3.8 Proceedings Paper

New iron-oxide particles for magnetic nanoparticle hyperthermia: An in-vitro and in-vivo pilot study

出版社

SPIE-INT SOC OPTICAL ENGINEERING
DOI: 10.1117/12.2019834

关键词

Iron oxide nanoparticles; hyperthermia; alternating magnetic field; prostate cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Magnetic nanoparticle hyperthermia (mNHP) is regarded as a promising minimally invasive procedure. These nanoparticles generate heat when exposed to alternating magnetic fields (AMFs) and thus have shown a potential for selective delivery of heat to a target such as a cancer cell. Despite the great promise however, successful clinical translation has been limited in part by technical challenges of selectively delivering heat only to the target tissue. Interaction of AMF with tissues also deposits heat through Joule heating via eddy currents. Considerations of patient safety thus constrain the choice of AMF power and frequency to values that are insufficient to produce desirable heating from available nanoparticle formulations. Therefore, considerable effort must be directed to the design of particles and the AMF device to maximize the specific delivery of heat to the intended target while minimizing the unintended and non-specific heating. We have recently developed new iron-oxide nanoparticles (IONPs) having much higher heating capability at the clinically relevant amplitudes and frequencies than other formulations. Here, we utilize a new rectangular coil designed for treating multi well tissue culture plate and show that these particles are superior to two commercially available IONPs for hyperthermia of DU145 prostate cancer cells in culture. We report results of pilot in-vivo experiments using the DU145 human prostate xenograft model in nude male mouse. AMF treatment yielded an intratumor temperature rise > 10 degrees C in <10 min heating (AMF amplitude 29 kA/m @160 kHz) with similar to 4 mg nanoparticle /g tumor while maintaining rectal (core) temperature well within physiological range.

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

3.8
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