Microbubble-mediated ultrasound therapy: A review of its potential in cancer treatment

Drug Design, Development and Therapy

Volumn 7, Issue , 2013, Pages 375-388

  Ibsen, Stuart ^a   Schutt, Carolyn E ^b   Esener, Sadik ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Sonoporation; Triggered drug delivery; Ultrasound contrast agents

Indexed keywords

DOXORUBICIN; ECHO CONTRAST MEDIUM; LIPOSOME; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; DRUG VEHICLE;

APOPTOSIS; ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CELL; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER THERAPY; CELL MEMBRANE; CELL MEMBRANE PERMEABILITY; CELL POPULATION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; DRUG EXPOSURE; DRUG HALF LIFE; DRUG RELEASE; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; ELECTRON MICROSCOPY; FLOW CYTOMETRY; FLUORESCENCE MICROSCOPY; HUMAN; HYDROGEN BOND; MICROBUBBLE; MICROENCAPSULATION; MOLECULAR IMAGING; REVIEW; SURFACE TENSION; TUMOR LOCALIZATION; TUMOR VOLUME; ULTRASOUND THERAPY; NEOPLASMS; PROCEDURES;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMANS; MICROBUBBLES; NEOPLASMS; PHARMACEUTICAL VEHICLES; ULTRASONIC THERAPY;

EID: 84877104707     PISSN: 11778881     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S31564     Document Type: Review

References (121)

1. Love RR, Leventhal H, Easterling DV, Nerenz DR. Side effects and emotional distress during cancer chemotherapy. Cancer. 1989;63(3): 604-612.
2. Monsueza J-J, Charniotb J-C, Vignatb N, Artigoub J-Y. Cardiac side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. Int J Cardiol. 2010;144(1):3-15.
3. Shapiro C, Recht A. Side effects of adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(26):1997-2008.
4. Nomura DK, Dix MM, Cravatt BF. Activity-based protein profiling for biochemical pathway discovery in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10(9):630-638.
5. Park J, Hong K, Kirpotin D, et al. Anti-HER2 immunoliposomes: enhanced efficacy attributable to targeted delivery. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:1172-1181.
6. Gottesman MM. Mechanisms of cancer drug resistance. Annu Rev Med. 2002;53:615-627.
7. Gabizon AA. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin: metamorphosis of an old drug into a new form of chemotherapy. Cancer Invest. 2001;19(4): 424-436.
8. Miele E, Spinelli GP, Miele E, Tomao F, Tomao S. Albumin-bound formulation of paclitaxel (Abraxane ABI-007) in the treatment of breast cancer. Int J Nanomedicine. 2009;4:99-105.
9. Barenholz Y. Doxil® - the first FDA-approved nano-drug: lessons learned. J Control Release. 2012;160(2):117-134.
10. Cowens J, Creaven P, Greco W, et al. Initial clinical (Phase I) trial of TLC D-99 (doxorubicin encapsulated in liposomes). Cancer Res. 1993;53:2796-2802.
11. Gabizon A, Catane R, Uziely B, et al. Prolonged circulation time and enhanced accumulation in malignant exudates of doxorubicin encapsulated in polyethylene-glycol coated liposomes. Cancer Res. 1994;154:987-992.
12. Singal PK, Iliskovic N. Doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(13):900-905.
13. Olson RD, Mushlin PS. Doxorubicin cardiotoxicity: analysis of prevailing hypotheses. FASEB J. 1990;4(13):3076-3086.
14. Minotti G, Menna P, Salvatorelli E, Cairo G, Gianni L. Anthracyclines: molecular advances and pharmacologic developments in antitumor activity and cardiotoxicity. Pharmacol Rev. 2004;56:185-229.
15. Charrois GJ, Allen TM. Multiple injections of pegylated liposomal Doxorubicin: pharmacokinetics and therapeutic activity. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2003;306(3):1058-1067.
16. Gabizon A, Shmeeda H, Barenholz Y. Pharmacokinetics of pegylated liposomal Doxorubicin: review of animal and human studies. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2003;42(5):419-436.
17. Cheong I, Huang X, Bettegowda C, et al. A bacterial protein enhances the release and efficacy of liposomal cancer drugs. Science. 2006;314(5803):1308-1311.
18. Tietze LF, Neumann M, Möllers T, et al. Proton-mediated liberation of aldophosphamide from a nontoxic prodrug: a strategy for tumor-selective activation of cytocidal drugs. Cancer Res. 1989;49:4179-4184.
19. Brown JM, Wilson WR. Exploiting tumor hypoxia in cancer treatment. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:437-447.
20. Breistøl K, Hendriks HR, Berger DP, Langdon SP, Fiebig HH, Fodstad O. The antitumour activity of the prodrug N-L-leucyl-doxorubicin and its parent compound doxorubicin in human tumour xenografts. Eur J Cancer. 1998;34(10):1602-1606.
21. Gopin A, Ebner S, Attali B, Shabat D. Enzymatic Activation of second-generation dendritic prodrugs: conjugation of self-immolative dendrimers with PEG via click chemistry. Bioconjug Chem. 2006;17: 1432-1440.
22. Shamis M, Lode HN, Shabat D. Bioactivation of self-immolative dendritic prodrugs by catalytic antibody 38C2. J Am Chem Soc. 2004;126:1726-1731.
23. Rooseboom M, Commandeur JN, Vermeulen NP. Enzyme-catalyzed activation of anticancer prodrugs. Pharmacol Rev. 2004;56(1): 53-102.
24. Allen TM. Ligand-targeted therapeutics in anticancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2:750-763.
25. Karmali PP, Kotamraju VR, Kastantin M, et al. Targeting of albumin-embedded paclitaxel nanoparticles to tumors. Nanomedicine. 2009;5(1):73-82.
26. Murphy EA, Majeti BK, Barnes LA, et al. Nanoparticle-mediated drug delivery to tumor vasculature suppresses metastasis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(27):9343-9348.
27. Sahoo SK, Labhasetwar V. Nanotech approaches to drug delivery and imaging. Drug Discov Today. 2003;8(24):1112-1120.
28. Moghimi SM, Hunter AC, Murray JC. Long-circulating and target-specific nanoparticles: Theory to practice. Pharmacol Rev. 2001;53(2):283-318.
29. Allen T. Ligand-targeted therapeutics in anticancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2:750-763.
30. Ulrich AS. Biophysical aspects of using liposomes as delivery vehicles. Biosci Rep. 2002;22(2):129-150.
31. Kolonin M, Pasqualini R, Arap W. Molecular addresses in blood vessels as targets for therapy. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2001;5(3):308-313.
32. Hood JD, Bednarski M, Frausto R, et al. Tumor regression by targeted gene delivery to the neovasculature. Science. 2002;296(5577):2404-2407.
