4.7 Article

DETECTING VASCULAR-TARGETING EFFECTS OF THE HYPOXIC CYTOTOXIN TIRAPAZAMINE IN TUMOR XENOGRAFTS USING MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.11.068

关键词

Hypoxic cytotoxins; Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI; Vascular shutdown; Vascular dysfunction; Immunohistochemistry; Tumor mapping; Fiducial marker

资金

  1. CIHR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To determine whether vascular-targeting effects can be detected in vivo using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods and Materials: MR images of HCT-116 xenograft-bearing mice were acquired at 7 Tesla before and 24 hours after intraperitoneal injections of tirapazamine. Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI analyses were performed to evaluate changes in tumor perfusion using two biomarkers: the volume transfer constant (K-trans) and the initial area under the concentration-time curve (IAUC). We used novel implanted fiducial markers to obtain cryosections that corresponded to MR image planes from excised tumors; quantitative immunohistochemical mapping of tumor vasculature, perfusion, and necrosis enabled correlative analysis between these and MR images. Results: Conventional histological analysis showed lower vascular perfusion or greater amounts of necrosis in the central regions of five of eight tirapazamine-treated tumors, with three treated tumors showing no vascular dysfunction response. MRI data reflected this result, and a striking decrease in both K-trans and IAUC values was seen with the responsive tumors. Retrospective evaluation of pretreatment MRI parameters revealed that those tumors that did not respond to the vascular-targeting effects of tirapazamine had significantly higher pretreatment K-trans and IAUC values. Conclusions: MRI-derived parameter maps showed good agreement with histological tumor mapping. MRI was found to be an effective tool for noninvasively monitoring and predicting tirapazamine-mediated central vascular dysfunction. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据