Recent progress of astatine-211 in endoradiotherapy: Great advances from fundamental properties to targeted radiopharmaceuticals

Recent progress of astatine-211 in endoradiotherapy: Great advances from fundamental properties to targeted radiopharmaceuticals

PDF

Feize Li, Yuanyou Yang, Jiali Liao, Ning Liu^*

Chinese Chemical Letters | 2022, 33(7) : 3325 - 3338

Less

Chinese Chemical Letters | 2022, 33(7): 3325-3338

• Review •

Recent progress of astatine-211 in endoradiotherapy: Great advances from fundamental properties to targeted radiopharmaceuticals

Full

Feize Li, Yuanyou Yang, Jiali Liao, Ning Liu^*

Affiliations

Key Laboratory of Radiation Physics and Technology of the Ministry of Education, Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China

Published: 2022-07-15 doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2022.03.025

Outline

Abstract

Less

Astatine-211 (²¹¹At, t_1/2 = 7.21 h) emitting two α particles with energies of 5.87 and 7.45 MeV, can lead to a high linear energy transfer (LET = 98.84 keV/µm) and short tissue range (50~90 µm). Since the 1950s, ²¹¹At had stepped into endoradiotherapy and has always been regarded as one of the most promising α-emitters for targeted-alpha therapy (TAT) in various malignancies. In the past two decades, ²¹¹At related radiopharmaceuticals have achieved great progress in the studies of basic physicochemical properties of astatine, ²¹¹At labeling strategies, preclinical and clinical studies, producing profound effects in nuclear medicine. This work will give a panorama of ²¹¹At-related researches in the recent 20 years, which will cover both the fundamental insights of ²¹¹At radiochemistry and applied labeling compounds. It can provide some important hints for the studies of TAT and other radiopharmaceuticals applied in tumor radiotherapy.

Key words

Radionuclides / Astatine-211 / Target-alpha therapy / Radiopharmaceuticals

Cite this Article

Feize Li, Yuanyou Yang, Jiali Liao, Ning Liu. Recent progress of astatine-211 in endoradiotherapy: Great advances from fundamental properties to targeted radiopharmaceuticals[J]. Chinese Chemical Letters, 2022 , 33 (7) : 3325 -3338 . DOI: 10.1016/j.cclet.2022.03.025

Full Text

Less

1 Introduction

Less

Recently, targeted-alpha therapy (TAT) has drawn much attention both in preclinical and clinical researches. The LET of α particles is ~100 keV/µm, which is about 500 times higher than that of widely-used β⁻ particles. High LET value enables α particles to more effectively trigger DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), thus inducing cell cycle arrest and leading to mitotic cell death, apoptosis or necrosis [1, 2]. Meanwhile, the path length of α particles (50 ~ 100 µm) is equivalent to the distance of 5~10 cells, which can reduce the irradiation to surrounding healthy cells and unnecessary damage to normal tissues and organs [3]. These excellent properties make TAT show great advantages in the treatment of minimal residual tumors after primary treatment including surgery, external radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

There are over 2000 known radionuclides, and about 400 are α-emitting. Ideal α-emitters for TAT should have several basic characteristics [4]: (1) suitable half-lives for radiolabeling, purification and transportation, (2) contain no long-lived toxic decay daughters, (3) and there are available production methods for clinical applications. These criteria will screen all candidates to no more than ten, including ¹⁴⁹Tb, ²¹¹At, ^212/213Bi, ^223/224Ra, ²²⁵Ac, ^226/227Th and ²³⁰U (Table 1) [5, 6]. Among all these available α nuclides, ²¹¹At has unique advantages in terms of nuclear properties (Fig. 1). The half-life of ²¹¹At (t_1/2 = 7.21 h) is long enough for multi-step radiolabeling and is also compatible with plenty of carriers, such as small molecules, peptides and antibody/fragments [7]. ²¹¹At is regarded as a 100% α-emitter with two α particles with energies of 5.87 and 7.45 MeV. Despite its potential uptake by bone, liver and kidney, the toxicity of ²⁰⁷Bi can be negligible [8]: 370 MBq of ²¹¹At, the currently highest dose administered to a human, only leads to about 3.7 kBq of ²⁰⁷Bi. There is a chemical conversion of astatine to polonium which will cause the radionuclide to detach from the carriers, but the ²¹¹Po daughter is not affected by nuclear recoil since it comes from ²¹¹At by electron capture (EC). Even it can immediately escape from the cell surface and diffuse freely, ²¹¹Po with a short half-life of 0.52 s tend to decay to ²⁰⁷Pb within two cell diameters beyond the original cell surface [9]. In contrast, when ²¹¹At decays into ²¹¹Po by EC, the characteristic X-rays of 77~92 keV can be used for measuring ²¹¹At by γ-detectors in laboratory or clinical centers, which are also available for imaging by planar or SPECT scanners [10-13]. Additionally, ²¹¹At can be produced by bombarding natural Bi with α particles (≥20 MeV) on a cyclotron, which makes it more available than most medical α-emitters.

Actually, in 1950, Hamilton et al. [14] found that ²¹¹At could induce extreme degree of radiation injury of the thyroid gland in the rat without apparent involvement of the adjacent parathyroid gland, demonstrating that this α-emitter might be of essential therapeutic application in hyperthyroidism. Since then, ²¹¹At had stepped into endoradiotherapy and kept drawing more and more attention in nuclear medicine. Especially, ²¹¹At-related radiopharmaceuticals have made great progress since 2000. It has been demonstrated that ²¹¹At is one of the most promising α-nuclides for TAT and corresponding radiopharmaceuticals have widely-clinical prospects. Although several breakthroughs about ²¹¹At-labelled pharmaceuticals have been involved in some of the latest comprehensive reviews focused on introducing TAT or endoradiotherapy [15, 16], there is still a lack of specific work illustrating the new developments about ²¹¹At-based radiotherapy over the past decade, as the latest one can be dated to 2013 [8]. Considering newly emerging advances in ²¹¹At-based medicines should have profound effect in TAT, especially those involving the fundamental properties and clinical trials, we believe that it is very important to retrospect recent progresses of ²¹¹At again.

In this review, we will introduce the progress of ²¹¹At about the basic properties of astatine, the separation methods of ²¹¹At, the brief strategies for ²¹¹At labeling and the preclinical and clinical trials about related targeted pharmaceuticals. It will mainly cover most of the work from 2000, since ~70% of the publications involving ²¹¹At are located in 2000~2021, when astatine/astatine-211/At-211/²¹¹At is typed as the topic to search articles through web of science without other limitations (on February 28, 2022). In addition, despite of considerable amount of the work involving ²¹¹At in 1940~2000 focused on the nuclear properties of astatine, there is already a review from Zalutsky et al. [7] in 2000 specializing on introducing ²¹¹At-labelled radiopharmaceuticals. The goals of this work include: (1) providing some general introduction of ²¹¹At to the newcomers in TAT, so that they can recognize both the prospects and challenges of ²¹¹At-related radiopharmaceuticals; (2) systematically concluding the progress of ²¹¹At-based radiotherapy in recent years for researchers who are engaging in radiochemistry and nuclear medicine; (3) summarizing some problems before clinical translation of ²¹¹At-labelled compounds, and comprehensively evaluate the application potential of ²¹¹At. We believe that this work is not only helpful to the development of ²¹¹At-labelled radiopharmaceuticals, but can also provide some important hints for endoradiotherapy researches based on other α-emitters.

2 Basic properties of astatine

Less

2.1 Isotopes of astatine

Astatine (Z = 85), located at the seventh group of the periodic table, was discovered in 1940 by Corson et al. [17]. It was obtained by bombarding natural Bi target with 32 MeV of α particles and was initially named as "eka-iodine", due to its high similarity to iodine. In 1947, it was formally identified as astatine, from the ancient Greek "astatos" which means instability [18]. Astatine is often considered one of the rarest of all elements, and the total amount of natural astatine at any given time range is estimated from a few hundred milligrams to 30 g. Among all isotopes of astatine, ^214–219At occurs naturally in the decay chains of transuranium elements, and the most abundant one is ²¹⁷At (t_1/2 = 32.6 ms) decayed from ²³⁷Np [19]. Other isotopes of astatine are artificially synthesized, and ²¹⁰At has the longest half-life of 8.1 h. The isotopes of astatine with the mass lighter than 217 decay by pure α-emission or by a mixture of α- and EC/β⁺-emissions, ^217–220At undergo both α- and β⁻-emissions, while astatine isotopes with mass > 220 decays by pure β⁻-emission (Table 2).

Although ^207–210At with suitable half-lives (> 1 h) can emit α, β⁺ as well as γ rays, therefore show possible application in nuclear medicine, the prospect of these radionuclides is severely clouded by some other factors. For ^207/208At, there is no suitable way for producing medically-required amount of such radionuclides. It is previously-reported that ²⁰⁹At might be suitable for SPECT imaging in nude mice [20], but the production of ²⁰⁹At requires high-energy protons (480 MeV) to bombard uranium carbide targets [21]. The production of ²¹⁰At is not an serious issue and it was ever used to replace ²¹¹At as γ-emitter to quantify the in vivo distribution of astatine [22], but its daughter ²¹⁰Po (t_1/2 = 138.38 d) is extremely toxic, making this nuclide almost have no prospect in biomedicine. Similarly, the α-emitters ^208/209Po (t_1/2 = 2.90 and 124 y) in the decay chains of ^208/209At also limit their medical practice: once entering the organism, they may also cause long-term unnecessary internal irradiation and corresponding biotoxicity. As a result, only ²¹¹At has currently been employed in radiopharmaceuticals and been receiving more and more attention.

2.2 Physicochemical properties of At

As pointed out by Kozimor et al. [23], At should be one of the least understood elements in the periodic table. The most important reason is that, even for ²¹¹At with relatively long half-life and nontoxic decay daughters, it can be safely produced and operated with the amount limited to be 37 kBq to 4 GBq, roughly equivalent to 4.8 × 10⁻¹³ g to 5.2 × 10⁻⁸ g (rarely reaches the upper limit). Such quantities are beyond the detection limits of the most sensitive mass spectrometry, not to mention NMR, EPR, UV–vis and X-ray spectroscopy. Besides, for most chemical reactions, ²¹¹At currently ranges from 10⁻¹³ g to 10⁻⁹ g, and may even be smaller than the amount of trace organic species and metals in solvents. Thus, these intrinsic trace impurities may interfere during related reaction even catalyze unexpected reaction pathways.

According to periodic law, it seems feasible to use I as an analogue of At in fundamental study. However, this strategy must be cautiously taken since At is semi-metallic [24-26], while I is absolutely non-metallic. There are also theoretical studies showing that Al₁₃ cluster and At possess similar chemical reactivity [27], especially in electron transfer process. Meanwhile, both of them can form stable compounds with isobutylbenzene. Obviously, this kind of analogy at atomic levels is difficult to be extrapolated to macroscopic system. For the most widely-used ²¹¹At, 1 MBq equals just 0.06 pmol atoms, making it statistically unlikely to exist as ²¹¹At₂. Up to now, the color of astatine is not even known and is speculated to be black based on the fact that halogens from fluorine to iodine get darker [28]. The melting and boiling points of At are estimated as 302 and 337 ℃, respectively [4]. On silica, the adsorption enthalpies of At, AtO₂ and HAtO determined by Serov et al. [29] are 124 ± 5, 80 ± 5 and 47 ± 5 kJ/mol, while the sublimation enthalpies are 148 ± 25, 106 ± 30 and 56 ± 30 kJ/mol, respectively. On the gold surface, the adsorption enthalpies of At and AtO₂ were determined to be 147 ± 15 and 124 ± 5 kJ/mol, respectively.

The behavior of At in different solutions is also complicated. ²¹¹At is stable in chloroform and loses no activity even when the solvent is completely evaporated. However, the species distribution in chloroform is very variable. At can react with chlorine and other oxygen-containing radiolysis products derived from chloroform, producing a variety of species in a dose-dependent manner [30]. It has been demonstrated that the volatilization of free ²¹¹At is an heterogeneous process and 2.3 times higher than that of Na²¹¹At even in confined space [31]. This may be tightly related to the various oxidation states of At (-1, +1, +3, +5, +7) [32], which also lead to multiple species in aqueous solution, e.g., At⁻, At(0), AtO⁻, AtO⁺, AtO₂⁻, AtO₃⁻ and AtO₄⁻]. However, for a long time, the specific species of At lacked relevant experimental data to support. Recently, Guo et al. [33] successfully measured the absolute movement velocity of At monovalent anion in acidic reducing condition to be -8.26 ± 0.59 × 10⁻⁴ cm² V⁻¹ S⁻¹, which was highly coherent with theoretical calculation and directly proved the existence of At⁻. Champion et al. [34] confirmed that At(0) cannot exist in aqueous solution, while At(-Ⅰ), At(+Ⅰ) and At(+Ⅲ) should belong to At⁻, At⁺ and AtO⁺ in the range of pH 1~2, with the standard redox potentials of At⁺/At⁻ and AtO⁺/At⁺ pairs being 0.36 and 0.74 (0.01 V vs. NHE), respectively. It has also been demonstrated that the main species of At at pH 11 is AtO(OH)₂⁻ but not At⁻ [35]. Meanwhile, AtO⁺ is able to form a neutral substance AtO(OH) mainly through the reaction of AtO⁺ + H₂O(l) ⇌ AtO(OH)(aq) + H⁺ when increasing solution pH, and the equilibrium constant was 10^−1.9 [36]. At⁺ can form stable ternary complexes IAtBr⁻ in aqueous solution, with an equilibrium constant of 10^{7.5 ± 0.2} [37]. Nishinaka et al. [38] speculated that At can also exist as AtO₃⁻ and AtO₄⁻ in the presence of strong oxidizer (such as KIO₄). However, this result was based on the comparison of R_f values between At and I species (IO₃⁻ and IO₄⁻) using thin layer chromatography (TLC) methods, which still needs more direct evidences.

