Active targeting is more effective than conventional passive targeted drug delivery systems in increasing therapeutic efficacy and minimizing systemic toxicities. Importantly, the nanoparticle-based targeted drug delivery systems combine active and passive targeting properties and significantly enhance therapeutic efficacy. In this study, we utilized ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide (uSPIO) nanoparticles conjugated with anti-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) 5D3 monoclonal antibody, mertansine (DM1) antitubulin agent, and fluorophore to develop a targeted uSPIO-5D3-DM1-AF488/CF750 nanotheranostic for PSMA(+) prostate cancer (PC) therapy. This agent enables multimodality in vivo imaging using near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). uSPIO-5D3-DM1-AF488 is selectively internalized into PSMA-positive cells by receptor-mediated endocytosis, and uSPIO-5D3-DM1-CF750 exhibited 1.62 and 166.2 ng/mL IC50 values in PSMA(+) and PSMA(-) cells, respectively. The image-guided therapeutic study was conducted in vivo in human PC xenograft mouse models bearing bilateral PSMA(±) tumors (n = 10, two 10 mg/kg doses on days 1 and 14). The therapeutic results exhibited a significant control of the growth of PSMA(+) tumors starting at day 5 (p = 0.05) and significantly improved efficacy after day 9 (p = 0.0005) during the treatment period (t = 21 days). We observed the PSMA-specific uptake of uSPIO-5D3-DM1-CF750 in tumors in NIR IVIS Xenogen images and T1- and T2-weighted MRI with 20.6% and 42% reduction of overall T1 and T2, respectively. Approximately 70% of mice with PSMA(+) tumors treated with uSPIO-5D3-DM1-CF750 survived or did not exceed the threshold level of the tumor size during the treatment. Ex vivo biodistribution study proved 50% and 45% higher uptake of uSPIO-5D3-DM1-CF750 by PSMA(+) tumors compared to untargeted uSPIO-DM1-CF750 by PSMA(+) tumors and uSPIO-5D3-DM1-CF750 by PSMA(-) tumors, respectively. ICP-MS analysis demonstrated a 73% increase in uSPIO-5D3-DM1-CF750 uptake by PSMA(+) tumors compared to PSMA(+) tumors treated with pure uSPIO. The toxicological results reveal the safe profile in systemic toxicities without life-threatening changes in the complete blood count and clinical chemistry profile of toxicology.

Department of Neuroscience Johns Hopkins University Baltimore Maryland 21205 United States

Department of Oncology The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland 21287 United States

Department of Radiology and Radiological Science The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland 21205 United States

Laboratory of Structural Biology Institute of Biotechnology of the Czech Academy of Sciences Vestec 252 50 Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Wang L.; Lu B.; He M.; Wang Y.; Wang Z.; Du L. Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality: Global Status and Temporal Trends in 89 Countries From 2000 to 2019. Front Public Health 2022, 10, 81104410.3389/fpubh.2022.811044. PubMed DOI PMC

Siegel R. L.; Miller K. D.; Wagle N. S.; Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2023, 73 (1), 17–48. 10.3322/caac.21763. PubMed DOI

Siegel R. L.; Giaquinto A. N.; Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2024, 74 (1), 12–49. 10.3322/caac.21820. PubMed DOI

Evans A. J. Treatment effects in prostate cancer. Mod. Pathol. 2018, 31 (S1), 110–121. 10.1038/modpathol.2017.158. PubMed DOI

Einstein D. J.; Arai S.; Calagua C.; et al. Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer remains dependent on oncogenic drivers found in primary tumors. JCO Precision Oncology 2021, 5, 1514–1522. 10.1200/PO.21.00059. PubMed DOI PMC

Sartor O.; de Bono J. S. Metastatic prostate cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2018, 378 (7), 645–657. 10.1056/NEJMra1701695. PubMed DOI

Perera M.; Papa N.; Roberts M.; et al. Gallium-68 Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Advanced Prostate Cancer-Updated Diagnostic Utility, Sensitivity, Specificity, and Distribution of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen-avid Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 2020, 77 (4), 403–417. 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.01.049. PubMed DOI

Mannweiler S.; Amersdorfer P.; Trajanoski S.; Terrett J. A.; King D.; Mehes G. Heterogeneity of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression in prostate carcinoma with distant metastasis. Pathol Oncol Res. 2009, 15 (2), 167–72. 10.1007/s12253-008-9104-2. PubMed DOI

Ghosh A.; Heston W. D.; et al. J. Cell Biochem. 2004, 91 (3), 528–39. 10.1002/jcb.10661. PubMed DOI

