Liver dysplasia: US molecular imaging with targeted contrast agent enables early assessment

Radiology

Volumn 267, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 487-495

  Grouls, Christoph ^a   Hatting, Maximillian ^a   Rix, Anne ^a   Pochon, Sibylle ^b   Lederle, Wiltrud ^a   Tardy, Isabelle ^b   Kuhl, Christiane K ^a   Trautwein, Christian ^a   Kiessling, Fabian ^a   Palmowski, Moritz ^a  

^a RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b Bracco Suisse SA   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BR 55; CD31 ANTIGEN; CONTRAST MEDIUM; CYTOKERATIN 19; SONOVUE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VASCULOTROPIN RECEPTOR 2;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; BINDING SITE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; ECHOGRAPHY; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; LIVER DISEASE; LIVER DYSPLASIA; MICROBUBBLE; MOLECULAR IMAGING; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BINDING; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; TRANSGENIC MOUSE;

ANIMALS; CONTRAST MEDIA; LIVER; MICE; MICE, TRANSGENIC; MOLECULAR IMAGING; PHOSPHOLIPIDS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; SULFUR HEXAFLUORIDE; VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR-2;

EID: 84876937322     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13120220     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Seitz K, Bernatik T, Strobel D, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the characterization of focal liver lesions in clinical practice (DEGUM Multicenter Trial): CEUS vs. MRI -a prospective comparison in 269 patients. Ultraschall Med 2010;31(5):492-499.
2. Seitz K, Strobel D, Bernatik T, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the characterization of focal liver lesions: prospective comparison in clinical practice -CEUS vs. CT (DEGUM multicenter trial). Parts of this manuscript were presented at the Ultrasound Dreiländertreffen 2008, Davos. Ultraschall Med 2009;30(4):383-389.
3. Strobel D, Seitz K, Blank W, et al. Tumorspecific vascularization pattern of liver metastasis, hepatocellular carcinoma, hemangioma and focal nodular hyperplasia in the differential diagnosis of 1,349 liver lesions in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Ultraschall Med 2009;30(4):376-382.
4. Saar B, Kellner-Weldon F. Radiological diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Int 2008;28(2):189-199.
5. Willatt JM, Hussain HK, Adusumilli S, Marrero JA. MR Imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in the cirrhotic liver: challenges and controversies. Radiology 2008;247(2):311-330.
6. Jang HJ, Kim TK, Burns PN, Wilson SR. Enhancement patterns of hepatocellular carcinoma at contrast-enhanced US: comparison with histologic differentiation. Radiology 2007;244(3):898-906.
7. Park YN, Kim MJ. Hepatocarcinogenesis: imaging-pathologic correlation. Abdom Imaging 2011;36(3):232-243.
8. Folkman J. Fundamental concepts of the angiogenic process. Curr Mol Med 2003;3(7):643-651.
9. Tian J, Tang ZY, Ye SL, et al. New human hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cell line with highly metastatic potential (MHCC97) and its expressions of the factors associated with metastasis. Br J Cancer 1999;81(5):814-821.
10. Yoshiji H, Kuriyama S, Yoshii J, et al. Involvement of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 in murine hepatocellular carcinoma development. J Hepatol 2004;41(1):97-103.
11. Kiessling F, Huppert J, Palmowski M. Functional and molecular ultrasound imaging: concepts and contrast agents. Curr Med Chem 2009;16(5):627-642.
12. Dayton PA, Rychak JJ. Molecular ultrasound imaging using microbubble contrast agents. Front Biosci 2007;12:5124-5142.
13. Pysz MA, Willmann JK. Targeted contrastenhanced ultrasound: an emerging technology in abdominal and pelvic imaging. Gastroenterology 2011;140(3):785-790.
