4.8 Article

Assessment of Gold Nanoparticle-Mediated-Enhanced Hyperthermia Using MR-Guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation Procedure

期刊

NANO LETTERS
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 2532-2538

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b00272

关键词

High intensity focused ultrasound; HIFU; hyperthermia; gold nanoparticles; cancer therapy; MRI

资金

  1. NSF [1403356]
  2. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  3. Directorate For Engineering [1403356] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) has gained increasing popularity as a noninvasive therapeutic procedure to treat solid tumors. However, collateral damage due to the use of high acoustic powers during HIFU procedures remains a challenge. The objective of this study is to assess the utility of using gold nanoparticles (gNPs) during HIFU procedures to locally enhance heating at low powers, thereby reducing the likelihood of collateral damage. Phantoms containing tissue-mimicking material (TMM) and physiologically relevant concentrations (0%, 0.0625%, and 0.125%) of gNPs were fabricated. Sonications at acoustic powers of 10, 15, and 20 W were performed for a duration of 16 s using an MR-HIFU system. Temperature rises and lesion volumes were calculated and compared for phantoms with and without gNPs. For an acoustic power of 10 W, the maximum temperature rise increased by 32% and 43% for gNPs concentrations of 0.0625% and 0.125%, respectively, when compared to the 0% gNPs concentration. For the power of IS W, a lesion volume of 0, 44.5 +/- 7, and 63.4 +/- 32 mm(3) was calculated for the gNPs concentration of 0%, 0.0625%, and 0.125%, respectively. For a power of 20 W, it was found that the lesion volume doubled and tripled for concentrations of 0.0625% and 0.125% gNPs, respectively, when compared to the concentration of 0% gNPs. We conclude that gNPs have the potential to locally enhance the heating and reduce damage to healthy tissue during tumor ablation using HIFU.

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

4.8
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