomics. Anja Zehndner is an employee of Pentixapharm, Würzburg. No potential conflict of inter- est relevant to this article was reported.
KEY POINTS
QUESTION: What is the tracer avidity of malignant lesions, and what are the most avid tumors for CXCR4-targeted 68Ga-Pentixafor PET?
PERTINENT FINDINGS: We observed high uptake and image contrast of the radiopharmaceutical, in particular for hematologic malignancies as well as adrenal neoplasms and small cell lung cancer. Specific activity had no effect on 68Ga-Pentixafor uptake.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: Among a broad spectrum of neoplasms, the present bicentric study suggests entities eligible for CXCR4-directed molecular imaging and therapy.
REFERENCES
1. Zlotnik A, Burkhardt AM, Homey B. Homeostatic chemokine receptors and organ- specific metastasis. Nat Rev Immunol. 2011;11:597-606.
2. Azad BB, Chatterjee S, Lesniak WG, et al. A fully human CXCR4 antibody dem- onstrates diagnostic utility and therapeutic efficacy in solid tumor xenografts. Oncotarget. 2016;7:12344-12358.
3. Nimmagadda S, Pullambhatla M, Stone K, Green G, Bhujwalla ZM, Pomper MG. Molecular imaging of CXCR4 receptor expression in human cancer xenografts with [64Cu]AMD3100 positron emission tomography. Cancer Res. 2010;70:3935-3944.
4. De Silva RA, Peyre K, Pullambhatla M, Fox JJ, Pomper MG, Nimmagadda S. Imaging CXCR4 expression in human cancer xenografts: evaluation of monocy- clam 64Cu-AMD3465. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:986-993.
5. Yan X, Niu G, Wang Z, et al. Al[18F]NOTA-T140 peptide for noninvasive visuali- zation of CXCR4 expression. Mol Imaging Biol. 2016;18:135-142.
6. Demmer O, Gourni E, Schumacher U, Kessler H, Wester HJ. PET imaging of CXCR4 receptors in cancer by a new optimized ligand. ChemMedChem. 2011;6: 1789-1791.
7. Herrmann K, Lapa C, Wester HJ, et al. Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry for the chemokine receptor CXCR4-targeting probe 68Ga-pentixafor. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:410-416.
8. Lapa C, Schreder M, Schirbel A, et al. [68Ga]Pentixafor-PET/CT for imaging of chemokine receptor CXCR4 expression in multiple myeloma: comparison to [18F]FDG and laboratory values. Theranostics. 2017;7:205-212.
9. Lapa C, Luckerath K, Rudelius M, et al. [68Ga]Pentixafor-PET/CT for imaging of chemokine receptor 4 expression in small cell lung cancer-initial experience. Oncotarget. 2016;7:9288-9295.
10. Derlin T, Jonigk D, Bauersachs J, Bengel FM. Molecular imaging of chemokine receptor CXCR4 in non-small cell lung cancer using 68Ga-pentixafor PET/CT: comparison with 18F-FDG. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:e204 e205.
11. Werner RA, Kircher S, Higuchi T, et al. CXCR4-directed imaging in solid tumors. Front Oncol. 2019;9:770.
12. Weich A, Werner RA, Buck AK, et al. CXCR4-directed PET/CT in patients with newly diagnosed neuroendocrine carcinomas. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11:605.
13. Bluemel C, Hahner S, Heinze B, et al. Investigating the chemokine receptor 4 as potential theranostic target in adrenocortical cancer patients. Clin Nucl Med. 2017; 42:e29-e34.
14. Zhou X, Dierks A, Kertels O, et al. 18F-FDG, 11C-methionine, and 68Ga-pentixafor PET/CT in patients with smoldering multiple myeloma: imaging pattern and clini- cal features. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12:2333.
15. Pan Q, Cao X, Luo Y, Li J, Feng J, Li F. Chemokine receptor-4 targeted PET/CT with 68Ga-pentixafor in assessment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: com- parison to 18F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:537-546.
16. Herrmann K, Schottelius M, Lapa C, et al. First-in-human experience of CXCR4- directed endoradiotherapy with 177Lu- and 90Y-labeled pentixather in advanced- stage multiple myeloma with extensive intra- and extramedullary disease. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:248-251.
