Safety, pharmacokinetic and dosimetry evaluation of the proposed thrombus imaging agent 99mTc-DI-DD-3B6/22-80B3 Fab′

  • David J. MacfarlaneEmail author
  • Richard C. Smart
  • Wendy W. Tsui
  • Michael Gerometta
  • Paul R. Eisenberg
  • Andrew M. Scott
Original article



99mTc-DI-DD-3B6/22-80B3 (Thromboview, hereafter abbreviated to 99mTc-DI-80B3 Fab′) is a humanised, radiolabelled monoclonal antibody Fab′ fragment with high affinity and specificity for the D-dimer domain of cross-linked fibrin. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics and dosimetry of four increasing doses of 99mTc-DI-80B3 Fab′ in healthy volunteers.


Thirty-two healthy volunteers (18–70 years; 16 male, 16 female) received a single intravenous injection of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 or 4.0 mg of 99mTc-DI-80B3 Fab′. Safety outcomes (vital signs, electrocardiography, haematology, biochemistry, adverse events and development of human anti-human antibodies) were assessed up to 30 days post injection. Blood and urine samples were collected up to 48 h post injection. Gamma camera images were acquired at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6 and 24 h post injection. Dosimetry was performed using standard MIRD methodology.


No adverse events considered to be drug related were observed. Human anti-human antibody was not detectable in any subject during the follow-up period. 99mTc-DI-80B3 Fab′ had a rapid initial plasma clearance (t 1/2α=1 h). The pharmacokinetic profile of the Fab′ fragment was generally linear across the four dose cohorts. By 24 h, 30–35% of the administered radioactivity appeared in the urine. There was marked renal accumulation with time, but no specific uptake was identified within other normal tissues. The effective dose was 9 mSv/750 MBq.


99mTc-DI-80B3 Fab’ is well tolerated, is rapidly cleared and exhibits clinically acceptable dosimetry—characteristics well suited to a potential thrombus imaging agent.


99mTc Pulmonary embolism Radioimmunodetection 



This study was supported by a competitive, peer-reviewed R&D START grant (AusIndustry, Commonwealth Government, Australia) and a research grant from AGEN Biomedical Limited (Acacia Ridge, Queensland, Australia 4110). The authors acknowledge the independent technical editing service provided by ProScribe Medical Communications funded in part by an unrestricted financial grant from AGEN Biomedical Limited. In compliance with the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts, established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, AGEN did not impose any impediment, directly or indirectly, on the publication of the study’s results. Dr. Macfarlane was the principal investigator during the study. Dr. Macfarlane currently acts as a consultant to AGEN Biomedical Limited for product and protocol development. Professor Eisenberg is also a consultant to AGEN Biomedical Limited and Dr. Gerometta is an employee of AGEN Biomedical Limited. Wendy Tsui is employed by the University of New South Wales under a research contract between AGEN Biomedical Limited and the University. We would like to acknowledge Q-Pharm staff for assisting with the conduct of the study.


