Joseph L McDevitt1, Samdeep K Mouli1, Patrick D Tyler1, Weiguo Li1, Jodi Nicolai1, Daniele Procissi1, Ann B Ragin1, Y Andrew Wang2, Robert J Lewandowski3, Riad Salem3, Andrew C Larson4, Reed A Omary5. 1. Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Ocean Nanotech LLC, Springdale, Arizona. 3. Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. 5. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt School of Medicine, 1611 21st Avenue South, CCC-1106 MCN, Nashville, TN 37232. Electronic address: reed.omary@vanderbilt.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that magnetic resonance (MR) imaging can quantify intratumoral superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) nanoparticle uptake after nanoablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SPIO nanoparticles functionalized with doxorubicin were synthesized. N1-S1 hepatomas were successfully induced in 17 Sprague-Dawley rats distributed into three dosage groups. Baseline tumor R2* values (the reciprocal of T2*) were determined using 7-tesla (T) MR imaging. After intravenous injection of SPIO nanoparticles, reversible electroporation (1,300 V/cm, 8 pulses, 100-μs pulse duration) was applied. Imaging of rats was performed to determine tumor R2* values after the procedure, and change in R2* (ΔR2*) was calculated. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry was used to determine intratumoral iron (Fe) concentration after the procedure, which served as a proxy for SPIO nanoparticle uptake. Mean tumor Fe concentration [Fe] and ΔR2* for each subject were assessed for correlation with linear regression, and mean [Fe] for each dosage group was compared with analysis of variance. RESULTS: ΔR2* significantly correlated with tumor SPIO nanoparticle uptake after nanoablation (r = 0.50, P = .039). On average, each 0.1-ms(-1) increase in R2* corresponded to a 0.1394-mM increase in [Fe]. There was no significant difference in mean SPIO nanoparticle uptake among dosage groups (P = .57). CONCLUSIONS: Intratumoral SPIO nanoparticle uptake after nanoablation can be successfully quantified noninvasively with 7-T MR imaging. Imaging can be used as a method to estimate localized drug delivery after nanoablation.
PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that magnetic resonance (MR) imaging can quantify intratumoral superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) nanoparticle uptake after nanoablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS:SPIO nanoparticles functionalized with doxorubicin were synthesized. N1-S1 hepatomas were successfully induced in 17 Sprague-Dawley rats distributed into three dosage groups. Baseline tumor R2* values (the reciprocal of T2*) were determined using 7-tesla (T) MR imaging. After intravenous injection of SPIO nanoparticles, reversible electroporation (1,300 V/cm, 8 pulses, 100-μs pulse duration) was applied. Imaging of rats was performed to determine tumor R2* values after the procedure, and change in R2* (ΔR2*) was calculated. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry was used to determine intratumoral iron (Fe) concentration after the procedure, which served as a proxy for SPIO nanoparticle uptake. Mean tumorFe concentration [Fe] and ΔR2* for each subject were assessed for correlation with linear regression, and mean [Fe] for each dosage group was compared with analysis of variance. RESULTS: ΔR2* significantly correlated with tumorSPIO nanoparticle uptake after nanoablation (r = 0.50, P = .039). On average, each 0.1-ms(-1) increase in R2* corresponded to a 0.1394-mM increase in [Fe]. There was no significant difference in mean SPIO nanoparticle uptake among dosage groups (P = .57). CONCLUSIONS: Intratumoral SPIO nanoparticle uptake after nanoablation can be successfully quantified noninvasively with 7-T MR imaging. Imaging can be used as a method to estimate localized drug delivery after nanoablation.
Authors: Andrew Tsourkas; Vivek R Shinde-Patil; Kimberly A Kelly; Pratik Patel; Allison Wolley; Jennifer R Allport; Ralph Weissleder Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Robert J Lewandowski; Joshua Tepper; Dingxin Wang; Saad Ibrahim; Frank H Miller; Laura Kulik; Mary Mulcahy; Robert K Ryu; Kent Sato; Andrew C Larson; Riad Salem; Reed A Omary Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2008-03-17 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Christoph Bremer; Mona Mustafa; Alex Bogdanov; Vasilis Ntziachristos; Alexander Petrovsky; Ralph Weissleder Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Douglas E Ramsey; Lily Y Kernagis; Michael C Soulen; Jean-Francois H Geschwind Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Govindarajan Srimathveeravalli; Dalya Abdel-Atti; Carlos Pérez-Medina; Haruyuki Takaki; Stephen B Solomon; Willem J M Mulder; Thomas Reiner Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2018 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 4.488