Liposomal contrast agents in brain tumor imaging

Neuroimaging Clinics of North America

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 367-378

  Ghaghada, Ketan B ^a   Colen, Rivka R ^b   Hawley, Catherine R ^c   Patel, Neil ^d   Mukundan, Srinivasan ^b,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS   (United States)

^e HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Brain tumor; Contrast agent; Imaging; Liposome; Nanomedicine; Nanoparticle

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; GADOLINIUM; IRON OXIDE NANOPARTICLE; LIPID NANOPARTICLE; LIPOSOME; METAL NANOPARTICLE; NANOCARRIER; NANOPARTICLE; QUANTUM DOT; ULTRASMALL SUPERPARAMAGNETIC IRON OXIDE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

BRAIN TUMOR; CHEMICAL MODIFICATION; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DRUG CLEARANCE; GLIOBLASTOMA; HALF LIFE TIME; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MICELLE; MOLECULAR IMAGING; NANOENCAPSULATION; NANOFABRICATION; NANOMEDICINE; NEUROIMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PARTICLE SIZE; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

BRAIN NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; LIPOSOMES; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

EID: 77955585450     PISSN: 10525149     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.nic.2010.05.001     Document Type: Review

References (135)

1. Bhaskar S., Tian F., Stoeger T., et al. Multifunctional nanocarriers for diagnostics, drug delivery and targeted treatment across blood-brain barrier: perspectives on tracking and neuroimaging. Part Fibre Toxicol 2010, 7:3.
2. Leary S.P., Liu C.Y., Yu C., et al. Toward the emergence of nanoneurosurgery: part I-progress in nanoscience, nanotechnology, and the comprehension of events in the mesoscale realm. Neurosurgery 2005, 57(4):606-634.
3. Ferrari M. Cancer nanotechnology: opportunities and challenges. Nat Rev Cancer 2005, 5(3):161-171.
4. McCarthy J.R., Weissleder R. Multifunctional magnetic nanoparticles for targeted imaging and therapy. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2008, 60(11):1241-1251.
5. Leary S.P., Liu C.Y., Apuzzo M.L. Toward the emergence of nanoneurosurgery: part II-nanomedicine: diagnostics and imaging at the nanoscale level. Neurosurgery 2006, 58(5):805-823.
6. Kateb B., Chiu K., Yamamoto V., et al. Nanoplatforms for constructing new approaches to cancer treatment, imaging, and drug delivery: what should be the policy?. Neuroimage 2010, [Epub ahead of print]. DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.01.105.
7. Fabel K., Dietrich J., Hau P., et al. Long-term stabilization in patients with malignant glioma after treatment with liposomal doxorubicin. Cancer 2001, 92(7):1936-1942.
8. Marina N.M., Cochrane D., Harney E., et al. Dose escalation and pharmacokinetics of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) in children with solid tumors: a pediatric oncology group study. Clin Cancer Res 2002, 8(2):413-418.
9. Lippens R.J. Liposomal daunorubicin (DaunoXome) in children with recurrent or progressive brain tumors. Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1999, 16(2):131-139.
10. Lassaletta A., Lopez-Ibor B., Mateos E., et al. Intrathecal liposomal cytarabine in children under 4 years with malignant brain tumors. J Neurooncol 2009, 95(1):65-69.
11. Yoshida J., Mizuno M. Clinical gene therapy for brain tumors. Liposomal delivery of anticancer molecule to glioma. J Neurooncol 2003, 65(3):261-267.
12. Nakamura H. Liposomal boron delivery for neutron capture therapy. Methods Enzymol 2009, 465:179-208.
13. Mamot C., Drummond D.C., Noble C.O., et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted immunoliposomes significantly enhance the efficacy of multiple anticancer drugs in vivo. Cancer Res 2005, 65(24):11631-11638.
14. Madhankumar A.B., Slagle-Webb B., Wang X., et al. Efficacy of interleukin-13 receptor-targeted liposomal doxorubicin in the intracranial brain tumor model. Mol Cancer Ther 2009, 8(3):648-654.
