4.5 Article

Detection of lymph node involvement in hematologic malignancies using micromagnetic resonance lymphangiography with a gadolinum-labeled dendrimer nanoparticle

Journal

NEOPLASIA
Volume 7, Issue 11, Pages 984-991

Publisher

B C DECKER INC
DOI: 10.1593/neo.05454

Keywords

malignant lymphoma; MRI; lymph node; lymphatic flow; nanoparticle

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Animal models of lymphoma should reflect their counterparts in humans; however, it can be difficult to ascertain whether an induced disease is intralymphatic or extralymphatic based on direct visualization. Current imaging methods are insufficient for identifying lymphatic and intralymphatic involvement. To differentiate intralymphatic from extralymphatic involvement, we have developed a magnetic resonance imaging-based lymphangiography method and tested it on two animal models of lymphoma. A gadolinium (Gd)-labeled dendrimer nanoparticle (generation-6; similar to 220 kDa/similar to 10 nm) was injected interstitially into mice bearing hematologic malignancies to perform dynamic micromagnetic resonance lymphangiography (micro-MRIL). Both a standard T1-weighted 3D fast spoiled gradient echo and a T2/T1-weighted D-fast imaging employing steady-state acquisition (3D-FIESTA-C) were compared in an imaging study to differentiate intralymphatic from extralymphatic involvement of tumors. The lymphatics and lymph nodes were visualized with both methods in all cases. In addition, 3D-FIESTA-C depicted both the lymphatic system and the extralymphatic tumor. In an animal model, 3D-FIESTA-C demonstrated that the bulk of the tumor thought to be intralymphatic was actually extralymphatic. In conclusion, micro-MRL, using Gd-labeled dendrimer nanoparticles with the combined method, can define both the normal and abnormal lymphatics and can distinguish intralymphatic from extralymphatic diseases in mouse models of malignant lymphoma.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available