Treatment of rodent liver tumor with combretastatin A4 phosphate: Noninvasive therapeutic evaluation using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in correlation with microangiography and histology

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 44-53

  Wang, Huaijun ^a   Sun, Xihe ^a,b   Chen, Feng ^a,c   De Keyzer, Frederik ^a   Yu, Jie ^a   Landuyt, Willy ^a   Vandecaveye, Vincent ^a   Peeters, Ronald ^a   Bosmans, Hilde ^a   Hermans, Robert ^a   Marchal, Guy ^a   Ni, Yicheng ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b WEIFANG MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c SOUTHEAST UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Animal; Combretastatin A 4 phosphate (CA4P); Liver; Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); Tumor

Indexed keywords

BARIUM SULFATE; COMBRETASTATIN A4 PHOSPHATE; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; COMBRETASTATIN A 4; COMBRETASTATIN A-4; CONTRAST MEDIUM; STILBENE DERIVATIVE;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BLOOD FLOW; BLOOD VOLUME; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DYNAMIC SUSCEPTIBILITY IMAGING; HEPATIC ARTERY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; IMAGING SYSTEM; IMPLANTATION; LIVER TUMOR; MICROANGIOGRAPHY; NEOVASCULARIZATION (PATHOLOGY); NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAT; RHABDOMYOSARCOMA; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR GROWTH; ALGORITHM; ANGIOGRAPHY; ANIMAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; EVALUATION; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS;

ALGORITHMS; ANGIOGRAPHY; ANIMALS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS, PHYTOGENIC; CONTRAST MEDIA; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LIVER NEOPLASMS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; NEOVASCULARIZATION, PATHOLOGIC; RATS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RHABDOMYOSARCOMA; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; STILBENES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 63449111973     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31818e5ace     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Thorpe PE. Vascular targeting agents as cancer therapeutics. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:415-427.
2. Siemann DW, Chaplin DJ, Horsman MR. Vascular-targeting therapies for treatment of malignant disease. Cancer. 2004;100:2491-2499.
3. Pettit GR, Singh SB, Hamel E, et al. Isolation and structure of the strong cell growth and tubulin inhibitor combretastatin A-4. Experientia. 1989;45:209-211.
4. Tozer GM, Kanthou C, Parkins CS, et al. The biology of the combretastatins as tumour vascular targeting agents. Int J Exp Pathol. 2002;83:21-38.
5. Woods JA, Hadfield JA, Pettit GR, et al. The interaction with tubulin of a series of stilbenes based on combretastatin A-4. Br J Cancer. 1995 ;71:705-711.
6. West CM, Price P. Combretastatin A4 phosphate. Anticancer Drugs. 2004; 15:179-187.
7. Prise VE, Honess DJ, Stratford MR, et al. The vascular response of tumor and normal tissues in the rat to the vascular targeting agent, combretastatin A-4-phosphate, at clinically relevant doses. Int J Oncol. 2002;21:717-726.
8. Landuyt W, Verdoes O, Darius DO, et al. Vascular targeting of solid tumours: a major 'inverse' volume-response relationship following combretastatin A-4 phosphate treatment of rat rhabdomyosarcomas. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36: 1833-1843.
9. Galbraith SM, Maxwell RJ, Lodge MA, et al. Combretastatin A4 phosphate has tumor antivascular activity in rat and man as demonstrated by dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2831-2842.
10. Tozer GM, Prise VE, Wilson J, et al. Combretastatin A-4 phosphate as a tumor vascular-targeting agent: early effects in tumors and normal tissues. Cancer Res. 1999;59:1626-1634.
11. Rustin GJ, Galbraith SM, Anderson H, et al. Phase I clinical trial of weekly combretastatin A4 phosphate: clinical and pharmacokinetic results. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2815-2822.
12. Dowlati A, Robertson K, Cooney M, et al. A phase I pharmacokinetic and translational study of the novel vascular targeting agent combretastatin A-4 phosphate on a single-dose intravenous schedule in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer Res. 2002;62:3408-3416.
13. Stevenson JP, Rosen M, Sun W, et al. Phase I trial of the antivascular agent combretastatin A4 phosphate on a 5-day schedule to patients with cancer: magnetic resonance imaging evidence for altered tumor blood flow. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:4428-4438.
14. Kirwan IG, Loadman PM, Swaine DJ, et al. Comparative preclinical pharmacokinetic and metabolic studies of the combretastatin prodrugs combretastatin A4 phosphate and Al phosphate. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:1446-1453.
15. Anderson HL, Yap JT, Miller MP, et al. Assessment of pharmacodynamic vascular response in a phase I trial of combretastatin A4 phosphate. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2823-2830.
16. Nambu H, Nambu R, Melia M, et al. Combretastatin A-4 phosphate suppresses development and induces regression of choroidal neovascularization. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3650-3655.
17. Thoeny HC, De Keyzer F, Chen F, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in monitoring the effect of a vascular targeting agent on rhabdomyosarcoma in rats. Radiology. 2005;234:756-764.
18. Valonen PK, Lehtimaki KK, Vaisanen TH, et al. Water diffusion in a rat glioma during ganciclovir-thymidine kinase gene therapy-induced programmed cell death in vivo: correlation with cell density. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;19:389-396.
19. Roth Y, Tichler T, Kostenich G, et al. High-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging for pretreatment prediction and early monitoring of tumor response to therapy in mice. Radiology. 2004;232:685-692.
20. Geschwind JF, Artemov D, Abraham S, et al. Chemoembolization of liver tumor in a rabbit model: assessment of tumor cell death with diffusion-weighted MR imaging and histologic analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000; 11:1245-1255.
21. Lang P, Wendland MF, Saeed M, et al. Osteogenic sarcoma: noninvasive in vivo assessment of tumor necrosis with diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology. 1998;206:227-235.
22. Kamel IR, Bluemke DA, Ramsey D, et al. Role of diffusion-weighted imaging in estimating tumor necrosis after chemoembolization of hepa-tocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:708-710.
23. Thoeny HC, De Keyzer F, Vandecaveye V, et al. Effect of vascular targeting agent in rat tumor model: dynamic contrast-enhanced versus diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology. 2005;237:492-499.
24. Lavisse S, Lejeune P, Rouffiac V, et al. Early quantitative evaluation of a tumor vasculature disruptive agent AVE8062 using dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:100-lll.
25. Chen F, Sun X, De Keyzer F, et al. Liver tumor model with implanted rhabdomyosarcoma in rats: MR imaging, microangiography, and histopatho-logic analysis. Radiology. 2006;239:554-562.
26. Hermens AF, Barendsen GW. Cellular proliferation patterns in an experimental rhabdomyosarcoma in the rat. Eur J Cancer. 1967;3:361-369.
27. Ostergaard L, Weisskoff RM, Chesler DA, et al. High resolution measurement of cerebral blood flow using intravascular tracer bolus passages. Part I: mathematical approach and statistical analysis. Magn Reson Med. 1996;36: 715-725.
28. Fidler IJ. Critical determinants of metastasis. Semin Cancer Biol. 2002; 12: 89-96.
29. Wang H, Van de Putte M, Chen F, et al. Murine liver implantation of radiation-induced fibrosarcoma: characterization with MR imaging, microangiography and histopathology. Eur Radiol. 2008; 18:422-430.
30. Chaplin DJ, Horsman MR, Siemann DW. Current development status of small-molecule vascular disrupting agents. Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2006;7:522-528.
31. Thoeny HC, De Keyzer F, Chen F, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging allows noninvasive in vivo monitoring of the effects of combretastatin a-4 phosphate after repeated administration. Neoplasia. 2005; 7:779-787.
32. Murata R, Overgaard J, Horsman MR. Combretastatin A-4 disodium phosphate: a vascular targeting agent that improves that improves the anti-tumor effects of hyperthermia, radiation, and mild thermoradiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;51:1018-1024.
33. Landuyt W, Ahmed B, Nuyts S, et al. In vivo antitumor effect of vascular targeting combined with either ionizing radiation or anti-angiogenesis treatment. Int JRadiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;49:443-450.
34. Siemann DW, Mercer E, Lepler S, et al. Vascular targeting agents enhance chemotherapeutic agent activities in solid tumor therapy. Int J Cancer. 2002;99:l-6.
35. Padhani AR. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical oncology: current status and future directions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16:407-422.
36. Cyran CC, Sennino B, Chaopathomkul B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging assays for dimethyl sulfoxide effect on cancer vasculature. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:298-305.
37. Heiland S, Kreibich W, Reith W, et al. Comparison of echo-planar sequences for perfusion-weighted MRI: which is best? Neuroradiology. 1998;40:216-221.
38. Bammer R. Basic principles of diffusion-weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2003;45:169-184.
39. Lyng H, Haraldseth O, Rofstad EK. Measurement of cell density and necrotic fraction in human melanoma xenografts by diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2000;43:828-836.
40. Beauregard DA, Pedley RB, Hill SA, et al. Differential sensitivity of two adenocarcinoma xenografts to the anti-vascular drugs combretastatin A4 phosphate and 5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid, assessed using MRI and MRS. NMR Biomed. 2002;15:99-105.