15. Doi A., Kawabata S., Iida K., et al. Tumor-specific targeting of sodium borocaptate (BSH) to malignant glioma by transferrin-PEG liposomes: a modality for boron neutron capture therapy. J Neurooncol 2008, 87(3):287-294.
16. Krauze M.T., Noble C.O., Kawaguchi T., et al. Convection-enhanced delivery of nanoliposomal CPT-11 (irinotecan) and PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) in rodent intracranial brain tumor xenografts. Neuro Oncol 2007, 9(4):393-403.
17. Unger E.C., Shen D.K., Fritz T.A. Status of liposomes as MR contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 1993, 3(1):195-198.
18. Mulder W.J., Strijkers G.J., van Tilborg G.A., et al. Lipid-based nanoparticles for contrast-enhanced MRI and molecular imaging. NMR Biomed 2006, 19(1):142-164.
19. Howles G.P., Ghaghada K.B., Qi Y., et al. High-resolution magnetic resonance angiography in the mouse using a nanoparticle blood-pool contrast agent. Magn Reson Med 2009, 62(6):1447-1456.
20. Krauze M.T., Forsayeth J., Park J.W., et al. Real-time imaging and quantification of brain delivery of liposomes. Pharm Res 2006, 23(11):2493-2504.
21. Dabholkar R.D., Sawant R.M., Mongayt D.A., et al. Polyethylene glycol-phosphatidylethanolamine conjugate (PEG-PE)-based mixed micelles: some properties, loading with paclitaxel, and modulation of P-glycoprotein-mediated efflux. Int J Pharm 2006, 315(1-2):148-157.
22. Torchilin V.P. Lipid-core micelles for targeted drug delivery. Curr Drug Deliv 2005, 2(4):319-327.
23. Amirbekian V., Lipinski M.J., Briley-Saebo K.C., et al. Detecting and assessing macrophages in vivo to evaluate atherosclerosis noninvasively using molecular MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007, 104(3):961-966.
24. Kaneda M.M., Caruthers S., Lanza G.M., et al. Perfluorocarbon nanoemulsions for quantitative molecular imaging and targeted therapeutics. Ann Biomed Eng 2009, 37(10):1922-1933.
25. Lanza G.M., Winter P.M., Neubauer A.M., et al. 1H/19F magnetic resonance molecular imaging with perfluorocarbon nanoparticles. Curr Top Dev Biol 2005, 70:57-76.
26. Tran T.D., Caruthers S.D., Hughes M., et al. Clinical applications of perfluorocarbon nanoparticles for molecular imaging and targeted therapeutics. Int J Nanomedicine 2007, 2(4):515-526.
27. Wiener E.C., Magnin R.L., Gansow O.A., et al. Dendrimer-based metal chelates: a new class of magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. Magn Reson Med 1994, 31(1):1-8.
28. Tan M., Wu X., Jeong E.K., et al. Peptide-targeted nanoglobular Gd-DOTA monoamide conjugates for magnetic resonance cancer molecular imaging. Biomacromolecules 2010, 11(3):754-761.
29. Cheng Z., Thorek D.L., Tsourkas A. Gadolinium-conjugated dendrimer nanoclusters as a tumor-targeted T1 magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2010, 49(2):346-350.
30. Longmire M., Choyke P.L., Kobayashi H. Dendrimer-based contrast agents for molecular imaging. Curr Top Med Chem 2008, 8(14):1180-1186.
31. Medina S.H., El-Sayed M.E. Dendrimers as carriers for delivery of chemotherapeutic agents. Chem Rev 2009, 109(7):3141-3157.
32. Choi Y.S., Thomas T., Kotlyar A., et al. Synthesis and functional evaluation of DNA-assembled polyamidoamine dendrimer clusters for cancer cell-specific targeting. Chem Biol 2005, 12:35-43.
33. Singh P., Gupta U., Asthana A., et al. Folate and folate-PEG-PAMAM dendrimers: synthesis, characterization, and targeted anticancer drug delivery potential in tumor bearing mice. Bioconjug Chem 2008, 19(11):2239-2252.
