Morphological, functional and metabolic imaging biomarkers: assessment of vascular-disrupting effect on rodent liver tumours
To evaluate effects of a vascular-disrupting agent on rodent tumour models.
Twenty rats with liver rhabdomyosarcomas received ZD6126 intravenously at 20 mg/kg, and 10 vehicle-treated rats were used as controls. Multiple sequences, including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) with the microvascular permeability constant (K), were acquired at baseline, 1 h, 24 h and 48 h post-treatment by using 1.5-T MRI. [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose micro-positron emission tomography (18F-FDG µPET) was acquired pre- and post-treatment. The imaging biomarkers including tumour volume, enhancement ratio, necrosis ratio, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and K from MRI, and maximal standardised uptake value (SUVmax) from FDG µPET were quantified and correlated with postmortem microangiography and histopathology.
In the ZD6126-treated group, tumours grew slower with higher necrosis ratio at 48 h (P < 0.05), corresponding well to histopathology; tumour K decreased from 1 h until 24 h, and partially recovered at 48 h (P < 0.05), parallel to the evolving enhancement ratios (P < 0.05); ADCs varied with tumour viability and perfusion; and SUVmax dropped at 24 h (P < 0.01). Relative K of tumour versus liver at 48 h correlated with relative vascular density on microangiography (r = 0.93, P < 0.05).
The imaging biomarkers allowed morphological, functional and metabolic quantifications of vascular shutdown, necrosis formation and tumour relapse shortly after treatment. A single dose of ZD6126 significantly diminished tumour blood supply and growth until 48 h post-treatment.
KeywordsZD6126 Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Positron emission tomography (PET) Tumour Liver Imaging biomarkers
- 2.Padhani AR, Liu G, Mu-Koh D, Chenevert TL, Thoeny HC, Takahara T, Dzik-Jurasz A, Ross BD, Van Cauteren M, Collins D, Hammoud DA, Rustin GJ, Taouli B, Choyke PL (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 11:102–125PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.US FDA (2009) Medical imaging and drug development. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/ucm092895.htm. Accessed 17 Sept 2009
- 8.Evelhoch JL, LoRusso PM, He Z, DelProposto Z, Polin L, Corbett TH, Langmuir P, Wheeler C, Stone A, Leadbetter J, Ryan AJ, Blakey DC, Waterton JC (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging measurements of the response of murine and human tumors to the vascular-targeting agent ZD6126. Clin Cancer Res 10:3650–3657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Wang H, Sun X, Chen F, De Keyzer F, Yu J, Landuyt W, Vandecaveye V, Peeters R, Bosmans H, Hermans R, Marchal G, Ni Y (2009) Treatment of rodent liver tumor with combretastatin A4 phosphate: noninvasive therapeutic evaluation using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in correlation with microangiography and histology. Invest Radiol 44:44–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Thoeny HC, De Keyzer F, Vandecaveye V, Chen F, Sun X, Bosmans H, Hermans R, Verbeken EK, Boesch C, Marchal G, Landuyt W, Ni Y (2005) Effect of vascular targeting agent in rat tumor model: dynamic contrast-enhanced versus diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 237:492–499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, Evelhoch JL, Henderson E, Knopp MV, Larsson HB, Lee TY, Mayr NA, Parker GJ, Port RE, Taylor J, Weisskoff RM (1999) Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:223–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.McIntyre DJ, Robinson SP, Howe FA, Griffiths JR, Ryan AJ, Blakey DC, Peers IS, Waterton JC (2004) Single dose of the antivascular agent, ZD6126 (N-acetylcolchinol-O-phosphate), reduces perfusion for at least 96 hours in the GH3 prolactinoma rat tumor model. Neoplasia 6:150–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, Verweij J, Van Glabbeke M, van Oosterom AT, Christian MC, Gwyther SG (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Leach MO, Brindle KM, Evelhoch JL, Griffiths JR, Horsman MR, Jackson A, Jayson GC, Judson IR, Knopp MV, Maxwell RJ, McIntyre D, Padhani AR, Price P, Rathbone R, Rustin GJ, Tofts PS, Tozer GM, Vennart W, Waterton JC, Williams SR, Workman P (2005) The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br J Cancer 92:1599–1610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.Kelloff GJ, Krohn KA, Larson SM, Weissleder R, Mankoff DA, Hoffman JM, Link JM, Guyton KZ, Eckelman WC, Scher HI, O’Shaughnessy J, Cheson BD, Sigman CC, Tatum JL, Mills GQ, Sullivan DC, Woodcock J (2005) The progress and promise of molecular imaging probes in oncologic drug development. Clin Cancer Res 11:7967–7985CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 47.Schor-Bardach R, Alsop DC, Pedrosa I, Solazzo SA, Wang X, Marquis RP, Atkins MB, Regan M, Signoretti S, Lenkinski RE, Goldberg SN (2009) Does arterial spin-labeling MR imaging-measured tumor perfusion correlate with renal cell cancer response to antiangiogenic therapy in a mouse model? Radiology 251:731–742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar