首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Labelled Compounds and Radiopharmaceuticals >Production of [~(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA: Comparing a manual kit-based method with a module-based automated synthesis approach
【24h】

Production of [~(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA: Comparing a manual kit-based method with a module-based automated synthesis approach

机译:[〜(68)GA] GA-PSMA的生产:使用基于模块的自动合成方法进行比较了基于手动套件的方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The labeling of peptides with gallium-68 is often initially performed by manual labeling, but with high clinical demand, other alternatives are needed. Cold-kits or automated synthesis are viable options for standardized methods and deemed pharmaceutically more acceptable. This study compares these [~(68)Ga] Ga-PSMA-11 production methods. Data from 40 kit-based and 40 automated syntheses of [~(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-ll were analyzed. Pre-set criteria were evaluated including radiochemical purity, radionuclidic purity, chemical purity, physiological acceptability and sterility. The operator time and radiation dose received were measured. The robustness and repeatability of each method were assessed and a comparison of the running costs of each method is also provided. For both the methods all the analyzed products met the release criteria. No differences were found in radiochemical purity, radiochemical identity, radionuclidic purity, and sterility. However, radiochemical yield and apparent molar activity showed significant differences. For both methods, whole body radiation exposure to operators was lower than with manual labeling (25 - 40 μSv). The exposure during kit-based labeling (14.5 ± μSv) was seven times higher than that of automated synthesis (2.05 ± 0.99 μSv). The automated synthesis was the more expensive method. Both methods are sound alternatives to manual synthesis and offer higher quality, better radiation protection and a more reliable manufacturing of radiopharmaceuticals.
机译:用镓-68标记肽最初通常通过手动标记进行,但随着临床需求的增加,需要其他替代方法。冷试剂盒或自动合成是标准化方法的可行选择,被认为在药学上更容易接受。本研究比较了这些[~(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-11生产方法。对40个基于试剂盒和40个自动化合成的[~(68)Ga]Ga PSMA ll的数据进行了分析。评估预设标准,包括放射化学纯度、放射核纯度、化学纯度、生理可接受性和无菌性。测量操作时间和接受的辐射剂量。评估了每种方法的稳健性和重复性,并对每种方法的运行成本进行了比较。对于这两种方法,所有分析的产品都符合发布标准。在放射化学纯度、放射化学特性、放射核纯度和无菌性方面未发现差异。然而,放射化学产率和表观摩尔活性显示出显著差异。对于这两种方法,操作员的全身辐射暴露低于手动标记(25-40μSv)。试剂盒标记过程中的暴露量(14.5±0.99μSv)是自动合成过程(2.05±0.99μSv)的7倍。自动化合成是更昂贵的方法。这两种方法都是人工合成的可靠替代品,并提供更高质量、更好的辐射防护和更可靠的放射性药物制造。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号