PURPOSE: To compare contrast-enhanced micro-computed tomography (microCT) and nonenhanced respiratory-triggered magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in an animal model of metastatic pheochromocytoma. Animal models are becoming important in the study of cancer treatment and imaging is useful in minimizing the number of animals needed and reducing costs associated with autopsies. However, the choice of imaging modality is still evolving. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult female nude mice were injected by tail vein with a mouse pheochromocytoma (MPC) cell line (MPC 4/30PRR) to create a metastatic model. After optimizing imaging techniques, eight mice were imaged with both respiratory triggered MRI and microCT and the findings were verified histologically. RESULTS: MicroCT and MRI were approximately equal in their ability to detect hepatic metastases at a size threshold of 350 microm. In the lungs, MRI was more sensitive than microCT, detecting lesions 0.6 mm in diameter versus 1 mm for microCT. Additionally, MRI was more sensitive for lesions in the kidneys, bone, ovaries, and adrenal glands. MRI demonstrated a higher contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) than microCT. CONCLUSION: In addition to the advantage of not exposing the animal to ionizing radiation, MRI provided a more complete assessment of the extent of metastases in this model compared to microCT. Copyright (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To compare contrast-enhanced micro-computed tomography (microCT) and nonenhanced respiratory-triggered magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in an animal model of metastatic pheochromocytoma. Animal models are becoming important in the study of cancer treatment and imaging is useful in minimizing the number of animals needed and reducing costs associated with autopsies. However, the choice of imaging modality is still evolving. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult female nude mice were injected by tail vein with a mousepheochromocytoma (MPC) cell line (MPC 4/30PRR) to create a metastatic model. After optimizing imaging techniques, eight mice were imaged with both respiratory triggered MRI and microCT and the findings were verified histologically. RESULTS: MicroCT and MRI were approximately equal in their ability to detect hepatic metastases at a size threshold of 350 microm. In the lungs, MRI was more sensitive than microCT, detecting lesions 0.6 mm in diameter versus 1 mm for microCT. Additionally, MRI was more sensitive for lesions in the kidneys, bone, ovaries, and adrenal glands. MRI demonstrated a higher contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) than microCT. CONCLUSION: In addition to the advantage of not exposing the animal to ionizing radiation, MRI provided a more complete assessment of the extent of metastases in this model compared to microCT. Copyright (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: G Eisenhofer; M M Walther; T T Huynh; S T Li; S R Bornstein; A Vortmeyer; M Mannelli; D S Goldstein; W M Linehan; J W Lenders; K Pacak Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Sharon M Weber; Karen A Peterson; Benjamin Durkee; Chen Qi; Mark Longino; Thomas Warner; Fred T Lee; Jamey P Weichert Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: J P Weichert; M A Longino; D A Bakan; M G Spigarelli; T S Chou; S W Schwendner; R E Counsell Journal: J Med Chem Date: 1995-02-17 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Lucia Martiniova; Shiromi M Perera; Frederieke M Brouwers; Salvatore Alesci; Mones Abu-Asab; Amanda F Marvelle; Dale O Kiesewetter; David Thomasson; John C Morris; Richard Kvetnansky; Arthur S Tischler; James C Reynolds; Antonio Tito Fojo; Karel Pacak Journal: Endocr Relat Cancer Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 5.678
Authors: Lucia Martiniova; Susannah Cleary; Edwin W Lai; Dale O Kiesewetter; Jurgen Seidel; Linda F Dawson; Jacqueline K Phillips; David Thomasson; Xiaoyuan Chen; Graeme Eisenhofer; James F Powers; Richard Kvetnansky; Karel Pacak Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Vanessa K Tidwell; Joel R Garbow; Alexander S Krupnick; John A Engelbach; Arye Nehorai Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Craig E Grossman; Stephen Pickup; Amy Durham; E Paul Wileyto; Mary E Putt; Theresa M Busch Journal: Lasers Surg Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Martin Ullrich; Ralf Bergmann; Mirko Peitzsch; Marc Cartellieri; Nan Qin; Monika Ehrhart-Bornstein; Norman L Block; Andrew V Schally; Jens Pietzsch; Graeme Eisenhofer; Stefan R Bornstein; Christian G Ziegler Journal: Endocrinology Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 4.736
Authors: Prachi Pandit; Samuel M Johnston; Yi Qi; Jennifer Story; Rendon Nelson; G Allan Johnson Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Lucia Martiniova; Edwin W Lai; Abdel G Elkahloun; Mones Abu-Asab; Andrea Wickremasinghe; Daniel C Solis; Shiromi M Perera; Thanh-Truc Huynh; Irina A Lubensky; Arthur S Tischler; Richard Kvetnansky; Salvatore Alesci; John C Morris; Karel Pacak Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2009-01-25 Impact factor: 5.150