As a typical intermolecular interaction, halogen bond is formed by attraction between a halogen atom X from a molecule or a molecular segment R-X (R is usually more electronegative than X or is X itself) and another atom from R-X or a different molecule B. In a typical case, B is usually a Lewis base, and R can be another halogen atom or an inorganic/organic residue [39]. Loosely, halogen bonds occur when there are attractive interaction between an electrophilic region associated with a halogen atom in one molecular entity and a nucleophile region in another or the same molecular entity [40]. Guo et al. [41, 42] demonstrated that AtI can interact with various Lewis bases through halogen bond, and it is a stronger halogen bond donor than I₂. They also found that tributylphosphine oxide (Bu₃PO) and AtI can form either 1:1 or 2:1 complex [43]. The former has the currently strongest halogen bond, and the formation constant is as high as 10^4.24±0.35. For the 2:1 complex, a Bu₃PO molecule is first linked to AtI by halogen bond, while another one participated in the formation of the terpolymer by forming hydrogen bond with the organic entity.

The metallic property of At has encouraged researchers to look for suitable chelating agents which can form stable At-centered coordination complexes. A study performed by Bassal et al. [44] involving more than 20 model ligands indicated that those contain S and O donors exhibit higher affinity for AtO⁺. However, density functional theory (DFT) calculations showed that S or N atoms are more likely to interact with the O atom in AtO⁺ rather than directly coordinating with At atom. It also had been demonstrated that both At⁺ and AtO⁺ can form 1:1 and 1:2 complexes with Cl⁻, Br⁻, SCN⁻ and thiocalix[4]arene tetrasulfonate [45, 46]. But there is still a lack of adequate evidence for the coordination between At and these selected ligands and the formations of corresponding complexes were more likely driven by ionic interactions. In fact, how to obtain enough experimental data to confirm the interaction between astatine and donor atoms may be the key and difficult point of relevant research.

In recent years, computational chemistry which is not dependent on the availability of astatine, has become one of the important means to investigate At chemistry. For a lot of species including At⁻, AtX (X = H/H⁺, F-Ts), AtF₃, AtO⁺, HOAt, CH₃At and Y₃C-At (Y = F to At), etc., the electronic property [47-54], bonding mechanism [55-59], solvation mode [60-64], halogen bond [65-71], molecular configuration [72-76] and adsorption energy [77] have been well studied. For organic astatine compounds, related researches mainly focus on the inherent mechanism of C-At bond [78-80] as well as the aromaticity of astatine-substituted borazine (B₃N₃At₆) and benzene (C₆At₆) [81, 82]. It should be noted that for a heavy element like At, spin-orbit coupling and relativistic effects have very important effects on the theoretical calculations, so one must pay enough attention when talking about related bonding process. Meanwhile, for a certain characteristic property, different calculation methods may have huge difference in the final results. For example, for the first ionization energy and electron affinity of At, the calculated values by different methods vary in the range of 8.965~10.004 and 2.110~2.423 eV, respectively [47-49]. Therefore, before experimental evidence is obtained, the accuracy of theoretical calculation will lack reliable calibration. Fortunately, by using laser ionization spectroscopy, the first ionization energy of At was determined by Rothe et al. [83], which is 9.31751(8) eV, while the electron affinity was identified as 2.41578(7) eV by Leimbach et al. [84]. The determination of both basic data of At is of great significance. Firstly, it can offer important references which will prompt the computational researches involving At chemistry. Secondly, these data are helpful to recognize the reaction mechanism, especially for ²¹¹At labeling and deastatination. Thirdly, the development of At study can facilitate the fundamental research on some other heavy elements like Ts.

2.3 Production of ²¹¹At

The production of radionuclide ²¹¹At can be achieved by two approaches, ²¹¹Rn-²¹¹At generator and ²⁰⁹Bi(α, 2n)²¹¹At reaction on accelerator. ²¹¹Rn has a longer half-life (t_1/2 = 14.6 h), allowing ²¹¹At to be supplied over medium and long distances. Even so, an great obstacle is that it uses 42/60 MeV of ^6/7Li to bombard natural Bi target for obtaining ²¹¹Rn through ²⁰⁹Bi(⁶Li, 4n)²¹¹Rn or ²⁰⁹Bi(⁷Li, 5n)²¹¹Rn reaction, which has strict requirements on accelerators with high energy of Li ions. Additionally, ²⁰⁶Po, ²¹⁰At and ²¹⁰Po exist in the decay chain of ²¹⁰Rn [from ²⁰⁹Bi(⁷Li, 6n)²¹⁰Rn reaction] may contaminate ²¹¹At products, which is a big challenge to separation technology. Therefore, the production of ²¹¹At by ²⁰⁹Bi(α, 2n)²¹¹At reaction on accelerator is still the first choice at present. It is easier to achieve and has a high yield (16.3 to 41 MBq µA⁻¹ h⁻¹). One thing should be paid attention to is that the α beam energy must be strictly controlled below 29.0 MeV (usually 28.0~29.5 MeV) to avoid/minimize the amount of ²¹⁰At from ²⁰⁹Bi(α, 3n)²¹⁰At reaction (nonnegligible, > 30 MeV). For current status in the production of ²¹¹At, as well as how to break the logistical borders between the academic and commercial networks in the development of ²¹¹At-labelled pharmaceuticals, one can turn to the latest review given by Feng et al. [85].

Generally, the most common separation of ²¹¹At is achieved by high-temperature distillation. The basic principle is that the boiling point of At is 335 ℃, while that of Bi is as high as 1564 ℃. Therefore, the separation of ²¹¹At from irradiated targets can be achieved by controlling the heating temperature. In a typical separation (Fig. 2), the irradiated Bi target is placed in a furnace connected to a stable carrier stream, and is heated rapidly to 650~800 ℃ to make ²¹¹At sublimated. Gaseous ²¹¹At will be carried out by N₂, flow into the cold trap linked with negative pressure, condense and accumulate in the capillary. In the end, different solvents such as chloroform, methanol or NaOH are used to wash the capillary to obtain ²¹¹At products. The whole separation process can be controlled within 30 min. The ²¹¹At obtained by distillation is nearly carrier-free and there is no need to dissolve the irradiated target before separation. Hence, distillation is still the preferred approach used in the separation of ²¹¹At. However, the recovery of ²¹¹At in this approach is not stable and may vary in the range of 51%~83% [85].

In recent years, researchers also began to pay more attention to wet separation of ²¹¹At again. Burns et al. [86] demonstrated that 3-octanone and methyl isobutyl ketone can effectively extract ²¹¹At from nitric acid solution with Bi highly retained in water. Furthermore, by loading 3-octanone onto Amberchrom®CG300M resin, they found that the resulting impregnation resin can achieve high-performance separation of 151.7 and 362.6 MBq of ²¹¹At [87]. Specifically, the irradiated Bi target was first dissolved by 4~6 mol/L HNO₃, and the obtained solution was then loaded onto the impregnation resin column. The Bi substrate and other impurity nuclides were removed by using 5.9 mol/L HNO₃, while ²¹¹At was retained on the column with a loss of < 1%. Using ethanol as eluent, more than 90% of ²¹¹At was washed from the resin, with the total volume lower than 1 mL. Woen et al. [23] proposed to use commercial pre-filter resin (100~150 µm) to recover ²¹¹At from the irradiated Bi target. Different concentrations of HCl and NH₂OH·HCl were used to remove Bi matrix and other impurity nuclides. ²¹¹At retained on the column was eluted by 2 mol/L NaOH, with a recovery of 51%. Watanabe et al. [88] also tried to separate ²¹¹At using anionic resin and found that ²¹¹At would stay on the anionic resin when 8 mol/L HCl and HNO₃ rinsed the column, of which 75.3%~79.1% would be eluted by different concentrations of NaOH or NaOH-EtOH. For all the above-mentioned wet extractions, the separation time was in the range of 20~90 min, which is quite comparative to that of distillation.

There are also some reports of automatic extraction devices based on liquid-liquid or solid-liquid extraction [89, 90]. However, the specific activity of obtained products was not high enough, which was not conducive to ²¹¹At labeling. Overall, the wet separation avoids using high-temperature devices, so there is no need to worry about the volatility of ²¹¹At, and the operation is easier to achieve automation for large-scale production. However, target dissolution is more time-consuming, and the possible existence of residual Bi and impurity nuclides may influence the quality of ²¹¹At product. For impregnation resin, the extractant may detach from the stationary and become impurity in the final product, whether this would influence ²¹¹At radiolabeling still needs to be checked. Distillation and wet separation should complement with each other, and both are still under continuous development, especially the emergence of automatic separation device. How to improve the separation efficiency of ²¹¹At will be one of the keys to promote the basic research and related radiopharmaceuticals.

3 ²¹¹At-based radiopharmaceuticals

Less

3.1 Labeling strategy of ²¹¹At

Usually, the radioastatination of various carriers can be achieved through either nucleophilic or electrophilic reactions. Unlike radioiodine, ²¹¹At is difficult to bind directly to proteins or peptides to form stable radiolabeled compounds. Therefore, a bifunctional coupling agent which can bind with both the targeting carrier and ²¹¹At is always needed. DFT calculations show that the stability of C-At bond is closely related to the chemical environment of At, which is also consistent with the change of C-I bond [78, 79]. Briefly, C-At bond gradually becomes more stable in the order of in alky < alkenyl < aryl compounds, i.e., sp² C-At bond is stronger than sp³ one and higher conjugation is helpful for stabling C-At bond. Interestingly, B-At and C-At bonds exhibit completely opposite polarities: At in C-At bond is positive-charged, while it is negative-charged in B-At bond. This can well explain why C-At is more vulnerable to nucleophiles. Related in vivo experiments also showed that ²¹¹At-labelled compounds linked by borane derivatives are more stable than those linked by aromatic ones [91-95], but the former may influence the targeting and circulation of the carriers, making corresponding radiopharmaceuticals show long-time retention in blood, kidney or liver [96-99]. Therefore, the potential biotoxicity requires further systematic evaluation before its final application in ²¹¹At labeling.

Common bifunctional coupling agents involving both C-At and B-At bonds for ²¹¹At labeling are shown in Fig. 3a, and more details about related radioastatination reactions have been described in other work [100]. Some nontypical approaches, including coordination of calixarene [101]/metal-organic complex [102-105], click-chemical self-assembly [106], nucleophilic substitution using boric acid/borate ester [107-109] and nano-coprecipitation [110, 111], are also alternative paths for ²¹¹At labeling. However, due to the lack of reliable results in vivo, whether they can work in ²¹¹At-labelled pharmaceuticals also needs further verification. Currently, one-step ²¹¹At labeling based on aryl-trialkylstannane ester (ATE) derivatives is still the most widely-used strategy. In a typical process, ATE derivatives are first conjugated to the targeting vectors via amide reaction, resulting in corresponding precursors for halodestannylation (Fig. 3b) [112]. Recent studies have shown that the monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) with alkyltin-based prosthetic groups obtained in this method are highly stable at -20~4 ℃ for over 3 months in PBS (pH 7.4), which are still available for effective radioastatination [113].

In general, the instability of ²¹¹At-labelled compounds is mainly attributed to the break of C-At bond. Theoretically, diminishing the electrical deficiency of At is an alternative way to consolidate the C-At bond. For example, incorporating N-methyl or methylene between the amide bond and aromatic ring can significantly elevate the stability of corresponding labelled compounds [114, 115]. The basic principle is that the amide bond directly located on the benzene might increase the electrical deficiency of At, which is unfavorable for the stability of C-At bond. Of course, the bifunctional coupling agent and pharmacophore can also be linked by other approaches rather than amide bonds, e.g., reducing the disulfide bonds in proteins to sulfhydryl (-SH), which are then bonded to cycloolefin-containing bifunctional coupling agent through addition reaction [116]. Although related radiolabeling compounds are less prone to occur deastatination [117], size exclusion high-performance liquid chromatography (SE-HPLC) analysis indicated that reductants can cause partial cleavage of related proteins, diminishing its purity and immune-activity [118]. It is worth mentioning that ²¹¹At can also be directly labelled on RGD peptides through the tributyltin pre-incorporated into the vectors [119]. Corresponding labelled compounds keep high tumor targeting, suggesting their potential in ²¹¹At-based TAT.

The introduction of corresponding substituents beside At is another way for improving the stability of labeling compounds. However, Talanov et al. [120] found that directly incorporating electron-donating groups such as methoxyl or methanethiol at the ortho-position of alkyltin tends to reduce the radiochemical yield without enhancing the stability of corresponding labelled compounds. One possible reason is the introduction of substituting groups may increase the steric hindrance for halodestannylation. On the contrary, guanidyl at ortho- or meta-position can significantly improve the radiochemical yield and the stability of ²¹¹At-labelled compounds [121-124]. Obviously, guanidyl with longer chain structure is favorable to reduce the electrical deficiency of At while avoiding extra steric hindrances in astatination. In addition, when conjugated with pyridine instead of benzene derivatives, the stability of corresponding ²¹¹At labelled compounds also become lower [94], which may be due to the electron-drawing effect of N atom.

It should be noted that the ²¹¹At labeling rate may decrease when the radioactivity increases from pre-experimentally to clinically required amount. One of the main reasons is that high doses of radionuclides can produce significant radiation effects on the whole system through two approaches, i.e., the solvent-induced consumption of bifunctional coupling agent and the redistribution of ²¹¹At species. According to Pozzi et al. [125], when chloroform was used as the reaction medium, ATE derivatives would undergo 50% degradation even at doses below 500 Gy. It was attributed to that chloroform tends to produce electrophilic chlorine radical under irradiation, which can consume ATE derivatives and reduce the labeling rate of ²¹¹At onto the organic precursors [126]. In methanol and benzene, more than 85% of the labeling precursors still remain stable even at the dose of 3500 Gy. The analysis results of HPLC showed that over 90% of ²¹¹At exist as a single species in methanol when the dose was less than 1000 Gy. In this situation, the halodestannylation can easily be achieved. However, when the dose reaches 3000 Gy, At mainly exists in the form of At⁻, which cannot be effectively involved in electrophilic reaction to achieve radiolabeling [127]. In order to address the conjugate of high activity ²¹¹At onto targeting carriers, the most practical method is adding oxidants (such as N-succinimide or N-iodosuccinimide) in the reaction system, to inhibit the reduction of ²¹¹At species [127-129]. Besides, it is often necessary to perform large-scale ²¹¹At radiolabeling before clinical trials, to verify the stability and reliability of the designed labeling strategies [130-133].

Actually, due to the limited availability of ²¹¹At, labeling chemistry in a new system is generally carried out based on radioiodine (^125/131I) before being applied to radioastatination [134-137]. Typically, radioiodinated compounds are more stable in vivo, which is benefit from the better stability of C-I bond [138]. As a result, compounds labelled with radioiodine and radioastatine may differ in biodistribution. For instance, Wilbur et al. [139] found that the retention time of ²¹¹At labelled compounds in kidney was significantly longer than that of ¹²⁵I-based conjugates, even the same targeting vectors were employed. Hence, it is always necessary to re-examine and compare some vital items, such as biodistribution and biotoxicity between radioiodinated and radioastatinated radiopharmaceuticals.

3.2 ²¹¹At-based compounds in preclinical study

3.2.1 Na²¹¹At

Na⁺/I⁻ symporter (NIS) is an integral plasma membrane glycoprotein most commonly associated with the thyroid gland that mediates active transport of I⁻ to thyroid follicular cells [140]. Because iodine is an important component of triiodothyronine and tetraiodothyronine, thyroid function and its systemic consequences depend on adequate uptake of I⁻. In addition to thyroid cells, NIS is also expressed in other tissues, including salivary glands, gastric mucosa, and lactating mammary glands. The ability of NIS to accumulate I⁻ has therefore provided an important basis for targeted imaging and treatment of thyroid-associated diseases with radioiodine (mainly Na¹³¹I), which has achieved great clinical success.

The successful medical application of Na¹³¹I naturally encouraged researchers to employ Na²¹¹At in NIS-expressing tumors [141]. First of all, there is a very high similarity between these two halogens, so, theoretically, NIS can also mediate ²¹¹At⁻ transport to thyroid or other related tumors [142-145]. Secondly, dosimetry studies had shown that ²¹¹At had the highest biological effect in thyroid gland when compared with ⁶⁰Co, ^99mTc, ¹²³I, ¹²⁵I and ¹³¹I [146-151], resulting in significantly increased gene upregulation [152-155]. Thirdly, the overall irradiation of the eyes caused by ²¹¹At was nearly 5 times lower than that from ¹³¹I irradiation [156]. Unfortunately, although the growth inhibit effect of Na²¹¹At in NIS-expressing tumor models could be satisfactory [157, 158], some studies also indicated that the non-specific uptake of Na²¹¹At in several important organs including stomach, salivary gland, lungs and spleen was significantly higher than that of Na^125/131I, making the mean absorbed doses nonnegligible and may cause corresponding toxicity to organism [159-162].

Recently, Watabe et al. [10] found that one of the main reasons for this kind of biodistribution of free ²¹¹At might be that astatine in aqueous solutions tends to exist in a plenitude of species including At⁺, AtO⁻, At(OH)₂⁻, AtO₂⁻, AtO(OH)₂⁻, AtO⁺ in addition to At⁻, thus reducing NIS mediated targeting. Therefore, if ²¹¹At could be controlled in a single state, better therapeutic effect might be expected. Fortunately, it was found that the uptake of Na²¹¹At dispersed in citric acid solution by thyroid cancer cells were significantly increased. Correspondingly, more obvious tumor inhibition was observed in a dose-dependent manner. However, toxicity tests in both normal and tumor-bearing mice showed that 1.0 MBq of Na²¹¹At would cause weight loss, bone marrow growth inhibition, and pathological changes in subjects [163, 164]. Unfortunately, the application of Na²¹¹At in NIS-expressing tumors was overshadowed again.

3.2.2 ²¹¹At labelled small molecules

Small molecules tend to show rapid tumor accumulation and normal tissue clearance, which is well matched with the half-life of ²¹¹At. Considering that α particles can cause relatively limited cell damage due to short path length, small molecule with higher penetration may have some advantages in tumor therapy. Metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) is a functional analogue of neurotransmitter norepinephrine and is able to bind with sympathetic medulla tissue by norepinephrine transporter (NET). NET is upregulated in many neuroendocrine tumors, which enables ¹³¹I-labelled MIBG ([¹³¹I]MIBG) derivatives to be versatile in the treatment of neuroblastoma, pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma [165]. It is not hard to image, ²¹¹At-labelled benzylguanidine ([²¹¹At]MABG) derivatives are expected to show better performance in the treatment of NET-associated tumors [166-173]. Boyd et al. [174] illustrated that the inhibition of growth cancer cells transfected with methyladrenalin transporter (NAT) gene by [²¹¹At]MABG was much higher than that of [¹³¹I]MIBG. However, [¹³¹I]MIBG could result in bystander effect in solid tumor, which is less obvious for α-emitter predominated endoradiotherapy [175]. Recently, Ohshima et al. [176] found that [²¹¹At]MABG could show significant anti-tumor effect in pheochromocytoma murine models. The tumor volume in the control group increased by 509.2% ± 169.1%, while those in the [²¹¹At]MABG administrated groups (0.56 MBq) was 9.6% ± 5.5% at 21 d post-injection. Although higher injection doses of [²¹¹At]MABG (1.1–3.3 MBq) would cause transient weight loss and leukopenia to subjects, but all mice regained weight at 28 d post-injection. However, the toxicity was irreversible when the dose was further higher than 4.4 MBq [177].

In order to maintain abnormal growth, several types of amino acid transporters are over expressed in tumor cells. This has facilitated the uptake and transportation of various amino acids in tumor cells, even crossing the blood-brain barrier. Therefore, various ²¹¹At-labelled amino acid derivatives have become one hot topic in TAT. Meyer et al. [178] found that both [²¹¹At]-l-phenylalanine could specific bind to glioma cells. Anti-tumor studies in glioblastoma showed that both radioastatinated phenylalanine compounds could effectively inhibit glioma tumor growth and prolong the survival rate of murine models [179, 180]. Ohshima et al. [181] demonstrated that [²¹¹At]-l-phenylalanine also showed the ability to suppress the tumor growth and prolong the survival of murine ovarian cancer models. Xie et al. [182] found that 4–²¹¹At-astato-N-[4-(6-(isopropylamino)pyridine-4-yl)-1, 3-thiazol-2-yl]-N-methylbenzamide (²¹¹At-AITM) targeting ectopic metabolic glutamate receptors had good therapeutic effect in melanoma-bearing mice without obvious biotoxicity. In addition, Kaneda-Nakashima et al. [183] also demonstrated that ²¹¹At-labelled α-methyl-l-tyrosine (²¹¹At-AAMT) could double prolong the survival of pancreatic cancer models and effectively reduce the lung nodules in B16F10 metastasis models.

Makvandi et al. [184] conjugated ²¹¹At to 1-(4-iodophenyl)-8, 9-dihydro-2, 7, 9a-triazabenzo[c, d]azulen-6(7H)-one, obtaining a radioastatinated compound [²¹¹At]MM4 which could inhibit tumor growth in murine neuroblastoma model. The median survival was increased from 66 days in the control group to 87 days in the treatment group received a twice-fractionated injection of 370 kBq of [²¹¹At]MM4. However, when a single injection of higher dose (1480 kBq) was administrated, significant weight loss was observed in murine models. When [²¹¹At]MM4 was used in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor, anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) [185], tumor growth was found to be 100% suppressed. The mechanism for the synergistic effect of radiotherapy and immunotherapy should be that the former can induce inflammation by causing DSBs inside cancer cells, and stimulate the organism to re-produce immune response. This is favorable to destroy the inhibitory effect of tumor cells on immune system, achieving efficient tumor treatment.

Kiess et al. [186] labelled ²¹¹At to a small molecule inhibitor which can target prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA), and obtained the radioastatinated (2S)-2-(3-(1-carboxy-5-(4–²¹¹At-astatobenzamido)pentyl)ureido)pentanedioic acid. The ²¹¹At-labelled PSMA inhibitor was able to effectively inhibit tumor growth and prolong the survival of murine micro-metastatic models, but the uptake of radioactivity in thyroid and stomach was high, while the damage to the proximal renal tubules were also observed during the treatment. Different strategies had been adopted to address these two issues, including prolonging the chain linking pharmacophore and coupling agent, introducing guanidyl group at ortho-position of ²¹¹At, or changing the benzyl ring to pyridine [187]. As a result, another four ²¹¹At-labelled PSMA inhibitors were prepared, among which [²¹¹At]GV-620 had exhibit the highest in vivo stability and shortest renal retention time. Mease et al. [188] also proposed that conjugating ²¹¹At to high-performance ¹⁷⁷Lu-labelled pharmaceuticals might be another alternative approach to prepare new effective radiopharmaceuticals with potential in TAT. A series of ²¹¹At-labelled compounds (¹⁷⁷Lu was replaced by ¹⁷⁵Lu) targeting PSMA were prepared, of which ²¹¹AT-3-Lu had shown excellent targeting ability, pharmacokinetic characteristics, good antitumor effect and almost negligible biotoxicity.

Recently, our group found that fibroblast activation protein inhibitors (FAPIs) featured with rapid metabolism and short retention in tumor might be more favorable targeting ligands for ²¹¹At with relatively short half-life [135]. ²¹¹At-labelled FAPI-04 was synthesized for the first time with an ideal radiochemical yield and radiochemical purity [189]. It was demonstrated that tumor growth was dramatically slowed by ²¹¹At-FAPI-04 in a dose-dependent manner: glioma-bearing mice received 0.18, 0.37 and 0.55 MBq of ²¹¹At-FAPI-04 showed a reduced tumor volume of approximately 55%, 70% and 76% on the 15^th day, respectively. The median survival in ²¹¹At-FAPI-04 group (24.0, 30.0 and 33.0 days for 0.18, 0.37 and 0.55 MBq of ²¹¹At-FAPI-04, respectively) was significantly improved compared to that in saline group (16.5 days), causing no significant changes in body weight or toxicity in the kidney, liver, stomach and thyroid over the experimental period.

3.2.3 ²¹¹At-labelled peptides

Peptides are compounds of α-amino acids linked by peptide bonds, which are intermediate products of protein hydrolysis. The advantages of radiolabeled peptides include relatively simple chemical synthesis, available radiolabeling, rapid clearance from circulation, faster penetration, more uniform tissue distribution, and lower immunogenicity [190]. Therefore, in recent years, ²¹¹At-labelled peptides have become active in tumor therapy. Vaidyanathan et al. [191-193] was the first to realize ²¹¹At labeling on octreotide derivatives and found that somatostatin receptor expressing tumor cells had certain uptake and endocytosis of the radioastatinated octreotide (²¹¹At-octreotide) derivatives. Zhao et al. [194] found that ²¹¹At-octreotide exhibited observable higher uptake in lung, spleen, stomach and intestines than in other tissues. Through histological examination, ²¹¹At-octreotide demonstrated much more lethal effect than control groups (PBS, octreotide and free ²¹¹At).

Aoki et al. [195] proposed to conjugate ²¹¹At onto bombesin derivatives and performed the therapeutic effect of corresponding radiopharmaceuticals in prostate tumor models. It indicated that the prepared [²¹¹At]AB-3 had the highest labeling rate (28.2% ± 2.4%) when polyethylene glycol (PEG) chain was introduced between the bombesin scaffold and the labeling motif. [²¹¹At]AB-3 retained good affinity towards cancer cells and could be highly endocytosed, demonstrating that the whole radiochemistry process had no damage on the targeting of bombesin. However, endocytosed [²¹¹At]AB-3 tended to occur efflux over time and the uptake by tumor was as low as 2.56 ± 0.24 %ID/g, possibly originating from its unsatisfactory stability.

Our group [196, 197] labelled ²¹¹At onto a small molecule fusion peptide, VP2, and obtained a radiopharmaceutical [²¹¹At]At-SPC-VP2 targeting vasoactive intestinal peptide. It suggested that [²¹¹At]At-SPC-VP2 could effectively bind to a variety of tumor cells, including SW620 (colon cancer), A549 (human lung cancer), 4T1 (mouse breast cancer) and 7721 (human liver cancer). In vivo treatment experiments showed that [²¹¹At]At-SPC-VP2 had high stability and could produce better anti-tumor effect than both non-target nuclide and small molecule peptide. However, significant radioactivity was also observed in the stomach, which may be related to the deastatination of the labelled compound in vivo.

