OBJECTIVE: Dual-energy (DE) mammography has recently entered the clinic. Previous theoretical and phantom studies demonstrated that silver provides greater contrast than iodine for this technique. Our objective was to characterize and evaluate in vivo a prototype silver contrast agent ultimately intended for DE mammography. METHODS: The prototype silver contrast agent was synthesized using a three-step process: synthesis of a silver core, silica encapsulation and PEG coating. The nanoparticles were then injected into mice to determine their accumulation in various organs, blood half-life and dual-energy contrast. All animal procedures were approved by the institutional animal care and use committee. RESULTS: The final diameter of the nanoparticles was measured to be 102 (±9) nm. The particles were removed from the vascular circulation with a half-life of 15 min, and accumulated in macrophage-rich organs such as the liver, spleen and lymph nodes. Dual-energy subtraction techniques increased the signal difference-to-noise ratio of the particles by as much as a factor of 15.2 compared to the single-energy images. These nanoparticles produced no adverse effects in mice. CONCLUSION: Silver nanoparticles are an effective contrast agent for dual-energy x-ray imaging. With further design improvements, silver nanoparticles may prove valuable in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • Silver has potential as a contrast agent for DE mammography. • Silica-coated silver nanoparticles are biocompatible and suited for in vivo use. • Silver nanoparticles produce strong contrast in vivo using DE mammography imaging systems.
OBJECTIVE: Dual-energy (DE) mammography has recently entered the clinic. Previous theoretical and phantom studies demonstrated that silver provides greater contrast than iodine for this technique. Our objective was to characterize and evaluate in vivo a prototype silver contrast agent ultimately intended for DE mammography. METHODS: The prototype silver contrast agent was synthesized using a three-step process: synthesis of a silver core, silica encapsulation and PEG coating. The nanoparticles were then injected into mice to determine their accumulation in various organs, blood half-life and dual-energy contrast. All animal procedures were approved by the institutional animal care and use committee. RESULTS: The final diameter of the nanoparticles was measured to be 102 (±9) nm. The particles were removed from the vascular circulation with a half-life of 15 min, and accumulated in macrophage-rich organs such as the liver, spleen and lymph nodes. Dual-energy subtraction techniques increased the signal difference-to-noise ratio of the particles by as much as a factor of 15.2 compared to the single-energy images. These nanoparticles produced no adverse effects in mice. CONCLUSION:Silver nanoparticles are an effective contrast agent for dual-energy x-ray imaging. With further design improvements, silver nanoparticles may prove valuable in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • Silver has potential as a contrast agent for DE mammography. • Silica-coated silver nanoparticles are biocompatible and suited for in vivo use. • Silver nanoparticles produce strong contrast in vivo using DE mammography imaging systems.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Dual-energy; Gold; Mammography; Nanoparticles; Silver
Authors: Dipanjan Pan; Ewald Roessl; Jens-Peter Schlomka; Shelton D Caruthers; Angana Senpan; Mike J Scott; John S Allen; Huiying Zhang; Grace Hu; Patrick J Gaffney; Eric T Choi; Volker Rasche; Samuel A Wickline; Roland Proksa; Gregory M Lanza Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2010-12-10 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Sara C Chen; Ann-Katherine Carton; Michael Albert; Emily F Conant; Mitchell D Schnall; Andrew D A Maidment Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: David P Cormode; Gitte O Skajaa; Amanda Delshad; Nicole Parker; Peter A Jarzyna; Claudia Calcagno; Merav W Galper; Torjus Skajaa; Karen C Briley-Saebo; Heather M Bell; Ronald E Gordon; Zahi A Fayad; Savio L C Woo; Willem J M Mulder Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: David P Cormode; Ewald Roessl; Axel Thran; Torjus Skajaa; Ronald E Gordon; Jens-Peter Schlomka; Valentin Fuster; Edward A Fisher; Willem J M Mulder; Roland Proksa; Zahi A Fayad Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rolf Koole; Matti M van Schooneveld; Jan Hilhorst; Karolien Castermans; David P Cormode; Gustav J Strijkers; Celso de Mello Donegá; Daniel Vanmaekelbergh; Arjan W Griffioen; Klaas Nicolay; Zahi A Fayad; Andries Meijerink; Willem J M Mulder Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Vera Froeling; Felix Diekmann; Diane M Renz; Eva M Fallenberg; Ingo G Steffen; Susanne Diekmann; Rüdiger Lawaczeck; Florian F Schmitzberger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jessica C Hsu; Pratap C Naha; Kristen C Lau; Peter Chhour; Renee Hastings; Brianna F Moon; Joel M Stein; Walter R T Witschey; Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew D A Maidment; David P Cormode Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Pratap C Naha; Kristen C Lau; Jessica C Hsu; Maryam Hajfathalian; Shaameen Mian; Peter Chhour; Lahari Uppuluri; Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew D A Maidment; David P Cormode Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Jessica C Hsu; Lenitza M Nieves; Oshra Betzer; Tamar Sadan; Peter B Noël; Rachela Popovtzer; David P Cormode Journal: Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol Date: 2020-05-22
Authors: Thomas J Miesen; Arek M Engstrom; Dane C Frost; Ramya Ajjarapu; Rohan Ajjarapu; Citlali Nieves Lira; Marilyn R Mackiewicz Journal: RSC Adv Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 4.036