European Radiology

, Volume 15, Issue 7, pp 1415–1420 | Cite as

Use of a microbubble agent to increase the effects of high intensity focused ultrasound on liver tissue

  • Yukio Kaneko
  • Toshiyuki Maruyama
  • Kenji Takegami
  • Toshiaki Watanabe
  • Hiroshi Mitsui
  • Kazuyuki Hanajiri
  • Hirokazu Nagawa
  • Yoichiro Matsumoto
Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Abstract

In order to find out whether high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) might be useful against hepatocellular carcinoma, we analyzed the effect of a microbubble agent (Levovist) on the temperature rise and tissue necrosis induced by HIFU. Rabbits were given 7 ml Levovist (300 mg/ml) or saline intravenously. Up to six areas per rabbit liver were exposed to HIFU for 60 s (2.18 MHz, ISPTA=400 W/cm2). The volume of the tissue coagulated by HIFU was measured 10 min after the start of HIFU. HIFU-induced lesions were larger in the animals given Levovist: (mm3, Levovist versus saline) 371±104 versus 166±71 (P<0.001). Temperatures in the animals given Levovist were also higher 60 s after the start of exposure: (°C, Levovist versus saline) 20.3±3.5 versus 13.2±3.8 (P<0.001). The amount of damage differed greatly, but the pathological changes caused by HIFU with Levovist were the same as those caused by HIFU with saline. Hemorrhagic areas and implosion cysts were seen, and many cells had been disrupted or destroyed. Microbubble agents developed for diagnostic uses could also be used in anticancer therapy.