33. Beer AJ, Grosu AL, Carlsen J, et al. [18F]galacto-RGD positron emission tomography for imaging of alphavbeta3 expression on the neovasculature in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(22):6610-6616.
34. Su ZF, Liu G, Gupta S, Zhu Z, Rusckowski M, Hnatowich DJ. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of a Technetium-99m-labeled cyclic RGD peptide as a specific marker of alpha(V)beta(3) integrin for tumor imaging. Bioconjug Chem. 2002;13(3):561-570.
35. Vaupel P, Kallinowski F, Okunieff P. Blood flow, oxygen and nutrient supply, and metabolic microenvironment of human tumors: a review. Cancer Res. 1989;49:6449-6465.
36. Fradet Y, Islam N, Boucher L, Parent-Vaugeois C, Tardif M. Polymorphic expression of a human superficial bladder tumor antigen defined by mouse monoclonal antibodies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1987;84:7227-7231.
37. Zanelli CI, DeMarta S, Hennige CW, Kadri MM. Beamforming for therapy with high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) using quantitative schlieren. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium; October 31-November 3, 1993; Baltimore, MD. 1993:1233-1238.
38. Ibsen S, Benchimol M, Simberg D, Schutt C, Steiner J, Esener S. A novel nested liposome drug delivery vehicle capable of ultrasound triggered release of its payload. J Control Release. 2011;155(3):358-366.
39. Hindley J, Gedroyc WM, Regan L, et al. MRI guidance of focused ultrasound therapy of uterine fibroids: early results. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(6):1713-1719.
40. Kennedy JE, Ter Haar GR, Cranston D. High intensity focused ultrasound: surgery of the future? Br J Radiol. 2003;76(909):590-599.
41. Dromi S, Frenkel V, Luk A, et al. Pulsed-high intensity focused ultrasound and low temperature-sensitive liposomes for enhanced targeted drug delivery and antitumor effect. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13: 2722-2727.
42. Wiart M, Curiel L, Gelet A, Lyonnet D, Chapelon J-Y, Rouvière O. Influence of perfusion on high-intensity focused ultrasound prostate ablation: a first-pass MRI study. Magn Reson Med. 2007;58(1):119-127.
43. Xu LX, Zhu L, Holmes KR. Thermo regulation in the canine prostate during transurethral microwave hyperthermia, Part I: Temperature response. Int J Hyperthermia. 1998;14(1):29-37.
44. Nikfarjam M, Muralidharan V, Christophi C. Mechanisms of focal heat destruction of liver tumors. J Surg Res. 2005;127(2):208-223.
45. Coussios CC, Farny CH, Ter Haar G, Roy RA. Role of acoustic cavitation in the delivery and monitoring of cancer treatment by high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Int J Hyperthermia. 2007;23(2):105-120.
46. Khokhlova VA, Bailey MR, Reed JA, Cunitz BW, Kaczkowski PJ, Crum LA. Effects of nonlinear propagation, cavitation, and boiling in lesion formation by high intensity focused ultrasound in a gel phantom. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119:1834-1848.
47. Tachibana K, Feril LB, Ikeda-Dantsuji Y. Sonodynamic therapy. Ultrasonics. 2008;48(4):253-259.
48. Rosenthal I, Sostaric JZ, Riesz P. Sonodynamic therapy "a review of the synergistic effects of drugs and ultrasound." Ultrason Sonochem. 2004;11(6):349-363.
49. Stride E, Saffari N. Microbubble ultrasound contrast agents: a review. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2003;217:429-447.
50. de Jong N, Bouakaz A, Frinking P. Basic acoustic properties of microbubbles. Echocardiography. 2002;19(3):229-240.
51. Von Bibra H, Voigt JU, Froman M, Bone D, Wranne B, Juhlin-Dannfeldt A. Interaction of microbubbles with ultrasound. Echocardiography. 1999;16(7 Pt 2):733-741.
52. Schutt EG, Pelura TJ, Hopkins RM. Osmotically stabilized microbubble ultrasound contrast agents. Acad Radiol. 1996;3 Suppl 2:S188-S190.
53. Schutt E, Klein D, Mattrey R, Riess J. Injectable microbubbles as contrast agents for diagnostic ultrasound imaging: the key role of perfluorochemicals. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2003;42:3218-3235.
54. 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.
55. Borden MA, Pu G, Runner GJ, Longo ML. Surface phase behavior and microstructure of lipid/PEG-emulsifier monolayer-coated microbubbles. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2004;35(3):209-223.
56. Kim DH, Costello MJ, Duncan PB, Needham D. Mechanical properties and microstructure of polycrystalline phospholipid monolayer shells: novel solid microparticles. Langmuir. 2003;19(20):8455-8466.
57. Benchimol MJ, Hsu MJ, Schutt CE, Hall DJ, Mattreyc RF, Esener SC. Phospholipid/carbocyanine dye-shelled microbubbles as ultrasound-modulated fluorescent contrast agents. Soft Matter. Epub January 4, 2013.
58. Bloch SH, Wan M, Dayton PA, Ferrara KW. Optical observation of lipid-and polymer-shelled ultrasound microbubble contrast agents. Appl Phys Lett. 2004;84(4):631-633.
59. Chin CT, Lancée C, Borsboom J, et al. Brandaris 128: a digital 25 million frames per second camera with 128 highly sensitive frames. Rev Sci Instrum. 2003;74(12):5026-5034.
60. Chomas JE, Dayton P, May D, Ferrara K. Threshold of fragmentation for ultrasonic contrast agents. J Biomed Opt. 2001;6(2):141-150.
61. Postema M, van Wamel A, Folkert J, de Jong N. High-speed photography during ultrasound illustrates potential therapeutic applications of microbubbles. Med Phys. 2005;32:3707-3711.
62. Garbin V, Cojoc D, Ferrari E, et al. Changes in microbubble dynamics near a boundary revealed by combined optical micromanipulation and high-speed imaging. Appl Phys Lett. 2007;90:114103.
63. Dayton PA, Allen JS, Ferrara KW. The magnitude of radiation force on ultrasound contrast agents. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;112(5): 2183-2192.
64. Bouakaz A, Versluis M, de Jong N. High-speed optical observations of contrast agent destruction. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2005;31(3): 391-399.
65. Dayton PA, Chomas JE, Lum AFH, et al. Optical and acoustical dynamics of microbubble contrast agents inside neutrophils. Biophys J. 2001;80:1547-1556.
66. Chomas JE, Dayton P, May D, Ferrara K. Threshold of fragmentation for ultrasonic contrast agents. J Biomed Opt. 2001;6(2):141-150.
67. Crum LA. Surface oscillations and jet development in pulsating bubbles. J Phys (Paris). 1979;40(11):285-288.
68. 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.
69. Liu J, Lewis TN, Prausnitz MR. Non-invasive assessment and control of ultrasound-mediated membrane permeabilization. Pharm Res. 1998;15(6):918-924.
70. Collis J, Manasseh R, Liovic P, et al. Cavitation microstreaming and stress fields created by microbubbles. Ultrasonics. 2010;50(2):273-279.
71. Kodama T, Tomita Y. Cavitation bubble behavior and bubble-shock wave interaction near a gelatin surface as a study of in vivo bubble dynamics. Appl Phys B. 2000;70:139-149.
72. Miller MW, Miller DL, Brayman AA. A review of in vitro bioeffects of inertial ultrasonic cavitation from a mechanistic perspective. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1996;22(9):1131-1154.
73. Ward M, Wu J, Chiu J-F. Experimental study of the effects of optison® concentration on sonoporation in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000;26(7):1169-1175.
74. Ward M, Wu J, Chiu JF. Ultrasound-induced cell lysis and sonoporation enhanced by contrast agents. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;105(5): 2951-2957.
75. Karshafian R, Samac S, Banerjee M, Bevan P, Burns P. Ultrasound-induced uptake of different size markers in mammalian cells. Proceedings of the IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium; September 18-21, 2005:13-16.
76. Ross JP, Cai X, Chiu JF, Yang J, Wu J. Optical and atomic force microscopic studies on sonoporation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;111(3): 1161-1164.
77. Zhao YZ, Luo YK, Lu CT, et al. Phospholipids-based microbubbles sonoporation pore size and reseal of cell membrane cultured in vitro. J Drug Target. 2008;16(1):18-25.
78. Bao S, Thrall BD, Miller DL. Transfection of a reporter plasmid into cultured cells by sonoporation in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1997;23(6):953-959.
79. Koch S, Pohl P, Cobet U, Rainov NG. Ultrasound enhancement of liposome-mediated cell transfection is caused by cavitation effects. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000;26(5):897-903.
80. Zarnitsyn V, Rostad CA, Prausnitz MR. Modeling transmembrane transport through cell membrane wounds created by acoustic cavitation. Biophys J. 2008;95(9):4124-4138.
81. Li ZG, Luo KQ, Ohl CD, Zhang JB, Liu AQ. A single-cell membrane dynamic from poration to restoration by bubble-induced jetting flow. Proceedings for the 15th International Conference on Miniaturized Systems for Chemistry and Life Sciences. 2011:94-96.
82. Okada K, Kudo N, Niwa K, Yamamoto K. A basic study on sonoporation with microbubbles exposed to pulsed ultrasound. J Med Ultrasonics. 2005;32:3-11.
83. Skyba DM, Price RJ, Linka AZ, Skalak TC, Kaul S. Direct in vivo visualization of intravascular destruction of microbubbles by ultrasound and its local effects on tissue. Circulation. 1998;98(4):290-293.
84. Lentacker I, De Geest BG, Vandenbroucke RE, et al. Ultrasound-responsive polymer-coated microbubbles that bind and protect DNA. Langmuir. 2006;22(17):7273-7278.
85. Felgner PL, Gadek TR, Holm M, et al. Lipofection: a highly efficient, lipid-mediated DNA-transfection procedure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1987;84:7413-7417.
86. Cepko CL, Roberts BE, Mulligan RC. Constructions and applications of a highly transmissible murine retrovirus shuttle vector. Cell. 1984;37: 1053-1062.
87. Soughayer JS, Krasieva T, Jacobson SC, Ramsey JM, Tromberg BJ, Allbritton NL. Characterization of cellular optoporation with distance. Anal Chem. 2000;72:1342-1347.
88. Weaver JC, Chizmadzhev YA. Theory of electroporation: a review. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg. 1996;4:135-160.
89. Hapala I. Breaking the barrier: methods for reversible permeabilization of cellular membranes. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 1997;17(2):105-122.