34. Boswell C.A., Eck P.K., Regino C.A., et al. Synthesis, characterization, and biological evaluation of integrin alphavbeta3-targeted PAMAM dendrimers. Mol Pharm 2008, 5(4):527-539.
35. Tomalia D.A., Naylor A.M., Goddard W.A. Starburst dendrimers: molecular-level control of size, shape, surface chemistry, topology, and flexibility from atoms to macroscopic matter. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 1990, 29:138-175.
36. Yang W., Wu G., Barth R.F., et al. Molecular targeting and treatment of composite EGFR and EGFRvIII-positive gliomas using boronated monoclonal antibodies. Clin Cancer Res 2008, 14(3):883-891.
37. Sarin H., Kanevsky A.S., Wu H., et al. Effective transvascular delivery of nanoparticles across the blood-brain tumor barrier into malignant glioma cells. J Transl Med 2008, 6:80.
38. Regino C.A., Walbridge S., Bernardo M., et al. A dual CT-MR dendrimer contrast agent as a surrogate marker for convection-enhanced delivery of intracerebral macromolecular therapeutic agents. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2008, 3(1):2-8.
39. Han L., Zhang A., Wang H., et al. Tat-BMPs-PAMAM conjugates enhance therapeutic effect of small interference RNA on U251 glioma cells in vitro and in vivo. Hum Gene Ther 2010, 21(4):417-426.
40. Blanco E., Kessinger C.W., Sumer B.D., et al. Multifunctional micellar nanomedicine for cancer therapy. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 2009, 234(2):123-131.
41. Danson S., Ferry D., Alakhov V., et al. Phase I dose escalation and pharmacokinetic study of pluronic polymer-bound doxorubicin (SP1049C) in patients with advanced cancer. Br J Cancer 2004, 90:2085-2091.
42. Torchilin V.P. Polymeric contrast agents for medical imaging. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 2000, 1(2):183-215.
43. Torchilin V.P. PEG-based micelles as carriers of contrast agents for different imaging modalities. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2002, 54:235-252.
44. Guthi J.S., Yang S.G., Huang G., et al. MRI-visible micellar nanomedicine for targeted drug delivery to lung cancer cells. Mol Pharm 2010, 7(1):32-40.
45. Torchilin V.P., Frank-Kamenetsky M.D., Wolf G.L. CT visualization of blood pool in rats by using long-circulating, iodine-containing micelles. Acad Radiol 1999, 6(1):61-65.
46. Kuroda J., Kuratsu J., Yasunaga M., et al. Antitumor effect of NK012, a 7-ethyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin-incorporating polymeric micelle, on U87MG orthotopic glioblastoma in mice compared with irinotecan hydrochloride in combination with bevacizumab. Clin Cancer Res 2010, 16(2):521-529.
47. Inoue T., Yamashita Y., Nishihara M., et al. Therapeutic efficacy of a polymeric micellar doxorubicin infused by convection-enhanced delivery against intracranial 9L brain tumor models. Neuro Oncol 2009, 11(2):151-157.
48. Weissleder R., Elizondo G., Wittenberg J., et al. Ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide: characterization of a new class of contrast agents for MR imaging. Radiology 1990, 175:489-493.
49. Ros P.R., Freeny P.C., Harms S.E., et al. Hepatic MR imaging with ferumoxides: a multicenter clinical trial of the safety and efficacy in the detection of focal hepatic lesions. Radiology 1995, 196:481-488.
50. Laurent S., Forge D., Port M., et al. Magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: synthesis, stabilization, vectorization, physicochemical characterizations, and biological applications. Chem Rev 2008, 108:2064-2110.
51. Thorek D.L., Chen A.K., Czupryna J., et al. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle probes for molecular imaging. Ann Biomed Eng 2006, 34:23-38.
52. Laurent S., Boutry S., Mahieu I., et al. Iron oxide based MR contrast agents: from chemistry to cell labeling. Curr Med Chem 2009, 16(35):4712-4727.
53. Wang Y.X., Hussain S.M., Krestin G.P. Superparamagnetic iron oxide contrast agents: physicochemical characteristics and applications in MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2001, 11:2319-2331.
54. Li W., Tutton S., Vu A.T., et al. First-pass contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in humans using ferumoxytol, a novel ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide (USPIO)-based blood pool agent. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005, 21(1):46-52.
55. Tombach B., Reimer P., Bremer C., et al. First-pass and equilibrium-MRA of the aortoiliac region with a superparamagnetic iron oxide blood pool MR contrast agent (SH U 555 C): results of a human pilot study. NMR Biomed 2004, 17(7):500-506.
56. Lahaye M.J., Engelen S.M., Kessels A.G., et al. USPIO-enhanced MR imaging for nodal staging in patients with primary rectal cancer: predictive criteria. Radiology 2008, 246(3):804-811.
57. Harisinghani M.G., Barentsz J., Hahn P.F., et al. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003, 348(25):2491-2499.
58. Weinstein J.S., Varallyay C.G., Dosa E., et al. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging and potential therapeutic applications in neurooncology and central nervous system inflammatory pathologies, a review. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2010, 30(1):15-35.
59. Varallyay C.G., Muldoon L.L., Gahramanov S., et al. Dynamic MRI using iron oxide nanoparticles to assess early vascular effects of antiangiogenic versus corticosteroid treatment in a glioma model. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2009, 29:853-860.
60. Neuwelt E.A., Várallyay C.G., Manninger S., et al. The potential of ferumoxytol nanoparticle magnetic resonance imaging, perfusion, and angiography in central nervous system malignancy: a pilot study. Neurosurgery 2007, 60(4):601-611.
61. Christoforidis G.A., Yang M., Kontzialis M.S., et al. High resolution ultra high field magnetic resonance imaging of glioma microvascularity and hypoxia using ultra-small particles of iron oxide. Invest Radiol 2009, 44(7):375-383.
62. Gambarota G., Leenders W., Maass C., et al. Characterisation of tumour vasculature in mouse brain by USPIO contrast-enhanced MRI. Br J Cancer 2008, 98(11):1784-1789.
63. Wu X., Hu J., Zhou L., et al. In vivo tracking of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle-labeled mesenchymal stem cell tropism to malignant gliomas using magnetic resonance imaging. Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg 2008, 108(2):320-329.
64. Thu M.S., Najbauer J., Kendall S.E., et al. Iron labeling and pre-clinical MRI visualization of therapeutic human neural stem cells in a murine glioma model. PLoS One 2009, 4(9):e7218.
65. Valable S., Barbier E.L., Bernaudin M., et al. In vivo MRI tracking of exogenous monocytes/macrophages targeting brain tumors in a rat model of glioma. Neuroimage 2008, 40(2):973-983.
66. Fleige G., Nolte C., Synowitz M., et al. Magnetic labeling of activated microglia in experimental gliomas. Neoplasia 2001, 3(6):489-499.
67. Hirsch L.R., Gobin A.M., Lowery A.R., et al. Metal nanoshells. Ann Biomed Eng 2006, 34(1):15-22.
68. Loo C., Hirsch L., Lee M.H., et al. Gold nanoshell bioconjugates for molecular imaging in living cells. Opt Lett 2005, 30:1012-1014.
69. West J.L., Halas N.J. Engineered nanomaterials for biophotonics applications: improving sensing, imaging, and therapeutics. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2003, 5:285-292.
70. Lin A.W., Lewinski N.A., West J.L., et al. Optically tunable nanoparticle contrast agents for early cancer detection: model-based analysis of gold nanoshells. J Biomed Opt 2005, 10(6):064035.
71. Talley C.E., Jackson J.B., Oubre C., et al. Surface-enhanced raman scattering from individual au nanoparticles and nanoparticle dimer substrates. Nano Lett 2005, 5(8):1569-1574.
72. Loo C., Lowery A., Halas N., et al. Immunotargeted nanoshells for integrated cancer imaging and therapy. Nano Lett 2005, 5(4):709-711.
73. Hirsch L.R., Stafford R.J., Bankson J.A., et al. Nanoshell-mediated near-infrared thermal therapy of tumors under magnetic resonance guidance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003, 100(23):13549-13554.
74. O'Neal D.P., Hirsch L.R., Halas N.J., et al. Photo-thermal tumor ablation in mice using near infrared-absorbing nanoparticles. Cancer Lett 2004, 209(2):171-176.
75. Schwartz J.A., Shetty A.M., Price R.E., et al. Feasibility study of particle-assisted laser ablation of brain tumors in orthotopic canine model. Cancer Res 2009, 69(4):1659-1667.
76. Available at:, Accessed March 20, 2010. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.
77. Reiss P., Protière M., Li L. Core/Shell semiconductor nanocrystals. Small 2009, 5(2):154-168.
78. Arya H., Kaul Z., Wadhwa R., et al. Quantum dots in bio-imaging: revolution by the small. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2005, 329(4):1173-1177.
79. Smith A.M., Duan H., Mohs A.M., et al. Bioconjugated quantum dots for in vivo molecular and cellular imaging. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2008, 60(11):1226-1240.
80. Jackson H., Muhammad O., Daneshvar H., et al. Quantum dots are phagocytized by macrophages and colocalize with experimental gliomas. Neurosurgery 2007, 60(3):524-529.
81. Popescu M.A., Toms S.A. In vivo optical imaging using quantum dots for the management of brain tumors. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2006, 6(6):879-890.
82. Khalessi A.A., Liu C.Y., Apuzzo M.L. Neurosurgery and quantum dots: part I-state of the art. Neurosurgery 2009, 64(6):1015-1027.
83. Lasic D.D., Papahadjopoulos D. Liposomes revisited. Science 1995, 267(5202):1275-1276.
84. Lasic D., Martin F. Stealth liposomes 1995, CRC, Boca Raton (FL).
85. Seltzer S.E., Blau M., Herman L.W., et al. Contrast material-carrying liposomes: biodistribution, clearance, and imaging characteristics. Radiology 1995, 194(3):775-781.
86. Mukundan S., Ghaghada K.B., Badea C.T., et al. A liposomal nanoscale contrast agent for preclinical CT in mice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 186(2):300-307.
87. Lasic D.D. Preparation of liposomes. Liposomes: from physics to applications 1993, 63-98. Elsevier, Amsterdam (The Netherlands). D. Lasic, F. Martin (Eds.).
88. Ayyagari A.L., Zhang X., Ghaghada K.B., et al. Long circulating liposomal-based contrast agents for 3D magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2006, 55(5):1023-1029.
89. Mulder W.J., Strijkers G.J., Habets J.W., et al. MR molecular imaging and fluorescence microscopy for identification of activated tumor endothelium using a bimodal lipidic nanoparticle. FASEB J 2005, 19(14):2008-2010.
90. Saito R., Bringas J.R., McKnight T.R., et al. Distribution of liposomes into brain and rat brain tumor models by convection-enhanced delivery monitored with magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer Res 2004, 64(7):2572-2579.
91. Karathanasis E., Chan L., Balusu S.R., et al. Multifunctional nanocarriers for mammographic quantification of tumor dosing and prognosis of breast cancer therapy. Biomaterials 2008, 29(36):4815-4822.
92. Yan X., Scherphof G.L., Kamps J.A. Liposome opsonization. J Liposome Res 2005, 15(1-2):109-139.
93. Senior J.H. Fate and behavior of liposomes in vivo: a review of controlling factors. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 1987, 3:123-193.
94. Klibanov A.L., Maruyama K., Torchilin V.P., et al. Amphipathic polyethyleneglycols effectively prolong the circulation time of liposomes. FEBS Lett 1990, 268:235-237.
95. Allen T.M., Hansen C., Martin F., et al. Liposomes containing synthetic lipid derivatives of poly(ethylene glycol) show prolonged circulation half-lives in vivo. Biochim Biophys Acta 1991, 1066:29-36.
96. Woodle M.C., Newman M.S., Cohen J.A. Sterically stabilized liposomes: physical and biological properties. J Drug Target 1994, 2(5):397-403.
97. Tilcock C., Unger E., Cullis P., et al. Liposomal Gd-DTPA: preparation and characterization of relaxivity. Radiology 1989, 171(1):77-80.
98. Ghaghada K.B., Hawley C., Kawaji K., et al. T1 relaxivity of core-encapsulated gadolinium liposomal contrast agents-effect of liposome size and internal gadolinium concentration. Acad Radiol 2008, 15(10):1259-1263.
99. Grahn A.Y., Bankiewicz K.S., Dugich-Djordjevic M., et al. Non-PEGylated liposomes for convection-enhanced delivery of topotecan and gadodiamide in malignant glioma: initial experience. J Neurooncol 2009, 95(2):185-197.
100. Adler-Moore J., Proffitt R.T. AmBisome: liposomal formulation, structure, mechanism of action and pre-clinical experience. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002, 49(Suppl 1):21-30.
101. Mulder W.J., van der Schaft D.W., Hautvast P.A., et al. Early in vivo assessment of angiostatic therapy efficacy by molecular MRI. FASEB J 2007, 21(2):378-383.
102. Muggia F.M., Hainsworth J.D., Jeffers S., et al. Phase II study of liposomal doxorubicin in refractory ovarian cancer: antitumor activity and toxicity modification by liposomal encapsulation. J Clin Oncol 1997, 15:987-993.
103. Orlowski R.Z., Nagler A., Sonneveld P., et al. Randomized phase III study of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus bortezomib compared with bortezomib alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: combination therapy improves time to progression. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:3892-3901.
104. Alberts D.S., Muggia F.M., Carmichael J., et al. Efficacy and safety of liposomal anthracyclines in phase I/II clinical trials. Semin Oncol 2004, 31(6 Suppl 13):53-90.
105. McDonald D.M., Choyke P.L. Imaging of angiogenesis: from microscope to clinic. Nat Med 2003, 9(6):713-725.
106. Maeda H., Wu J., Sawa T., et al. Tumor vascular permeability and the EPR effect in macromolecular therapeutics: a review. J Control Release 2000, 65(1-2):271-284.
107. Jain R.K. Delivery of molecular and cellular medicine to solid tumors. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2001, 46(1-3):149-168.
108. Ishida O., Maruyama K., Sasaki K., et al. Size-dependent extravasation and interstitial localization of polyethyleneglycol liposomes in solid tumor-bearing mice. Int J Pharm 1999, 190(1):49-56.
109. McNeeley K.M., Karathanasis E., Annapragada A.V., et al. Masking and triggered unmasking of targeting ligands on nanocarriers to improve drug delivery to brain tumors. Biomaterials 2009, 30(23-24):3986-3995.
110. Madhankumar A.B., Slagle-Webb B., Mintz A., et al. Interleukin-13 receptor-targeted nanovesicles are a potential therapy for glioblastoma multiforme. Mol Cancer Ther 2006, 5(12):3162-3169.
111. Saul J.M., Annapragada A.V., Bellamkonda R.V. A dual-ligand approach for enhancing targeting selectivity of therapeutic nanocarriers. J Control Release 2006, 114(3):277-287.
112. Ponce A.M., Vujaskovic Z., Yuan F., et al. Hyperthermia mediated liposomal drug delivery. Int J Hyperthermia 2006, 22(3):205-213.
113. Kale A.A., Torchilin V.P. Environment-responsive multifunctional liposomes. Methods Mol Biol 2010, 605:213-242.
114. Momekova D., Rangelov S., Lambov N. Long-circulating, pH-sensitive liposomes. Methods Mol Biol 2010, 605:527-544.
115. Ghaghada K.B., Ravoori M., Gnanasabapathy D., et al. New dual mode gadolinium nanoparticle contrast agent for magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS One 2009, 4(10):e7628.
116. Terreno E., Delli Castelli D., Violante E., et al. Osmotically shrunken LIPOCEST agents: an innovative class of magnetic resonance imaging contrast media based on chemical exchange saturation transfer. Chemistry 2009, 15(6):1440-1448.
117. Fossheim S.L., Colet J.M., Månsson S., et al. Paramagnetic liposomes as magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. Assessment of contrast efficacy in various liver models. Invest Radiol 1998, 33(11):810-821.
118. Tilcock C., Ahkong Q.F., Koenig S.H., et al. The design of liposomal paramagnetic MR agents: effect of vesicle size upon the relaxivity of surface-incorporated lipophilic chelates. Magn Reson Med 1992, 27(1):44-51.
119. Mulder W.J., Strijkers G.J., Griffioen A.W., et al. A liposomal system for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of molecular targets. Bioconjug Chem 2004, 15(4):799-806.
120. Ghaghada K.B., Bockhorst K.H.J., Mukundan S., et al. High resolution vascular imaging of the rat spine using liposomal blood pool MR agent. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007, 28(1):48-53.
121. Buckholz E., Ghaghada K.B., Qi Y., et al. Four-dimensional MR microscopy of the mouse heart using radial acquisition and liposomal gadolinium contrast agent. Magn Reson Med 2008, 60(1):111-118.
122. Buckholz E., Ghaghada K.B., Qi Y., et al. Cardiovascular phenotyping of the mouse heart using a 4D radial acquisition and liposomal Gd-DTPA-BMA. Magn Reson Med 2010, 63(4):979-987.
123. Bulte J.W., De Cuyper M. Magnetoliposomes as contrast agents. Methods Enzymol 2003, 373:175-198.
124. Jain R.K. Transport of molecules, particles, and cells in solid tumors. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 1999, 1:241-263.
125. Bobo R.H., Laske D.W., Akbasak A., et al. Convection-enhanced delivery of macromolecules in the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994, 91(6):2076-2080.
126. Morrison P.F., Laske D.W., Bobo H., et al. High-flow microinfusion: tissue penetration and pharmacodynamics. Am J Physiol 1994, 266(1 Pt 2):R292-305.
127. Kaiser M.G., Parsa A.T., Fine R.L., et al. Tissue distribution and antitumor activity of topotecan delivered by intracerebral clysis in a rat glioma model. Neurosurgery 2000, 47(6):1391-1398.
128. Ferguson S., Lesniak M.S. Convection enhanced drug delivery of novel therapeutic agents to malignant brain tumors. Curr Drug Deliv 2007, 4(2):169-180.
129. Krauze M.T., Saito R., Noble C., et al. Reflux-free cannula for convection-enhanced high-speed delivery of therapeutic agents. J Neurosurg 2005, 103(5):923-929.
130. Mamot C., Nguyen J.B., Pourdehnad M., et al. Extensive distribution of liposomes in rodent brains and brain tumors following convection-enhanced delivery. J Neurooncol 2004, 68(1):1-9.
131. Kikuchi T., Saito R., Sugiyama S., et al. Convection-enhanced delivery of polyethylene glycol-coated liposomal doxorubicin: characterization and efficacy in rat intracranial glioma models. J Neurosurg 2008, 109(5):867-873.
132. Saito R., Krauze M.T., Bringas J.R., et al. Gadolinium-loaded liposomes allow for real-time magnetic resonance imaging of convection-enhanced delivery in the primate brain. Exp Neurol 2005, 196(2):381-389.
133. Dickinson P.J., LeCouteur R.A., Higgins R.J., et al. Canine model of convection-enhanced delivery of liposomes containing CPT-11 monitored with real-time magnetic resonance imaging: laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg 2008, 108(5):989-998.
134. Mamot C., Drummond D.C., Greiser U., et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted immunoliposomes mediate specific and efficient drug delivery to EGFR- and EGFRvIII-overexpressing tumor cells. Cancer Res 2003, 63(12):3154-3161.
135. Persigehl T., Bieker R., Matuszewski L., et al. Antiangiogenic tumor treatment: early noninvasive monitoring with USPIO-enhanced MR imaging in mice. Radiology 2007, 244(2):449-456.