3.2.4 ²¹¹At-labelled antibodies

Recently, radioimmunotherapy (RIT) based on antibody has received increasing attention in preclinical and clinical researches [198]. Naturally, conjugating ²¹¹At to intact antibodies or related fragments to obtain astatinated pharmaceuticals with excellent anti-tumor effect is also one of the hotspots in TAT. Our group [199] found that ²¹¹At-labelled mAb 3H11 and Fab fragments had obvious cytotoxic effect on human gastric cancer cells and ²¹¹At-labelled Fab fragments showed higher tumor uptake (9.48~8.42 %ID/g) than ²¹¹At-labelled mAb (~4.0 %ID/g). However, both radiopharmaceuticals had shown inadequate in vivo stability. When ²¹¹At was labelled onto insulin through pyridine derivatives, the obtained [²¹¹At]At-SPC-insulin showed good in vitro stability and the purity of the radiolabeled compound was still higher than 95% for 24 h [200]. The radioactivity was mainly accumulated in liver, with the uptake of 4.29 %ID/g at 30 min post-injection. However, thyroid, stomach, lungs and spleen also showed noticeable radioactivity uptake.

Kennel et al. [201] proposed to employ ²¹¹At-labelled mAb 201B to treat BALB/C mice bearing approximately 100 EMT-6 lung tumor clones (approximately 2000 cells). They found that 185 kBq of ²¹¹At-labelled 201B could extend survival rate of subject mice, and an injection of 370 kBq (25~40 Gy) of radiolabeled mAb was enough to eradicate all lung tumors, but mice received 740 kBq of ²¹¹At-labelled 201B occurred pulmonary fibrosis at 3~4 months post-injection. Akabani et al. [202] evaluated the efficacy of combination of ²¹¹At- and ²¹³Bi-labelled 201B in lung tumor models by two-dimensional histological images and activity distribution at microscopic level. The results showed that radiolabeled mAbs were effective for the treatment of animals with small tumors, and the predicted therapeutic effect was consistent with experimental results. However, for large-size tumors, the therapeutic effect of radiopharmaceuticals was very limited.

Persson et al. [203] found that ²¹¹At-trastuzumab possessed a highly specific binding ability to breast cancer cells (K_D = 1.8 ± 0.3 nmol/L) and 74 cell-associated decay of ²¹¹At /cells could produce a cell survival fraction as low as (4.5 ± 0.8) × 10⁻⁴. Akabani et al. [204] pointed out that the relative biological effect of ²¹¹At-trastuzumab was twice higher than that of external irradiation therapy, and it was able to inhibit the proliferation of HER2-positive tumor cells. Furthermore, the therapeutic effect of ²¹¹At-trastuzumab on carcinomatous meningitis was verified in murine models [205]. It had been proved that the median survival of tumor-bearing mice increased from 21 days in saline group to 45 and 48 days after intracranial administration of 1.22 and 2.44 MBq of ²¹¹At-trastuzumab, respectively. When animals were inoculated with a lower tumor burden and received 1.70 and 3.40 MBq of ²¹¹At-trastuzumab, the median survival was further extended to 68 and 92 days. An evaluation of radiotherapy efficacy of ²¹¹At-trastuzumab in ovarian cancer models given by Palm et al. [206] further indicated that 500 µg cold trastuzumab combined with 400 kBq of ²¹¹At-trastuzumab could achieve tumor ablation with no obvious biotoxicity occurring during the treatment.

Kodaira et al. [207, 208] found that the anti-tumor effects of ²¹¹At-trastuzumab on peritoneal metastasis of gastric cancer were significantly dependent on the injection method. The uptake of ²¹¹At-trastuzumab by tumor was more than 60 %ID/g by intraperitoneal injection, while it decreased to 18 %ID/g via vein injection. Two of the six mice received 1.0 MBq of the radiopharmaceuticals achieved tumor ablation, while the growth of the tumor was significantly inhibited in other three models. Kodaira et al. [209] confirmed that intravenously-injected ²¹¹At-trastuzumab was able to significantly accumulate in liver tumor tissues, and the absorbed dose was in the range of 1~7 Gy (peak at 2 Gy). Subsequently, ²¹¹At-trastuzumab was demonstrated to have significant therapeutic effect on liver metastasis from a primary gastric cancer, and it could effectively prolong the survival of tumor-bearing mice without causing serious toxicity to murine models [210]. Cederkrantz et al. [211] found that intraperitonially-injected ²¹¹At-trastuzumab could result in an absorbed dose of 0~50 Gy for peritoneum in subjects, and a 34-week follow-up study indicated that the limiting dose should be 30 ~ 50 Gy.

Andersson et al. [212, 213] pointed out that intraperitoneal injection of 485~555 kBq of ²¹¹At-MOv18 mAb could extend the median survival of ovarian cancer xenografted mice from 138 to 213 days, and 33% of the models were apparently tumor-free and possibly cured at 7 months. These positive results should prompt the application of ²¹¹At-MOv18 in the therapy of ovarian cancer. However, in the past decades, the most widely-studied ²¹¹At labelled compounds for treating ovarian cancer was based on MX35 F(ab')₂, a murine mAb fragment targeting Le^y antigen. Bäck et al. [214] proved that the uptake of ²¹¹At-labelled MX35 F(ab')₂ by human ovarian tumor was 14 %ID/g at 7 h post-injection, while the ratio of tumor to blood uptake was 6.2 at 40 h post-injection. Elgqvist et al. [215, 216] systematically evaluated the RIT efficacy of ²¹¹At-labelled MX35 F(ab')₂ in ovarian cancer models and found that tumor-free fraction (TFF) for mice bearing 4-week tumor were 25%, 22%, 50% and 61% after injected with 25, 50, 100 and 200 kBq of the radiopharmaceuticals, respectively. The minimum required activity of ²¹¹At-labelled MX35 F(ab')₂ for the treatment of ovarian cancer models was suggested to be 100 kBq, since TFF was higher than 50% when further increasing the dosage. A series of researches suggested that a variety of factors, including initial tumor volume [217-219], injection method [220, 221] and specific activity of radiopharmaceuticals [222, 223] had important impacts on the therapeutic effect of ²¹¹At-labelled MX35 F(ab')₂ ovarian cancer models. Briefly, high specific activity of ²¹¹At-labelled MX35 F(ab')₂ tends to exhibit better therapeutic effect on small-size tumors, and biotoxicity could be obviously diminished when fractionated-injection is adopted.

The therapeutic effect of ²¹³Bi and ²¹¹At-labelled MX35 in 2-week ovarian cancer models showed that TFFs were 0.60 and 0.90 for ~2.7 MBq of ²¹³Bi-labelled mAb and ~0.44 MBq of ²¹¹At-labelled mAb, respectively [224], indicating that ²¹¹At had the advantage of achieving better therapeutic effect. Chouin et al. [225] quantified the activity of ²¹¹At-labelled MX35 F(ab')₂ in micro-metastatic ovarian cancer models and found that high uptake and good retention of radiopharmaceuticals mainly existed on the surface of tumor cells, and 1.0 MBq of labelled compounds could make the tumor cells receive a dose of at least 12 Gy. For larger micro-metastatic tumors, activity uptake per cell was lower, probably due to the limited penetration of mAb. However, the average absorbed dose of tumor cells was still higher than 30 Gy due to the presence of crossfire. Bäck et al. [226] thus conducted a study of long-term renal toxicity of ²¹¹At-labelled MX35 F(ab')₂ in ovarian cancer model, and suggested that an average absorbed renal dose of ~10 Gy was acceptable and kidney would not be the primary dose-limiting organ.

In fact, as a murine mAb, MX35 may induce immune response in humans, limiting the possibility of subsequent fractional therapy trials. Therefore, Lindegren et al. [227] investigated the differences in cell affinity and targeting specificity between ²¹¹At-labelled humanized mAb (²¹¹At-Rembab200) and ²¹¹At-labelled MX35. They found that both radiopharmaceuticals possessed high similarity in terms of tumor antigen and cell binding, confirming that ²¹¹At-Rembab200 also had potential in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Palm et al. [228] also radioastatinated humanized farletuzumab (²¹¹At-farletuzumab) targeting α-folic acid receptor, for the treatment of abdominal metastatic ovarian cancer. In murine disseminated ovarian cancer models, they demonstrated that ²¹¹At-farletuzumab was able to inhibit the tumor growth more effectively than ²¹¹At-labelled MX35. This might be due to that farletuzumab has a weaker affinity to ovarian cancer cells than MX35, allowing corresponding labelled mAb to penetrate the tumor more effectively.

²¹¹At-labelled mAbs have also received much attention in TAT for various blood diseases [229]. Wesley et al. [230] found 16.65 MBq/kg of ²¹²Bi- and 2.22 MBq/kg of ²¹¹At-labelled humanized mAb anti-Tac (²¹¹At-HAT) could prolong the survival of cynomolgus cardiac allograft models to 14.0 ± 1.3 and 26.7 ± 2.4 days, respectively (8.2 ± 0.5 days in the control group), indicating that ²¹¹At behaved better in tumor inhibition. A radioastatinated anti-CD25 mAb, ²¹¹At-labelled 7G7/B6, had also shown potential for leukemia treatment and 555 kBq of ²¹¹At-labelled 7G7/B6 could significantly prolong the mean survival time of karpas299 leukemia models from 24 to > 76 days, with 5 of the 15 mice living more than 5 months [231, 232]. Moreover, a combination therapy in T-cell white blood models using ²¹¹At-labelled 7G7/B6 and cold daclizumab made 91% of subjects live as long as 94 days, which was 36% and 50% in ²¹¹At-labelled 7G7/B6 and cold daclizumab groups [233]. Nakamae et al. [234] found that ²¹¹At-B10–30F11 targeting CD45 was high-performance in generating bone marrow suppression, since all mice administrated with 0.74 or 1.85 MBq of radiopharmaceuticals had lethal myeloablation. Orozco et al. [235] demonstrated that ²¹¹At-B10–30F11 could significantly prolong the median survival time of leukemia murine models in a dose-dependent manner: the median survival time was 123, 101, 61 and 37 days for subjects received 888, 740, 444 and 0 kBq of ²¹¹At-labelled 30F11, respectively.

In canine model, Chen et al. [236-238] also demonstrated that seven of the eight models would exhibit long-term donor monocyte chimerism (19% to 58%) when pre-treated with 5.735~23.125 MBq/kg of ²¹¹At-CA12.10C12 before hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) followed by short-term immunosuppression of cyclosporine and mycophenolate. At doses below 14.985 MBq/kg, the dogs exhibited transient hepatotoxicity and subsequently autogenous recovery, without nephrotoxicity observed at the end of an 18~53 weeks follow-up. It has been demonstrated that a cell dose exceeding 1 × 10⁶ cells/kg in combination with non-myeloablative doses (14.80~18.13 MBq/kg) of ²¹¹At-CA12.10C12 could sustain the engraftment level in dog models after autologous HCT. A subsequent therapeutic study in canine models demonstrated 6.956~14.319 MBq/kg of ²¹¹At-CA12.10C12 in combination with 9.2 Gy total body irradiation (TBI) appeared to be more effective to overcome graft rejection in red cell disorders and other nonmalignant conditions treated with allogenic transplantation [239].

Petrich et al. [240] found that ²¹¹At-AntiCD33 had significantly higher specific binding ability to leukemia cells and could effectively inhibit their proliferation. In vivo study on murine models showed that ²¹¹At-AntiCD33 possessed a characteristic biodistribution consistent with non-specific antibody retention in the reticuloendothelial system [241]. The largest proportion of radioactivity was observed in blood and blood-rich tissues, which was still over 85% at 21 h post-injection. During a fellow-up of 6 months, no significant toxicity occurred in all treatment group. O'Steen et al. [242] carried out the treatment of invasive multiple myeloma based on ²¹¹At-OKT10-B10 and found that the radiopharmaceutical could effectively inhibit tumor growth and double the survival time of the model mice (> 150 days). Gouard et al. [243] synthesized ²¹¹At-labelled 9E7.4 and confirmed its therapeutic effect in multiple myeloma model: the survival rate at 150 d was 65% in the presence of 740 kBq of related radiopharmaceuticals.

Nestor et al. [244, 245] conducted the evaluation of ²¹¹At-labelled U36 chimeric mAb on human neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and found that the prepared radiopharmaceutical had high specific binding and endocytosis ability to cancer cells. The survival rate of each cell was estimate to be 10% after 50 decays, and 200 kBq of the radionuclides could prevent 90% of the tumor-bearing mice appearing tumor proliferation. Robinson et al. [246] carried out the treatment of human breast tumors using ²¹¹At-labelled SAPS C6.5, a bispecific antibody targeting HER2. It demonstrated that 0.740 and 1.665 MBq of ²¹¹At-labelled SAPS C6.5 extended the survival time of tumor-bearing mice by 30 and 57 days, respectively, and the higher activity could occur 60% tumor ablation after 1 year.

Turtoi et al. [247, 248] found that human lymphocytes could show high sensitivity of gene expression and rapid regulation after exposure to ²¹¹At. Green et al. [249] compared the anti-tumor efficacy of ²¹¹At-labelled 1F5 mAb ([²¹¹At]1F5-B10) in large-size lymphoid xenograft and minimal residual disease (MRD) models. They found that [²¹¹At]1F5-B10 had a moderate effect on solid tumors and mice received 1.776 MBq of the radiopharmaceuticals lived only 2~3 times longer than those in the control group. In contrast, 70% of the MRD models received 555 kBq of [²¹¹At]1F5-B10 could achieve complete tumor elimination. Bäck et al. [250] confirmed that two-fractionated of 1.5 and 1.9 MBq of ²¹¹At-labelled anti-PSCA A11 minibody (²¹¹At-A11) targeting prostate stem cell antigen could inhibit tumor growth by nearly 85%. Eriksson et al. [251] demonstrated that 2.5 or 5.0 MBq of ²¹¹At-labelled BR96 (chimeric mouse/human IgG1 mAb) could facilitate half of the murine colon cancer models to achieve tumor ablation, when the initial tumor diameters were ~10 mm. Although RIT induced transient weight loss and bone marrow toxicity, the overall survival of the mice was significantly better than that of the control group.

