OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of dynamic microbubble contrast-enhanced sonography (MCES), in comparison with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), to quantitatively characterize tumor perfusion in implanted murine tumors before and after treatment with a variety of regimens. METHODS: Seventeen mice with Lewis lung carcinoma implants were categorized to control, radiation therapy alone, antiangiogenic chemotherapy alone, and combined chemoradiation. On day 0 of each treatment regimen, MCES and DCE-MRI of each tumor were performed. On day 5 of treatment, dynamic FDG-PET, MCES, and DCE-MRI were performed. RESULTS: Microbubble contrast-enhanced sonography showed that intratumoral perfusion, blood volume, and blood velocity were highest in the untreated control group and successively lower in each of the treatment groups: radiation therapy alone resulted in a two-thirds reduction of perfusion; antiangiogenic chemotherapy resulted in a relatively larger reduction; and combined chemoradiotherapy resulted in the largest reduction. Microbubble contrast-enhanced sonography revealed longitudinal decreases in tumor perfusion, blood volume, and microvascular velocity over the 5-day course of chemoradiotherapy (all P < .01); conversely, these values rose significantly for the untreated control tumors (P < .01). Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI showed a smaller and statistically insignificant average decrease in relative tumor perfusion for treated tumors. Dynamic PET revealed delayed uptake of FDG in the tumors that underwent chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Microbubble contrast-enhanced sonography is an effective tool in the noninvasive, quantitative, longitudinal characterization of neovascularization in murine tumor models and is correlative with DCE-MRI and FDG-PET. Microbubble contrast-enhanced sonography has considerable potential in the clinical assessment of tumor neovascularization and in the assessment of the response to treatment.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of dynamic microbubble contrast-enhanced sonography (MCES), in comparison with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), to quantitatively characterize tumor perfusion in implanted murinetumors before and after treatment with a variety of regimens. METHODS: Seventeen mice with Lewis lung carcinoma implants were categorized to control, radiation therapy alone, antiangiogenic chemotherapy alone, and combined chemoradiation. On day 0 of each treatment regimen, MCES and DCE-MRI of each tumor were performed. On day 5 of treatment, dynamic FDG-PET, MCES, and DCE-MRI were performed. RESULTS: Microbubble contrast-enhanced sonography showed that intratumoral perfusion, blood volume, and blood velocity were highest in the untreated control group and successively lower in each of the treatment groups: radiation therapy alone resulted in a two-thirds reduction of perfusion; antiangiogenic chemotherapy resulted in a relatively larger reduction; and combined chemoradiotherapy resulted in the largest reduction. Microbubble contrast-enhanced sonography revealed longitudinal decreases in tumor perfusion, blood volume, and microvascular velocity over the 5-day course of chemoradiotherapy (all P < .01); conversely, these values rose significantly for the untreated control tumors (P < .01). Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI showed a smaller and statistically insignificant average decrease in relative tumor perfusion for treated tumors. Dynamic PET revealed delayed uptake of FDG in the tumors that underwent chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Microbubble contrast-enhanced sonography is an effective tool in the noninvasive, quantitative, longitudinal characterization of neovascularization in murinetumor models and is correlative with DCE-MRI and FDG-PET. Microbubble contrast-enhanced sonography has considerable potential in the clinical assessment of tumor neovascularization and in the assessment of the response to treatment.
Authors: Hyunki Kim; Karri D Folks; Lingling Guo; Jeffery C Sellers; Naomi S Fineberg; Cecil R Stockard; William E Grizzle; Donald J Buchsbaum; Desiree E Morgan; James F George; Kurt R Zinn Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Hyunki Kim; Karri D Folks; Lingling Guo; Cecil R Stockard; Naomi S Fineberg; William E Grizzle; James F George; Donald J Buchsbaum; Desiree E Morgan; Kurt R Zinn Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: David L Schwartz; James Bankson; Luc Bidaut; Yi He; Ryan Williams; Robert Lemos; Arun Kumar Thitai; Junghwan Oh; Andrei Volgin; Suren Soghomonyan; Hsin-Hsien Yeh; Ryuichi Nishii; Uday Mukhopadhay; Mian Alauddin; Ioseb Mushkudiani; Norihito Kuno; Sunil Krishnan; William Bornman; Stephen Y Lai; Garth Powis; John Hazle; Juri Gelovani Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Katherine D Watson; Xiaowen Hu; Chun-Yen Lai; Heather A Lindfors; Dana D Hu-Lowe; Theresa A Tuthill; David R Shalinsky; Katherine W Ferrara Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2011-04-30 Impact factor: 2.998