4.6 Article

Evaluation of brain tumor vessels specific contrast agents for glioblastoma imaging

期刊

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 53-63

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nor183

关键词

glioblastoma; infrared imaging; molecular MRI; superparamagnetic nanoparticles; targeted contrast agents

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health [RMF-79031, FP7-PEOPLE-IRSES-2008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A mouse model of glioblastoma multiforme was used to determine the accumulation of a targeted contrast agent in tumor vessels. The contrast agent, consisting of superparamagnetic iron oxide coated with dextran, was functionalized with an anti-insulin-like-growth-factor binding protein 7 (anti-IGFBP7) single domain antibody. The near infrared marker, Cy5.5, was also attached for an in vivo fluorescence study. A 9.4T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system was used for in vivo studies on days 10 and 11 following tumor inoculation. T-2 relaxation time was used to measure the accumulation of the contrast agent in the tumor. Changes in tumor to brain contrast because of active targeting were compared with a nontargeted contrast agent. Effective targeting was confirmed with near infrared measurements and fluorescent microscopic analysis. The results showed that there was a statistically significant (P < .01) difference in normalized T-2 between healthy brain and tumor tissue 10 min, 1 h, and 2 h point postinjection of the anti-IGFBP7 single domain antibody targeted and nontargeted iron oxide nanoparticles. A statistical difference remained in animals treated with targeted nanoparticles 24 h postinjection only. The MRI, near infrared imaging, and fluorescent microscopy studies showed corresponding spatial and temporal changes. We concluded that the developed anti-IGFBP7-iron oxide single domain antibody-targeted MRI contrast agent selectively binds to abnormal vessels within a glioblastoma. T-2-weighted MRI and near infrared imaging are able to detect the targeting effects in brain tumors.

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

4.6
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