Earlier detection of breast cancer with ultrasound molecular imaging in a transgenic mouse model

Cancer Research

Volumn 73, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1689-1698

  Bachawal, Sunitha V ^a   Jensen, Kristin C ^b,c   Lutz, Amelie M ^a   Gambhir, Sanjiv S ^a   Tranquart, Francois ^d   Tian, Lu ^b   Willmann, Jürgen K ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS   (United States)

^d Bracco Suisse SA   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; VASCULOTROPIN RECEPTOR 2;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; BREAST; BREAST CANCER; BREAST HYPERPLASIA; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER INVASION; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; EX VIVO STUDY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; IN VIVO STUDY; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MICROBUBBLE; MOLECULAR IMAGING; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; PROTEIN TARGETING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; STANDARD; TRANSGENIC MOUSE;

ANIMALS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; MICE; MICE, TRANSGENIC; PROTEIN BINDING; VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR-2;

EID: 84875470746     PISSN: 00085472     EISSN: 15387445     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-3391     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62:10-29.
2. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:347-60.
3. Stomper PC, D'Souza DJ, DiNitto PA, Arredondo MA. Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1261-5.
4. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165-75.
5. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1081-7.
6. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356:227-36.
7. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Bohm- Velez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299:2151-63.
8. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Dunser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21:325-36.
9. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:177-82.
10. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. Cancer 1995;76:626-30.
11. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berliere M, Berg BV, D'Hoore W, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1675-9.
12. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221:641-9.
13. Weinstein SP, Localio AR, Conant EF, Rosen M, Thomas KM, Schnall MD. Multimodality screening of high-risk women: a prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:6124-8.
14. Pysz MA, Willmann JK. Targeted contrast-enhanced ultrasound: an emerging technology in abdominal and pelvic imaging. Gastroenterology 2011;140:785-90.
15. Kiessling F, Bzyl J, Fokong S, Siepmann M, Schmitz G, Palmowski M. Targeted ultrasound imaging of cancer: an emerging technology on its way to clinics. Curr Pharm Des 2012;18:2184-99.
16. Deshpande N, Needles A, Willmann JK. Molecular ultrasound imaging: current status and future directions. Clin Radiol 2010;65:567-81.
17. Klibanov AL. Ligand-carrying gas-filled microbubbles: ultrasound contrast agents for targeted molecular imaging. Bioconjug Chem 2005;16:9-17.
18. Hicklin DJ, Ellis LM. Role of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway in tumor growth and angiogenesis. J Clin Oncol 2005;23: 1011-27.
19. Kranz A, Mattfeldt T, Waltenberger J. Molecular mediators of tumor angiogenesis: enhanced expression and activation of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor KDR in primary breast cancer. Int J Cancer 1999;84:293-8.
20. Nakopoulou L, Stefanaki K, Panayotopoulou E, Giannopoulou I, Athanassiadou P, Gakiopoulou-Givalou H, et al. Expression of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2/Flk-1 in breast carcinomas: correlation with proliferation. Hum Pathol 2002;33:863-70.
21. Price DJ, Miralem T, Jiang S, Steinberg R, Avraham H. Role of vascular endothelial growth factor in the stimulation of cellular invasion and signaling of breast cancer cells. Cell Growth Differ 2001;12: 129-35.
22. Carpenter PM, Chen WP, Mendez A, McLaren CE, Su MY. Angiogenesis in the progression of breast ductal proliferations. Int J Surg Pathol 2011;19:335-41.
23. Hutchinson JN, Muller WJ. Transgenic mouse models of human breast cancer. Oncogene 2000;19:6130-7.
24. Guy CT, Cardiff RD, Muller WJ. Induction of mammary tumors by expression of polyomavirus middle T oncogene: a transgenic mouse model for metastatic disease. Mol Cell Biol 1992;12: 954-61.
25. Lin EY, Jones JG, Li P, Zhu L, Whitney KD, Muller WJ, et al. Progression to malignancy in the polyoma middle T oncoprotein mouse breast cancer model provides a reliable model for human diseases. Am J Pathol 2003;163:2113-26.
26. Pysz MA, Foygel K, Rosenberg J, Gambhir SS, Schneider M, Willmann JK. Antiangiogenic cancer therapy: monitoring with molecular US and a clinically translatable contrast agent (BR55). Radiology 2010; 256:519-27.
27. Tardy I, Pochon S, Theraulaz M, Emmel P, Passantino L, Tranquart F, et al. Ultrasound molecular imaging of VEGFR2 in a rat prostate tumor model using BR55. Invest Radiol 2010;45:573-8.
28. Pillai R, Marinelli ER, Fan H, Nanjappan P, Song B, von Wronski MA, et al. A phospholipid-PEG2000 conjugate of a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2)-targeting heterodimer peptide for contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of angiogenesis. Bioconjug Chem. 2010 Feb 19. [Epub ahead of print].
29. Shrivastava A, von Wronski MA, Sato AK, Dransfield DT, Sexton D, Bogdan N, et al. A distinct strategy to generate high-affinity peptide binders to receptor tyrosine kinases. Protein Eng Des Sel 2005;18: 417-24.
30. Bzyl J, Lederle W, Rix A, Grouls C, Tardy I, Pochon S, et al. Molecular and functional ultrasound imaging in differently aggressive breast cancer xenografts using two novel ultrasound contrast agents (BR55 and BR38). Eur Radiol 2011;21:1988-95.
31. Deshpande N, Lutz AM, Ren Y, Foygel K, Tian L, Schneider M, et al. Quantification and monitoring of inflammation in murine inflammatory bowel disease with targeted contrast-enhanced US. Radiology 2012;262:172-80.
32. Willmann JK, Cheng Z, Davis C, Lutz AM, Schipper ML, Nielsen CH, et al. Targeted microbubbles for imaging tumor angiogenesis: assessment of whole-body biodistribution with dynamic micro-PET in mice. Radiology 2008;249:212-9.
33. Willmann JK, Paulmurugan R, Chen K, Gheysens O, Rodriguez-Porcel M, Lutz AM, et al. US imaging of tumor angiogenesis with microbubbles targeted to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor type 2 in mice. Radiology 2008;246:508-18.
34. Lindner JR, Song J, Xu F, Klibanov AL, Singbartl K, Ley K, et al. Noninvasive ultrasound imaging of inflammation using microbubbles targeted to activated leukocytes. Circulation 2000;102:2745-50.
35. Youk JH, Kim EK. Supplementary screening sonography in mammographically dense breast: pros and cons. Korean J Radiol 2010;11: 589-93.
36. Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, Warm M, Degenhardt F, Madjar H, et al. Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer 2009; 9:335.
37. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED, Barr RG, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 2012;307:1394-404.
38. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:75-89.
39. Garami Z, Hascsi Z, Varga J, Dinya T, Tanyi M, Garai I, et al. The value of 18-FDG PET/CT in early-stage breast cancer compared to traditional diagnostic modalities with an emphasis on changes in disease stage designation and treatment plan. Eur J Surg Oncol 2012;38:31-7.
40. Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC,Kempe A, Wardelmann E, Hocke A, et al. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology 2000;215:267-79.
41. Bluff JE, Menakuru SR, Cross SS, Higham SE, Balasubramanian SP, Brown NJ, et al. Angiogenesis is associated with the onset of hyperplasia in human ductal breast disease. Br J Cancer 2009;101:666-72.
42. Lee DJ, Lyshchik A, Huamani J, Hallahan DE, Fleischer AC. 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;27:855-66.