European Radiology

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 468–475 | Cite as

The high angiogenic activity in very early breast cancer enables reliable imaging with VEGFR2-targeted microbubbles (BR55)

  • Jessica Bzyl
  • Moritz Palmowski
  • Anne Rix
  • Susanne Arns
  • Jean-Marc Hyvelin
  • Sibylle Pochon
  • Josef Ehling
  • Simone Schrading
  • Fabian Kiessling
  • Wiltrud Lederle
Molecular Imaging



Tumour xenografts of well-discernible sizes can be examined well by molecular ultrasound. Here, we investigated whether very early breast carcinomas express sufficient levels of VEGFR2 for reliable molecular ultrasound imaging with targeted microbubbles.


MCF-7 breast cancer xenografts were orthotopically implanted in nude mice (n = 26). Tumours measuring from 4 mm3 (2 mm diameter) up to 65 mm3 (5 mm diameter) were examined with automated 3D molecular ultrasound using clinically translatable VEGFR2-targeted microbubbles (BR55). Additionally, the relative tumour blood volume was assessed with non-targeted microbubbles (BR38). In vivo ultrasound data were validated by quantitative immunohistochemistry.


Very small lesions 2 mm in diameter showed the highest binding of VEGFR2-specific microbubbles. In larger tumours significantly less BR55 accumulated (p = 0.023). Nonetheless, binding of VEGFR2-targeted microbubbles was still high enough for imaging. The relative blood volume was comparable at all tumour sizes. Both findings were confirmed by immunohistochemistry. Additionally, a significantly enhanced number of large and mature vessels were detected with increasing tumour size (p < 0.01), explaining the decrease in VEGFR2 expression during tumour growth.


3D molecular ultrasound using BR55 is very well suited to depicting the angiogenic activity in very small breast lesions, suggesting its potential for detecting and characterising these lesions.

Key Points

Xenografts implanted into nude mice offer new insights into breast cancer.

Small MCF-7 breast xenografts (2 mm) exhibit greater VEGFR2 expression than larger tumours.

3D molecular ultrasound with BR55 microbubbles accurately depicts the high angiogenic activity.

Detecting and characterising small cancers with molecular ultrasound may become possible.


