Interactions of ABCG2 (BCRP) with epidermal growth factor receptor kinase inhibitors developed for molecular imaging

[11C]Erlotinib PET cannot detect acquired erlotinib resistance in NSCLC tumor xenografts in mice

INTRODUCTION

[¹¹C]Erlotinib PET has shown promise to distinguish non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors harboring the activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation delE746-A750 from tumors with wild-type EGFR. To assess the suitability of [¹¹C]erlotinib PET to detect the emergence of acquired erlotinib resistance in initially erlotinib-responsive tumors, we performed in vitro binding and PET experiments in mice bearing tumor xenografts using a range of different cancer cells, which were erlotinib-sensitive or exhibited clinically relevant resistance mechanisms to erlotinib.

METHODS

The following cell lines were used for in vitro binding and PET experiments: the epidermoid carcinoma cell line A-431 (erlotinib-sensitive, wild-type EGFR) and the three NSCLC cell lines HCC827 (erlotinib-sensitive, delE746-A750), HCC827_EPR (erlotinib-resistant, delE746-A750 and T790M) and HCC827_ERLO (erlotinib-resistant, delE746-A750 and MET amplification). BALB/c nude mice with subcutaneous tumor xenografts underwent two consecutive [¹¹C]erlotinib PET scans, a baseline scan and a second scan in which unlabeled erlotinib (10mg/kg) was co-injected. Logan graphical analysis was used to estimate total distribution volume (V_T) of [¹¹C]erlotinib in tumors.

RESULTS

In vitro experiments revealed significantly higher uptake of [¹¹C]erlotinib (5.2-fold) in the three NSCLC cell lines as compared to A-431 cells. In all four cell lines co-incubation with unlabeled erlotinib (1μM) led to significant reductions in [¹¹C]erlotinib uptake (-19% to -66%). In both PET scans and for all four studied cell lines there were no significant differences in tumoral [¹¹C]erlotinib V_T values. For all three NSCLC cell lines, but not for the A-431 cell line, tumoral V_T was significantly reduced following co-injection of unlabeled erlotinib (-20% to -35%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant differences in the in vitro and in vivo binding of [¹¹C]erlotinib between erlotinib-sensitive and erlotinib-resistant NSCLC cells. Our findings suggest that [¹¹C]erlotinib PET will not be suitable to distinguish erlotinib-sensitive NSCLC tumors from tumors with acquired resistance to erlotinib.