  1. 1.
    Douketis J, Kearon C, Bates, S, Duku EK, Ginsberg JS. Risk of fatal pulmonary embolism in patients with treated venous thromboembolism. JAMA 1998; 279:458–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tovey C, Wyatt S. Diagnosis, investigation, and management of deep vein thrombosis. BMJ 2003; 326:1180–4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Silverstein MD, Heit JA, Mohr DN, Petterson TM, O’Fallon WM, Melton LJ III. Trends in the incidence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a 25-year population-based study. Arch Int Med 1998; 158:585–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    White RH. The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism. Circulation 2003; 107 Suppl 1:I4–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bates SM, Ginsberg JS. Treatment of deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:268–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kearon C, Julian JA, Ginsberg JS. Noninvasive diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis. McMaster Diagnostic Imaging Practice Guidelines Initiative. Ann Intern Med 1998; 128:663–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kearon C. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. CMAJ 2003; 168:183–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lisbona R, Derbekyan V, Novales-Diaz JA, Rush CL. Tc-99 m red blood cell venography in deep venous thrombosis of the lower limb: an overview. Clin Nucl Med 1985; 10:208–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lister-James J, Knight LC, Maurer AH, Bush LR, Moyer BR, Dean RT. Thrombus imaging with a technetium-99 m-labeled, activated platelet receptor-binding peptide. J Nucl Med 1996; 37:775–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rylatt DB, Blake AS, Cottis LE, Massingham DA, Fletcher WA, Masci PP, et al. An immunoassay for human D dimer using monoclonal antibodies. Thromb Res 1983; 31:767–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walker KZ, Milner LJ, Bautovich GJ, Borham P, Wood AK, Rylatt DB, et al. Detection of experimental thrombi in rabbits with an 131I-labeled fibrin-specific monoclonal antibody. Eur J Nucl Med 1990; 16:787–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walker KZ, Boniface GR, Phippard AF, Harewood W, Bautovich GJ, Bundesen PG. Preclinical evaluation of 99 m technetium-labeled DD-3B6/22 Fab’ for thrombus detection. Thromb Res 1991; 64:691–701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bautovich G, Angelides S, Lee FT, Greenough R, Bundesen P, Murray P, et al. Detection of deep venous thrombi and pulmonary embolus with technetium-99 m-DD-3B6/22 anti-fibrin monoclonal antibody Fab’ fragment. J Nucl Med 1994; 35:195–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morris TA, Marsh JJ, Chiles PG, Konopka RG, Pedersen CA, Schmidt PF, et al. Single photon emission computed tomography of pulmonary emboli and venous thrombi using anti-D-dimer. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004; 169:987–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siegel JA, Thomas SR, Stubbs JB, Stabin MG, Hays MT, Koral KF, et al. MIRD pamphlet no. 16: Techniques for quantitative radiopharmaceutical biodistribution data acquisition and analysis for use in human radiation dose estimates. J Nucl Med 1999;40 Suppl:37–61Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McKay E. A software tool for specifying voxel models for dosimetry estimation. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2003; 18: 379–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stabin MG. MIRDOSE: personal computer software for internal dose assessment in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med 1996; 37:538–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sgouros G. Bone marrow dosimetry for radioimmunotherapy: theoretical considerations. J Nucl Med 1993; 34:689–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shen S, DeNardo GL, Sgouros G, O’Donnell RT, DeNardo SJ. Practical determination of patient-specific marrow dose using radioactivity concentration in blood and body. J Nucl Med 1999; 40:2102–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oster ZH, Som P. Of monoclonal antibodies and thrombus-specific imaging [editorial]. J Nucl Med 1990; 31:1055–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee FT, Milner LJ, Boniface, GR, Bautovich GJ, Weedon AR, Bundesen PG, et al. Evaluation of thrombus detection in a rabbit model using a technetium-99 m-labeled antifibrin monoclonal antibody. Immunol Cell Biol 1992; 70:173–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ciavolella M, Tavolaro R, Di Loreto M, La Torre F, Nicolai A, Schillaci O, et al. Immunoscintigraphy of venous thrombi: clinical effectiveness of a new antifibrin D-dimer monoclonal antibody. Angiology 1999; 50:103–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schaible T, DeWoody K, Weisman H, et al. Accurate diagnosis of acute deep venous thrombosis with technetium-99 m antifebrin scintigraphy: Final Phase III trial results [abstract]. J Nucl Med 1992;33:848Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Behr T, Becker W, Hannappel E, Goldenberg DM, Wolf F. Targeting of liver metastases of colorectal cancer with IgG, F(ab’)2, and Fab’ anti-carcinoembryonic antigen antibodies labeled with 99 mTc: the role of metabolism and kinetics. Cancer Res 1995; 55 Suppl:5777–85Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schaible TF, Alavi A. Antifibrin scintigraphy in the diagnostic evaluation of acute deep venous thrombosis. Semin Nucl Med 1991; 21:313–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morris TA, Marsh JJ, Konopka R, Pedersen AS, Chiles PG, Fagnani R, et al. Antibodies against the fibrin β-chain amino-terminus detect active canine venous thrombi. Circulation 1997; 96:3173–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hirsch J, Gallus AS. 125-I-labeled fibrinogen scanning. Use in the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. JAMA 1975; 233:970–3CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sautter RD, Larson DE, Bhattacharyya SK, Chen HM, Treuhaft PS, Milbauer JP, et al. The limited utility of fibrinogen I-125 leg scanning. Ach Int Med 1979; 139:148–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Robertson PL, Berlangieri SU, Goergen SK, Waugh JR, Kalff V, Steven SN, et al. Comparison of ultrasound and blood pool scintigraphy in the diagnosis of lower limb deep venous thrombosis. Clin Radiol 1994; 49:382–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koblik PD, De Nardo GL, Berger HJ. Current status of immunoscintigraphy in the detection of thrombosis and thromboembolism. Semin Nucl Med 1989; 19:221–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Macfarlane
    • 1
    Email author
  • Richard C. Smart
    • 2
  • Wendy W. Tsui
    • 2
    • 3
  • Michael Gerometta
    • 4
  • Paul R. Eisenberg
    • 5
  • Andrew M. Scott
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineRoyal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital,BrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineSt George Hospital,SydneyAustralia
  3. 3.School of MedicineUniversity of New South Wales,SydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Research and DevelopmentAGEN Biomedical Limited,BrisbaneAustralia
  5. 5.Lilly Research LaboratoriesEli Lilly Company,IndianapolisUSA
  6. 6.Centre for PETAustin HealthMelbourneAustralia
  7. 7.Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research,MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations