PURPOSE: To assess therapeutic efficacy of gemcitabine and HIFU for a mouse model of pancreatic cancer, and the role of DCE-US for predicting early treatment response compared with pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 48 PANC-1- nude mice (G1, HIFU_higher power [n = 14]; G2, gemcitabine [n = 12]; G3, combined gemcitabine and HIFU_low power [n = 12]; and G4, control [n = 10]), pulsed HIFU or gemcitabine therapy was used. DCE-US was performed 1 day before and after first treatment. Seven DCE-US perfusion parameters were obtained. Therapeutic efficacy was estimated using necrotic fraction and apoptosis. Correlation between tumour size and US perfusion parameters was analysed. RESULTS: Pathology results showed that combined gemcitabine and HIFU using low-power treatment had a more effective response than other treatments, including in the control group, i.e. necrotic fraction: 40.5 ± 4.9 vs. 16.9 ± 8.0, p = 0.000 and apoptosis: 44.3 ± 29.4 vs. 7.9 ± 4.9, p = 0.002. In this group, US perfusion parameters, including peak intensity (22.6 ± 22.6 vs. 9.6 ± 6.3, p = 0.002), AUC (961.8 ± 96.9 vs. 884.4 ± 91.4, p = 0.000), and AUCout (799.9 ± 75.6 vs. 747.1 ± 77.9, p = 0.000), had significantly decreased 1 day following first treatment (p < 0.05). In addition, peak intensity, AUC, and AUCout showed a tendency to decrease in treated groups. Alternatively, peak intensity, AUC, and AUCout showed a tendency to increase in control group. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine and HIFU were more effective and safer than other treatments. US perfusion parameters were useful for predicting early therapeutic response 1 day following treatment. KEY POINTS: Recently, treatment of pancreatic cancer has changed based on a multidisciplinary approach. Combined gemcitabine_HIFU demonstrated more effective therapeutic response than other treatments. DCE-US is useful for predicting early therapeutic response 1 day after treatment. In the combined group, PI, AUC, and AUC (out) decreased 1 day after treatment.
PURPOSE: To assess therapeutic efficacy of gemcitabine and HIFU for a mouse model of pancreatic cancer, and the role of DCE-US for predicting early treatment response compared with pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 48 PANC-1- nude mice (G1, HIFU_higher power [n = 14]; G2, gemcitabine [n = 12]; G3, combined gemcitabine and HIFU_low power [n = 12]; and G4, control [n = 10]), pulsed HIFU or gemcitabine therapy was used. DCE-US was performed 1 day before and after first treatment. Seven DCE-US perfusion parameters were obtained. Therapeutic efficacy was estimated using necrotic fraction and apoptosis. Correlation between tumour size and US perfusion parameters was analysed. RESULTS: Pathology results showed that combined gemcitabine and HIFU using low-power treatment had a more effective response than other treatments, including in the control group, i.e. necrotic fraction: 40.5 ± 4.9 vs. 16.9 ± 8.0, p = 0.000 and apoptosis: 44.3 ± 29.4 vs. 7.9 ± 4.9, p = 0.002. In this group, US perfusion parameters, including peak intensity (22.6 ± 22.6 vs. 9.6 ± 6.3, p = 0.002), AUC (961.8 ± 96.9 vs. 884.4 ± 91.4, p = 0.000), and AUCout (799.9 ± 75.6 vs. 747.1 ± 77.9, p = 0.000), had significantly decreased 1 day following first treatment (p < 0.05). In addition, peak intensity, AUC, and AUCout showed a tendency to decrease in treated groups. Alternatively, peak intensity, AUC, and AUCout showed a tendency to increase in control group. CONCLUSION:Gemcitabine and HIFU were more effective and safer than other treatments. US perfusion parameters were useful for predicting early therapeutic response 1 day following treatment. KEY POINTS: Recently, treatment of pancreatic cancer has changed based on a multidisciplinary approach. Combined gemcitabine_HIFU demonstrated more effective therapeutic response than other treatments. DCE-US is useful for predicting early therapeutic response 1 day after treatment. In the combined group, PI, AUC, and AUC (out) decreased 1 day after treatment.
Authors: Kathleen Kieran; Timothy L Hall; Jessica E Parsons; J Stuart Wolf; J Brian Fowlkes; Charles A Cain; William W Roberts Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: William W Roberts; Timothy L Hall; Kimberly Ives; J Stuart Wolf; J Brian Fowlkes; Charles A Cain Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Milka Marinova; Maximilian Rauch; Martin Mücke; Roman Rolke; Maria A Gonzalez-Carmona; Jana Henseler; Henning Cuhls; Lukas Radbruch; Christian P Strassburg; Lian Zhang; Hans H Schild; Holger M Strunk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mi Hye Yu; Jae Young Lee; Hae Ri Kim; Bo Ram Kim; Eun-Joo Park; Hoe Suk Kim; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Won Chang; Jae Young Lee; Jae Hwan Lee; Jae Seok Bae; Yeon Jin Cho; Kook Jin Kang; Keonho Son; Yul Ri Chung; Kyoung Bun Lee; Joon Koo Han Journal: Ultrasonography Date: 2017-10-13