Jacob S Young1, Giovanna Bernal2, Sean P Polster2, Luis Nunez3, Gustavo F Larsen3, Nassir Mansour2, Michael Podell4, Bakhtiar Yamini5. 1. Pritzker School of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. Section of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 3. LNK Chemsolutions LLC, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. 4. Section of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Medvet Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 5. Section of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Electronic address: byamini@surgery.bsd.uchicago.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite aggressive multimodal treatment, survival for patients with glioblastoma remains dismal. One obstacle to improving patient outcomes is the difficulty in delivering adequate therapeutic to the central nervous system due to the presence of the blood-brain barrier. Although direct drug infusion by convection-enhanced delivery (CED) can bypass the blood-brain barrier and facilitate delivery to intracranial tumors, determining the distribution of delivered therapeutic remains problematic. Image guidance is a strategy that can optimize the accuracy of therapeutic delivery. METHODS: Here we performed an open-label clinical trial in 10 pet dogs with spontaneous intracranial tumors to examine the target coverage accuracy of delivering polymeric magnetite nanoparticles (PMNPs) encapsulating temozolomide (TMZ). A modified small animal frame was applied to the head of each subject, and PMNPs were delivered stereotactically to the center of the tumor. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed immediately postoperatively to examine PMNP distribution, and the animals were followed until death. RESULTS: Nine of the 10 dogs underwent PMNP infusion without complications. No infusate backflow was observed during any procedure. In 70% of the cases, the infusion accurately targeted the tumor mass, as determined by the presence of PMNP signal in the tumor on immediate postoperative MRI. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that CED of PMNPs carrying TMZ is safe in dogs with intracranial tumors and can lead to nanoparticle distribution in the region of the target. Image guidance is an important adjunct to CED, because distribution is unpredictable, with the potential for missed target delivery.
BACKGROUND: Despite aggressive multimodal treatment, survival for patients with glioblastoma remains dismal. One obstacle to improving patient outcomes is the difficulty in delivering adequate therapeutic to the central nervous system due to the presence of the blood-brain barrier. Although direct drug infusion by convection-enhanced delivery (CED) can bypass the blood-brain barrier and facilitate delivery to intracranial tumors, determining the distribution of delivered therapeutic remains problematic. Image guidance is a strategy that can optimize the accuracy of therapeutic delivery. METHODS: Here we performed an open-label clinical trial in 10 pet dogs with spontaneous intracranial tumors to examine the target coverage accuracy of delivering polymeric magnetite nanoparticles (PMNPs) encapsulating temozolomide (TMZ). A modified small animal frame was applied to the head of each subject, and PMNPs were delivered stereotactically to the center of the tumor. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed immediately postoperatively to examine PMNP distribution, and the animals were followed until death. RESULTS: Nine of the 10 dogs underwent PMNP infusion without complications. No infusate backflow was observed during any procedure. In 70% of the cases, the infusion accurately targeted the tumor mass, as determined by the presence of PMNP signal in the tumor on immediate postoperative MRI. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that CED of PMNPs carrying TMZ is safe in dogs with intracranial tumors and can lead to nanoparticle distribution in the region of the target. Image guidance is an important adjunct to CED, because distribution is unpredictable, with the potential for missed target delivery.
Authors: Weilian Yang; Tianyao Huo; Rolf F Barth; Nilendu Gupta; Michael Weldon; John C Grecula; Brian D Ross; Benjamin A Hoff; Ting-Chao Chou; Julia Rousseau; Hélène Elleaume Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2010-06-25 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Sandeep Kunwar; Susan Chang; Manfred Westphal; Michael Vogelbaum; John Sampson; Gene Barnett; Mark Shaffrey; Zvi Ram; Joseph Piepmeier; Michael Prados; David Croteau; Christoph Pedain; Pamela Leland; Syed R Husain; Bharat H Joshi; Raj K Puri Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2010-02-04 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Rachael Thomas; Shannon E Duke; Huixia J Wang; Tessa E Breen; Robert J Higgins; Keith E Linder; Peter Ellis; Cordelia F Langford; Peter J Dickinson; Natasha J Olby; Matthew Breen Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Antonella Mangraviti; Stephany Yi Tzeng; Kristen Lynn Kozielski; Yuan Wang; Yike Jin; David Gullotti; Mariangela Pedone; Nitsa Buaron; Ann Liu; David R Wilson; Sarah K Hansen; Fausto J Rodriguez; Guo-Dong Gao; Francesco DiMeco; Henry Brem; Alessandro Olivi; Betty Tyler; Jordan J Green Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: C Elizabeth Boudreau; Hinda Najem; Martina Ott; Craig Horbinski; Dexing Fang; Chase M DeRay; Jonathan M Levine; Michael A Curran; Amy B Heimberger Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Adam J Grippin; Kyle A Dyson; Sadeem Qdaisat; James McGuiness; Brandon Wummer; Duane A Mitchell; Hector R Mendez-Gomez; Elias J Sayour Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: John H Rossmeisl; Denise Herpai; Mindy Quigley; Thomas E Cecere; John L Robertson; Ralph B D'Agostino; Jonathan Hinckley; Stephen B Tatter; Peter J Dickinson; Waldemar Debinski Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 12.300