Li et al. [252] tried to conjugate ²¹¹At to major histocompatibility complex CLASS I chain associated proteins A and B (MICA/B) and found the obtained ²¹¹At-anti-MICA/B Ab had high binding ability to human osteosarcoma cells SaOS2 and U2OS, of which 1.0 MBq could effectively inhibit the growth of HCT116 p53^−/−-positive tumor. They also compared the anticancer efficacy of ²¹¹At- and ⁹⁰Y-labelled anti-frizzled Homolog 10 (FZD10) in synovial sarcoma models [253]. The results indicated that 1.85 MBq of the prepared ²¹¹At-labbeld OTSA101 suppressed tumor growth immediately after injection, whereas this effect required several days in the case of ⁹⁰Y-labelled OTSA101. The combination of α- and β⁻-emitters based radiopharmaceuticals was supposed to be more conducive in RIT. However, a study performance by Eriksson et al. [254] indicated that administrating 5 or 10 MBq/kg of ²¹¹At-labelled BR9 at 25 d post-injection of 400 MBq/kg of ¹⁷⁷Lu-labelled BR96 had no effect on reducing the proportion of colon carcinoma bearing mice developing metastases. On the contrary, obvious bone marrow toxicity was observed in the treatment group. These results were discouraging, and at least proved that sequential RIT alone could not achieve synergistic effects.

For ²¹¹At-based RIT, how to enhance the stability of ²¹¹At-labelled mAbs also drew much attention, and an available approach might be introducing adjuvants into the media. Sundberg et al. [255] demonstrated that using lysosomal weak bases could improve the retention time of radiolabeled epidermal growth factor (²¹¹At-EGF) in tumor cells. Takashima et al. [256] proposed to dissolve ²¹¹At-anti-TF mAb in sodium ascorbate (SA) and found that 1.2% SA could significantly enhance the cellular binding of ²¹¹At-anti-TF mAb from 2.67% ± 0.40% to 17.52% ± 3.58%. Compared with 1 MBq of ²¹¹At-anti-TF mAb in PBS, those containing 1.2% SA could further prolong the median survival of gastric cancer models from 30 to 34 days. These results showed that reductive adjuvants might effectively improve the stability of astatinated compounds, resulting in better therapeutic effects.

Many preclinical studies have shown that mAb-based TAT can achieve tumor ablation when the maximum tumor radius was in the range of 0.1~0.2 mm, while it has little effect on tumors with larger size, which might be due to the limited penetration ability of mAbs. Hence, pre-targeting radioimmunotherapy (PRIT) has become attractive in TAT. A pre-targeting therapy can be divided into two steps: in the first step, the pre-targeting molecule (mainly mAbs) is injected into the organism. The second step is activation step, that is, after the targeting precursor has highly enriched at the tumor site, the effector molecule with good penetration ability is injected, which will be fixed by coupling with the pre-targeting molecule. Pre-targeting location can make the radionuclides better target the tumor, minimizing the biotoxicity of radionuclides to normal tissues. Wilbur et al. [257] carried out a preliminary study of ²¹³Bi- and ²¹¹At-labelled streptavidin for mAb pre-targeting. However, the effector molecules labelled with ²¹¹At were not suitable for PRIT due to their poor stability or low labeling rate. Frost et al. [258, 259] proposed to employ avidin-conjugated MX35 (Avidin-MX35) as the pre-targeting molecule and ²¹¹At-labelled biotinylated poly-l-lysine (²¹¹At-B-PL_SUC) as the effector molecule to achieve PRIT. In micro-metastatic ovarian cancer models, they found that PRIT exhibited no significant advantage in final anti-tumor effect over common RIT [260]. Navarro et al. [261] adopted five different click-chemical reaction strategies to conjugate the pre-targeting and effector molecules (polypeptides). Although BCN/TZ-IEDDA and DIBAC/N3-SPAAC showed obvious kinetic advantages, relevant in vivo experimental results are still needed.

Several in vitro studies also have shown that [262-265], multiple ²¹¹At-labelled mAbs (cocktails) or single ²¹¹At-labelled mAbs in combination with unlabeled mAbs could inhibit tumor growth more effectively than single administration. However, due to the lack of relevant in vivo evaluations of anti-tumor effect, or even in vivo distribution study, whether these strategies can work in the treatment of solid or metastatic tumors still needs to be verified. Actually, even for ²¹¹At-labelled mAbs or related fragments of which the stability and biodistribution in tumor-bearing mice had been performed [266-273], the practical anti-tumor and long-term biotoxicity also need to be verified.

3.2.5 ²¹¹At-labelled nanomaterials

The application of nanotechnology in human clinical practice is known as nanomedicine and offers a powerful tool with high potential and multiple applications. For ²¹¹At-based endoradiotherapy, there are also some attempts based on nanomaterials. Kucka et al. [274] achieved ²¹¹At radiolabeling onto PEGylated silver-containing nanoparticles, and found that, in the absence of reductant, the radiochemical yields could be over 94%. Moreover, the obtained ²¹¹At-labelled nanoparticles exhibit high stability even when treated with a large surplus of competitive chloride ions. Hartman et al. [275] also performed ²¹¹At labeling on ultra-short single-wall carbon nanotubes (US-tube) in the presence of chloramine-T/N-chlorosuccinimide with radiochemical yields of 60.7% and 55.4% in water and methanol, respectively. The prepared ²¹¹At-labelled US-tube showed good stability, with the retention of ²¹¹At on the nanotube kept as 72%~85% and 85%~93% after washed with PBS and serum twice, respectively.

Dziawer et al. [276] carried out the labeling of ²¹¹At on gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) and performed the preliminary biotoxicity study of related radiolabeled nanomaterials. Specifically, neuropeptide fragment P(5–11) targeting the nerve type 1 receptor was first conjugated to 5~15 nm AuNPs, of which halogenation were achieved by subsequently adsorbing ²¹¹At⁻. The prepared ²¹¹At-AuNP-S-PEG-SP(5–11) had good stability and could inhibit the growth of glioma cells. Sporer et al. [277] found that mixing ²¹¹At and 25~50 nm AuNPs before PEGylation could effectively achieve the ²¹¹At labeling onto the gold-based inorganic vector with a radiochemical yield of 99%. In vivo studies indicated that intravenously-injected ²¹¹At-labelled AuNP showed low uptake in the stomach and thyroid, high uptake in liver and spleen with long-time blood circulation.

Kato et al. [278] conjugated ²¹¹At with AuNP-S-mPEG ranging from 5 nm to 120 nm AuNPs, and confirmed that the obtained radiolabeling nanomedicines could significantly inhibit the growth of glioma and prostate cancer cells. Furthermore, ²¹¹At-AuNP-S-mPEG could well be located inside the xenograft after intratumoral injection. The tumor inhibition of ²¹¹At-AuNP-S-mPEG was significantly related to the particle sizes, and 5 nm ²¹¹At-AuNP-S-mPEG showed the best therapeutic effect, with no significant increase of the tumor size at 40 d post-injection. This might be that the smaller size of the nanomedicine was better favorable to penetrate to the center of the tumor. Liu et al. [279] also achieved ²¹¹At labeling of gold nano-stars (GNS) with high radiochemical yield (> 95%). The prepared ²¹¹At-labelled GNS had shown excellent in vitro and in vivo stability and could well inhibit tumor growth on glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) models. During a 14-day fellow-up, the average tumor volume in the control group increased rapidly from 82 mm³ to 1456 mm³ while that in the treatment group received 1.11 MBq of ²¹¹At-labelled GNS increased slowly from 78 mm³ to 189 mm³. These results suggested that ²¹¹At-labelled GNS had great potential in the treatment of GBM.

Shi et al. [280] synthesized a semiconductor polymer nanopore (SPN) which was further modified with glucose-dependent insulin-stimulating polypeptide (GIP). After radioastatination, a new nanomedicine ²¹¹At-MeATE-SPN-GIP was obtained, of which 1.1 MBq could significantly inhibit tumor growth in pancreatic cancer murine models without weight loss, renal and thyroid function disorder occurring. Biodistribution showed that the radioactivity in the stomach was high, suggesting that the stability of ²¹¹At-MeATE-SPN-GIP should be further enhanced. In addition, like all other nanomaterials, the uptake of intraperitoneally-injected ²¹¹At-MeATE-SPN-GIP by liver, spleen, and lungs was still significant, which made the long-term toxicity to these organs need to be verified.

Compared with small molecules, peptides and mAbs, ²¹¹At-labelled nanoparticles are not well studied. There are many factors for this, including the inconsistence of half-lives between ²¹¹At and the nanoparticles, the poor stability of nanoparticles, the uptake of nanomedicines by the reticuloendothelial system, and the long-term toxicity of nanoparticles, etc. Of course, some of the problems, such as the interception by reticuloendothelial system is an inherent issue for all nanomedicines, but not featured by ²¹¹At-labelled nanoparticles. An alternative solution to this problem, at least for ²¹¹At-labelled nanoparticles, is adopting local administration in tumor endoradiotherapy, with an attempt to reduce the metabolism of nanomedicine in vivo.

3.3 Clinical study of ²¹¹At-based radiopharmaceuticals

Up to now, there are several clinical trials involving ²¹¹At-labelled pharmaceuticals, which were driven by previous positive results of preclinical results. Akabani et al. [281] found that ²¹¹At-labelled ch81C6 mAb could specifically accumulate in GBM tissue and the radioactivity was approximately 5 times higher than that in normal brain tissue. As a result, a lower survival probability of GBM cells than normal brain endothelial cells had been observed. Subsequently, a clinical study was carried out [282], in which 18 patients with recurrent brain tumors were injected with 71~347 MBq of ²¹¹At-labelled ch81C6 through a surgically created resection cavity (SCRC) and subsequently subjected to remedial chemotherapy. It had been demonstrated that a total of 96.7% ± 3.6% of ²¹¹At decayed in SCRC, and the mean blood pool percentage injection dose was ≤0.3. Six patients developed grade 2 neurotoxicity within 6 weeks of ²¹¹At-labelled ch81C6 administration, which eventually disappeared completely in all but one patient. There was no grade 3 or higher toxicity observed in all patients, and no one required repeated surgery due to radionecrosis. Median survival was 54, 52, and 116 weeks for different patients with GBM, anaplastic astrocytoma and oligodendroglioma, respectively.

Andersson et al. [283] conducted a phase I clinical study with ²¹¹At-labelled MX35 F(ab')₂ in 9 patients with ovarian cancer. All subjects were received 22.4~101 MBq/L of ²¹¹At-labelled MX35 F(ab')₂ via peritoneal catheters. It indicated that the radiopharmaceuticals in the peritoneal fluid decreased to 50% initial activity concentration at 24 h, while those in serum increased to 6% at 45 h. Radioactivity in the thyroid would increase to 127% at 20 h without blocking, which was < 20% with blocking. The cumulative urinary excretion was 40 kBq/(MBq/L) at 24 h, and the estimated absorbed doses were 15.6 ± 1.0, 0.14 ± 0.04, 0.77 ± 0.19, 24.7 ± 11.1 and 1.4 ± 1.6 mGy MBq⁻¹ L⁻¹) for peritoneum, red bone marrow, bladder wall, unblocked thyroid and blocked thyroid, respectively. It has been demonstrated that bladder, thyroid, and kidney had the highest contribution to estimated absorbed doses, while lungs, stomach, and bladder shared the largest doses when tissue-weight factor was taken into account [284]. The organ equivalent dose was 10% lower than the estimated tolerance dose when 100 MBq/L of ²¹¹At-labelled MX35 F(ab')₂ was administrated.

Hallqvist et al. [285] performed a phase I clinical study involving 12 patients with recurrent ovarian epithelial carcinoma who had developed secondary or complete resistance to chemotherapeutic agents. They found that when the dose of ²¹¹At-labelled MX35 F(ab')₂ was up to 215 MBq, no significant biotoxicity was observed during the treatment. Actually, most of the low-level biotoxicity was not directly related to endoradiotherapy itself. Four patients survived longer than 6 years, and one did not have tumor recurrence. Median overall survival was 35 months, with 1, 2, 5 and 10-year survival rates of 100%, 83%, 50% and 25%, respectively. Dosimetry studies showed that lower specific activity was associated with lower single cell dose, while in microtumors, higher specific activity might lead to lower central dose. No obvious radiotoxicity was observed during a 12-year follow-up, and none of the subjects showed any signs of decreased tolerance to recurrent therapy.

Based on the positive effects of ²¹¹At-labelled mAbs in blood disease models, Li et al. [133] recently announced an impending clinical study (NCT03128034) for the treatment of advanced hematological malignancies. Meanwhile, O'Steen et al. [242] also planned to apply ²¹¹At-OKT10-B10 in a clinical trial of treating invasive multiple myeloma. Absolutely, all these positive results will promote the clinical application of ²¹¹At-based radiopharmaceuticals.

4 Challenges and prospects of ²¹¹At-labelled pharmaceuticals

Less

As summarized in Table 3, ²¹¹At-based radiopharmaceuticals have received increasing attention from 2000. However, the development of ²¹¹At-labelled compounds is facing several challenges:

(1) Production of ²¹¹At. Although some accelerators are currently capable of producing GBq-scale ²¹¹At (up to 9 GBq) [85], there are currently no more than 30 in the world available for producing ²¹¹At. Therefore, it is predictable that availability of ²¹¹At will still be a problem in the future. Since the cost of a large accelerator is often high, the intervention of governments may be an important way to solve the problem of ²¹¹At production and supply. Encouragingly, in several parts of the world, including the United States, the European Union and Japan, government agencies are taking concrete actions to build, upgrade or retrofit accelerators to increase the capacity of ²¹¹At production [85].

