Multimodal approach to assess tumour vasculature and potential treatment effect with DCE-US and DCE-MRI quantification in CWR22 prostate tumour xenografts.

The aim of this study was to compare intratumoural heterogeneity and longitudinal changes assessed by dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in prostate tumour xenografts. In vivo DCE-US and DCE-MRI were obtained 24 h pre- (day 0) and post- (day 2) radiation treatment with a single dose of 7.5 Gy. Characterization of the tumour vasculature was determined by Brix pharmacokinetic analysis of the time-intensity curves. Histogram analysis of voxels showed significant changes (p < 0.001) from day 0 to day 2 in both modalities for kep , the exchange rate constant from the extracellular extravascular space to the plasma, and kel , the elimination rate constant of the contrast. In addition, kep and kel values from DCE-US were significantly higher than those derived from DCE-MRI at day 0 (p < 0.0001) for both groups. At day 2, kel followed the same tendency for both groups, whereas kep showed this tendency only for the treated group in intermediate-enhancement regions. Regarding kep median values, longitudinal changes were not found for any modality. However, at day 2, kep linked to DCE-US was correlated to MVD in high-enhancement areas for the treated group (p = 0.05). In contrast, correlation to necrosis was detected for the control group in intermediate-enhancement areas (p < 0.1). Intratumoural heterogeneity and longitudinal changes in tumour vasculature were assessed for both modalities. Microvascular parameters derived from DCE-US seem to provide reliable biomarkers during radiotherapy as validated by histology. Furthermore, DCE-US could be a stand-alone or a complementary technique.

[1]  Vassilis Sboros,et al.  In Vitro Acoustic Characterization of Three Phospholipid Ultrasound Contrast Agents from 12 to 43 MHz , 2014, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[2]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[3]  Chun-Jung Juan,et al.  Parotid perfusion in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients in early-to-intermediate stage after low-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy: evaluated by fat-saturated dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. , 2013, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[4]  Michiel Postema,et al.  Sonoporation: mechanistic insights and ongoing challenges for gene transfer. , 2013, Gene.

[5]  Joanna Anioł,et al.  Neoangiogenesis in prostate cancer , 2013, Contemporary oncology.

[6]  R. Kolar,et al.  Ultrasound perfusion analysis combining bolus-tracking and burst-replenishment , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[7]  Heidi Lyng,et al.  Pharmacokinetic parameters derived from dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of cervical cancers predict chemoradiotherapy outcome. , 2012, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[8]  A. W. Simonetti,et al.  The Principal of Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MRI, the Method of Pharmacokinetic Analysis, and Its Application in the Head and Neck Region , 2012, International journal of dentistry.

[9]  Ingrid Leguerney,et al.  Assessment of Quantitative Perfusion Parameters by Dynamic Contrast‐Enhanced Sonography Using a Deconvolution Method , 2012, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[10]  A. Dudley Tumor endothelial cells. , 2012, Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine.

[11]  V. Montecinos,et al.  Primary Xenografts of Human Prostate Tissue as a Model to Study Angiogenesis Induced by Reactive Stroma , 2012, PloS one.

[12]  Odd Helge Gilja,et al.  Interactive visual analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound data based on small neighborhood statistics , 2011, Comput. Graph..

[13]  Odd Helge Gilja,et al.  Contrast-enhanced and targeted ultrasound. , 2011, World journal of gastroenterology.

[14]  E. Leen,et al.  Perfusion quantification using dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound: the impact of dynamic range and gain on time-intensity curves. , 2011, Ultrasonics.

[15]  M Arditi,et al.  Parametric imaging for characterizing focal liver lesions in contrast-enhanced ultrasound , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[16]  A. J. van der Kogel,et al.  Longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging-based assessment of vascular changes and radiation response in androgen-sensitive prostate carcinoma xenografts under androgen-exposed and androgen-deprived conditions. , 2010, Neoplasia.