17. Lapa C, Hanscheid H, Kircher M, et al. Feasibility of CXCR4-directed radioligand therapy in advanced diffuse large b-cell lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:60-64.
18. Maurer S, Herhaus P, Lippenmeyer R, et al. Side effects of CXC-chemokine recep- tor 4-directed endoradiotherapy with pentixather before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:1399-1405.
19. Keller T, Lopez-Picon FR, Krzyczmonik A, et al. Comparison of high and low molar activity TSPO tracer [18F]F-DPA in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2020;40:1012-1020.
20. Lapa C, Kircher S, Schirbel A, et al. Targeting CXCR4 with [68Ga]Pentixafor: a suit- able theranostic approach in pleural mesothelioma? Oncotarget. 2017;8:96732-96737.
21. Lewis R, Habringer S, Kircher M, et al. Investigation of spleen CXCR4 expression by [68Ga]Pentixafor PET in a cohort of 145 solid cancer patients. EJNMMI Res. 2021;11:77.
22. Kraus S, Dierks A, Rasche L, et al. 68Ga-pentixafor-PET/CT imaging represents a novel approach to detect chemokine receptor CXCR4 expression in myeloprolifer- ative neoplasms. J Nucl Med. 2022;63:96-99.
23. Werner RA, Weich A, Higuchi T, et al. Imaging of chemokine receptor 4 expres- sion in neuroendocrine tumors: a triple tracer comparative approach. Theranostics. 2017;7:1489-1498.
24. Philipp-Abbrederis K, Herrmann K, Knop S, et al. In vivo molecular imaging of chemokine receptor CXCR4 expression in patients with advanced multiple mye- loma. EMBO Mol Med. 2015;7:477-487.
25. Habringer S, Lapa C, Herhaus P, et al. Dual targeting of acute leukemia and supporting niche by CXCR4-directed theranostics. Theranostics. 2018;8: 369-383.
26. Duell J, Krummenast F, Schirbel A, et al. Improved primary staging of marginal- zone lymphoma by addition of CXCR4-directed PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2021;62: 1415-1421.
27. Lapa C, Herrmann K, Schirbel A, et al. CXCR4-directed endoradiotherapy induces high response rates in extramedullary relapsed multiple myeloma. Theranostics. 2017;7:1589-1597.
28. Li X, Heber D, Leike T, et al. [68Ga]Pentixafor-PET/MRI for the detection of che- mokine receptor 4 expression in atherosclerotic plaques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:558-566.
29. Vag T, Gerngross C, Herhaus P, et al. First experience with chemokine receptor CXCR4-targeted PET imaging of patients with solid cancers. J Nucl Med. 2016; 57:741-746.
30. Demmer O, Dijkgraaf I, Schumacher U, et al. Design, synthesis, and functionaliza- tion of dimeric peptides targeting chemokine receptor CXCR4. J Med Chem. 2011; 54:7648-7662.
31. Osl T, Schmidt A, Schwaiger M, Schottelius M, Wester HJ. A new class of Pentix- aFor- and PentixaTher-based theranostic agents with enhanced CXCR4-targeting efficiency. Theranostics. 2020;10:8264-8280.
32. Burger JA, Peled A. CXCR4 antagonists: targeting the microenvironment in leuke- mia and other cancers. Leukemia. 2009;23:43-52.
33. Zhao H, Guo L, Zhao H, Zhao J, Weng H, Zhao B. CXCR4 over-expression and survival in cancer: a system review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2015;6:5022- 5040.
34. Ghobrial IM, Liu CJ, Zavidij O, et al. Phase I/II trial of the CXCR4 inhibitor pler- ixafor in combination with bortezomib as a chemosensitization strategy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol. 2019;94:1244-1253.
35. Ludwig H, Weisel K, Petrucci MT, et al. Olaptesed pegol, an anti-CXCL12/SDF-1 Spiegelmer, alone and with bortezomib-dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory mul- tiple myeloma: a phase IIa study. Leukemia. 2017;31:997-1000.
36. Galsky MD, Vogelzang NJ, Conkling P, et al. A phase I trial of LY2510924, a CXCR4 peptide antagonist, in patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2014; 20:3581-3588.