Literature DB >> 33596961

Multi-modal imaging of high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using C2Am: a targeted cell death imaging agent.

Zoltan Szucs1, James Joseph1,2,3, Tim J Larkin1, Bangwen Xie1, Sarah E Bohndiek1,2, Kevin M Brindle4,5, André A Neves6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive form of early breast cancer, with a poorly understood natural history of invasive transformation. Necrosis is a well-recognized adverse prognostic feature of DCIS, and non-invasive detection of its presence and spatial extent could provide information not obtainable by biopsy. We describe here imaging of the distribution and extent of comedo-type necrosis in a model of human DCIS using C2Am, an imaging agent that binds to the phosphatidylserine exposed by necrotic cells.
METHODS: We used an established xenograft model of human DCIS that mimics the histopathological features of the disease. Planar near-infrared and optoacoustic imaging, using fluorescently labeled C2Am, were used to image non-invasively the presence and extent of lesion necrosis.
RESULTS: C2Am showed specific and sensitive binding to necrotic areas in DCIS tissue, detectable both in vivo and ex vivo. The imaging signal generated in vivo using near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence imaging was up to 6-fold higher in DCIS lesions than in surrounding fat pad or skin tissue. There was a correlation between the C2Am NIR fluorescence (Pearson R = 0.783, P = 0.0125) and optoacoustic signals (R > 0.875, P < 0.022) in the DCIS lesions in vivo and the corresponding levels of cell death detected histologically.
CONCLUSIONS: C2Am is a targeted multi-modal imaging agent that could complement current anatomical imaging methods for detecting DCIS. Imaging the presence and spatial extent of necrosis may give better prognostic information than that obtained by biopsy alone.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DCIS; Early detection; Multi-modal imaging; Necrosis; Optoacoustic

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33596961      PMCID: PMC7891030          DOI: 10.1186/s13058-021-01404-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res        ISSN: 1465-5411            Impact factor:   6.466


  44 in total

Review 1.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Authors:  M G Marmot; D G Altman; D A Cameron; J A Dewar; S G Thompson; M Wilcox
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 7.640

2.  Breast-cancer screening--viewpoint of the IARC Working Group.

Authors:  Béatrice Lauby-Secretan; Chiara Scoccianti; Dana Loomis; Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa; Véronique Bouvard; Franca Bianchini; Kurt Straif
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Variability in diagnostic threshold for comedo necrosis among breast pathologists: implications for patient eligibility for active surveillance trials of ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Beth T Harrison; E Shelley Hwang; Ann H Partridge; Alastair M Thompson; Stuart J Schnitt
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2019-04-12       Impact factor: 7.842

4.  Surgical Upstaging Rates for Vacuum Assisted Biopsy Proven DCIS: Implications for Active Surveillance Trials.

Authors:  Lars J Grimm; Marc D Ryser; Ann H Partridge; Alastair M Thompson; Jeremy S Thomas; Jelle Wesseling; E Shelley Hwang
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  A new pathological system for grading DCIS with improved prediction of local recurrence: results from the UKCCCR/ANZ DCIS trial.

Authors:  S E Pinder; C Duggan; I O Ellis; J Cuzick; J F Forbes; H Bishop; I S Fentiman; W D George
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Adverse surgical outcomes in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Authors:  Jeremy Thomas; Andrew Hanby; Sarah E Pinder; Graham Ball; Gill Lawrence; Anthony Maxwell; Matthew Wallis; Andrew Evans; Hilary Dobson; Karen Clements; Alastair Thompson
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2014-05-26       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 7.  Implications of Overdiagnosis: Impact on Screening Mammography Practices.

Authors:  Elizabeth Morris; Stephen A Feig; Madeline Drexler; Constance Lehman
Journal:  Popul Health Manag       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.459

Review 8.  Management of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast: A Review.

Authors:  Chirag Shah; Jessica Wobb; Bindu Manyam; Neilendu Kundu; Douglas Arthur; David Wazer; Eduardo Fernandez; Frank Vicini
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 9.  Current approach and future perspective for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Authors:  Chizuko Kanbayashi; Hiroji Iwata
Journal:  Jpn J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 3.019

10.  Reliability of preoperative breast biopsies showing ductal carcinoma in situ and implications for non-operative treatment: a cohort study.

Authors:  Gurdeep S Mannu; Emma J Groen; Zhe Wang; Michael Schaapveld; Esther H Lips; Monica Chung; Ires Joore; Flora E van Leeuwen; Hendrik J Teertstra; Gonneke A O Winter-Warnars; Sarah C Darby; Jelle Wesseling
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-08-06       Impact factor: 4.872

View more
  2 in total

1.  Correction to: Multi-modal imaging of high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using C2Am: a targeted cell death imaging agent.

Authors:  Zoltan Szucs; James Joseph; Tim J Larkin; Bangwen Xie; Sarah E Bohndiek; Kevin M Brindle; André A Neves
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2021-03-15       Impact factor: 6.466

2.  Radiological Underestimation of Tumor Size as a Relevant Risk Factor for Positive Margin Rate in Breast-Conserving Therapy of Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS).

Authors:  Gesche Schultek; Bernd Gerber; Toralf Reimer; Johannes Stubert; Steffi Hartmann; Annett Martin; Angrit Stachs
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 6.575

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.