Miyahira A. K.; Soule H. R. The history of prostate-specific membrane antigen as a theranostic target in prostate cancer: the cornerstone role of the prostate cancer foundation. J. Nucl. Med. 2022, 63 (3), 331–338. 10.2967/jnumed.121.262997. PubMed DOI

Bakht M. K.; Beltran H. Biological determinants of PSMA expression, regulation and heterogeneity in prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 2025, 22, 26.10.1038/s41585-024-00900-z. PubMed DOI PMC

Herrmann K.; Larson S. M.; Weber W. A. Theranostic Concepts: More Than Just a Fashion Trend—Introduction and Overview. J. Nucl. Med. 2017, 58 (Supplement 2), 1S–2S. 10.2967/jnumed.117.199570. PubMed DOI

Levine R.; Krenning E. P. Clinical History of the Theranostic Radionuclide Approach to Neuroendocrine Tumors and Other Types of Cancer: Historical Review Based on an Interview of Eric P. Krenning by Rachel Levine. J. Nucl. Med. 2017, 58 (Suppl 2), 3S–9S. 10.2967/jnumed.116.186502. PubMed DOI

Jewell K.; Hofman M. S.; Ong J. S. L.; Levy S. Emerging Theranostics for Prostate Cancer and a Model of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Therapy. Radiology 2024, 311 (1), e23170310.1148/radiol.231703. PubMed DOI

He S.; Song J.; Qu J.; Cheng Z. Crucial breakthrough of second near-infrared biological window fluorophores: design and synthesis toward multimodal imaging and theranostics. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47 (12), 4258–4278. 10.1039/C8CS00234G. PubMed DOI

Penet M.-F.; Chen Z.; Kakkad S.; Pomper M. G.; Bhujwalla Z. M. Theranostic imaging of cancer. Eur. J. Radiol. 2012, 81 (1), S124.10.1016/S0720-048X(12)70051-7. PubMed DOI PMC

Xia Y.; Xu C.; Zhang X.; et al. Liposome-based probes for molecular imaging: from basic research to the bedside. Nanoscale 2019, 11 (13), 5822–5838. 10.1039/C9NR00207C. PubMed DOI

Bossmann S. H.; Payne M. M.; Kalita M.; Bristow R. M. D.; Afshar A.; Perera A. S. Iron-Based Magnetic Nanosystems for Diagnostic Imaging and Drug Delivery: Towards Transformative Biomedical Applications. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14 (10), 2093.10.3390/pharmaceutics14102093. PubMed DOI PMC

Vakili-Ghartavol R.; Momtazi-Borojeni A. A.; Vakili-Ghartavol Z.; et al. Toxicity assessment of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles in different tissues. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol. 2020, 48 (1), 443–451. 10.1080/21691401.2019.1709855. PubMed DOI

Mahmoudi M.; Hosseinkhani H.; Hosseinkhani M.; et al. Magnetic resonance imaging tracking of stem cells in vivo using iron oxide nanoparticles as a tool for the advancement of clinical regenerative medicine. Chem. Rev. 2011, 111 (2), 253–280. 10.1021/cr1001832. PubMed DOI

Oghabian M. A.; Gharehaghaji N.; Masoudi A.; et al. Effect of coating materials on lymph nodes detection using magnetite nanoparticles. Advanced Science, Engineering and Medicine 2013, 5 (1), 37–45. 10.1166/asem.2013.1214. DOI

Diwoky C.; Liebmann D.; Neumayer B.; et al. Positive contrast of SPIO-labeled cells by off-resonant reconstruction of 3D radial half-echo bSSFP. NMR Biomed. 2015, 28 (1), 79–88. 10.1002/nbm.3229. PubMed DOI

Richards J. M.; Shaw C. A.; Lang N. N.; et al. In vivo mononuclear cell tracking using superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide: feasibility and safety in humans. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2012, 5 (4), 509–17. 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.112.972596. PubMed DOI

El-Boubbou K. Magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles as drug carriers: Preparation, conjugation and delivery. Nanomedicine 2018, 13 (8), 929–952. 10.2217/nnm-2017-0320. PubMed DOI

Nune S. K.; Gunda P.; Thallapally P. K.; Lin Y.-Y.; Laird Forrest M.; Berkland C. J. Nanoparticles for biomedical imaging. Expert opinion on drug delivery 2009, 6 (11), 1175–1194. 10.1517/17425240903229031. PubMed DOI PMC

Bao Y.; Sherwood J.; Sun Z. Magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles as T 1 contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Materials Chemistry C 2018, 6 (6), 1280–1290. 10.1039/C7TC05854C. DOI