14. Willmann JK, Lutz AM, Paulmurugan R, et al. Dual-targeted contrast agent for US assessment of tumor angiogenesis in vivo. Radiology 2008;248(3):936-944.
15. Palmowski M, Huppert J, Ladewig G, et al. Molecular profiling of angiogenesis with targeted ultrasound imaging: early assessment of antiangiogenic therapy effects. Mol Cancer Ther 2008;7(1):101-109.
16. 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.
17. 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(2):89-95.
18. Bzyl J, Lederle W, Rix A, 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(9):1988-1995.
19. Bettermann K, Vucur M, Haybaeck J, et al. TAK1 suppresses a NEMO-dependent but NF-kappaB-independent pathway to liver cancer. Cancer Cell 2010;17(5):481-496.
20. Beraza N, Malato Y, Sander LE, et al. Hepatocyte-specific NEMO deletion promotes NK/NKT cell-and TRAIL-dependent liver damage. J Exp Med 2009;206(8):1727-1737.
21. Schneider M, Arditi M, Barrau MB, et al. BR1: a new ultrasonographic contrast agent based on sulfur hexafluoride-filled microbubbles. Invest Radiol 1995;30(8):451-457.
22. Grouls C, Hatting M, Tardy I, et al. Development and validation of an intrinsic landmark-based gating protocol applicable for functional and molecular ultrasound imaging. Eur Radiol 2012;22(8):1789-1796.
23. Kim H, Choi GH, Na DC, et al. Human hepatocellular carcinomas with "Stemness"-related marker expression: keratin 19 expression and a poor prognosis. Hepatology 2011;54(5):1707-1717.
24. Terada T, Hoso M, Nakanuma Y. Distribution of cytokeratin 19-positive biliary cells in cirrhotic nodules, hepatic borderline nodules (atypical adenomatous hyperplasia), and small hepatocellular carcinomas. Mod Pathol 1995;8(4):371-379.
25. Anaye A, Perrenoud G, Rognin N, et al. Differentiation of focal liver lesions: usefulness of parametric imaging with contrast-enhanced US. Radiology 2011;261(1):300-310.
26. Shi JH, Huitfeldt HS, Suo ZH, Line PD. Growth of hepatocellular carcinoma in the regenerating liver. Liver Transpl 2011; 17(7):866-874.
27. El-Assal ON, Yamanoi A, Soda Y, et al. Clinical significance of microvessel density and vascular endothelial growth factor expression in hepatocellular carcinoma and surrounding liver: possible involvement of vascular endothelial growth factor in the angiogenesis of cirrhotic liver. Hepatology 1998;27(6):1554-1562.
28. Perry KA, Enestvedt CK, Hosack LW, et al. Increased vascular endothelial growth factor transcription in residual hepatocellular carcinoma after open versus laparoscopic hepatectomy in a small animal model. Surg Endosc 2010;24(5):1151-1157.
29. Luedde T, Beraza N, Kotsikoris V, et al. Deletion of NEMO/IKKgamma in liver parenchymal cells causes steatohepatitis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Cell 2007;11(2):119-132.
30. 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(2):519-527.
31. Tardy I, Pochon S, Theraulaz M, et al. Ultrasound molecular imaging of VEGFR2 in a rat prostate tumor model using BR55. Invest Radiol 2010;45(10):573-578.
32. Palmowski M, Morgenstern B, Hauff P, et al. Pharmacodynamics of streptavidin-coated cyanoacrylate microbubbles designed for molecular ultrasound imaging. Invest Radiol 2008;43(3):162-169.
33. Walday P, Tolleshaug H, Gjøen T, et al. Biodistributions of air-filled albumin microspheres in rats and pigs. Biochem J 1994;299(Pt 2):437-443.
34. Willmann JK, Cheng Z, Davis C, et al. Targeted microbubbles for imaging tumor angiogenesis: assessment of whole-body biodistribution with dynamic micro-PET in mice. Radiology 2008;249(1):212-219.
35. Bos LJ, Piek JJ, Spaan JA. Background subtraction from time-intensity curves in videodensitometry: a pitfall in flow assessment using contrast echocardiography. Ultrasound Med Biol 1995;21(9):1211-1218.