(2) Basic chemistry of At. Compared to other α-emitters, the recognition about the fundamental properties of ²¹¹At is limited. At present, many fundamental researches involving At chemistry are still focused on the properties of electron configuration, species states and halogen bonds in simple systems, those based on ²¹¹At labelled compounds are very rare. The exact mechanism of halogenated and deastanization of ²¹¹At, the specific denaturation path of radioastatinated compounds in vivo, and the law of C-At bond stability, etc., all lack thorough researches. Fortunately, the development of both computational chemistry and experimental methods have provided powerful tool to explore these issues, which will result in more great progress in the near future.

(3) ²¹¹At labeling strategies. Although there are a lot of strategies for labeling ²¹¹At, low reproducibility of radiochemical yield and poor stability of labelled compounds are still one of the important problems restricting the development of ²¹¹At in TAT. How to find the effective approaches for conjugating ²¹¹At and designed vectors, or how to find a more high-performance bifunctional coupling agent, will still be one of the key topics in future. Inspiringly, the nucleophilic substitution reactions based on aryl borate [107] and aryl iodobenzene [286] provide important references for the development of ²¹¹At labeling and deserve to be tried in more studies. The developments of computational chemistry can also offer important guidance for the design and synthesis of new bifunctional coupling agents.

(4) Ideal targeting carrier. Because ²¹¹At has a relatively short half-life, small molecules with shorter biological half-lives, including amino acids, inhibitors, peptides and so on, often seem to match ²¹¹At better. However, after radioastatination, their specific targeting, stability and retention time at tumor site are not satisfactory. As for mAbs, they can show higher stability and retention time in tumor. However, their long biological half-lives are difficult to match the physical half-life of ²¹¹At. In this situation, mAb fragments seem more favorable for ²¹¹At-based radiopharmaceuticals. To avoid long-time in vivo circulation and the uptake by normal organs and tissues, local administration of ²¹¹At-labelled mAbs/fragments might also be available to achieve region-targeted radiotherapy. The selection of appropriate tumor type should be another option. As least, ²¹¹At-labelled mAbs might be conducive to treat blood diseases due to their long-time circulation. Clearly, micro-metastatic tumors with a smaller size also seems to receive better therapeutic effect than solid ones.

5 Conclusion

Less

In the past decades, ²¹¹At-based radiopharmaceuticals have made great progress in basic physicochemical properties, labeling strategies, preclinical and clinical studies. Accurate determination of the first ionization energy and electron affinity can not only promote the recognition of At element itself, but also provide important reference standard for the development of computational chemistry. Clarification of At species in aqueous solution, especially in oxidation conditions, is of great significance for the experimental development of ²¹¹At radiochemistry. New labeling strategies will give more and more choices for conjugating ²¹¹At onto the targeting vector. ²¹¹At-labelled radiopharmaceuticals have become more and more active in nuclear medicine, depending on the emergence of novel targeting vectors. Although there are still several challenges in the development of ²¹¹At-related radiopharmaceuticals, the great successes in preclinical and clinical researches have already lighted up the prospect of ²¹¹At in practical tumor radiotherapy.

Declaration of competing interest

Less

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

Less

The authors are grateful for the financial supports from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 22006105), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2020M683309), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.

References

Less

[1]

K. Claesson, K. Magnander, H. Kahu, et al., Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 87 (2011) 372–384.

[2]

A.K. Claesson, B. Stenerlow, L. Jacobsson, et al., Radiat. Res. 167 (2007) 312–318.

[3]

J. Tranel, F.Y. Feng, S. St James, et al., Phys. Med. Biol. 66 (2021) 035016.

[4]

S. Lindegren, P. Albertsson, T. Back, et al., Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 35 (2020) 425–436.

[5]

M.G. Ferrier, V. Radchenko, J. Med. Imaging Radia. Sci. 50 (2019) S58–S65.

[6]

R. Eychenne, M. Cherel, F. Haddad, et al., Pharmaceutics 13 (2021) 906.

[7]

M.R. Zalutsky, G. Vaidyanathan, Curr. Pharm. Des. 6 (2000) 1433–1455.

[8]

F. Guerard, J.F. Gestin, M.W. Brechbiel, Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 28 (2013) 1–20.

[9]

S. Palm, J.L. Humm, R. Rundqvist, et al., Med. Phys. 31 (2004) 218–225.

[10]

T. Watabe, K. Kaneda-Nakashima, Y. Liu, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 60 (2019) 1301–1307.

[11]

T.G. Turkington, M.R. Zalutsky, R.J. Jaszczak, et al. Phys. Med. Biol. 38 (1993) 1121–1130.

[12]

K. Nakanishi, S. Yamamoto, T. Watabe, et al., Med. Phys. 47 (2020) 5739–5748.

[13]

Y. Nagao, M. Yamaguchi, S. Watanabe, et al., Appl. Radiat. Isot. 139 (2018) 238–243.

[14]

J.G. Hamilton, C.W. Asling, W.M. Garrison, et al., Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 73 (1950) 51–53.

[15]

B.J.B. Nelson, J.D. Andersson, F. Wuest, Pharmaceutics 13 (2021) 49.

[16]

H. Jadvar, Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 35 (2020) 475–484.

[17]

D.R. Corson, K.R. MacKenzie, E. Segrè, Phy. Rev. 58 (1940) 672–678.

[18]

D.R. Corson, K.R. Mackenzie and E. Segre, Nature 159 (1947) 24.

[19]

G.J. Meyer, J. Labelled Compd. Radiopharm. 61 (2018) 154–164.

[20]

J.R. Crawford, A.K.H. Robertson, H. Yang, et al., Phys. Med. Biol. 63 (2018) 045025.

[21]

J.R. Crawford, P. Kunz, H. Yang, et al., Appl. Radiat. Isot. 122 (2017) 222–228.

[22]

H. Ikeda, Y. Hayashi, N. Takahashi, et al., Appl. Radiat. Isot. 139 (2018) 251–255.

[23]

D.H. Woen, C. Eiroa-Lledo, A.C. Akin, et al., Inorg. Chem. 59 (2020) 6137–6146.

[24]

R.E. Vernon, J. Chem. Educ. 90 (2013) 1703–1707.

[25]

A. Hermann, R. Hoffmann, N.W. Ashcroft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 116404.

[26]

D. -D. Yang, F. Wang, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 14 (2012) 15816–15825.

[27]

B. Molina, J.R. Soto, J.J. Castro, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 20 (2018) 11549–11553.

[28]

D.S. Wilbur, Nat. Chem. 5 (2013) 246.

[29]

A. Serov, N. Aksenov, G. Bozhikov, et al., Radiochim. Acta 99 (2011) 593–599.

[30]

E. Aneheim, S. Palm, H. Jensen, et al., Sci. Rep. 9 (2019) 15900.

[31]

H. Kubo, K. Takahashi, S. Shimoyama, et al., Nucl. Med. Commun. 42 (2021) 1052–1059.

[32]

U. Lindencrona, L. Sillfors-Elverby, M. Nilsson, et al., Appl. Radiat. Isot. 62 (2005) 395–403.

[33]

N. Guo, F. Pottier, J. Aupiais, et al., Inorg. Chem. 57 (2018) 4926–4933.

[34]

J. Champion, C. Alliot, E. Renault, et al., J. Phys. Chem. A 114 (2010) 576–582.

[35]

D.C. Sergentu, D. Teze, A. Sabatie-Gogova, et al., Chem. Eur. J. 22 (2016) 2964–2971.

[36]

J. Champion, A. Sabatie-Gogova, F. Bassal, et al., J. Phys. Chem. A 117 (2013) 1983–1990.

[37]

N. Guo, D. -C. Sergentu, D. Teze, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 55 (2016) 15369–15372.

[38]

I. Nishinaka, K. Hashimoto, H. Suzuki, J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem, 318 (2018) 897–905.

[39]

J.G. Hill, X. Hu, Chem. Eur. J. 19 (2013) 3620–3628.

[40]

G.R. Desiraju, P.S. Ho, L. Kloo, et al., Pure Appl. Chem. 85 (2013) 1711–1713.

[41]

N. Guo, R. Maurice, D. Teze, et al., Nat. Chem. 10 (2018) 428–434.

[42]

L. Liu, S. Rahali, R. Maurice, et al., Chem. Sci. 12 (2021) 10855–10861.

[43]

L. Liu, N. Guo, J. Champion, et al., Chem. Eur. J. 26 (2020) 3713–3717.

[44]

F. Bassal, J. Champion, S. Pardoue, et al., Inorg. Chem. 59 (2020) 13923–13932.

[45]

J. Champion, M. Seydou, A. Sabatie-Gogova, et al., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13 (2011) 14984–14992.

[46]

J. Champion, C. Alliot, S. Huclier, et al., Inorg. Chim. Acta 362 (2009) 2654–2661.

[47]

A. Borschevsky, L.F. Pasteka, V. Pershina, et al., Phys. Rev. A 91 (2015) 020501.

[48]

Z. Chang, J. Li, C. Dong, J. Phys. Chem. A 114 (2010) 13388–13394.

[49]

R. Si, C.F. Fischer, Phys. Rev. A 98 (2018) 052504.

[50]

A. Shee, T. Saue, L. Visscher, et al., J. Chem. Phys. 149 (2018) 174113.

[51]

W.A. Al-Saidi, J. Chem. Phys. 129 (2008) 064316.

[52]

A.S. Pereira Gomes, F. Real, N. Galland, et al., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16 (2014) 9238–9248.

[53]

K. Koziol, I. Agustin Aucar, G.A. Aucar, J. Chem. Phys. 150 (2019) 184301.

[54]

K. Krause, W. Klopper, J. Chem. Phys. 139 (2013) 191102.

[55]

C.G. Pech, P.A.B. Haase, N. Galland, et al., Phys. Rev. A 100 (2019) 032518.

[56]

R. Maurice, F. Real, A.S.P. Gomes, et al., J. Chem. Phys. 142 (2015) 094305.

[57]

M. Ponikvar-Svet, K.F. Edwards, J.F. Liebman, Struct. Chem. 32 (2021) 973–976.

[58]

J. Pilme, E. Renault, F. Bassal, et al., J. Chem. Theory Comput. 10 (2014) 4830–4841.

[59]

A. Whiteside, S.S. Xantheas, M. Gutowski, Chem. Eur. J. 17 (2011) 13197–13205.

[60]

B. Senjean, S. Sen, M. Repisky, et al., J. Chem. Theory Comput., 17 (2021) 1337–1354.

[61]

Y. Chamorro, E. Florez, A. Maldonado, et al., Int. J. Quantum Chem. 121 (2021) e26571.

[62]

F. Real, A.S.P. Gomes, Y.O.G. Martinez, et al., J. Chem. Phys. 144 (2016) 124513.

[63]

T. Ayed, M. Seydou, F. Real, et al., J. Phys. Chem. B 117 (2013) 5206–5211.

[64]

T. Ayed, F. Real, G. Montavon, et al., J. Phys. Chem. B 117 (2013) 10589–10595.

[65]

S. Sarr, J. Graton, S. Rahali, et al., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 23 (2021) 4064–4074.

[66]

E. Rossi, M. De Santis, D. Sorbelli, et al., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 22 (2020) 1897–1910.

[67]

S. Sarr, J. Graton, G. Montavon, et al., ChemPhysChem 21 (2020) 240–250.

[68]

F. Zhou, Y. Liu, Z. Wang, et al., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 21 (2019) 15310–15318.

[69]

I. Alkorta, F. Blanco, M. Solimannejad, et al., J. Phys. Chem. A 112 (2008) 10856–10863.

[70]

I. Alkorta, J. Elguero, M. Yanez, et al., Molecules 24 (2019) 4399.

[71]

N. Galland, G. Montavon, J.Y. Le Questel, et al., New J. Chem. 42 (2018) 10510–10517.

[72]

H. Kim, Y.J. Choi, Y.S. Lee, J. Phys. Chem. B 112 (2008) 16021–16029.

[73]

C. Bae, Y.K. Han, Y.S. Lee, J. Phys. Chem. A 107 (2003) 852–858.

[74]

M. Amaouch, D.C. Sergentu, D. Steinmetz, et al., J. Comput. Chem. 38 (2017) 2753–2762.

[75]

D.C. Sergentu, M. Amaouch, J. Pilme, et al., J. Chem. Phys. 143 (2015) 114306.

[76]

D.C. Sergentu, G. David, G. Montavon, et al., J. Comput. Chem. 37 (2016) 1345–1354.

[77]

Y. Demidov, A. Zaitsevskii, Chem. Phys. Lett. 691 (2018) 126–130.

[78]

T. Ayed, J. Pilme, D. Teze, et al., Eur. J. Med. Chem. 116 (2016) 156–164.

[79]

M. Amaouch, G. Montavon, N. Galland, et al., Mol. Phys. 114 (2016) 1326–1333.

[80]

D. Teze, D.C. Sergentu, V. Kalichuk, et al., Sci. Rep. 7 (2017) 2579.

[81]

W.A. Rabanal-Leon, W. Tiznado, L. Alvarez-Thon, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 119 (2019) e25859.

[82]

R. Ramirez-Tagle, L. Alvarado-Soto, A. Villavicencio-Wastavino, et al., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18 (2016) 25751–25755.

