4.7 Article

Quantitative monitoring of mouse lung tumors by magnetic resonance imaging

Journal

NATURE PROTOCOLS
Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 128-142

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2011.424

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Mr. and Mrs. Spencer T. Olin Fellowship for Women in Graduate Study
  2. National Science Foundation [CCF-0963742]
  3. NIH/National Cancer Institute [U24 CA83060]
  4. Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Washington University in St. Louis, an NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center [P30 CA91842]
  5. American Cancer Society from the Siteman Cancer Center, NIH/National Cancer Institute [K08 CA131097]
  6. American Thoracic Society/Lungevity Foundation
  7. Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Primary lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death in the Western world, and the lung is a common site for recurrence of extrathoracic malignancies. Small-animal (rodent) models of cancer can have a very valuable role in the development of improved therapeutic strategies. However, detection of mouse pulmonary tumors and their subsequent response to therapy in situ is challenging. We have recently described MRI as a reliable, reproducible and nondestructive modality for the detection and serial monitoring of pulmonary tumors. By combining respiratory-gated data acquisition methods with manual and automated segmentation algorithms described by our laboratory, pulmonary tumor burden can be quantitatively measured in approximately 1 h (data acquisition plus analysis) per mouse. Quantitative, analytical methods are described for measuring tumor burden in both primary (discrete tumors) and metastatic (diffuse tumors) disease. Thus, small-animal MRI represents a novel and unique research tool for preclinical investigation of therapeutic strategies for treatment of pulmonary malignancies, and it may be valuable in evaluating new compounds targeting lung cancer in vivo.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available