90. Klibanov AL. Microbubble contrast agents targeted ultrasound imaging and ultrasound assisted drug-delivery applications. Invest Radiol. 2006;41(3):354-362.
91. Unger E, McCreery T, Sweitzer R, Caldwell V, Wu Y. Acoustically active lipospheres containing paclitaxel: a new therapeutic ultrasound contrast agent. Invest Radiol. 1998;33(12):886-892.
92. Liu Y, Miyoshi H, Nakamura M. Encapsulated ultrasound microbubbles: therapeutic application in drug/gene delivery. J Control Release. 2006;114:89-99.
93. Kheirolomoom A, Dayton PA, Lum AF, et al. Acoustically-active microbubbles conjugated to liposomes: characterization of a proposed drug delivery vehicle. J Control Release. 2007;118:275-284.
94. Huang SL. Liposomes in ultrasonic drug and gene delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2008;60:1167-1176.
95. Suzuki R, Takizawa T, Negishi Y, Utoguchi N, Maruyama K. Effective gene delivery with novel liposomal bubbles and ultrasonic destruction technology. Int J Pharm. 2008;354:49-55.
96. Suzuki R, Takizawa T, Negishi Y, et al. Tumor specific ultrasound enhanced gene transfer in vivo with novel liposomal bubbles. J Control Release. 2008;125:137-144.
97. Wrenn S, Dicker S, Small E, Mleczko M. Controlling cavitation for controlled release. Proceedings for the Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS), 2009 IEEE International. September 20-23, 2009:104-107. Rome.
98. Huang SL, MacDonald RC. Acoustically active liposomes for drug encapsulation and ultrasound-triggered release. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2004;1665:134-141.
99. Goldberg BB, Liu JB, Forsberg F. Ultrasound contrast agents: a review. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1994;20(2):319-333.
100. Cosgrove D. Ultrasound contrast agents: an overview. Eur J Radiol. 2006;60(3):324-330.
101. Schmitz G. Ultrasonic imaging of molecular targets. Basic Res Cardiol. 2008;103(2):174-181.
102. 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.
103. Mauldin F, Dhanaliwala A, Patil A, Hossack J. Real-time targeted molecular imaging using singular value spectra properties to isolate the adherent microbubble signal. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57(16):5275-5293.
104. Couture O, Dransart E, Dehay S, et al. Tumor delivery of ultrasound contrast agents using Shiga toxin B subunit. Mol Imaging. 2011;10(2): 135-143.
105. 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.
106. Kaufmann BA, Lindner JR. Molecular imaging with targeted contrast ultrasound. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2007;18(1):11-16.
107. Xu RX, Huang J, Xu JS, et al. Fabrication of indocyanine green encapsulated biodegradable microbubbles for structural and functional imaging of cancer. J Biomed Opt. 2009;14(3):034020.
108. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology. 2006;241(1): 55-66.
109. van Veen RL, Amelink A, Menke-Pluymers M, van der Pol C, Sterenborg HJ. Optical biopsy of breast tissue using differential path-length spectroscopy. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50(11):2573-2581.
110. 2 tension measurements. Cancer Res. 1991;51(12): 3316-3322.
111. Janssen HL, Haustermans KM, Balm AJ, Begg AC. Hypoxia in head and neck cancer: how much, how important? Head Neck. 2005;27(7):622-638.
112. Tromberg BJ, Shah N, Lanning R, et al. Noninvasive in vivo characterization of breast tumors using photon migration spectroscopy. Neoplasia. 2000;2(1):26-40.
113. Intes X, Djeziri S, Ichalalene Z, et al. Time-domain optical mammography SoftScan: initial results. Acad Radiol. 2005;12(10): 1355.
114. Schutt CE, Benchimol MJ, Hsu MJ, Esener SC. Ultrasound-modulated fluorescent contrast agent for optical imaging through turbid media. Proc SPIE. 2011; 8165: 81650B1-81650B7. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.894056.
115. Yuan B. Ultrasound-modulated fluorescence based on a fluorophore-quencher-labeled microbubble system. J Biomed Opt. 2009;14(2):240-243.
116. Yuan B. Sensitivity of fluorophore-quencher labeled microbubbles to externally applied static pressure. Med Phys. 2009;36(8): 3455-3469.
117. Ibsen S, Zahavy E, Wrasdilo W, Berns M, Chan M, Esener S. A novel Doxorubicin prodrug with controllable photolysis activation for cancer chemotherapy. Pharm Res. 2010;27(9):1848-1860.
118. Benchimol MJ, Ibsen SD, Simberg D, Wu Z, Mattrey RF, Esener SC. Quantified lysis of cell-like lipid membranes due to nanoparticle-facilitated cavitation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011;130:2502.
119. Serpe L, Foglietta F, Canaparo R. Nanosonotechnology: the next challenge in cancer sonodynamic therapy. Nanotechnol Rev. 2012;1(2):173-182.
120. Tuziuti T, Yasui K, Sivakumar M, Iida Y, Miyoshi N. Correlation between acoustic cavitation noise and yield enhancement of sonochemical reaction by particle addition. J Phys Chem A. 2005; 109(21):4869-4872.
121. 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.