Keywords

HIFU Ultrasound Microbubble Levovist Coagulation 

References

  1. 1.
    Frizzell LA (1988) Threshold dosages for damage to mammalian liver by high-intensity focused ultrasound. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelect Freq Control 35:578–581Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Linke CA, Carstensen EL, Frizzell LA, Elbodawi A, Fridd CW (1973) Localised tissue destruction by high-intensity focused ultrasound. Arch Surg 107:887–891Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moore WE, Lopez RM, Matthews DE, Sheets PW, Etchison MR, Hurwitz AS, Chalian AA, Fry FJ, Vane DW, Grosfeld JL (1989) Evaluation of high-intensity therapeutic ultrasound in the treatment of experimental hepatoma. J Pediatr Surg 24:30–33Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yang R, Reilly CR, Rescorla FJ, Faught PR, Sanghvi NT, Fry FJ, Franklin TD Jr, Lumeng L, Grosfeld JL (1991) High-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of experimental liver tumours. Arch Surg 126:1002–1010Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sibille A, Prat F, Chapelon JY, abou el Fadil F, Henry L, Theilliere Y, Ponchon T, Cathignol D (1993) Characterisation of extracorporeal ablation of normal and tumour-bearing liver tissue by high-intensity focused ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 19:803–813Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vallancien G, Chartier-Kastler E, Bataille N, Chopin D, Haroumi M, Bougaran J (1993) Focused extracorporeal pyrotherapy. Eur Urol 23:48–52Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Madersbacher S, Pedevilla M, Vingers L, Susani M, Marberger M (1995) Effect of high-intensity focused ultrasound on human prostate cancer in vivo. Cancer Res 55:3346–3351Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vallancien G, Harouni M, Guillonneau B, Veillon B, Bougaran J (1998) Ablation of superficial bladder tumours with pyrotherapy. Urology 47:204–207Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wu F, Wang ZB, Chen WZ, Zou JZ, Bai J, Zhu H, Li KQ, Xie FL, Jin CB, Su HB, Gao GW (2004) Extracorporeal focused ultrasound surgery for treatment of human solid carcinomas: early Chinese clinical experience. Ultrasound Med Biol 30:245–260Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gelczer RK, Charboneau JW, Hussain S, Brown DL (1998) Complications of percutaneous ethanol ablation. J Ultrasound Med 17:531–533Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Solbiati L, Ierace T, Goldberg SN, Sironi S, Livraghi T, Fiocca R, Servadio G, Rizzatto G, Mueller PR, Del Maschio A, Gazelle GS (1997) Percutaneous US-guided radiofrequency tissue ablation of liver metastases: treatment and follow-up in 16 patients. Radiology 202:195–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yamada R, Sato M, Kawabata M, Nakatsuka H, Nakamura K, Takashima S (1983) Hepatic artery embolization in 120 patients with unresectable hepatoma. Radiology 148:397–401PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moran CM, Watson RJ, Fox KAA , McDicken WN (2002) In vitro acoustic characterisation of four intravenous ultrasonic contrast agents at 30 MHz. Ultrasound Med Biol 28:785–791Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blomley MJ, Cooke JC, Unger EC, Monaghan MJ, Cosgrove DO (2001) Microbubble contrast agents: a new era in ultrasound. BMJ 322:1222–1225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yu T, Wang G, Hu K, Ma P, Bai J, Wang Z (2004) A microbubble agent improves the therapeutic efficiency of high intensity focused ultrasound: a rabbit kidney study. Urol Res 32:14–19Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Umemura S, Kawabata K, Hashiba K (2001) Enhancement of ultrasound absorption by microbubbles for therapeutic application. In: Proceedings of 2001 IEEE ultrasonic symposium, vol 2, pp 1311–1314Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holt RG, Roy RA (2001) Measurement of bubble-enhanced heating from focused, MHz-frequency ultrasound in a tissue-mimicking material. Ultrasound Med Biol 27:1399–1412Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaneko Y, Higaki T, Maruyama T, Matsumoto Y (2003) The effect of microbubbles as a heat transducer. In: Proceedings of 3rd international symposium on therapeutic ultrasound, June 22–25 Lyon, France, pp 55–60Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matsumoto Y, Allen JS, Yoshizawa S, Ikeda T, Kaneko Y (2005) Medical ultrasound with microbubbles. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 29:255–265Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prokop AF, Vaezy S, Noble ML, Kaczkowski PJ, Martin RW, Crum LA (2003) Polyacrylamide gel as an acoustic coupling medium for focused ultrasound therapy. Ultrasound Med Biol 29:1351–1358Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ter Haar G, Rivens I, Chen L, Riddler S (1991) High intensity focused ultrasound for treatment of rat tumor. Phys Med Biol 36:1495–1501Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zeng J-Q, Wang G-M, Yao B, Wang G-X, He S-X (2004) Short-term results of 89 cases of rectal carcinoma treated with high-intensity focused ultrasound and low-dose radiotherapy. Ultrasound Med Biol 30:57–60Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Umemura S, Kawabata K, Sanghvi N, Sasaki K (2002) Enhancement of ultrasonic absorption by microbubble agent for HIFU treatment. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on Therapeutic Ultrasound, July 29–August 1, Seattle, America, pp 527–532Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen L, ter Haar G, Hill CR, Eccles SA, Box G (1998) Treatment of implanted liver tumors with focused ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 24:1475–1488Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen L, ter Haar G, Robertson D, Bensted JP, Hill CR (1999) Histological study of normal and tumor-bearing liver treated with focused ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 25:847–856Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miller MW, Miller DL, Brayman AA (1996) A review of in vitro bioeffects of inertial ultrasonic cavitation from a mechanistic perspective. Ultrasound Med Biol 22:1131–1154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baker KG, Robertson VJ, Duck FA (2001) A review of therapeutic ultrasound: biophysical effects. Phys Ther 81:1351–1358Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kennedy JE, Ter Haar GR, Cranston D (2003) High intensity focused ultrasound: surgery of the future? Br J Radiol 76:590–599Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tran BC, Seo J, Hall TL, Fowlkes JB, Cain CA (2003) Microbubble-enhanced cavitation for noninvasive ultrasound surgery. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 50:1296–1304Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yukio Kaneko
    • 1
  • Toshiyuki Maruyama
    • 2
  • Kenji Takegami
    • 3
  • Toshiaki Watanabe
    • 3
  • Hiroshi Mitsui
    • 2
  • Kazuyuki Hanajiri
    • 2
  • Hirokazu Nagawa
    • 3
  • Yoichiro Matsumoto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of GastroenterologyThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Surgical OncologyThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations