In vivo imaging of dosage forms

Modern Pharmaceutics: Fifth Edition

Volumn 1-2, Issue , 2016, Pages 181-201

  Lu, Zheng Rong ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85052165592     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (86)

1. Kelloff GJ, Krohn KA, Larson SM, et al. The progress and promise of molecular imaging probes in oncologic drug development. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11(22):7967-7985.
2. Workman P, Aboagye EO, Chung YL, et al. Minimally invasive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic technologies in hypothesis-testing clinical trials of innovative therapies. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98:580-598.
3. Gross S, Piwnica-Worms D. Molecular imaging strategies for drug discovery and development. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2006; 10(4):334-342.
4. Stephen RM, Gillies RJ. Promise and progress for functional and molecular imaging of response to targeted therapies. Pharm Res 2007; 24(6):1172-1185.
5. Hoskins P, Thrush A, Martin K, et al. Diagnostic Ultrasound: Physics and Equipment. London: Greenwich Medical Media Ltd., 2003.
6. Evans DH, McDicken WN. Doppler Ultrasound: Physics, Instrumental, and Clinical Applications. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
7. Schutt EG, Klein DH, Mattrey RM, et al. Injectable microbubbles as contrast agents for diagnostic ultrasound imaging: the key role of perfluorochemicals. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2003; 42(28):3218-3235.
8. Klibanov AL. Ligand-carrying gas-filled microbubbles: ultrasound contrast agents for targeted molecular imaging. Bioconjug Chem 2005; 16(1):9-17.
9. Liang ZP, Lauterbur PC. Principles of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Signal Processing Perspective. New York: IEEE Inc., 2000.
10. Vlaardingerbroek MT, den Boer JA. Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. New York: Springer, 2002.
11. Merbach AE, Toth E. The Chemistry of Contrast Agents in Medical Magnetic Resonance Imaging. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2001.
12. Caravan P, Ellison JJ, McMurry TJ, et al. Gadolinium(III) chelates as MRI contrast agents: structure, dynamics, and applications. Chem Rev 1999; 99(9):2293-2352.
13. Weissleder R, Ntziachristos V. Shedding light onto live molecular targets. Nat Med 2003; 9(1): 123-128.
14. Wang G, Cong W, Shen H, et al. Overview of bioluminescence tomography-a new molecular imaging modality. Front Biosci 2008; 13(1):1281-1293.
15. Chapman S, Oparka KJ, Roberts AG. New tools for in vivo fluorescence tagging. Curr Opin Plant Biol 2005; 8(6):565-573.
16. Seeram E. Computed Tomography: Physics Principles, Clinical Applications, and Quality Control. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 2008.
17. Kalender WA. Computed Tomography: Fundamentals, System Technology, Image Quality, Applications. Munich: Wiley-VCH, 2006.
18. Henwood S. Clinical CT: Techniques and Practice. London: Greenwich Medical Media Ltd., 1999.
19. Dawson P, Cosgrove DO, Grainger RG. Textbook of Contrast Media. Oxford: Isis Medical Media Ltd., 1999.
20. Saha GB. Physics and Radiobiology of Nuclear Medicine. 3rd ed. New York: Springer, 2006.
21. Wernick MN, Aarsvold JN. Emission Tomography: The Fundamentals of PET and SPECT. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press, 2004.
22. Saha GB. Fundamentals of Nuclear Pharmacy. 5th ed. New York: Springer, 2004.
23. Phelps ME. PET: Molecular Imaging and its Biological Applications. New York: Springer, 2004.
24. Welch MJ, Redvanly CS. Handbook of Radiopharmaceuticals. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
25. von Schulthess GK. Molecular Anatomic Imaging? PET-CT and SPECT-CT Integrated Modality Imaging. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006.
