Nanobubbles for enhanced ultrasound imaging of tumors

International Journal of Nanomedicine

Volumn 7, Issue , 2012, Pages 895-904

  Yin, Tinghui ^a   Wang, Ping ^a   Zheng, Rongqin ^a   Zheng, Bowen ^a   Cheng, Du ^a   Zhang, Xinling ^a   Shuai, Xintao ^a  

^a SUN YAT SEN UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Contrast agent; Phospholipids; Tumor targeted; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

FLUORESCENT DYE; NANOBUBBLE; RED FLUORESCENT DYE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; CONTRAST MEDIUM; NANOMATERIAL; PHOSPHOLIPID;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BIOCOMPATIBILITY; CONFOCAL LASER MICROSCOPY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ECHOGRAPHY; IMAGE QUALITY; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; MICROBUBBLE; MOLECULAR IMAGING; MOUSE; NANOFABRICATION; NONHUMAN; PARTICLE SIZE; RAT; SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY; TUMOR DIAGNOSIS; TUMOR SCINTISCANNING; TUMOR VOLUME; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMAL; CELL SURVIVAL; CHEMISTRY; CONFOCAL MICROSCOPY; DRUG EFFECT; HEMOLYSIS; INSTRUMENTATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; NEOPLASM; SPRAGUE DAWLEY RAT; TISSUE DISTRIBUTION; TUMOR CELL LINE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; CELL LINE, TUMOR; CELL SURVIVAL; CONTRAST MEDIA; FLUORESCENT DYES; HEMOLYSIS; MICE; MICROBUBBLES; MICROSCOPY, CONFOCAL; NANOSTRUCTURES; NANOTECHNOLOGY; NEOPLASMS; PARTICLE SIZE; PHOSPHOLIPIDS; RATS; RATS, SPRAGUE-DAWLEY; TISSUE DISTRIBUTION; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 84862321276     PISSN: 11769114     EISSN: 11782013     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S28830     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Iyer AK, Khaled G, Fang J, Maeda H. Exploiting the enhanced permeability and retention effect for tumor targeting. Drug Discov Today. 2006;11(17-18):812-818.
2. Skinner SA, Tutton PJ, O'Brien PE. Microvascular architecture of experimental colon tumors in the rat. Cancer Res. 1990;50(8): 2411-2417.
3. Matsumura Y, Maeda H. A new concept for macromolecular therapeutics in cancer chemotherapy: mechanism of tumoritropic accumulation of proteins and the antitumor agent smancs. Cancer Res. 1986;46(12 Pt 1): 6387-6392.
4. Dai J, Zou S, Pei Y, Cheng D, Ai H, Shuai X. Polyethylenimine-grafted copolymer of poly(L-lysine) and poly(ethylene glycol) for gene delivery. Biomaterials. 2011;32(6):1694-1705.
5. Yang X, Zhu B, Dong T, Pan P, Shuai X, Inoue Y. Interactions between an anticancer drug and polymeric micelles based on biodegradable polyesters. Macromol Biosci. 2008;8(12):1116-1125.
6. Cao N, Cheng D, Zou S, Ai H, Gao J, Shuai X. The synergistic effect of hierarchical assemblies of siRNA and chemotherapeutic drugs co-delivered into hepatic cancer cells. Biomaterials. 2011;32(8):2222-2232.
7. Wilson SR, Burns PN. Microbubble-enhanced US in body imaging: what role? Radiology. 2010;257(1):24-39.
8. Deshpande N, Needles A, Willmann JK. Molecular ultrasound imaging: current status and future directions. Clin Radiol. 2010;65(7): 567-581.
9. Danila M, Popescu A, Sirli R, Sporea I, Martie A, Sendroiu M. Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the evaluation of liver metastases. Med Ultrason. 2010;12(3):233-237.
10. Cavalieri F, Zhou M, Ashokkumar M. The design of multifunctional microbubbles for ultrasound image-guided cancer therapy. Curr Top Med Chem. 2010;10(12):1198-1210.
11. Gessner R, Dayton PA. Advances in molecular imaging with ultrasound. Mol Imaging. 2010;9(3):117-127.
12. Sanna V, Pintus G, Bandiera P, et al. Development of polymeric microbubbles targeted to prostate-specific membrane antigen as prototype of novel ultrasound contrast agents. Mol Pharm. 2011;8(3): 748-757.
13. Wu J, Leong-Poi H, Bin J, et al. Efficacy of contrast-enhanced US and magnetic microbubbles targeted to vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 for molecular imaging of atherosclerosis. Radiology. 2011;260(2): 463-471.
14. Messina SA, Aras O, Dilsizian V. Delayed recovery of fatty acid metabolism after transient myocardial ischemia: a potential imaging target for "ischemic memory". Curr Cardiol Rep. 2007;9(2):159-165.
15. Weller GE, Lu E, Csikari MM, et al. Ultrasound imaging of acute cardiac transplant rejection with microbubbles targeted to intercellular adhesion molecule-1. Circulation. 2003;108(2):218-224.
16. Oeffinger BE, Wheatley MA. Development and characterization of a nano-scale contrast agent. Ultrasonics. 2004;42(1-9):343-347.
17. Kim C, Qin R, Xu JS, Wang LV, Xu R. Multifunctional microbubbles and nanobubbles for photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging. J Biomed Opt. 2010;15(1):10510.
18. Rapoport N, Gao Z, Kennedy A. Multifunctional nanoparticles for combining ultrasonic tumor imaging and targeted chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(14):1095-1106.
19. Marxer EE, Brussler J, Becker A, et al. Development and characterization of new nanoscaled ultrasound active lipid dispersions as contrast agents. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2011;77(3):430-437.
20. Xing Z, Wang J, Ke H, et al. The fabrication of novel nanobubble ultrasound contrast agent for potential tumor imaging. Nanotechnology. 2010;21(14):145607.
21. Watanabe Y, Horie S, Funaki Y, et al. Delivery of Na/I symporter gene into skeletal muscle using nanobubbles and ultrasound: visualization of gene expression by PET. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(6):951-958.
22. Krupka TM, Solorio L, Wilson RE, Wu H, Azar N, Exner AA. Formulation and characterization of echogenic lipid-Pluronic nanobubbles. Mol Pharm. 2010;7(1):49-59.
23. Ferrara K, Pollard R, Borden M. Ultrasound microbubble contrast agents: fundamentals and application to gene and drug delivery. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2007;9:415-447.
24. Flegg MB, Poole CM, Whittaker AK, Keen I, Langton CM. Rayleigh theory of ultrasound scattering applied to liquid-filled contrast nanoparticles. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55(11):3061-3076.
25. Anderson CR, Hu X, Zhang H, et al. Ultrasound molecular imaging of tumor angiogenesis with an integrin targeted microbubble contrast agent. Invest Radiol. 2011;46(4):215-224.
26. Sirsi S, Feshitan J, Kwan J, Homma S, Borden M. Effect of microbubble size on fundamental mode high frequency ultrasound imaging in mice. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010;36(6):935-948.
27. Brigger I, Dubernet C, Couvreur P. Nanoparticles in cancer therapy and diagnosis. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2002;54(5):631-651