RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to demonstrate the viability of microcomputed tomographic colonography (muCTC) as a tool for monitoring tumorigenesis in mouse models of human colorectal cancer during prospective longitudinal studies. The precision and accuracy of volumetric measurements were determined to assess whether changes in tumor volume over time were readily detectable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All animal studies were conducted under the guidelines set forth by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care. muCTC was performed on C57BL/6J (B6) mice carrying the Min allele of Apc, ultimately yielding 18 scans. Assessments of scan quality and tumor volume were both performed once per week over 8 weeks. RESULTS: Scans with a good quality rating had a mean standard deviation in tumor volume measurement of 8%. By contrast, scans with a poor quality rating had a mean standard deviation in tumor volume measurement of 35%. Variables affecting muCTC scan quality in living mice included bowel preparation, motion artifact, and tumor morphology. Tumor volume measurements were highly correlated with tumor weight (r2 = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: The reproducibility of tumor volume measurement at muCTC in living mice makes prospective longitudinal evaluation of colonic tumor response feasible. For muCTC scans of good quality, a 16% change in tumor volume can be detected at the 95% confidence level.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to demonstrate the viability of microcomputed tomographic colonography (muCTC) as a tool for monitoring tumorigenesis in mouse models of humancolorectal cancer during prospective longitudinal studies. The precision and accuracy of volumetric measurements were determined to assess whether changes in tumor volume over time were readily detectable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All animal studies were conducted under the guidelines set forth by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care. muCTC was performed on C57BL/6J (B6) mice carrying the Min allele of Apc, ultimately yielding 18 scans. Assessments of scan quality and tumor volume were both performed once per week over 8 weeks. RESULTS: Scans with a good quality rating had a mean standard deviation in tumor volume measurement of 8%. By contrast, scans with a poor quality rating had a mean standard deviation in tumor volume measurement of 35%. Variables affecting muCTC scan quality in living mice included bowel preparation, motion artifact, and tumor morphology. Tumor volume measurements were highly correlated with tumor weight (r2 = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: The reproducibility of tumor volume measurement at muCTC in living mice makes prospective longitudinal evaluation of colonic tumor response feasible. For muCTC scans of good quality, a 16% change in tumor volume can be detected at the 95% confidence level.
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Srinath C Yeshwant; Ronald M Summers; Jianhua Yao; Daniel S Brickman; J Richard Choi; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Richard B Halberg; Andrew J Taylor; Ben Y Durkee; Jason Fine; Fred T Lee; Jamey P Weichert Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-02-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: L K Su; K W Kinzler; B Vogelstein; A C Preisinger; A R Moser; C Luongo; K A Gould; W F Dove Journal: Science Date: 1992-05-01 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: J Ciaran Hutchinson; Susan C Shelmerdine; Ian C Simcock; Neil J Sebire; Owen J Arthurs Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: David L Raunig; Annette M Schmid; Colin G Miller; Richard C Walovitch; Michael O'Connor; Klaus Noever; Ivalina Hristova; Michael O'Neal; Guenther Brueggenwerth; Robert R Ford Journal: Ther Innov Regul Sci Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 1.778
Authors: Amy A Irving; Lindsay B Young; Jennifer K Pleiman; Michael J Konrath; Blake Marzella; Michael Nonte; Justin Cacciatore; Madeline R Ford; Linda Clipson; James M Amos-Landgraf; William F Dove Journal: Comp Med Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 0.982
Authors: Alyssa A Leystra; Dustin A Deming; Christopher D Zahm; Mohammed Farhoud; Terrah J Paul Olson; Jamie N Hadac; Laura A Nettekoven; Dawn M Albrecht; Linda Clipson; Ruth Sullivan; Mary Kay Washington; Jose R Torrealba; Jamey P Weichert; Richard B Halberg Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2012-04-23 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Hanne Boll; Simona Bag; Ingo S Nölte; Thomas Wilhelm; Martin Kramer; Christoph Groden; Ulrich Böcker; Marc A Brockmann Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2011-03-25 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Deni Hardiansyah; Christian Maass; Ali Asgar Attarwala; Berthold Müller; Peter Kletting; Felix M Mottaghy; Gerhard Glatting Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jamie N Hadac; Devon D Miller; Ian C Grimes; Linda Clipson; Michael A Newton; William R Schelman; Richard B Halberg Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: Benjamin Y Durkee; Kazuhiko Shinki; Michael A Newton; Caitlin E Iverson; Jamey P Weichert; William F Dove; Richard B Halberg Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.173