26. Oehr P, Biersack HJ, Coleman RE. PET and PET-CT in Oncology. New York: Springer, 2004.
27. Osman S, Rowlinson-Busza G, Luthra SK, et al. Comparative biodistribution and metabolism of carbon-11-labeled N-[2-(dimethylamino)ethyl]acridine-4-carboxamide and DNA-intercalating analogues. Cancer Res 2001; 61(7):2935-2944.
28. Spencer TJ, Biederman J, Ciccone PE, et al. PET study examining pharmacokinetics, detection and likeability, and dopamine transporter receptor occupancy of short- and long-acting oral methylphenidate. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163(3):387-395.
29. Murthy R, Erlandsson K, Kumar D, et al. Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 11C-harmine in baboons. Nucl Med Commun 2007; 28(9):748-754.
30. Lu JQ, Ichise M, Liow JS, et al. Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of the serotonin transporter ligand 11C-DASB determined from human whole-body PET. J Nucl Med 2004; 45(9): 1555-1559.
31. Scheinin NM, Tolvanen TK, Wilson IA, et al. Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of the amyloid imaging agent 11C-PIB in humans. J Nucl Med 2007; 48(1):128-133.
32. Tipre DN, Fujita M, Chin FT, et al. Whole-body biodistribution and radiation dosimetry estimates for the PET dopamine transporter probe 18F-FECNT in non-human primates. Nucl Med Commun 2004; 25(7):737-742.
33. Saleem A, Aboagye EO, Matthews JC, et al. Plasma pharmacokinetic evaluation of cytotoxic agents radiolabelled with positron emitting radioisotopes. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2008; 61(5):865-873.
34. Sprague DR, Chin FT, Liow JS, et al. Human biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of the tachykinin NK1 antagonist radioligand [18F]SPA-RQ: comparison of thin-slice, bisected, and 2-dimensional planar image analysis. J Nucl Med 2007; 48(1):100-107.
35. Nye JA, Schuster DM, Yu W, et al. Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of the synthetic nonmetabolized amino acid analogue anti-18F-FACBC in humans. J Nucl Med 2007; 48(6): 1017-1020.
36. Aboagye EO, Saleem A, Cunningham VJ, et al. Extraction of 5-fluorouracil by tumor and liver: a noninvasive positron emission tomography study of patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Cancer Res 2001; 61(13):4937-4941.
37. Ibekwe VC, Fadda HM, Parsons GE, et al. A comparative in vitro assessment of the drug release performance of pH-responsive polymers for ileo-colonic delivery. Int J Pharm 2006; 308 (1-2):52-60.
38. Newman SP, Pitcairn GR, Hirst PH, et al. Scintigraphic comparison of budesonide deposition from two dry powder inhalers. Eur Respir J 2000; 16(1):178-183.
39. Steingoetter A, Weishaupt D, Kunz P, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the in vivo evaluation of gastric-retentive tablets. Pharm Res 2003; 20(12):2001-2007.
40. Namur J, Chapot R, Pelage JP, et al. MR imaging detection of superparamagnetic iron oxide loaded tris-acryl embolization microspheres. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2007; 18(10):1287-1295.
41. Kopecek J, Kopeckova P, Minko T, et al. HPMA copolymer-anticancer drug conjugates: design, activity, and mechanism of action. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2000; 50(1):61-81.
42. Lammers T, Kuhnlein R, Kissel M, et al. Effect of physicochemical modification on the biodistribution and tumor accumulation of HPMA copolymers. J Control Release 2005; 110(1): 103-118.
43. Mitra A, Nan A, Ghandehari H, et al. Technetium-99m-Labeled N-(2-hydroxypropyl) methacrylamide copolymers: synthesis, characterization, and in vivo biodistribution. Pharm Res 2004; 21(7):1153-1159.
44. Vasey PA, Kaye SB, Morrison R, et al. Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of PK1 [N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymer doxorubicin]: first member of a new class of chemotherapeutic agents-drug-polymer conjugates. Clin Cancer Res 1999; 5(1):83-94.
45. Kobayashi H, Brechbiel MW. Dendrimer-based macromolecular MRI contrast agents: characteristics and application. Mol Imaging 2003; 2(1):1-10.
46. Ye F, Ke T, Lu ZR, et al. Noninvasive visualization of in vivo drug delivery of poly(L-glutamic acid) using contrast-enhanced MRI. Mol Pharm 2006; 3(5):507-515.
47. Wang Y, Ye F, Lu ZR, et al. Noninvasive visualization of pharmacokinetics, biodistribution and tumor targeting of poly[N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide] in mice using contrast enhanced MRI. Pharm Res 2007; 24(6):1208-1216.
48. Lu ZR, Ye F, Vaidya A. Polymer platforms for drug delivery and biomedical imaging. J Control Release 2007; 122(3):269-277.
49. Zheng J, Liu J, Dunne M, et al. In vivo performance of a liposomal vascular contrast agent for CT and MR-based image guidance applications. Pharm Res 2007; 24(6):1193-1201.
50. Oku N, Tokudome Y, Asai T, et al. Evaluation of drug targeting strategies and liposomal trafficking. Curr Pharm Des 2000; 6(16):1669-1691.
51. Bao A, Goins B, Klipper R, et al. Direct 99mTc labeling of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) for pharmacokinetic and non-invasive imaging studies. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2004; 308(2):419-425.
52. Harrington KJ, Mohammadtaghi S, Uster PS, et al. Effective targeting of solid tumors in patients with locally advanced cancers by radiolabeled pegylated liposomes. Clin Cancer Res 2001; 7(2):243-254.
53. Lanza GM, Wickline SA. Targeted ultrasonic contrast agents for molecular imaging and therapy. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2001; 44(1):13-31.
54. Klibanov AL. Microbubble contrast agents: targeted ultrasound imaging and ultrasound-assisted drug-delivery applications. Invest Radiol 2006; 41(3):354-362.
55. 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.
56. Leclercq F, Cohen-Ohana M, Mignet N, et al. Design, synthesis, and evaluation of gadolinium cationic lipids as tools for biodistribution studies of gene delivery complexes. Bioconjug Chem 2003; 14(11:112-119.
57. Medarova Z, Pham W, Farrar C, et al. In vivo imaging of siRNA delivery and silencing in tumors. Nat Med 2007; 13(3):372-377.
58. Iyer M, Berenji M, Templeton NS, et al. Noninvasive imaging of cationic lipid-mediated delivery of optical and PET reporter genes in living mice. Mol Ther 2002; 6(4):555-562.
59. Reske SN, Blumstein NM, Neumaier B, et al. Imaging prostate cancer with 11C-choline PET/ CT. J Nucl Med 2006; 47(8):1249-1254.
60. Truong MT, Marom EM, Erasmus JJ. Preoperative evaluation of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: role of integrated CT-PET imaging. J Thorac Imaging 2006; 21(2):146-153.
61. 11C-acetate positron emission tomography imaging and image fusion with computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with recurrent prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24(16):2513-2519.
62. Kelloff GJ, Hoffman JM, Johnson B, et al. Progress and promise of FDG-PET imaging for cancer patient management and oncologic drug development. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11(8): 2785-2808.
63. Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med 2006; 354(5):496-507.
64. Lapointe D, Brasseur N, Cadorette J, et al. High-resolution PET imaging for in vivo monitoring of tumor response after photodynamic therapy in mice. J Nucl Med 1999; 40(5):876-882.
65. Lin C, Itti E, Haioun C, et al. Early 18F-FDG PET for prediction of prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment versus visual analysis. J Nucl Med 2007; 48(10):1626-1632.
66. de Geus-Oei LF, van der Heijden HF, Visser EP, et al. Chemotherapy response evaluation with 18F-FDG PET in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2007; 48(10):1592-1598.
67. Dose Schwarz J, Bader M, Jenicke L, et al. Early prediction of response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer using sequential 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2005; 46(7):1144-1150.
