Use of ultrasound contrast agent microbubbles in preclinical research : Recommendations for small animal imaging

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 48, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 570-583

  Hyvelin, Jean Marc ^a   Tardy, Isabelle ^a   Arbogast, Christophe ^a   Costa, Maria ^a   Emmel, Patricia ^a   Helbert, Alexandre ^a   Theraulaz, Martine ^a   Nunn, Adrian D ^a   Tranquart, Francois ^a  

^a Bracco Suisse SA   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Microbubble; Recommendations; Small animal imaging; Ultrasound contrast agent; Ultrasound molecular imaging

Indexed keywords

ECHO CONTRAST MEDIUM; ISOFLURANE; MICROMARKER; NITROGEN; PERFLUBUTANE; PERFLUTREN; SONOVUE; TARGESTAR; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VISISTAR;

ANESTHESIA; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCED ULTRASOUND IMAGING; MICROBUBBLE; MOLECULAR IMAGING; NONHUMAN; OXYGEN BLOOD LEVEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REAL TIME ECHOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH; REVIEW; STANDARD; VAPOR PRESSURE;

EID: 84880311732     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318289f854     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Desbuards N, Antier D, Rochefort GY, et al. Dexfenfluramine discontinuous treatment does not worsen hypoxia-induced pulmonary vascular remodeling but activates RhoA/ROCK pathway: Consequences on pulmonary hypertension. Eur J Pharmacol. 2009;602:355-363.
2. Hanton G, Eder V, Rochefort G, et al. Echocardiography, a non-invasive method for the assessment of cardiac function and morphology in preclinical drug toxicology and safety pharmacology. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2008;4:681-696.
3. Palmowski M, Huppert J, Hauff P, et al. Vessel fractions in tumor xenografts depicted by flow- or contrast-sensitive three-dimensional high-frequency Doppler ultrasound respond differently to antiangiogenic treatment. Cancer Res. 2008; 68:7042-7049.
4. Qin S, Caskey CF, Ferrara KW. Ultrasound contrast microbubbles in imaging and therapy: Physical principles and engineering. Phys Med Biol. 2009; 54:R27-R57.
5. Willmann JK, van Bruggen N, Dinkelborg LM, et al. Molecular imaging in drug development. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008;7:591-607.
6. Deshpande N, Needles A,Willmann JK. Molecular ultrasound imaging: Current status and future directions. Clin Radiol. 2010;65:567-581.
7. Kiessling F. Science to practice: The dawn of molecular US imaging for clinical cancer imaging. Radiology. 2010;256:331-333.
8. 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.
9. Pysz MA, Foygel K, Rosenberg J, et al. Antiangiogenic cancer therapy: Monitoring with molecular US and a clinically translatable contrast agent (BR55). Radiology. 2010;256:519-527.
10. Tardy I, Pochon S, Theraulaz M, et al. Ultrasound molecular imaging of VEGFR2 in a rat prostate tumor model using BR55. Invest Radiol. 2010; 45:573-578.
11. Anderson CR, Hu X, Zhang H, et al. Ultrasound molecular imaging of tumor angiogenesis with an integrin targeted microbubble contrast agent. Invest Radiol. 2011;46:215-224.
12. Willmann JK, Kimura RH, Deshpande N, et al. Targeted contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of tumor angiogenesis with contrast microbubbles conjugated to integrin-binding knottin peptides. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:433-440.
13. 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.
14. Ferrante EA, Pickard JE, Rychak J, et al. Dual targeting improves microbubble contrast agent adhesion to VCAM-1 and P-selectin under flow. J Control Release. 2009;140:100-107.
15. Kaufmann BA, Carr CL, Belcik JT, et al. Molecular imaging of the initial inflammatory response in atherosclerosis: Implications for early detection of disease. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2010;30:54-59.
16. Klibanov AL, Rychak JJ, Yang WC, et al. Targeted ultrasound contrast agent for molecular imaging of inflammation in high-shear flow. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2006;1:259-266.
17. Villanueva FS, Lu E, Bowry S, et al. Myocardial ischemic memory imaging with molecular echocardiography. Circulation. 2007;115:345-352.
18. Reinhardt M, Hauff P, Linker RA, et al. Ultrasound derived imaging and quantification of cell adhesion molecules in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) by sensitive particle acoustic quantification (SPAQ). NeuroImage. 2005;27:267-278.
19. Claudon M, Cosgrove D, Albrecht T, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-update 2008. Ultraschall Med. 2008;29:28-44.
20. Correas JM, Tranquart F, Claudon M. Guidelines for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-update 2008 [in French]. J Radiol. 2009;90:123-138.
21. Seitz K. EFSUMB-guidelines for CEUS are directive and effective [in German]. Ultraschall Med. 2010;31:225-227.
22. Dietrich CF, Ignee A, Hocke M, et al. Pitfalls and artefacts using contrast enhanced ultrasound. Z Gastroenterol. 2011;49:350-356.
23. Raher MJ, Thibault H, Poh KK, et al. In vivo characterization of murine myocardial perfusion with myocardial contrast echocardiography: Validation and application in nitric oxide synthase 3 deficient mice. Circulation. 2007; 116:1250-1257.
24. Scherrer-Crosbie M, Rodrigues AC, Hataishi R, et al. Infarct size assessment in mice. Echocardiography. 2007;24:90-96.
25. 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;45:579-585.
26. Guenther F, von zur Muhlen C, Ferrante EA, et al. An ultrasound contrast agent targeted to P-selectin detects activated platelets at supra-arterial shear flow conditions. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:586-591.
27. Willmann JK, Paulmurugan R, Chen K, et al. US imaging of tumor angiogenesis with microbubbles targeted to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor type 2 in mice. Radiology. 2008;246:508-518.
28. Foster FS, Hossack J, Adamson SL. Micro-ultrasound for preclinical imaging. Interface focus. 2011;1:576-601.
29. Tang MX, Mulvana H, Gauthier T, et al. Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging: A review of sources of variability. Interface Focus. 2011; 1:520-539.
30. Broillet A, Hantson J, Ruegg C, et al. Assessment of microvascular perfusion changes in a rat breast tumor model using SonoVue to monitor the effects of different anti-angiogenic therapies. Acad Radiol. 2005;12(suppl 1):S28-S33.
31. Guibal A, Taillade L, Mule S, et al. Noninvasive contrast-enhanced US quantitative assessment of tumor microcirculation in a murine model: Effect of discontinuing anti-VEGF therapy. Radiology. 2010;254:420-429.
32. Peronneau P, Lassau N, Leguerney I, et al. Contrast ultrasonography: Necessity of linear data processing for the quantification of tumor vascularization. Ultraschall Med. 2010;31:370-378.
33. Thibault H, Lafitte S, Timperley J, et al. Quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion in rats by contrast echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005; 18:1321-1328.
34. Forsberg F, Ro RJ, Fox TB, et al. Contrast enhanced maximum intensity projection ultrasound imaging for assessing angiogenesis in murine glioma and breast tumor models: A comparative study. Ultrasonics. 2011;51:382-389.
35. Forsberg F, Ro RJ, Liu JB, et al. Monitoring angiogenesis in human melanoma xenograft model using contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging. Ultrason Imaging. 2008;30:237-246.
36. Seiler GS, Ziemer LS, Schultz S, et al. Dose-response relationship of ultrasound contrast agent in an in vivo murine melanoma model. Cancer Imaging. 2007;7:216-223.
37. de Jong N, Emmer M, van Wamel A, et al. Ultrasonic characterization of ultrasound contrast agents. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2009;47:861-873.
38. Lyshchik A, Fleischer AC, Huamani J, et al. Molecular imaging of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 expression using targeted contrast-enhanced high-frequency ultrasonography. J UltrasoundMed. 2007;26:1575-1586.
39. Kaufmann BA, Sanders JM, Davis C, et al. Molecular imaging of inflammation in atherosclerosis with targeted ultrasound detection of vascular cell adhesion molecule-1. Circulation. 2007;116:276-284.
40. de Jong N, Frinking PJ, Bouakaz A, et al. Detection procedures of ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasonics. 2000;38:87-92.
41. Frinking PJ, Bouakaz A, Kirkhorn J, et al. Ultrasound contrast imaging: Current and new potential methods. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000;26:965-975.
42. Arditi M, Frinking PJ, Zhou X, et al. A new formalism for the quantification of tissue perfusion by the destruction-replenishment method in contrast ultrasound imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2006; 53:1118-1129.
43. Lassau N, Brule A, Chami L, et al. Evaluation of early response to antiangiogenic treatment with dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound [in French]. J Radiol. 2008;89:549-555.
44. Lassau N, Chami L, Benatsou B, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (DCE-US) with quantification of tumor perfusion: A new diagnostic tool to evaluate the early effects of antiangiogenic treatment. Eur Radiol. 2007; 17(suppl 6):F89-F98.
45. Rognin NG, Arditi M, Mercier L, et al. Parametric imaging for characterizing focal liver lesions in contrast-enhanced ultrasound. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2010;57:2503-2511.
46. Schneider M, Broillet A, Tardy I, et al. Use of intravital microscopy to study the microvascular behavior of microbubble-based ultrasound contrast agents. Microcirculation. 2012;19:245-259.
47. Reinhardt M, Hauff P, Briel A, et al. Sensitive particle acoustic quantification (SPAQ): A new ultrasound-based approach for the quantification of ultrasound contrast media in high concentrations. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:2-7.
48. Faez T, Emmer M, Docter M, et al. Characterizing the subharmonic response of phospholipid-coated microbubbles for carotid imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2011;37:958-970.
49. Faez T, Renaud G, Defontaine M, et al. Dynamic manipulation of the subharmonic scattering of phospholipid-coated microbubbles. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:6459-6473.
50. Streeter JE, Gessner RC, Tsuruta J, et al. Assessment of molecular imaging of angiogenesis with three-dimensional ultrasonography. Mol Imaging. 2011; 10:460-468.
51. Hoyt K, Sorace A, Saini R. Volumetric contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging to assess early response to apoptosis-inducing anti-death receptor 5 antibody therapy in a breast cancer animal model. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31: 1759-1766.
52. Bettinger T, Bussat P, Tardy I, et al. Ultrasound molecular imaging contrast agent binding to both E- and P-selectin in different species. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:516-523.
53. Zhou JH, Cao LH, Liu JB, et al. Quantitative assessment of tumor blood flow in mice after treatment with different doses of an antiangiogenic agent with contrast-enhanced destruction-replenishment US. Radiology. 2011;259:406-413.
54. Lucidarme O, Kono Y, Corbeil J, et al. Angiogenesis: Noninvasive quantitative assessment with contrast-enhanced functional US in murine model. Radiology. 2006;239:730-739.
55. Palmowski M, Lederle W, Gaetjens J, et al. Comparison of conventional time-intensity curves vs. maximum intensity over time for post-processing of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:e149-e153.
56. PyszMA, Foygel K, Panje CM, et al. Assessment and monitoring tumor vascularity with contrast-enhanced ultrasound maximum intensity persistence imaging. Invest Radiol. 2011;46:187-195.
57. 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;22:1789-1796.
58. PyszMA, Guracar I, Foygel K, et al. Quantitative assessment of tumor angiogenesis using real-time motion-compensated contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging. Angiogenesis. 2012;15:433-442.
59. Taylor DK. Study of two devices used to maintain normothermia in rats and mice during general anesthesia. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2007;46:37-41.
60. Kelleher DK, Nauth C, Thews O, et al. Localized hypothermia: Impact on oxygenation, microregional perfusion, metabolic and bioenergetic status of subcutaneous rat tumours. Br J Cancer. 1998;78:56-61.
61. Sakaeda T, Fukumura K, Takahashi K, et al. Blood flow rate in normal and tumorbearing rats in conscious state, under urethane anesthesia, and during systemic hypothermia. J Drug Target. 1998;6:261-272.
62. Kabalnov A, Bradley J, Flaim S, et al. Dissolution of multicomponent microbubbles in the bloodstream: 2. Experiment. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1998; 24:751-760.
63. Kabalnov A, Klein D, Pelura T, et al. Dissolution of multicomponent microbubbles in the bloodstream: 1. Theory. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1998;24:739-749.
64. Itani M, Mattrey RF. The effect of inhaled gases on ultrasound contrast agent longevity in vivo. Mol Imaging Biol. 2012;14:40-46.
65. Mullin L, Gessner R, Kwan J, et al. Effect of anesthesia carrier gas on in vivo circulation times of ultrasound microbubble contrast agents in rats. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2011;6:126-131.
66. Gauthier TP, Averkiou MA, Leen EL. Perfusion quantification using dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound: The impact of dynamic range and gain on timeintensity curves. Ultrasonics. 2011;51:102-106.
67. Rognin NG, Frinking P, Costa M, et al. In vivo perfusion quantification by contrast ultrasound: Validation of the use of linearized video data vs. raw RF data. In Ultrasonics Symp IUS 2008 IEEE. 2008:1690-1693.
68. Deshpande N, Lutz AM, Ren Y, et al. Quantification and monitoring of inflammation in murine inflammatory bowel disease with targeted contrast-enhanced US. Radiology. 2012;262:172-180.