Peripheral washout phenomenon in an animal tumour model: comparison of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging using a small molecular contrast medium with histology*

Angiogenesis Research in Mouse Mammary Cancer Based on Contrast-enhanced Ultrasonography: Exploratory Study

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to investigate the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) characteristics of tumor angiogenesis in mouse mammary cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-four mice were examined with ultrasound and CEUS at 2-12 days after implantation. Four to five mice were assessed daily, and one to three mice were then sacrificed for histology. All of the histologic slides were reviewed and correlated with CEUS findings.

RESULTS

A total of 46 cases of ultrasound examination had been performed in 24 mice. The mice were classified into three groups according to the tumor growth: group 1 (2~6 days after implantation, n = 20 cases), group 2 (7~9 days after implantation, n = 15 cases), and group 3 (10~12 days after implantation, n = 11 cases). In group 1, all tumors presented as a homogeneous hypoechoic mass with no color Doppler signals. However, three CEUS patterns were observed: 14 tumors presented as type I (peripheral ring enhancement with no enhancement within the tumor), 4 tumors presented as type II (peripheral ring enhancement with deep penetration), and 2 tumors presented as type III (homogeneous or heterogeneous enhancement in the entire tumor). In group 2, there was only difference in the echo (heterogeneous or not) and color Doppler signals (with or without) among the tumors in conventional ultrasound, but four CEUS patterns were observed and most presented as type III (53.3%, 8/15). In group 3, most tumors presented as a heterogeneous solid mass (81.8%, 9/11) with color signals (100%, 11/11), and almost all tumors presented as enhancement of type IV (peripheral ring enhancement with focal nodular enhancement) (90.9%, 10/11).The histologic results showed that the enhanced areas mainly corresponded to tumor cells, large tortuous vessels, and an inflammatory cell infiltrate. Nonenhanced areas corresponded to large areas of necrotic tissue or tumor cells, which arranged loosely with the small zone of necrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

CEUS could image the progression of vessel formation. Moreover, most importantly, CEUS is able to identify angiogenesis before the change of tumor color Doppler, and presents different enhanced patterns at different tumor growth times, which corresponded to tumor histologic features.

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2-specific microbubbles for molecular ultrasound detection of prostate cancer in a rat model

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether rat prostate cancer can be detected by means of molecular ultrasound (US) using target-specific microbubbles versus a nonspecific contrast agent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 20 Copenhagen rats were randomly examined 75 to 104 days after orthotopic implantation of G-Dunning rat prostatic tumor cells was using a high-end US system and either 1.2 mL/kg of the nonspecific agent A or 0.1 mL/kg of the target-specific agent B, containing vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 binding peptide. Contrast inflow (areas under the curve analysis) was determined during the first 30s, and all microbubbles were destroyed in the scan plane by means of the flash technique 20 minutes after intravenous administration to investigate specific accumulation of individual bubbles in tumors. Differences between normal prostate tissue and tumor were analyzed using luminance images. Sonographically determined tumor localization and extent were compared with magnetic resonance imaging and histology.

RESULTS

The median tumor size in the 20 rats determined on US (2.3 mm) and magnetic resonance imaging (2.4 mm) showed a very high correlation (r = 0.92, P = 0.01). Both agent A and agent B demonstrated higher vascularization of tumor periphery compared with normal prostate (P < 0.05) based on contrast inflow and areas under the curve analysis. Twenty minutes after administration, luminance for agent B in the tumor was significantly higher (P = 0.003) compared with nonspecific agent A (11.8-0.1). In consensus reading, the increase in signal intensity of the tumor compared with normal prostate tissue was significantly higher for agent B (P = 0.005), whereas no significant difference was found for agent A (P = 0.180).

CONCLUSIONS

The target-specific contrast agent was superior to the unspecific US contrast agent both with regard to early inflow analysis and specific accumulation in prostate cancer after 20 minutes.