68. Antoch G, Kanja J, Bauer S, et al. Comparison of PET, CT, and dual-modality PET/CT imaging for monitoring of imatinib (STI571) therapy in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Nucl Med 2004; 45(3):357-365.
69. Sugiyama M, Sakahara H, Sato K, et al. Evaluation of 3'-deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine for monitoring tumor response to radiotherapy and photodynamic therapy in mice. J Nucl Med 2004; 45(10):1754-1758.
70. Waldherr C, Mellinghoff IK, Tran C, et al. Monitoring antiproliferative responses to kinase inhibitor therapy in mice with 3'-deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine PET. J Nucl Med 2005; 46(1): 114-120.
71. Chen W, Delaloye S, Silverman DH, et al. Predicting treatment response of malignant gliomas to bevacizumab and irinotecan by imaging proliferation with [18F] fluorothymidine positron emission tomography: a pilot study. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(30):4714-4721.
72. Chen DL, Schuster DP. Imaging pulmonary inflammation with positron emission tomography: a biomarker for drug development. Mol Pharm 2006; 3(5):488-495.
73. Choyke PL, Dwyer AJ, Knopp MV. Functional tumor imaging with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003; 17(5):509-520.
74. Leach MO, Brindle KM, Evelhoch JL, et al. The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br J Cancer 2005; 92(9):1599-1610.
75. Jordan BF, Runquist M, Raghunand N, et al. The thioredoxin-1 inhibitor 1-methylpropyl 2-imidazolyl disulfide (PX-12) decreases vascular permeability in tumor xenografts monitored by dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11(2 pt 1): 529-536.
76. Thoeny HC, De Keyzer F, Vandecaveye V, et al. Effect of vascular targeting agent in rat tumor model: dynamic contrast-enhanced versus diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 2005; 237(2):492-499.
77. Daldrup H, Shames DM, Wendland M, et al. Correlation of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with histologic tumor grade: comparison of macromolecular and small-molecular contrast media. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171(4):941-949.
78. Marzola P, Degrassi A, Calderan L, et al. In vivo assessment of antiangiogenic activity of SU6668 in an experimental colon carcinoma model. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10(2):739-750.
79. Preda A, Novikov V, Möglich M, et al. MRI monitoring of Avastin antiangiogenesis therapy using B22956/1, a new blood pool contrast agent, in an experimental model of human cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 20(5):865-873.
80. Cheng HL, Wallis C, Shou Z, et al. Quantifying angiogenesis in VEGF-enhanced tissue-engineered bladder constructs by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using contrast agents of different molecular weights. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 25(1):137-145.
81. Mohs AM, Lu ZR. Gadolinium(III)-based blood-pool contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging: status and clinical potential. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2007; 4(2):149-164.
82. Chung YL, Troy H, Banerji U, et al. Magnetic resonance spectroscopic pharmacodynamic markers of the heat shock protein 90 inhibitor 17-allylamino,17-demethoxygeldanamycin (17AAG) in human colon cancer models. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95(21):1624-1633.
83. Glunde K, Ackerstaff E, Mori N, et al. Choline phospholipid metabolism in cancer: consequences for molecular pharmaceutical interventions. Mol Pharm 2006; 3(5):496-506.
84. Morse DL, Raghunand N, Sadarangani P, et al. Response of choline metabolites to docetaxel therapy is quantified in vivo by localized (31)P MRS of human breast cancer xenografts and in vitro by high-resolution (31)P NMR spectroscopy of cell extracts. Magn Reson Med 2007; 58(2): 270-280.
85. Al-Saffar NM, Troy H, Ramirez de Molina A, et al. Noninvasive magnetic resonance spectroscopic pharmacodynamic markers of the choline kinase inhibitor MN58b in human carcinoma models. Cancer Res 2006; 66:427-434.
86. De Stefano N, Filippi M, Miller D, et al. Guidelines for using proton MR spectroscopy in multicenter clinical MS studies. Neurology 2007; 69(20):1942-1952.