Yoshinori Kato1,2,3, Wenlian Zhu1, Marina V Backer4, Christopher C Neoh1, Sudath Hapuarachchige1, Susanta K Sarkar5, Joseph M Backer4, Dmitri Artemov1,2. 1. Division of Cancer Imaging Research, The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Oncology, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. 3. Life Science Tokyo Advanced Research Center (L-StaR), Hoshi University School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Science, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, JAPAN (Current affiliation). 4. SibTech, Inc., Brookfield, CT 06804, USA. 5. CadenzaMed LLC, Wayne, PA 19087, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widely used for diagnostic imaging in preclinical studies and in clinical settings. Considering the intrinsic low sensitivity and poor specificity of standard MRI contrast agents, the enhanced delivery of MRI tracers into tumors is an important challenge to be addressed. This study was intended to investigate whether delivery of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) can be enhanced by liposomal SPION formulations for either "passive" delivery into tumor via the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect or "active" targeted delivery to tumor endothelium via the receptors for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGFRs). METHODS: In vivo MRI of orthotopic MDA-MB-231 tumors was performed on a preclinical 9.4 T MRI scanner following intravenous administration of either free/non-targeted or targeted liposomal SPIONs. RESULTS: In vivo MRI study revealed that only the non-targeted liposomal formulation provided a statistically significant accumulation of SPIONs in the tumor at four hours post-injection. The EPR effect contributes to improved accumulation of liposomal SPIONs in tumors compared to the presumably more transient retention during the targeting of the tumor vasculature via VEGFRs. CONCLUSIONS: A non-targeted liposomal formulation of SPIONs could be the optimal option for MRI detection of breast tumors and for the development of therapeutic liposomes for MRI-guided therapy.
PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widely used for diagnostic imaging in preclinical studies and in clinical settings. Considering the intrinsic low sensitivity and poor specificity of standard MRI contrast agents, the enhanced delivery of MRI tracers into tumors is an important challenge to be addressed. This study was intended to investigate whether delivery of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) can be enhanced by liposomal SPION formulations for either "passive" delivery into tumor via the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect or "active" targeted delivery to tumor endothelium via the receptors for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGFRs). METHODS: In vivo MRI of orthotopic MDA-MB-231tumors was performed on a preclinical 9.4 T MRI scanner following intravenous administration of either free/non-targeted or targeted liposomal SPIONs. RESULTS: In vivo MRI study revealed that only the non-targeted liposomal formulation provided a statistically significant accumulation of SPIONs in the tumor at four hours post-injection. The EPR effect contributes to improved accumulation of liposomal SPIONs in tumors compared to the presumably more transient retention during the targeting of the tumor vasculature via VEGFRs. CONCLUSIONS: A non-targeted liposomal formulation of SPIONs could be the optimal option for MRI detection of breast tumors and for the development of therapeutic liposomes for MRI-guided therapy.
Entities:
Keywords:
liposomes; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); passive targeting; single-chain vascular endothelial growth factor (scVEGF); superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs)
Authors: B T S Thirumamagal; Xiaobin B Zhao; Achintya K Bandyopadhyaya; Sureshbabu Naranyanasamy; Jayaseharan Johnsamuel; Rohit Tiwari; Danold W Golightly; Vimalkumar Patel; Brian T Jehning; Marina V Backer; Rolf F Barth; Robert J Lee; Joseph M Backer; Werner Tjarks Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2006 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Patrick M Winter; Shelton D Caruthers; Andrea Kassner; Thomas D Harris; Lori K Chinen; John S Allen; Elizabeth K Lacy; Huiying Zhang; J David Robertson; Samuel A Wickline; Gregory M Lanza Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2003-09-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Jan-Philip Meyer; Kimberly J Edwards; Paul Kozlowski; Marina V Backer; Joseph M Backer; Jason S Lewis Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mary Rusckowski; Yuzhen Wang; Francis G Blankenberg; Zoia Levashova; Marina V Backer; Joseph M Backer Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2016-01-16 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Kimberley Span; Ebel H E Pieters; Wim E Hennink; Annette van der Toorn; Vera Brinks; Rick M Dijkhuizen; Geralda A F van Tilborg Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 4.200