Experimental study reveals enhanced therapeutic effect of 131I-FAPI-Y4 in pancreatic cancer xenografts, indicating potential for targeted therapy.
Abstract Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare the therapeutic effects of ¹³¹I-FAPI-Y4, ¹³¹I-FAPI-caerin1.1, and ¹³¹I-FAPI-46 on pancreatic cancer cell xenografts. Methods: ① The in vitro antitumor effects of FAPI-Y4, FAPI-caerin 1.1 and FAPI-46 were verified by CCK8 and colony formation assays. ② FAPI-Y4, FAPI-caerin1.1 and FAPI-46 were labeled by a radioiodine demethylation reaction, and their basic properties were determined. The uptake and elution of ¹³¹I-FAPI-Y4, ¹³¹I-FAPI-caerin 1.1 and ¹³¹I-FAPI-46 in human pancreatic cancer cells were studied by cell uptake and elution assays. ③ A PANC-1 nude mouse model was established to compare the efficacy of internal irradiation with that of a novel targeted molecular probe in the treatment of pancreatic cancer.H&E staining was used to detect dead cells in the tumor tissue sections, and immunohistochemical staining was used to analyze the expression of the FAP antibody in the tumor cells. Results: ① In vitro, FAPI-caerin1.1 and FAPI-46 inhibited the proliferation of human pancreatic cancer cells and normal pancreatic ductal epithelial cells in vitro in a concentration-dependent manner, and their inhibitory effects were significantly different (P < 0.05), whereas FAPI-Y4 had no significant inhibitory effect on the proliferation of human pancreatic cancer cells or normal pancreatic ductal epithelial cells in vitro, indicating potential biological safety. ② In vivo experiments revealed that ¹³¹I-labeled FAPI-Y4 had better antitumor activity than ¹³¹I-labeled FAPI-caerin1.1 and FAPI-46. Conclusion: ¹³¹I-labeled FAPI-Y4, FAPI-caerin1.1 and FAPI-46 significantly inhibited the proliferation and growth of PANC-1 cells (P < 0.05), and ¹³¹I-FAPI-Y4 has a more significant therapeutic effect than the other compounds and may be potential therapeutic drugs for human pancreatic cancer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ren et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: