Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2-specific microbubbles for molecular ultrasound detection of prostate cancer in a rat model

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 45, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 675-684

  Fischer, Thomas ^a   Thomas, Anke ^a   Tardy, Isabell ^b   Schneider, Michel ^b   Hünigen, Hana ^c   Custodis, Pia ^c   Beyersdorff, Dirk ^a   Plendl, Johanna ^c   Schnorr, Jörg ^a   Diekmann, Felix ^a   Gemeinhardt, Ole ^a,c  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^b Bracco Suisse SA   (Switzerland)

^c FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS); MRI; prostate cancer; rat

Indexed keywords

BG 5075; ECHO CONTRAST MEDIUM; SONOVUE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VASCULOTROPIN RECEPTOR 2;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CANCER SIZE; CONTRAST ENHANCED ULTRASOUND; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; HISTOLOGY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; MALE; MICROBUBBLE; MOLECULAR IMAGING; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE; PROSTATE CANCER; RAT; ULTRASOUND; ULTRASOUND TRANSDUCER; VASCULARIZATION;

EID: 77957280896     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181efd6b2     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Colombo T, Schips L, Augustin H, et al. Value of transrectal ultrasound in preoperative staging of prostate cancer. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 1999;51:1-4.
2. Greenlee RT, Hill-Harmon MB, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2001. CA Cancer J Clin. 2001;51:15-36.
3. Keetch DW, Catalona WJ, Smith DS. Serial prostatic biopsies in men with persistently elevated serum prostate specific antigen values. J Urol. 1994; 151:1571-1574.
4. Ellis WJ, Brawer MK. Repeat prostate needle biopsy: who needs it? J Urol. 1995;153:1496-1498.
5. Nagata M, Sato T, Un-no T, et al. Repeat prostate biopsy in patients with previous negative biopsies [in Japanese]. Hinyokika Kiyo. 2002;48:589-592.
6. Dang CV, Semenza GL. Oncogenic alterations of metabolism. Trends Bio-chem Sci. 1999;24:68-72.
7. Bartsch G, Horninger W, Klocker H, et al. Prostate cancer mortality after introduction of prostate-specific antigen mass screening in the federal state of Tyrol, Austria. Urology. 2001;58:417-424.
8. Tanaka N, Samma S, Joko M, et al. Diagnostic usefulness of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging with dynamic contrast-enhancement in patients with localized prostate cancer: mapping studies with biopsy specimens. Int J Urol. 1999;6:593-599.
9. Frauscher F, Pallwein L, Klauser A, et al. Ultrasound contrast agents and prostate cancer [in Germen]. Radiologe. 2005;45:544-551.
10. Forsberg F, Merton DA, Liu JB, et al. Clinical applications of ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasonics. 1998;36:695-701.
11. Pallwein L, Mitterberger M, Gradl J, et al. Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and elastography in imaging of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2007;17:39-47. (Pubitemid 44901089)
12. Aigner F, Pallwein L, Pelzer A, et al. Value of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis. World J Urol. 2007;25:351-359.
13. Beyersdorff D, Taupitz M, Winkelmann B, et al. Patients with a history of elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and negative transrectal US-guided quadrant or sextant biopsy results: value of MR imaging. Radiology. 2002; 224:701-706.
14. Kiessling F, Huber PE, Grobholz R, et al. Dynamic magnetic resonance tomography and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy of prostate cancers in rats treated by radiotherapy. Invest Radiol. 2004;39:34-44.
15. Korpanty G, Carbon JG, Grayburn PA, et al. Monitoring response to anticancer therapy by targeting microbubbles to tumor vasculature. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:323-330.
16. Lee DJ, Lyshchik A, Huamani J, et al. Relationship between retention of a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2)-targeted ultrasonographic contrast agent and the level of VEGFR2 expression in an in vivo breast cancer model. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:855-866.
17. Palmowski M, Morgenstern B, Hauff P, et al. Pharmacodynamics of strepta-vidin-coated cyanoacrylate microbubbles designed for molecular ultrasound imaging. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:162-169.
18. Willmann JK, Paulmurugan R, Chen K, et al. US imaging of tumor angio-genesis with microbubbles targeted to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor type 2 in mice. Radiology. 2008;246:508-518.
19. Willmann JK, Lutz AM, Paulmurugan R, et al. Dual-targeted contrast agent for US assessment of tumor angiogenesis in vivo. Radiology. 2008;248:936-944.
20. Pochon S, Tardy I, Bussat P, et al. BR55: a lipopeptide-based VEGFR2-targeted ultrasound contrast agent for molecular imaging of angiogenesis. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:89-95.
21. Tardy I, Pochon S, Theraulaz M, et al. Ultrasound molecular imaging of VEGFR2 in a rat prostate tumor model using BR55. Invest Radiol. In press.
22. Hünigen H, Bisplinghoff P, Plendl J, et al. Vascular dynamics in relation to immunolocalisation of VEGF-A, VEGFR-2 and Ang-2 in the bovine corpus luteum. Acta Histochem. 2008;110:462-472.
23. Rifkin MD, Zerhouni EA, Gatsonis CA, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer. Results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial. N Engl J Med. 1990;323: 621-626.
24. Tempany CM, Rahmouni AD, Epstein JI, et al. Invasion of the neurovascular bundle by prostate cancer: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology. 1991; 181:107-112.
25. Nicolas V, Beese M, Keulers A, et al. MR tomography in prostatic carcinoma: comparison of conventional and endorectal MRT [in Germen]. Rofo. 1994; 161:319-326.
26. Perrotti M, Han KR, Epstein RE, et al. Prospective evaluation of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging to detect tumor foci in men with prior negative prostastic biopsy: a pilot study. J Urol. 1999;162:1314-1317.
27. Quint LE, Van Erp JS, Bland PH, et al. Prostate cancer: correlation of MR images with tissue optical density at pathologic examination. Radiology. 1991;179:837-842.
28. Lovett K, Rifkin MD, McCue PA, et al. MR imaging characteristics of noncancerous lesions of the prostate. JMagn Reson Imaging. 1992;2:35-39.
29. Schiebler ML, Schnall MD, Pollack HM, et al. Current role of MR imaging in the staging of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Radiology. 1993;189:339-352.
30. Isaacs JT, Isaacs WB, Feitz WF, et al. Establishment and characterization of seven dunning rat prostatic cancer cell lines and their use in developing methods for predicting metastatic abilities of prostatic cancers. Prostate. 1986;9:261-281.
31. Gemeinhardt O, Ludemann L, Prochnow D, et al. Differentiation of prostate cancer from normal prostate tissue in an animal model: conventional MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Rofo. 2005;177:935-939.
32. Barentsz JO, Engelbrecht M, Jager GJ, et al. Fast dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging of urinary bladder and prostate cancer. JMagn Reson Imaging. 1999;10:295-304.
33. Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, Laheij RJ, et al. Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2003;229:248-254.
34. Kozlowski P, Chang SD, Jones EC, et al. Combined diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis\correlation with biopsy and histopathology. JMagn Reson Imaging. 2006;24:108-113.
35. Noworolski SM, Henry RG, Vigneron DB, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in normal and abnormal prostate tissues as defined by biopsy, MRI, and 3D MRSI. Magn Reson Med. 2005;53:249-255.
36. Kiessling F, Lichy M, Grobholz R, et al. Simple models improve the discrimination of prostate cancers from the peripheral gland by T1-weighted dynamic MRI. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:1793-1801.
37. Padhani AR, Gapinski CJ, Macvicar DA, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation with morphology and tumour stage, histological grade and PSA. Clin Radiol. 2000;55:99-109.
38. Jager GJ, Ruijter ET, van de Kaa CA, et al. Dynamic TurboFLASH subtraction technique for contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the prostate: correlation with histopathologic results. Radiology. 1997;203:645-652.
39. Turnbull LW, Buckley DL, Turnbull LS, et al. Differentiation of prostatic carcinoma and benign prostatic hyperplasia: correlation between dynamic Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging and histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;9:311-316.
40. Fischer T, Filimonow S, Rudolph J, et al. Arrival time parametric imaging: a new ultrasound technique for quantifying perfusion of kidney grafts. Ultra-schall Med. 2008;29:418-423.
41. Taymoorian K, Thomas A, Slowinski T, et al. Transrectal broadband-Doppler sonography with intravenous contrast medium administration for prostate imaging and biopsy in men with an elevated PSA value and previous negative biopsies. Anticancer Res. 2007;27:4315-4320.
42. Fischer T, Gemeinhardt O, Filimonow S, et al. Tumor-specific microbubbles for the characterization of prostate cancer in the rat model. Paper presented at: 94th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, RSNA; November 30-December 5, 2008; Chicago, IL. SSE13-01.
43. Ferrara N. VEGF and the quest for tumor angiogenesis factors. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2:795-803.
44. Takahashi Y, Kitadai Y, Bucana CD, et al. Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptor, KDR, correlates with vascu-larity, metastasis, and proliferation of human colon cancer. Cancer Res. 1995;55:3964-3968.
45. Drees R, Hünigen H, Wagner S, et al. Peripheral washout phenomenon in an animal tumour model: comparison of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging using a small molecular contrast medium with histology. Vet Comp Oncol. 2008;6:151-161.
46. Xuan JW, Bygrave M, Valiyeva F, et al. Molecular targeted enhanced ultrasound imaging of flk1 reveals diagnosis and prognosis potential in a genetically engineered mouse prostate cancer model. Mol Imaging. 2009;8: 209-220.
47. Anderson CR, Rychak JJ, Backer M, et al. scVEGF microbubble ultrasound contrast agents: a novel probe for ultrasound molecular imaging of tumor angiogenesis. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:579-586.