Li W.; Kaminski Schierle G. S.; Lei B.; Liu Y.; Kaminski C. F. Fluorescent Nanoparticles for Super-Resolution Imaging. Chem. Rev. 2022, 122 (15), 12495–12543. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00050. PubMed DOI PMC

Cardellini J.; Balestri A.; Montis C.; Berti D. Advanced Static and Dynamic Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques to Investigate Drug Delivery Systems. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13 (6), 861.10.3390/pharmaceutics13060861. PubMed DOI PMC

Hickey S. M.; Ung B.; Bader C.; et al. Fluorescence Microscopy-An Outline of Hardware, Biological Handling, and Fluorophore Considerations. Cells-Basel 2022, 11 (1), 35.10.3390/cells11010035. PubMed DOI PMC

Malatesta M. Transmission Electron Microscopy as a Powerful Tool to Investigate the Interaction of Nanoparticles with Subcellular Structures. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22 (23), 12789.10.3390/ijms222312789. PubMed DOI PMC

Andrian T.; Muela Y.; Delgado L.; Albertazzi L.; Pujals S. A super-resolution and transmission electron microscopy correlative approach to study intracellular trafficking of nanoparticles. Nanoscale 2023, 15 (35), 14615–14627. 10.1039/D3NR02838K. PubMed DOI

Cooley M.; Sarode A.; Hoore M.; Fedosov D. A.; Mitragotri S.; Sen Gupta A. Influence of particle size and shape on their margination and wall-adhesion: implications in drug delivery vehicle design across nano-to-micro scale. Nanoscale 2018, 10 (32), 15350–15364. 10.1039/C8NR04042G. PubMed DOI PMC

Mitchell M. J.; Billingsley M. M.; Haley R. M.; Wechsler M. E.; Peppas N. A.; Langer R. Engineering precision nanoparticles for drug delivery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2021, 20 (2), 101–124. 10.1038/s41573-020-0090-8. PubMed DOI PMC

Nováková Z.; Foss C. A.; Copeland B. T.; et al. Novel monoclonal antibodies recognizing human prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) as research and theranostic tools. Prostate 2017, 77 (7), 749–764. 10.1002/pros.23311. PubMed DOI PMC

Liatsou I.; Assefa B.; Liyanage W.; et al. Development and therapeutic evaluation of 5D3(CC-MLN8237)(3.2) antibody-theranostic conjugates for PSMA-positive prostate cancer therapy. Front Pharmacol. 2024, 15, 1385598.10.3389/fphar.2024.1385598. PubMed DOI PMC

Blackman M. L.; Royzen M.; Fox J. M. Tetrazine ligation: fast bioconjugation based on inverse-electron-demand Diels-Alder reactivity. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130 (41), 13518–9. 10.1021/ja8053805. PubMed DOI PMC

Adhikari K.; Vanermen M.; Da Silva G.; Van den Wyngaert T.; Augustyns K.; Elvas F. Trans-cyclooctene-a Swiss army knife for bioorthogonal chemistry: exploring the synthesis, reactivity, and applications in biomedical breakthroughs. EJNMMI Radiopharm Chem. 2024, 9 (1), 47.10.1186/s41181-024-00275-x. PubMed DOI PMC

Tomarchio E. G.; Turnaturi R.; Saccullo E.; et al. Tetrazine-trans-cyclooctene ligation: Unveiling the chemistry and applications within the human body. Bioorg Chem. 2024, 150, 10757310.1016/j.bioorg.2024.107573. PubMed DOI

Huang C. T.; Guo X.; Barinka C.; et al. Development of 5D3-DM1: A Novel Anti-Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Antibody-Drug Conjugate for PSMA-Positive Prostate Cancer Therapy. Mol. Pharmaceutics 2020, 17 (9), 3392–3402. 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.0c00457. PubMed DOI PMC

Chauhan V. P.; Stylianopoulos T.; Martin J. D.; et al. Normalization of tumour blood vessels improves the delivery of nanomedicines in a size-dependent manner. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2012, 7 (6), 383–8. 10.1038/nnano.2012.45. PubMed DOI PMC

Nakamura Y.; Mochida A.; Choyke P. L.; Kobayashi H. Nanodrug Delivery: Is the Enhanced Permeability and Retention Effect Sufficient for Curing Cancer?. Bioconjug Chem. 2016, 27 (10), 2225–2238. 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.6b00437. PubMed DOI PMC

Simon G. H.; Bauer J.; Saborovski O.; et al. T1 and T2 relaxivity of intracellular and extracellular uSPIO at 1.5T and 3T clinical MR scanning. Eur. Radiol. 2006, 16 (3), 738–45. 10.1007/s00330-005-0031-2. PubMed DOI