4.5 Article

Conventional Frequency Ultrasonic Biomarkers of Cancer Treatment Response In Vivo

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL ONCOLOGY
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 234-U190

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1593/tlo.12385

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Alexander Graham Bell Graduate Scholarship
  3. Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, Ontario Region
  4. Terry Fox Foundation
  5. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Conventional frequency quantitative ultrasound in conjunction with textural analysis techniques was investigated to monitor noninvasively the effects of cancer therapies in an in vivo preclinical model. METHODS: Conventional low-frequency (similar to 7 MHz) and high-frequency (similar to 20 MHz) ultrasound was used with spectral analysis, coupled with textural analysis on spectral parametric maps, obtained from xenograft tumor-bearing animals (n = 20) treated with chemotherapy to extract noninvasive biomarkers of treatment response. RESULTS: Results indicated statistically significant differences in quantitative ultrasound-based biomarkers in both low- and high-frequency ranges between untreated and treated tumors 12 to 24 hours after treatment. Results of regression analysis indicated a high level of correlation between quantitative ultrasound-based biomarkers and tumor cell death estimates from histologic analysis. Applying textural characterization to the spectral parametric maps resulted in an even stronger correlation (r(2) = 0.97). CONCLUSION: The results obtained in this research demonstrate that quantitative ultrasound at a clinically relevant frequency can monitor tissue changes in vivo in response to cancer treatment administration. Using higher order textural information extracted from quantitative ultrasound spectral parametric maps provides more information at a high sensitivity related to tumor cell death.

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

4.5
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