Breast cancer 3D molecular ultrasound Small tumours Angiogenesis VEGFR2 


  1. 1.
    Palmowski M, Morgenstern B, Hauff P et al (2008) Pharmacodynamics of streptavidin-coated cyanoacrylate microbubbles designed for molecular ultrasound imaging. Invest Radiol 43:162–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Palmowski M, Huppert J, Ladewig G et al (2008) Molecular profiling of angiogenesis with targeted ultrasound imaging: early assessment of antiangiogenic therapy effects. Mol Cancer Ther 7:101–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee DJ, Lyshchik A, Huamani J et al (2008) Relationship between retention of a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2)-targeted ultrasonographic contrast agent and the level of VEGFR2 expression in an in vivo breast cancer model. J Ultrasound Med 27:855–866PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Willmann JK, Cheng Z, Davis C et al (2008) Targeted microbubbles for imaging tumor angiogenesis: assessment of whole-body biodistribution with dynamic micro-PET in mice. Radiology 249:212–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ellegala DB, Leong-Poi H, Carpenter JE et al (2003) Imaging tumor angiogenesis with contrast ultrasound and microbubbles targeted to alpha(v)beta3. Circulation 108:336–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leong-Poi H, Christiansen J, Klibanov AL et al (2003) Noninvasive assessment of angiogenesis by ultrasound and microbubbles targeted to alpha(v)-integrins. Circulation 107:455–460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anderson CR, Rychak JJ, Backer M et al (2010) scVEGF microbubble ultrasound contrast agents: a novel probe for ultrasound molecular imaging of tumor angiogenesis. Invest Radiol 45:579–585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pillai R, Marinelli ER, Fan H et al (2010) A phospholipid-PEG2000 conjugate of a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2)-targeting heterodimer peptide for contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of angiogenesis. Bioconjug Chem 21:556–562Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Streeter JE, Gessner R, Miles I et al (2010) Improving sensitivity in ultrasound molecular imaging by tailoring contrast agent size distribution: in vivo studies. Mol Imaging 9:87–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anderson CR, Hu X, Zhang H et al (2011) Ultrasound molecular imaging of tumor angiogenesis with an integrin targeted microbubble contrast agent. Invest Radiol 46:215–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bzyl J, Lederle W, Rix A et al (2011) Molecular and functional ultrasound imaging in differently aggressive breast cancer xenografts using two novel ultrasound contrast agents (BR55 and BR38). Eur Radiol 21:1988–1995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pochon S, Tardy I, Bussat P et al (2010) BR55: a lipopeptide-based VEGFR2-targeted ultrasound contrast agent for molecular imaging of angiogenesis. Invest Radiol 45:89–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tardy I, Pochon S, Theraulaz M et al (2010) Ultrasound molecular imaging of VEGFR2 in a rat prostate tumor model using BR55. Invest Radiol 45:573–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pysz MA, Foygel K, Rosenberg J et al (2010) Antiangiogenic cancer therapy: monitoring with molecular US and a clinically translatable contrast agent (BR55). Radiology 256:519–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bergers G, Benjamin LE (2003) Tumorigenesis and the angiogenic switch. Nat Rev Cancer 3:401–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thompson A, Brennan K, Cox A et al (2008) Evaluation of the current knowledge limitations in breast cancer research: a gap analysis. Breast Cancer Res 10:R26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bombardieri E, Gianni L (2004) The choice of the correct imaging modality in breast cancer management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31(Suppl 1):S179–S186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deshpande N, Ren Y, Foygel K et al (2011) Tumor angiogenic marker expression levels during tumor growth: longitudinal assessment with molecularly targeted microbubbles and US imaging. Radiology 258:804–811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wenkel E, Heckmann M, Heinrich M et al (2008) Automated breast ultrasound: lesion detection and BI-RADS classification—a pilot study. Rofo 180:804–808PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS et al (2010) Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 20:734–742PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reinhardt M, Hauff P, Briel A et al (2005) Sensitive particle acoustic quantification (SPAQ): a new ultrasound-based approach for the quantification of ultrasound contrast media in high concentrations. Invest Radiol 40:2–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schneider M, Anantharam B, Arditi M et al (2011) BR38, a new ultrasound blood pool agent. Invest Radiol 46:486–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Palmowski M, Peschke P, Huppert J et al (2009) Molecular ultrasound imaging of early vascular response in prostate tumors irradiated with carbon ions. Neoplasia 11:856–863PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Palmowski M, Lederle W, Gaetjens J et al (2010) Comparison of conventional time-intensity curves vs. maximum intensity over time for post-processing of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 75:e149–e153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hellstrom M, Kalen M, Lindahl P et al (1999) Role of PDGF-B and PDGFR-beta in recruitment of vascular smooth muscle cells and pericytes during embryonic blood vessel formation in the mouse. Development 126:3047–3055PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144:646–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vajkoczy P, Farhadi M, Gaumann A et al (2002) Microtumor growth initiates angiogenic sprouting with simultaneous expression of VEGF, VEGF receptor-2, and angiopoietin-2. J Clin Invest 109:777–785PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S et al (2010) Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol 28:1450–1457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liberman L, Mason G, Morris EA et al (2006) Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:426–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kuhl C (2007) The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 244:356–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith NR, Baker D, James NH et al (2010) Vascular endothelial growth factor receptors VEGFR-2 and VEGFR-3 are localized primarily to the vasculature in human primary solid cancers. Clin Cancer Res 16:3548–3561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jacobs TW, Schnitt SJ, Tan X et al (2002) Radial scars of the breast and breast carcinomas have similar alterations in expression of factors involved in vascular stroma formation. Hum Pathol 33:29–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hille H, Vetter M, Hackeloer BJ (2007) The suitability of high-resolution ultrasound for the detection of DCIS. Ultraschall Med 28:307–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schoonjans JM, Brem RF (2000) Sonographic appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed with ultrasonographically guided large core needle biopsy: correlation with mammographic and pathologic findings. J Ultrasound Med 19:449–457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moon WK, Myung JS, Lee YJ et al (2002) US of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics 22:269–280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Guidi AJ, Fischer L, Harris JR et al (1994) Microvessel density and distribution in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst 86:614–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guidi AJ, Schnitt SJ, Fischer L et al (1997) Vascular permeability factor (vascular endothelial growth factor) expression and angiogenesis in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer 80:1945–1953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Viacava P, Naccarato AG, Bocci G et al (2004) Angiogenesis and VEGF expression in pre-invasive lesions of the human breast. J Pathol 204:140–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Raica M, Cimpean AM, Ribatti D (2009) Angiogenesis in pre-malignant conditions. Eur J Cancer 45:1924–1934PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lederle W, Stark HJ, Skobe M et al (2006) Platelet-derived growth factor-BB controls epithelial tumor phenotype by differential growth factor regulation in stromal cells. Am J Pathol 169:1767–1783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lederle W, Linde N, Heusel J et al (2010) Platelet-derived growth factor-B normalizes micromorphology and vessel function in vascular endothelial growth factor-A-induced squamous cell carcinomas. Am J Pathol 176:981–994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jain RK (2001) Normalizing tumor vasculature with anti-angiogenic therapy: a new paradigm for combination therapy. Nat Med 7:987–989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica Bzyl
    • 1
  • Moritz Palmowski
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anne Rix
    • 1
  • Susanne Arns
    • 1
  • Jean-Marc Hyvelin
    • 3
  • Sibylle Pochon
    • 3
  • Josef Ehling
    • 1
    • 4
  • Simone Schrading
    • 5
  • Fabian Kiessling
    • 1
  • Wiltrud Lederle
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Experimental Molecular ImagingRWTH-Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineRWTH-Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  3. 3.Bracco Suisse SAGenevaSwitzerland
  4. 4.Institute of PathologyRWTH-Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  5. 5.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyRWTH-Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations