AIM: The lymphatics, critical conduits of metastases, are difficult to study because of their size and location. Two approaches to lymphatic imaging have been employed; cancer cell labeling provides information on cell migration and metastasis and macromolecular contrast agents enable visualization of the lymphatic drainage and identification of sentinel lymph node. Only one of these approaches is typically employed during an imaging examination. Here, we demonstrate the combined use of both approaches. METHOD: In this study, we simultaneously visualize migration of quantum dot-labeled melanoma cells and the lymphatics using optically labeled dendrimers in vivo. RESULTS: The appropriate use of two nanomaterials, quantum dots and dendrimers, enabled the simultaneous tracking of cancer cells within draining lymphatics. CONCLUSION: This technique could enable better understanding of lymph node metastasis.
AIM: The lymphatics, critical conduits of metastases, are difficult to study because of their size and location. Two approaches to lymphatic imaging have been employed; cancer cell labeling provides information on cell migration and metastasis and macromolecular contrast agents enable visualization of the lymphatic drainage and identification of sentinel lymph node. Only one of these approaches is typically employed during an imaging examination. Here, we demonstrate the combined use of both approaches. METHOD: In this study, we simultaneously visualize migration of quantum dot-labeled melanoma cells and the lymphatics using optically labeled dendrimers in vivo. RESULTS: The appropriate use of two nanomaterials, quantum dots and dendrimers, enabled the simultaneous tracking of cancer cells within draining lymphatics. CONCLUSION: This technique could enable better understanding of lymph node metastasis.
Authors: M Yang; E Baranov; P Jiang; F X Sun; X M Li; L Li; S Hasegawa; M Bouvet; M Al-Tuwaijri; T Chishima; H Shimada; A R Moossa; S Penman; R M Hoffman Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2000-02-01 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: H Kobayashi; N Sato; A Hiraga; T Saga; Y Nakamoto; H Ueda; J Konishi; K Togashi; M W Brechbiel Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hisataka Kobayashi; Satomi Kawamoto; Marcelino Bernardo; Martin W Brechbiel; Michael V Knopp; Peter L Choyke Journal: J Control Release Date: 2006-02-21 Impact factor: 9.776
Authors: Narges K Tafreshi; Marilyn M Bui; Kellsey Bishop; Mark C Lloyd; Steven A Enkemann; Alexis S Lopez; Dominique Abrahams; Bradford W Carter; Josef Vagner; Stephen R Grobmyer; Stephen R Gobmyer; Robert J Gillies; David L Morse Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Sarit S Agasti; Rainer H Kohler; Monty Liong; Vanessa M Peterson; Hakho Lee; Ralph Weissleder Journal: Small Date: 2012-09-21 Impact factor: 13.281
Authors: Richard T Lucarelli; Mikako Ogawa; Nobuyuki Kosaka; Baris Turkbey; Hisataka Kobayashi; Peter L Choyke Journal: Lymphat Res Biol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.589
Authors: Narges K Tafreshi; Steven A Enkemann; Marilyn M Bui; Mark C Lloyd; Dominique Abrahams; Amanda S Huynh; Jongphil Kim; Stephen R Grobmyer; W Bradford Carter; Josef Vagner; Robert J Gillies; David L Morse Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 12.701