Literature DB >> 16192323

Effect of vascular targeting agent in rat tumor model: dynamic contrast-enhanced versus diffusion-weighted MR imaging.

Harriet C Thoeny1, Frederik De Keyzer, Vincent Vandecaveye, Feng Chen, Xihe Sun, Hilde Bosmans, Robert Hermans, Eric K Verbeken, Chris Boesch, Guy Marchal, Willy Landuyt, Yicheng Ni.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and diffusion-weighted MR imaging for noninvasive evaluation of early and late effects of a vascular targeting agent in a rat tumor model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee for animal care and use. Thirteen rats with one rhabdomyosarcoma in each flank (26 tumors) underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging and diffusion-weighted echo-planar imaging in a 1.5-T MR unit before intraperitoneal injection of combretastatin A4 phosphate and at early (1 and 6 hours) and later (2 and 9 days) follow-up examinations after the injection. Histopathologic examination was performed at each time point. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of each tumor was calculated separately on the basis of diffusion-weighted images obtained with low b gradient values (ADC(low); b = 0, 50, and 100 sec/mm(2)) and high b gradient values (ADC(high); b = 500, 750, and 1000 sec/mm(2)). The difference between ADC(low) and ADC(high) was used as a surrogate measure of tissue perfusion (ADC(low) - ADC(high) = ADC(perf)). From the dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images, the volume transfer constant k and the initial slope of the contrast enhancement-time curve were calculated. For statistical analyses, a paired two-tailed Student t test and linear regression analysis were used.
RESULTS: Early after administration of combretastatin, all perfusion-related parameters (k, initial slope, and ADC(perf)) decreased significantly (P < .001); at 9 days after combretastatin administration, they increased significantly (P < .001). Changes in ADC(perf) were correlated with changes in k (R(2) = 0.46, P < .001) and the initial slope (R(2) = 0.67, P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Both dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and diffusion-weighted MR imaging allow monitoring of perfusion changes induced by vascular targeting agents in tumors. Diffusion-weighted imaging provides additional information about intratumoral cell viability versus necrosis after administration of combretastatin.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16192323     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2372041638

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  58 in total

1.  Predictive value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging during chemoradiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Vincent Vandecaveye; Piet Dirix; Frederik De Keyzer; Katya Op de Beeck; Vincent Vander Poorten; I Roebben; Sandra Nuyts; Robert Hermans
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-02-24       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Extracranial applications of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Harriet C Thoeny; Frederik De Keyzer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-01-06       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Multiparametric MRI biomarkers for measuring vascular disrupting effect on cancer.

Authors:  Huaijun Wang; Guy Marchal; Yicheng Ni
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2011-01-28

4.  Diffusion-weighted MRI provides additional value to conventional dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Vincent Vandecaveye; Frederik De Keyzer; Chris Verslype; Katya Op de Beeck; Mina Komuta; Baki Topal; Ilse Roebben; Didier Bielen; Tania Roskams; Frederik Nevens; Steven Dymarkowski
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Grading of supratentorial astrocytic tumors by using the difference of ADC value.

Authors:  Xu Bai; Yunting Zhang; Ying Liu; Tong Han; Li Liu
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2011-02-19       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 6.  [Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen].

Authors:  C Schmid-Tannwald; M F Reiser; C J Zech
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 0.635

7.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Drug Development.

Authors:  Jeong Kon Kim
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2021       Impact factor: 2.622

Review 8.  The role of functional imaging in the era of targeted therapy of renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Margarita Braunagel; Anno Graser; Maximilian Reiser; Mike Notohamiprodjo
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Noninvasive evaluation of antiangiogenic effect in a mouse tumor model by DCE-MRI with Gd-DTPA cystamine copolymers.

Authors:  Xueming Wu; Eun-Kee Jeong; Lyska Emerson; John Hoffman; Dennis L Parker; Zheng-Rong Lu
Journal:  Mol Pharm       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 4.939

10.  Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Guoying Liu; Dow Mu Koh; Thomas L Chenevert; Harriet C Thoeny; Taro Takahara; Andrew Dzik-Jurasz; Brian D Ross; Marc Van Cauteren; David Collins; Dima A Hammoud; Gordon J S Rustin; Bachir Taouli; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 5.715

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.