[83]

S. Rothe, A.N. Andreyev, S. Antalic, et al., Nat. Commun. 4 (2013) 1835.

[84]

D. Leimbach, J. Karls, Y. Guo, et al., Nat. Commun., 11 (2020) 3824.

[85]

Y. Feng, M.R. Zalutsky, Nucl. Med. Biol. 100-101 (2021) 12–23.

[86]

J.D. Burns, E.E. Tereshatov, M.A. McCarthy, et al. Chem. Commun., 56 (2020) 9004–9007.

[87]

J.D. Burns, E.E. Tereshatov, G. Avila, et al., Sep. Purif. Technol. 256 (2021) 117794.

[88]

S. Watanabe, I. Sasaki, S. Watanabe, et al., J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 326 (2020) 1399–1404.

[89]

Y. Li, D.K. Hamlin, M.K. Chyan, et al., Sci. Rep. 9 (2019) 16960.

[90]

M.J. O'Hara, A.J. Krzysko, D.K. Hamlin, et al., Sci. Rep. 9 (2019) 20318.

[91]

A. Orlova, O. Lebeda, V. Tolmachev, et al., J. Labelled Compd. Radiopharm. 43 (2000) 251–260.

[92]

D.S. Wilbur, M.K. Chyan, D.K. Hamlin, et al., Bioconjug. Chem. 20 (2009) 591–602.

[93]

D.S. Wilbur, M.S. Thakar, D.K. Hamlin, et al., Bioconjug. Chem. 20 (2009) 1983–1991.

[94]

Y. Yang, R. Lin, N. Liu, et al., J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., 288 (2011) 71–77.

[95]

A. Sjostrom, V. Tolmachev, O. Lebeda, et al., J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 256 (2003) 191–197.

[96]

D.S. Wilbur, M.K. Chyan, D.K. Hamlin, et al., Bioconjug. Chem. 15 (2004) 203–223.

[97]

D.S. Wilbur, D.K. Hamlin, M.K. Chyan, et al., Bioconjug. Chem. 15 (2004) 601–616.

[98]

D.S. Wilbur, M.K. Chyan, D.K. Hamlin, et al., Bioconjug. Chem. 18 (2007) 1226–1240.

[99]

D.S. Wilbur, M.K. Chyan, D.K. Hamlin, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 37 (2010) 167–178.

[100]

F. Guerard, C. Maingueneau, L. Liu, et al., Acc. Chem. Res. 54 (2021) 3264–3275.

[101]

A.T. Yordanov, K. Deal, K. Garmestani, et al., J. Labelled Compd. Radiopharm. 43 (2000) 1219–1225.

[102]

M. Lyczko, M. Pruszynski, A. Majkowska-Pilip, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 53 (2017) 1–8.

[103]

H. Rajerison, F. Guerard, M. Mougin-Degraef, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 41 (2014) E23–E29.

[104]

M. Pruszynski, M. Lyczko, A. Bilewicz, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 42 (2015) 439–445.

[105]

M. Pruszynski, A. Bilewicz and M.R. Zalutsky, Bioconjug. Chem. 19 (2008) 958–965.

[106]

C. Denk, M. Wilkovitsch, E. Aneheim, et al., Chempluschem 84 (2019) 775–778.

[107]

M. Berdal, S. Gouard, R. Eychenne, et al., Chem. Sci. 12 (2021) 1458–1468.

[108]

S.W. Reilly, M. Makvandi, K. Xu, et al., Org. Lett. 20 (2018) 1752–1755.

[109]

Y. Shirakami, T. Watabe, H. Obata, et al., Sci. Rep. 11 (2021) 12982.

[110]

S. Ostrowski, A. Majkowska-Pilip, A. Bilewicz, et al., RSC Adv. 7 (2017) 35854–35857.

[111]

E. Cedrowska, M. Lyczko, A. Piotrowska, et al., Radiochim. Acta 104 (2016) 267–275.

[112]

S. Lindegren, S. Frost, T. Baeck, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 49 (2008) 1537–1545.

[113]

E. Aneheim, J. Hallerod, P. Albertsson, et al., Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 30 (2015) 41–45.

[114]

V.S. Talanov, K. Garmestani, C.A.S. Regino, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 33 (2006) 469–480.

[115]

A.T. Yordanov, K. Garmestani, M. Zhang, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 28 (2001) 845–856.

[116]

E. Aneheim, M.R.S. Foreman, H. Jensen, et al., Appl. Radiat. Isot. 96 (2015) 1–5.

[117]

E. Aneheim, A. Gustafsson, P. Albertsson, et al., Bioconjug. Chem. 27 (2016) 688–697.

[118]

D.S. Wilbur, M.K. Chyan, H. Nakamae, et al., Bioconjug. Chem. 23 (2012) 409–420.

[119]

K. Ogawa, T. Takeda, K. Mishiro, et al., Acs Omega 4 (2019) 4584–4591.

[120]

V.S. Talanov, A.T. Yordanov, K. Garmestani, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 31 (2004) 1061–1071.

[121]

G. Vaidyanathan, D.J. Affleck, D.D. Bigner, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 30 (2003) 351–359.

[122]

G. Vaidyanathan, D.J. Affleck, K.L. Alston, et al., Bioorg. Med. Chem. 15 (2007) 3430–3436.

[123]

G. Vaidyanathan, D.J. Affleck, K.L. Alston, et al., J. Labelled Compd. Radiopharm. 50 (2007) 177–182.

[124]

Y. Dekempeneer, T. Back, E. Aneheim, et al., Mol. Pharm. 16 (2019) 3524–3533.

[125]

O.R. Pozzi, M.R. Zalutsky, J. Nucl. Med., 46 (2005) 700–706.

[126]

G. Vaidyanathan, O.R. Pozzi, J. Choi, et al., Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 35 (2020) 511–519.

[127]

O.R. Pozzi, M.R. Zalutsky, J. Nucl. Med. 48 (2007) 1190–1196.

[128]

S. Lindegren, H. Andersson, T. Back, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 28 (2001) 33–39.

[129]

O.R. Pozzi and M.R. Zalutsky, Nucl. Med. Biol. 46 (2017) 43–49.

[130]

M.R. Zalutsky, X.G. Zhao, K.L. Alston, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 42 (2001) 1508–1515.

[131]

E. Aneheim, P. Albertsson, T. Back, et al., Sci. Rep. 5 (2015) 12025.

[132]

E. Aneheim, H. Jensen, P. Albertsson, et al., J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 303 (2015) 979–983.

[133]

Y. Li, D.K. Hamlin, M.K. Chyan, et al., PLoS One 13 (2018) e0205135.

[134]

H. Takagi, S. Zhao, S. Muto, et al., Lung Cancer 153 (2021) 134–142.

[135]

H. Ma, F. Li, G. Shen, et al., Mol. Pharm. 18 (2021) 4179–4187.

[136]

J.M. Kelly, A. Amor-Coarasa, A. Nikolopoulou, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 58 (2017) 1442–1449.

[137]

Y. Li, M.K. Chyan, D.K. Hamlin, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 92 (2021) 217–227.

[138]

A.C. Steffen, Y. Almqvist, M.K. Chyan, et al., Oncol. Rep. 17 (2007) 1141–1147.

[139]

D.S. Wilbur, M.K. Chyan, D.K. Hamlin, et al., Bioconjug. Chem. 22 (2011) 1089–1102.

[140]

E. Dadachova, N. Carrasco, Semin. Nucl. Med. 34 (2004) 23–31.

[141]

S. Carlin, R.J. Mairs, P. Welsh, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 29 (2002) 729–739.

[142]

U. Lindencrona, M. Nilsson, E. Forssell-Aronsson, Nucl. Med. Biol. 28 (2001) 41–50.

[143]

O.A. Yuminov, V.A. Drozdov, D.A. Bondarenko, et al., Mosc. Univ. Phy. Bull. 73 (2018) 401–404.

[144]

U. Lindencrona, E. Forssell-Aronsson, M. Nilsson, Nucl. Med. Biol. 34 (2007) 523–530.

[145]

T. Petrich, H.J. Helmeke, G.J. Meyer, et al., Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 29 (2002) 842–854.

[146]

T. Unak, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 58 (2003) 115–117.

[147]

A. Danielsson, K. Claesson, T.Z. Parris, et al., Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 89 (2013) 250–258.

[148]

E. Aurlien, Y. Kvinnsland, R.H. Larsen, et al., Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 78 (2002) 133–142.

[149]

E.A. Dashko, E.V. Kizhaev, O.A. Yuminov, et al., Bullet. Russ. Acad. Sci. Phy. 74 (2010) 1591–1594.

[150]

C. Lundh, U. Lindencrona, P. Postgard, et al., J. Nucl. Med., 50 (2009) 1161–1167.

[151]

J. Kotzerke, M. Wendisch, R. Freudenberg, et al., Nuklearmedizin-Nuclear Med. 51 (2012) 170–178.

[152]

N. Rudqvist, T.Z. Parris, E. Schuler, et al., EJNMMI Res. 2 (2012) 32.

[153]

N. Rudqvist, J. Spetz, E. Schuler, et al., PLoS One 10 (2015) e0131686.

[154]

B. Langen, N. Rudqvist, T.Z. Parris, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 54 (2013) 990–998.

[155]

B. Langen, N. Rudqvist, T.Z. Parris, et al., EJNMMI Res. 5 (2015) 1.

[156]

O.V. Fotina, T.V. Gulyaeva, V.A. Drozdov, et al., B Bullet. Russ. Acad. Sci. Phy. 79 (2015) 458–460.

[157]

T. Petrich, L. Quintanilla-Martinez, Z. Korkmaz, et al., Clin. Cancer Res. 12 (2006) 1342–1348.

[158]

M.J. Willhauck, B.R.S. Samani, I. Wolf, et al., Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 35 (2008) 1272–1281.

[159]

S. Carlin, G. Akabani, M.R. Zalutsky, J. Nucl. Med. 44 (2003) 1827–1838.

[160]

J. Spetz, N. Rudqvist, E. Forssell-Aronsson, Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 28 (2013) 657–664.

[161]

C. Lundh, U. Lindencrona, A. Schmitt, et al., Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 21 (2006) 591–600.

[162]

B. Langen, N. Rudqvist, K. Helou, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 58 (2017) 346–353.

[163]

Y. Liu, T. Watabe, K. Kaneda-Nakashima, et al., Transl. Oncol. 13 (2020) 100757.

[164]

T. Watabe, K. Kaneda-Nakashima, K. Ooe, et al., Ann. Nucl. Med. 35 (2021) 702–718.

[165]

D. Kayano, S. Kinuya, Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 52 (2018) 254–265.

[166]

G. Vaidyanathan, M.R. Zalutsky, Bioconjug. Chem. 3 (1992) 499–503.

[167]

G. Vaidyanathan, D.K. Strickland, M.R. Zalutsky, Int. J. Cancer 57 (1994) 908–913.

[168]

D.K. Strickland, G. Vaidyanathan, H.S. Friedman, et al., J. Neurooncol. 25 (1995) 9–17.

[169]

R.E. McLendon, G.E. Archer, P.K. Garg, et al., Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 35 (1996) 69–80.

[170]

G. Vaidyanathan, D.J. Affleck, M.R. Zalutsky, Bioconjug. Chem., 7 (1996) 102–107.

[171]

G. Vaidyanathan, H.S. Friedman, S.T. Keir, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 23 (1996) 851–856.

[172]

G. Vaidyanathan, X.G. Zhao, R.H. Larsen, et al., Br. J. Cancer 76 (1997) 226–233.

[173]

S.H. Cunningham, R.J. Mairs, T.E. Wheldon, et al., Br. J. Cancer 77 (1998) 2061–2068.

[174]

M. Boyd, R.J. Mairs, W.N. Keith, et al., J. Gene Med. 6 (2004) 937–947.

[175]

M. Boyd, S.C. Ross, J. Dorrens, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 47 (2006) 1007–1015.

[176]

Y. Ohshima, H. Sudo, S. Watanabe, et al., Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 45 (2018) 999–1010.

[177]

H. Sudo, A.B. Tsuji, A. Sugyo, et al., Transl. Oncol. 12 (2019) 879–888.

[178]

G.J. Meyer, A. Walte, S.R. Sriyapureddy, et al., Appl. Radiat. Isot. 68 (2010) 1060–1065.

[179]

T. Watabe, K. Kaneda-Nakashima, Y. Shirakami, et al., Oncotarget 11 (2020) 1388–1398.

[180]

N. Borrmann, S. Friedrich, K. Schwabe, et al., Nuklearmedizin-Nuclear Med. 52 (2013) 212–221.

[181]

Y. Ohshima, H. Suzuki, H. Hanaoka, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 90-91 (2020) 15–22.

[182]

L. Xie, M. Hanyu, M. Fujinaga, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 61 (2020) 242–248.

[183]

K. Kaneda-Nakashima, Z. Zhang, Y. Manabe, et al., Cancer Sci. 112 (2021) 1132–1140.

[184]

M. Makvandi, H. Lee, L.N. Puentes, et al., Mol. Cancer Ther. 18 (2019) 1195–1204.

[185]

H. Dabagian, T. Taghvaee, P. Martorano, et al., ACS Pharmacol. Transl. Sci. 4 (2021) 344–351.

[186]

A.P. Kiess, I. Minn, G. Vaidyanathan, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 57 (2016) 1569–1575.

[187]

G. Vaidyanathan, R.C. Mease, I. Minn, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 94-95 (2021) 67–80.

[188]

R.C. Mease, C. Kang, V. Kumar, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 63 (2021) 259–267.

