Literature DB >> 20498463

Volume of preclinical xenograft tumors is more accurately assessed by ultrasound imaging than manual caliper measurements.

Gregory D Ayers1, Eliot T McKinley, Ping Zhao, Jordan M Fritz, Rebecca E Metry, Brenton C Deal, Katrina M Adlerz, Robert J Coffey, H Charles Manning.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The volume of subcutaneous xenograft tumors is an important metric of disease progression and response to therapy in preclinical drug development. Noninvasive imaging technologies suitable for measuring xenograft volume are increasingly available, yet manual calipers, which are susceptible to inaccuracy and bias, are routinely used. The goal of this study was to quantify and compare the accuracy, precision, and inter-rater variability of xenograft tumor volume assessment by caliper measurements and ultrasound imaging.
METHODS: Subcutaneous xenograft tumors derived from human colorectal cancer cell lines (DLD1 and SW620) were generated in athymic nude mice. Experienced independent reviewers segmented 3-dimensional ultrasound data sets and collected manual caliper measurements resulting in tumor volumes. Imaging- and caliper-derived volumes were compared with the tumor mass, the reference standard, determined after resection. Bias, precision, and inter-rater differences were estimated for each mouse among reviewers. Bootstrapping was used to estimate mean and confidence intervals of variance components, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and confidence intervals for each source of variation.
RESULTS: The average deviation from the true volume and inter-rater differences were significantly lower for ultrasound volumes compared with caliper volumes (P = .0005 and .001, respectively). Reviewer ICCs for ultrasound and caliper measurements were similarly low (1%), yet caliper volume variance was 1.3-fold higher than for ultrasound.
CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound imaging more accurately, precisely, and reproducibly reflects xenograft tumor volume than caliper measurements. These data suggest that preclinical studies using the xenograft burden as a surrogate end point measured by ultrasound imaging require up to 30% fewer animals to reach statistical significance compared with analogous studies using caliper measurements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20498463      PMCID: PMC2925269          DOI: 10.7863/jum.2010.29.6.891

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Ultrasound Med        ISSN: 0278-4297            Impact factor:   2.153


  15 in total

1.  Normal splenic volumes estimated using three-dimensional ultrasonography.

Authors:  I De Odorico; K A Spaulding; D H Pretorius; A S Lev-Toaff; T B Bailey; T R Nelson
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 2.153

2.  The accuracy of a new system for estimating organ volume using ultrasound.

Authors:  S W Hughes; T J D'Arcy; D J Maxwell; J E Saunders; S Chinn; R J Sheppard
Journal:  Physiol Meas       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 2.833

3.  Growth rate of human tumour xenografts measured in nude mice by in vivo cast modelling.

Authors:  A G Fiennes
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 6.939

4.  Three-dimensional high-frequency ultrasound imaging for longitudinal evaluation of liver metastases in preclinical models.

Authors:  Kevin C Graham; Lauren A Wirtzfeld; Lisa T MacKenzie; Carl O Postenka; Alan C Groom; Ian C MacDonald; Aaron Fenster; James C Lacefield; Ann F Chambers
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2005-06-15       Impact factor: 12.701

5.  Three-dimensional ultrasound biomicroscopy for xenograft growth analysis.

Authors:  Alison M Y Cheung; Allison S Brown; Lauren A Hastie; Viviene Cucevic; Marcia Roy; James C Lacefield; Aaron Fenster; F Stuart Foster
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Tumor response assessment is more robust with sequential CT scanning than external caliper measurements.

Authors:  Takayoshi Ishimori; Mitsuaki Tatsumi; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  A new three-dimensional ultrasound microimaging technology for preclinical studies using a transgenic prostate cancer mouse model.

Authors:  Lauren A Wirtzfeld; Guojun Wu; Michael Bygrave; Yasuto Yamasaki; Hideki Sakai; Madeleine Moussa; Jonathan I Izawa; Dónal B Downey; Norman M Greenberg; Aaron Fenster; Jim W Xuan; James C Lacefield
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2005-07-15       Impact factor: 12.701

8.  Molecular imaging of therapeutic response to epidermal growth factor receptor blockade in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  H Charles Manning; Nipun B Merchant; A Coe Foutch; John M Virostko; Shelby K Wyatt; Chirayu Shah; Eliot T McKinley; Jingping Xie; Nathan J Mutic; M Kay Washington; Bonnie LaFleur; Mohammed Noor Tantawy; Todd E Peterson; M Sib Ansari; Ronald M Baldwin; Mace L Rothenberg; Darryl J Bornhop; John C Gore; Robert J Coffey
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-11-15       Impact factor: 12.531

9.  Magnetic resonance imaging of response to chemotherapy in orthotopic xenografts of human bladder cancer.

Authors:  R Mazurchuk; D Glaves; D Raghavan
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 12.531

10.  Tumor measurement in the nude mouse.

Authors:  D M Euhus; C Hudd; M C LaRegina; F E Johnson
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 3.454

View more
  43 in total

1.  Evaluating optimal therapy robustness by virtual expansion of a sample population, with a case study in cancer immunotherapy.

Authors:  Syndi Barish; Michael F Ochs; Eduardo D Sontag; Jana L Gevertz
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Active thermodynamic contrast imaging for label-free tumor detection in a murine xenograft tumor model.

Authors:  Gyungseok Oh; Kyung-Hwa Lee; Euiheon Chung
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 3.732

3.  Therapeutic Enzyme-Responsive Nanoparticles for Targeted Delivery and Accumulation in Tumors.

Authors:  Cassandra E Callmann; Christopher V Barback; Matthew P Thompson; David J Hall; Robert F Mattrey; Nathan C Gianneschi
Journal:  Adv Mater       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 30.849

4.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Drug Development.

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

5.  Micro-ultrasound for preclinical imaging.

Authors:  F Stuart Foster; John Hossack; S Lee Adamson
Journal:  Interface Focus       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 3.906

Review 6.  Non-invasive molecular imaging for preclinical cancer therapeutic development.

Authors:  A C O'Farrell; S D Shnyder; G Marston; P L Coletta; J H Gill
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 8.739

7.  Non-invasive monitoring of the therapeutic response in sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma based on photoacoustic imaging.

Authors:  Seunghyun Lee; Jung Hoon Kim; Jae Hwan Lee; Jeong Hwa Lee; Joon Koo Han
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Semi-automatic cone beam CT segmentation of in vivo pre-clinical subcutaneous tumours provides an efficient non-invasive alternative for tumour volume measurements.

Authors:  N P Brodin; J Tang; K Skalina; T J Quinn; I Basu; C Guha; W A Tomé
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Improvement of Parameter Estimations in Tumor Growth Inhibition Models on Xenografted Animals: Handling Sacrifice Censoring and Error Caused by Experimental Measurement on Larger Tumor Sizes.

Authors:  Philippe B Pierrillas; Michel Tod; Magali Amiel; Marylore Chenel; Emilie Henin
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 4.009

10.  A peptide-based positron emission tomography probe for in vivo detection of caspase activity in apoptotic cells.

Authors:  Matthew R Hight; Yiu-Yin Cheung; Michael L Nickels; Eric S Dawson; Ping Zhao; Samir Saleh; Jason R Buck; Dewei Tang; M Kay Washington; Robert J Coffey; H Charles Manning
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 12.531

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.