4.6 Article

18F-FDG PET/CT-based early treatment response evaluation of nanoparticle-assisted photothermal cancer therapy

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177997

关键词

-

资金

  1. Lun beckFonden [506800-50-34062]
  2. Novo Nordisk Foundation [NNF140C0011361]
  3. Lundbeck Foundation
  4. Novo Nordisk Foundation
  5. Lundbeck Foundation [R105-2011-9829] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF15OC0017912, NNF14OC0011361] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Within the field of nanoparticle-assisted photothermal cancer therapy, focus has mostly been on developing novel heat-generating nanoparticles with the right optical and dimensional properties. Comparison and evaluation of their performance in tumor-bearing animals are commonly assessed by changes in tumor volume; however, this is usually a late-occurring event. This study implements 2-deoxy-2-[F-18] fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography imaging to perform early evaluation of the treatment outcome of photothermal therapy. Silica-gold nanoshells (NS) are administered intravenously to nude mice bearing human neuroendocrine tumor xenografts and the tumors are irradiated by a near-infrared laser. The animals are positron emission tomography scanned with 2-deoxy-2-[F-18] fluoro-D-glucose one day before and one day after treatment. Using this setup, a significant decrease in tumor uptake of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18] fluoro-D-glucose is found already one day after therapy in the group receiving NS and laser treatment compared to control animals. At this time point no change in tumor volume can be detected. Moreover, the change in tumor uptake, is used to stratify the animals into responders and non-responders, where the responding group matched improved survival. Overall, these findings support the use of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18] fluoroD- glucose positron emission tomography imaging for preclinical and clinical evaluation and optimization of photothermal therapy.

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