[189]

H. Ma, F. Li, G. Shen, et al., Bioorg. Med. Chem. 55 (2022) 116600.

[190]

E. Dadachova, Semin. Nucl. Med. 40 (2010) 204–208.

[191]

G. Vaidyanathan, D. Affleck, P. Welsh, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 27 (2000) 329–337.

[192]

G. Vaidyanathan, A. Boskovitz, S. Shankar, et al., Peptides 25 (2004) 2087–2097.

[193]

G. Vaidyanathan, D.J. Affleck, M. Schottelius, et al., Bioconjug. Chem. 17 (2006) 195–203.

[194]

B. Zhao, S. Qin, L. Chai, et al., Bioorg. Med. Chem. 26 (2018) 1086–1091.

[195]

M. Aoki, S. Zhao, K. Takahashi, et al., Chem. Pharm. Bull. 68 (2020) 538–545.

[196]

W. Liu, Y. Tang, H. Ma, et al., Radiochim. Acta 109 (2021) 119–126.

[197]

W. Liu, H. Ma, Y. Tang, et al., J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 316 (2018) 451–456.

[198]

A. Rondon, J. Rouanet, F. Degoul, Cancers 13 (2021), 5570.

[199]

N. Liu, J. Jin, S. Zhang, et al., J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 247 (2001) 129–133.

[200]

N. Liu, Y. Yang, L. Zan, et al., J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 272 (2007) 85–90.

[201]

S.J. Kennel, S. Mirzadeh, W.C. Eckelman, et al., Radiat. Res. 157 (2002) 633–641.

[202]

G. Akabani, S.J. Kennel, M.R. Zalutsky, J. Nucl. Med. 44 (2003) 792–805.

[203]

M.I. Persson, L. Gedda, H.J. Jensen, et al., Oncol. Rep. 15 (2006) 673–680.

[204]

G. Akabani, S. Carlin, P. Welsh, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 33 (2006) 333–347.

[205]

A. Boskovitz, R.E. McLendon, T. Okamura, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 36 (2009) 659–669.

[206]

S. Palm, T. Back, I. Claesson, et al., Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 69 (2007) 572–579.

[207]

S. Kodaira, H.K. Li, T. Konishi, et al., PLoS One 12 (2017) e0178472.

[208]

H.K. Li, Y. Morokoshi, K. Nagatsu, et al., Cancer Sci. 108 (2017) 1648–1656.

[209]

S. Kodaira, Y. Morokoshi, H.K. Li, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 60 (2019) 497–501.

[210]

H.K. Li, Y. Morokoshi, S. Kodaira, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 62 (2021) 1468–1474.

[211]

E. Cederkrantz, E. Angenete, T. Back, et al., Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 27 (2012) 353–364.

[212]

H. Andersson, S. Lindegren, T. Back, et al., Acta Oncol. 39 (2000) 741–745.

[213]

H. Andersson, S. Lindegren, T. Back, et al., Anticancer Res. 20 (2000) 459–462.

[214]

T. Back, H. Andersson, C.R. Divgi, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 46 (2005) 2061–2067.

[215]

J. Elgqvist, H. Andersson, P. Bernhardt, et al., Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 66 (2006) 1228–1237.

[216]

J. Elgqvist, P. Bernhardt, R. Hultborn, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 46 (2005) 464–471.

[217]

S. Palm, T. Back, S. Lindegren, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 59 (2018) 646–651.

[218]

J. Elgqvist, H. Andersson, T. Baeck, et al., J. Nucl. Med., 47 (2006) 1342–1350.

[219]

J. Elgqvist, B.R. Johansson, K. Partheen, et al., Anticancer Res. 30 (2010) 2545–2551.

[220]

J. Elgqvist, H. Andersson, T. Back, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 33 (2006) 1065–1072.

[221]

T. Back, N. Chouin, S. Lindegren, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 58 (2017) 598–604.

[222]

J. Elgqvist, H. Andersson, E. Haglund, et al., Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 24 (2009) 509–513.

[223]

J. Elgqvist, D. Ahlberg, H. Andersson, et al., World J. Oncol. 1 (2010) 101–110.

[224]

A.M.E. Gustafsson, T. Back, J. Elgqvist, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 39 (2012) 15–22.

[225]

N. Chouin, S. Lindegren, S.H.L. Frost, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 54 (2013) 1347–1353.

[226]

T. Back, B. Haraldsson, R. Hultborn, et al., Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 24 (2009) 649–658.

[227]

S. Lindegren, L.N.S. Andrade, T. Back, et al., PLoS One 10 (2015) e0126298.

[228]

S. Palm, T. Back, E. Aneheim, et al., Transl. Oncol. 14 (2021) 100873.

[229]

E. Aurlien, R.H. Larsen, G. Kvalheim, et al., Br. J. Cancer 83 (2000) 1375–1379.

[230]

J.N. Wesley, E.C. McGee, K. Garmestani, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 31 (2004) 357–364.

[231]

M. Zhang, Z. Yao, Z. Zhang, et al., Cancer Res. 66 (2006) 8227–8232.

[232]

Z.S. Yao, K. Garmestani, K.J. Wong, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 42 (2001) 1538–1544.

[233]

Z. Zhang, M. Zhang, K. Garmestani, et al., Blood 108 (2006) 1007–1012.

[234]

H. Nakamae, D.S. Wilbur, D.K. Hamlin, et al., Cancer Res. 69 (2009) 2408–2415.

[235]

J.J. Orozco, T. Baeck, A. Kenoyer, et al., Blood 121 (2013) 3759–3767.

[236]

Y. Chen, B. Kornblit, D.K. Hamlin, et al., Blood 119 (2012) 1130–1138.

[237]

C.R. Burtner, D. Chandrasekaran, E.B. Santos, et al., Hum. Gene Ther. 26 (2015) 399–406.

[238]

S.H.L. Frost, B.W. Miller, T.A. Baeck, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 56 (2015) 1766–1773.

[239]

A. Nakaya, H. Qiu, E.B. Santos, et al., Transplant. Cell. Ther. 27 (2021) 476. e1-476. e7.

[240]

T. Petrich, Z. Korkmaz, D. Krull, et al., Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 37 (2010) 851–861.

[241]

A. Walte, S. Sriyapureddy, D. Krull, et al., Nuklearmedizin-Nuclear Med. 50 (2011) 214–220.

[242]

S. O'Steen, M.L. Comstock, J.J. Orozco, et al., Blood 134 (2019) 1247–1256.

[243]

S. Gouard, C. Maurel, S. Marionneau-Lambot, et al., Cancers 12 (2020) 2721.

[244]

M. Nestor, M. Persson, G. van Dongen, et al., Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 32 (2005) 1296–1304.

[245]

J. Cheng, T. Ekberg, M. Engstrom, et al., Laryngoscope 117 (2007) 1013–1018.

[246]

M.K. Robinson, C. Shaller, K. Garmestani, et al., Clin. Cancer Res. 14 (2008) 875–882.

[247]

A. Turtoi, I. Brown, M. Schlaeger, et al., Radiat. Res. 174 (2010) 125–136.

[248]

A. Turtoi, F.H.A. Schneeweiss, Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 85 (2009) 403–412.

[249]

D.J. Green, M. Shadman, J.C. Jones, et al., Blood 125 (2015) 2111–2119.

[250]

T.A. Back, K. Jennbacken, M.H. Thulin, et al., EJNMMI Res. 10 (2020) 10.

[251]

S.E. Eriksson, T. Back, E. Elgstrom, et al., EJNMMI Res. 3 (2013) 23.

[252]

H.K. Li, S. Hasegawa, N.I. Nakajima, et al., Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 506 (2018) 1078–1084.

[253]

H.K. Li, A. Sugyo, A.B. Tsuji, et al., Cancer Sci. 109 (2018) 2302–2309.

[254]

S.E. Eriksson, E. Elgstrom, T. Back, et al., Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 29 (2014) 238–246.

[255]

A.L. Sundberg, A.C. Steffen, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 67 (2007) 279–287.

[256]

H. Takashima, Y. Koga, S. Manabe, et al., Cancer Sci. 112 (2021) 1975–1986.

[257]

D.S. Wilbur, D.K. Hamlin, M.K. Chyan, et al., Bioconjug. Chem. 19 (2008) 158–170.

[258]

S.H.L. Frost, T. Back, N. Chouin, et al., Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 26 (2011) 727–736.

[259]

S.H.L. Frost, H. Jensen, S. Lindegren, Cancer 116 (2010) 1101–1110.

[260]

S.H.L. Frost, T. Back, N. Chouin, et al., Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 28 (2013) 108–114.

[261]

L. Navarro, M. Berdal, M. Cherel, et al., Bioorg. Med. Chem. 27 (2019) 167–174.

[262]

M. Nestor, M. Sundstroem, M. Anniko, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 38 (2011) 103–112.

[263]

A.L. Sundberg, Y. Almqvist, V. Tolmachev, et al., Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 30 (2003) 727–729.

[264]

A.L. Sundberg, Y. Almqvist, A. Orlova, et al., Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 30 (2003) 1348–1356.

[265]

J.B. Pasternack, J.D. Domogauer, A. Khullar, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 55 (2014) 2012–2019.

[266]

Y. Almqvist, A. Orlova, A. Sjostrom, et al., Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 20 (2005) 514–523.

[267]

S. Demartis, L. Tarli, L. Borsi, et al., Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 28 (2001) 534–539.

[268]

Y. Almqvist, A.C. Steffen, H. Lundqvist, et al., Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 22 (2007) 480–487.

[269]

A.A. Rosenkranz, G. Vaidyanathan, O.R. Pozzi, et al., Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 72 (2008) 193–200.

[270]

J. Choi, G. Vaidyanathan, E. Koumarianou, et al., Nucl. Med. Biol. 56 (2018) 10–20.

[271]

X. Wang, W. Ma, W. Liu, et al., J. Radiat. Res. 61 (2020) 684–690.

[272]

N. Oriuchi, M. Aoki, N. Ukon, et al., Sci. Rep. 10 (2020) 6810.

[273]

A. Orlova, A. Sjostrom, O. Lebeda, et al., Anticancer Res. 24 (2004) 4035–4041.

[274]

J. Kucka, M. Hruby, C. Konak, et al., Appl. Radiat. Isot. 64 (2006) 201–206.

[275]

K.B. Hartman, D.K. Hamlin, D.S. Wilbur, et al., Small 3 (2007) 1496–1499.

[276]

L. Dziawer, P. Kozminski, S. Meczynska-Wielgosz, et al., RSC Adv. 7 (2017) 41024–41032.

[277]

E. Sporer, C.B.M. Poulie, S. Lindegren, et al., J. Nanotheranostics 2 (2021) 196–207.

[278]

H. Kato, X. Huang, Y. Kadonaga, et al., J. Nanobiotechnology 19 (2021) 223.

[279]

Y. Liu, Z. Zhou, Y. Feng, et al., Int. J. Nanomedicine 16 (2021) 7297–7305.

[280]

X. Shi, Q. Li, L. Zhang, et al., Bioconjug. Chem. 32 (2021) 1763–1772.

[281]

G. Akabani, R.E. McLendon, D.D. Bigner, et al., Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 54 (2002) 1259–1275.

[282]

M.R. Zalutsky, D.A. Reardon, G. Akabani, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 49 (2008) 30–38.

[283]

H. Andersson, E. Cederkrantz, T. Back, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 50 (2009) 1153–1160.

[284]

E. Cederkrantz, H. Andersson, P. Bernhardt, et al., Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 93 (2015) 569–576.

[285]

A. Hallqvist, K. Bergmark, T. Back, et al., J. Nucl. Med. 60 (2019) 1073–1079.

[286]

F. Guerard, L. Navarro, Y.S. Lee, et al., Bioorg. Med. Chem. 25 (2017) 5975–5980.

Appendix

Less

Year 2022 volume 33 Issue 7

PDF

Cite this Article

BibTeX

Article Info

doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2022.03.025

Receive Date：2021-12-26
Online Date：2025-12-19
Published：2022-07-15

Article Data

Affiliations

History

Received：2021-12-26
Revised：2022-03-01
Accepted：2022-03-06

Affiliations

Key Laboratory of Radiation Physics and Technology of the Ministry of Education, Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China

References

Share

https://castjournals.cast.org.cn/joweb/ccl/EN/10.1016/j.cclet.2022.03.025

Share to

Scan QR to access full text

Cite this article

BibTeX

Citations

表12种不同金属材料的力学参数

科 Family	属数 Number of genus	种数 Number of species	占总种数比例 Percentage of total species (%)	属 Genus	种数 Number of species	占总种数比例 Percentage of total species (%)
鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae	2	11	5.26	鹅膏菌属 Amanita	10	4.78
小菇科 Mycenaceae	2	12	5.74	丝盖伞属 Inocybe	5	2.39
多孔菌科 Polyporaceae	8	14	6.70	蜡蘑属 Laccaria	5	2.39
红菇科 Russulaceae	3	23	11.00	小皮伞属 Marasmius	6	2.87
				小菇属 Mycena	11	5.26
				光柄菇属 Pluteus	5	2.39
				红菇属 Russula	17	8.13
				栓菌属 Trametes	5	2.39

关闭全屏

BibTeX
EndNote
RefWorks
TxT

Fig. 1 Decay diagram of ²¹¹At.

Fig. 2 A simplified distillationapparatus for separating ²¹¹At.

Fig. 3 (a) Different bifunctional coupling agent used for ²¹¹At labeling and (b) the most common radiolabeling strategies in current radioastatinated compounds. The blue cartoons present targeting vectors.

Articles: Latest Articles; Most Read; Collections

Updates: Events; News; Multimedia

About: About Us

Contact

No. 86 Xueyuan South Road, Haidian District, Beijing

100081

010-62199257

qkjq@cast.org.cn

Copyright © 2025 China Association for Science and Technology. All rights reserved. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.
Sponsored by the Office of the Leading Group for Cybersecurity and Informatization of CAST, and supported by Science and Technology Review Publishing House