4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Quality analysis of in vivo near-infrared fluorescence and conventional gamma images acquired using a dual-labeled tumor-targeting probe -: art. no. 054010

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL OPTICS
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.2114748

关键词

fluorescence-enhanced optical imaging; continuous wave; photon migration; contrast agent; molecular imaging of cancer

资金

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [R01 EB00174, R01 EB003132] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cyclic peptide, cyclopentapeptide cyclo(lys-Arg-GlyAsp-phe) (c(KRGDf)), which is known to target alpha v beta 3 integrin, is dual-labeled with a radiotracer, (111)indium, for gamma scintigraphy as well as with a near-infrared dye, IRDye800, for continuous-wave (cw) imaging of av beta 3 positive human M21 melanoma in xenografts. Twentyfour hours after administration of the dual-labeled peptide at a dose equivalent to 90 mu Ci of In-111 and 5 nmol of near-infrared (NIR) dye, whole-body gamma scintigraphy and cw imaging was conducted. image acquisition time was 15 min for the gamma scintigraphy images and 800 ms for the.,optical images acquired using an NIR sensitive intensified charge-coupled device. The results show that while the target-to-background ratio (TBR) of nuclear and optical imaging were similar for surface regions of interest and consistent with the origin of. gamma and NIR radiation from a common targeted peptide, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was significantly higher for optical than nuclear imaging. Furthermore, an analysis of SNR versus contrast showed greater sensitivity of optical over nuclear imaging for the subcutaneous tumor targets. While tomographic reconstructions are necessary to probe TBR, SNR, and contrast for interior tissues, this work demonstrates for the first time the direct comparison of molecular optical and planar nuclear imaging for surface and subsurface cancers. (c) 2005 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.

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