BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The application of fluorescent molecular imaging to surgical oncology is a developing field with the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality. However, the detection thresholds and other requirements for successful intervention remain poorly understood. Here we modeled and experimentally validated depth and size of detection of tumor deposits, trade-offs in coverage and resolution of areas of interest, and required pharmacokinetics of probes based on differing levels of tumor target presentation. METHODS: Three orthotopic tumor models were imaged by widefield epifluorescence and confocal microscopes, and the experimental results were compared with pharmacokinetic models and light scattering simulations to determine detection thresholds. RESULTS: Widefield epifluorescence imaging can provide sufficient contrast to visualize tumor margins and detect tumor deposits 3-5 mm deep based on labeled monoclonal antibodies at low objective magnification. At higher magnification, surface tumor deposits at cellular resolution are detectable at TBR ratios achieved with highly expressed antigens. CONCLUSIONS: A widefield illumination system with the capability for macroscopic surveying and microscopic imaging provides the greatest utility for varying surgical goals. These results have implications for system and agent designs, which ultimately should aid complete resection in most surgical beds and provide real-time feedback to obtain clean margins.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The application of fluorescent molecular imaging to surgical oncology is a developing field with the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality. However, the detection thresholds and other requirements for successful intervention remain poorly understood. Here we modeled and experimentally validated depth and size of detection of tumor deposits, trade-offs in coverage and resolution of areas of interest, and required pharmacokinetics of probes based on differing levels of tumor target presentation. METHODS: Three orthotopic tumor models were imaged by widefield epifluorescence and confocal microscopes, and the experimental results were compared with pharmacokinetic models and light scattering simulations to determine detection thresholds. RESULTS: Widefield epifluorescence imaging can provide sufficient contrast to visualize tumor margins and detect tumor deposits 3-5 mm deep based on labeled monoclonal antibodies at low objective magnification. At higher magnification, surface tumor deposits at cellular resolution are detectable at TBR ratios achieved with highly expressed antigens. CONCLUSIONS: A widefield illumination system with the capability for macroscopic surveying and microscopic imaging provides the greatest utility for varying surgical goals. These results have implications for system and agent designs, which ultimately should aid complete resection in most surgical beds and provide real-time feedback to obtain clean margins.
Authors: David G Kirsch; Daniela M Dinulescu; John B Miller; Jan Grimm; Philip M Santiago; Nathan P Young; G Petur Nielsen; Bradley J Quade; Christopher J Chaber; Christian P Schultz; Osamu Takeuchi; Roderick T Bronson; Denise Crowley; Stanley J Korsmeyer; Sam S Yoon; Francis J Hornicek; Ralph Weissleder; Tyler Jacks Journal: Nat Med Date: 2007-08-05 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Rameshwar Patil; Anna Galstyan; Tao Sun; Ekaterina S Shatalova; Pramod Butte; Adam N Mamelak; Christine Carico; David S Kittle; Zachary B Grodzinski; Antonella Chiechi; Hui Ding; Keith L Black; Julia Y Ljubimova; Eggehard Holler Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2019-03-23 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Janean Fidel; Katie C Kennedy; William S Dernell; Stacey Hansen; Valorie Wiss; Mark R Stroud; Joshua I Molho; Sue E Knoblaugh; Jeffrey Meganck; James M Olson; Brad Rice; Julia Parrish-Novak Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Anurag Gupta; Shouyan Wang; Paula Pera; K V R Rao; Nayan Patel; Tymish Y Ohulchanskyy; Joseph Missert; Janet Morgan; Yong-Eun Koo-Lee; Raoul Kopelman; Ravindra K Pandey Journal: Nanomedicine Date: 2011-11-22 Impact factor: 5.307
Authors: Thomas Reiner; Greg Thurber; Jason Gaglia; Claudio Vinegoni; Chong Wee Liew; Rabi Upadhyay; Rainer H Kohler; Li Li; Rohit N Kulkarni; Christophe Benoist; Diane Mathis; Ralph Weissleder Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-07-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: B E Schaafsma; F P R Verbeek; H W Elzevier; Q R J G Tummers; J R van der Vorst; J V Frangioni; C J H van de Velde; R C M Pelger; A L Vahrmeijer Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2014-08-11 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Yu Cheng; Ramin A Morshed; Brenda Auffinger; Alex L Tobias; Maciej S Lesniak Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 15.470
Authors: Suzanne Bartholf DeWitt; William C Eward; Cindy A Eward; Alexander L Lazarides; Melodi Javid Whitley; Jorge M Ferrer; Brian E Brigman; David G Kirsch; John Berg Journal: Vet Surg Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 1.495