[17]  Hemant Sarin,et al.  Physiologic upper limits of pore size of different blood capillary types and another perspective on the dual pore theory of microvascular permeability , 2010, Journal of angiogenesis research.

[18]  Heather Ting Ma,et al.  Modified brix model analysis of bone perfusion in subjects of varying bone mineral density , 2010, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[19]  F. Thorsen,et al.  Atrial natriuretic peptide modulation of albumin clearance and contrast agent permeability in mouse skeletal muscle and skin: role in regulation of plasma volume , 2010, Journal of Physiology.

[20]  Jirik R Mezl M,et al.  BIOSIGNAL 2010 Quantitative Ultrasound Perfusion Analysis In Vitro , 2010 .

[21]  Tim Leiner,et al.  Reliability of pharmacokinetic parameters: Small vs. medium‐sized contrast agents , 2009, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[22]  J. Gore,et al.  Coregistration of Ultrasonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging with a Preliminary Investigation of the Spatial Colocalization of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor 2 Expression and Tumor Perfusion in a Murine Tumor Model , 2009, Molecular imaging.

[23]  Takeo Kanade,et al.  Image Thickness Correction for Navigation with 3D Intra-cardiac Ultrasound Catheter , 2008, MICCAI.

[24]  P. Mildenberger,et al.  Assessment of tumor microcirculation with dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI in patients with esophageal cancer: Initial experience , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[25]  H. Dvorak,et al.  Vascular permeability, vascular hyperpermeability and angiogenesis , 2008, Angiogenesis.

[26]  Peter Wust,et al.  Perfusion measurement using DCE-MRI: Implications for hyperthermia , 2008, International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group.

[27]  Ø. Bruland,et al.  DCEMRI monitoring of canine tumors during fractionated radiotherapy , 2008, Acta oncologica.

[28]  Emilio Quaia,et al.  Microbubble ultrasound contrast agents: an update , 2007, European Radiology.

[29]  Wolfgang Ebert,et al.  Pharmacokinetics of Gadomer-17, a new dendritic magnetic resonance contrast agent , 2001, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[30]  N. Hylton Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as an imaging biomarker. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[31]  J. Gore,et al.  Correlation Between Estimates of Tumor Perfusion From Microbubble Contrast‐Enhanced Sonography and Dynamic Contrast‐Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2006, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[32]  M. Dewhirst,et al.  Tumor vascular permeability, accumulation, and penetration of macromolecular drug carriers. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[33]  C. Brekke,et al.  NG2 expression regulates vascular morphology and function in human brain tumours , 2006, NeuroImage.

[34]  Hisataka Kobayashi,et al.  Nano-sized MRI contrast agents with dendrimer cores. , 2005, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[35]  O. Volpert,et al.  MCT-1 oncogene contributes to increased in vivo tumorigenicity of MCF7 cells by promotion of angiogenesis and inhibition of apoptosis. , 2005, Cancer research.

[36]  Mirko D'Onofrio,et al.  Tumor vessel compression hinders perfusion of ultrasonographic contrast agents. , 2005, Neoplasia.

[37]  D G Gadian,et al.  Quantification of Perfusion Using Bolus Tracking Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Stroke: Assumptions, Limitations, and Potential Implications for Clinical Use , 2002, Stroke.

[38]  R K Jain,et al.  Openings between defective endothelial cells explain tumor vessel leakiness. , 2000, The American journal of pathology.

[39]  M. Knopp,et al.  Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast‐enhanced t1‐weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: Standardized quantities and symbols , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[40]  S. Schwartz,et al.  CWR22: the first human prostate cancer xenograft with strongly androgen-dependent and relapsed strains both in vivo and in soft agar. , 1996, Cancer research.

[41]  D. Altman,et al.  Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. , 1995, BMJ.

[42]  S. Schwartz,et al.  CWR22: androgen-dependent xenograft model derived from a primary human prostatic carcinoma. , 1994, Cancer research.

[43]  L R Schad,et al.  Pharmacokinetic parameters in CNS Gd-DTPA enhanced MR imaging. , 1991, Journal of computer assisted tomography.