RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Liver is a common site for distal metastases in colon and rectal cancer. Numerous clinical studies have analyzed the relative merits of different imaging modalities for detection of liver metastases. Several exciting new therapies are being investigated in preclinical models. But, technical challenges in preclinical imaging make it difficult to translate conclusions from clinical studies to the preclinical environment. This study addresses the technical challenges of preclinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and micro-computed tomography (CT) to enable comparison of state-of-the-art methods for following metastatic liver disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We optimized two promising preclinical protocols to enable a parallel longitudinal study tracking metastatic human colon carcinoma growth in a mouse model: T2-weighted MRI using two-shot PROPELLER (Periodically Rotated Overlapping ParallEL Lines with Enhanced Reconstruction) and contrast-enhanced micro-CT using a liposomal contrast agent. Both methods were tailored for high throughput with attention to animal support and anesthesia to limit biological stress. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Each modality has its strengths. Micro-CT permitted more rapid acquisition (<10 minutes) with the highest spatial resolution (88-micron isotropic resolution). But detection of metastatic lesions requires the use of a blood pool contrast agent, which could introduce a confound in the evaluation of new therapies. MRI was slower (30 minutes) and had lower anisotropic spatial resolution. But MRI eliminates the need for a contrast agent and the contrast-to-noise between tumor and normal parenchyma was higher, making earlier detection of small lesions possible. Both methods supported a relatively high-throughput, longitudinal study of the development of metastatic lesions.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Liver is a common site for distal metastases in colon and rectal cancer. Numerous clinical studies have analyzed the relative merits of different imaging modalities for detection of liver metastases. Several exciting new therapies are being investigated in preclinical models. But, technical challenges in preclinical imaging make it difficult to translate conclusions from clinical studies to the preclinical environment. This study addresses the technical challenges of preclinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and micro-computed tomography (CT) to enable comparison of state-of-the-art methods for following metastatic liver disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We optimized two promising preclinical protocols to enable a parallel longitudinal study tracking metastatic humancolon carcinoma growth in a mouse model: T2-weighted MRI using two-shot PROPELLER (Periodically Rotated Overlapping ParallEL Lines with Enhanced Reconstruction) and contrast-enhanced micro-CT using a liposomal contrast agent. Both methods were tailored for high throughput with attention to animal support and anesthesia to limit biological stress. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Each modality has its strengths. Micro-CT permitted more rapid acquisition (<10 minutes) with the highest spatial resolution (88-micron isotropic resolution). But detection of metastatic lesions requires the use of a blood pool contrast agent, which could introduce a confound in the evaluation of new therapies. MRI was slower (30 minutes) and had lower anisotropic spatial resolution. But MRI eliminates the need for a contrast agent and the contrast-to-noise between tumor and normal parenchyma was higher, making earlier detection of small lesions possible. Both methods supported a relatively high-throughput, longitudinal study of the development of metastatic lesions.
Authors: Srinivasan Mukundan; Ketan B Ghaghada; Cristian T Badea; Chen-Yu Kao; Laurence W Hedlund; James M Provenzale; G Allan Johnson; Emmanuel Chen; Ravi V Bellamkonda; Ananth Annapragada Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Shi-Rong Cai; Joel R Garbow; Robert Culverhouse; Robert D Church; Wanghai Zhang; William D Shannon; Howard L McLeod Journal: Int J Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 5.650
Authors: Ming De Lin; Greta Toncheva; Giao Nguyen; Sangroh Kim; Colin Anderson-Evans; G Allan Johnson; Terry T Yoshizumi Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Lucia Martiniova; Melanie S Kotys; David Thomasson; Daniel Schimel; Edwin W Lai; Marcelino Bernardo; Maria J Merino; James F Powers; Jan Ruzicka; Richard Kvetnansky; Peter L Choyke; Karel Pacak Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Tammy L Kalber; John C Waterton; John R Griffiths; Anderson J Ryan; Simon P Robinson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Lucia Martiniova; Daniel Schimel; Edwin W Lai; Andrea Limpuangthip; Richard Kvetnansky; Karel Pacak Journal: Methods Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 3.608
Authors: Mucong Li; Nathan Beaumont; Chenshuo Ma; Juan Rojas; Tri Vu; Max Harlacher; Graeme O'Connell; Ryan C Gessner; Hailey Kilian; Ludmila Kasatkina; Yong Chen; Qiang Huang; Xiling Shen; Jonathan F Lovell; Vladislav V Verkhusha; Tomek Czernuszewicz; Junjie Yao Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 11.037
Authors: Dennis Jung; Rafael Heiss; Viktoria Kramer; Oana-Maria Thoma; Adrian P Regensburger; Wolfgang Rascher; Michael Uder; Markus F Neurath; Ferdinand Knieling; Maximilian J Waldner Journal: Theranostics Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Connor A Wathen; Nathan Foje; Tony van Avermaete; Bernadette Miramontes; Sarah E Chapaman; Todd A Sasser; Raghuraman Kannan; Steven Gerstler; W Matthew Leevy Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2013-05-27 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Mihaela Ignat; Cherif Youssef Akladios; Véronique Lindner; Konstantin Khetchoumian; Marius Teletin; Didier Muttter; Pierre Marc Aprahamian; Jacques Marescaux Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-09-29