Journal of Medical Ultrasonics

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 11–21 | Cite as

Ultrasound image-guided therapy enhances antitumor effect of cisplatin

  • Noboru Sasaki
  • Nobuki Kudo
  • Kensuke Nakamura
  • Sue Yee Lim
  • Masahiro Murakami
  • W. R. Bandula Kumara
  • Yu Tamura
  • Hiroshi Ohta
  • Masahiro Yamasaki
  • Mitsuyoshi TakiguchiEmail author
Original Article



The aim of this study was to clarify whether ultrasound image-guided cisplatin delivery with an intratumor microbubble injection enhances the antitumor effect in a xenograft mouse model.


Canine thyroid adenocarcinoma cells were used for all experiments. Before in vivo experiments, the cisplatin and microbubble concentration and ultrasound exposure time were optimized in vitro. For in vivo experiments, cells were implanted into the back of nude mice. Observed by a diagnostic ultrasound machine, a mixture of cisplatin and ultrasound contrast agent, Sonazoid, microbubbles was injected directly into tumors. The amount of injected cisplatin and microbubbles was 1 μg/tumor and 1.2 × 107 microbubbles/tumor, respectively, with a total injected volume of 20 μl. Using the same diagnostic machine, tumors were exposed to ultrasound for 15 s. The treatment was repeated four times.


The combination of cisplatin, microbubbles, and ultrasound significantly delayed tumor growth as compared with no treatment (after 18 days, 157 ± 55 vs. 398 ± 49 mm3, P = 0.049). Neither cisplatin alone nor the combination of cisplatin and ultrasound delayed tumor growth. The treatment did not decrease the body weight of mice.


Ultrasound image-guided anticancer drug delivery may enhance the antitumor effects of drugs without obvious side effects.


Diagnostic ultrasound Microbubble Image-guided drug delivery 



This study was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 23580436) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (M.T.). The authors would like to thank Miss Nao Watanabe for her help in in vivo experiments.

Conflict of interest


Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MPG 19074 kb)


  1. 1.
    Sleijfer D, Meijer S, Mulder NH. Cisplatin: a review of clinical applications and renal toxicity. Pharm Weekbl [Sci]. 1985;7:237–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Voke EE. Induction chemotherapy for head and neck cancer: recent data. Oncologist. 2010;15:3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Dwyer PJ, Stevenson JP, Johnson SW. Clinical pharmacokinetics and administration of established platinum drugs. Drugs. 2000;59:19–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giaccone G. Clinical perspectives on platinum resistance. Drugs. 2000;59:9–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gately DP, Howell SB. Cellular accumulation of the anticancer agent cisplatin: a review. Br J Cancer. 1983;67:1171–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siddik ZH. Cisplatin: mode of cytotoxic action and molecular basis of resistance. Oncogene. 2003;22:7265–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Testori A, Tosti G, Martinoli C, et al. Electrochemotherapy for cutaneous and subcutaneous tumor lesions: a novel therapeutic approach. Dermatol Ther. 2010;23:651–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stathopoulos GP, Antoniou D, Dimitroulis J, et al. Liposomal cisplatin combined with paclitaxel versus cisplatin and paclitaxel in non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III multicenter trial. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:2227–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Plummer R, Wilson RH, Calvert H, et al. A phase I clinical study of cisplatin-incorporated polymeric micelles (NC-6004) in patients with solid tumors. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:593–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sonoda S, Tachibana K, Uchino E, et al. Inhibition of melanoma by ultrasound-microbubble-aided drug delivery suggests membrane permeabilization. Cancer Biol Ther. 2007;6:1282–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iwanaga K, Tominaga K, Yamamoto K, et al. Local delivery system of cytotoxic agents to tumors by focused sonoporation. Cancer Gene Ther. 2007;14:354–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Watanabe Y, Aoi A, Horie S, et al. Low-intensity ultrasound and microbubbles enhance the antitumor effect of cisplatin. Cancer Sci. 2008;99:2525–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xing W, Gang WZ, Yong Z, et al. Treatment of xenografted ovarian carcinoma using paclitaxel-loaded ultrasound microbubbles. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:1574–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kang J, Wu X, Wang Z, et al. Antitumor effect of docetaxel-loaded lipid microbubbles combined with ultrasound-targeted microbubbles activation on VX2 rabbit liver tumors. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29:61–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhao YZ, Lu CT, Zhou ZC, et al. Enhancing chemotherapeutic drug inhibition on tumor growth by ultrasound: an in vivo experiment. J Drug Target. 2011;19:154–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matsuo M, Yamaguchi K, Feril LB, et al. Synergistic inhibition of malignant melanoma proliferation by melphalan combined with ultrasound and microbubbles. Ultrason Sonochem. 2011;18:1218–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sorace AG, Warram JM, Umphrey H, et al. Microbubble-mediated ultrasonic techniques for improved chemotherapeutic delivery in cancer. J Drug Target. 2012;20:43–54.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin CY, Tseng HC, Shiu HR, et al. Ultrasound sonication with microbubbles disrupts blood vessels and enhances tumor treatments of anticancer nanodrug. Int J Nanomed. 2012;7:2143–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Wamel A, Kooiman K, Harteveld M, et al. Vibrating microbubbles poking individual cells: drug transfer into cells via sonoporation. J Control Release. 2006;112:149–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Juffermans LJM, van Dijk A, Jongenelen CAM, et al. Ultrasound and microbubble-induced intra- and intercellular bioeffects in primary endothelial cells. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009;35:1917–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tachibana K, Uchida T, Ogawa K, et al. Induction of cell-membrane porosity by ultrasound. Lancet. 1999;353:1409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kudo N, Okada K, Yamamoto K. Sonoporation by single-shot pulsed ultrasound with microbubbles adjacent to cells. Biophys J. 2009;96:4866–76.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eisenbrey JR, Soulen MC, Wheatley MA. Delivery of encapsulated doxorubicin by ultrasound-mediated size reduction of drug-loaded polymer contrast agents. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2007;57:24–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tinkov S, Coester C, Serba S, et al. New doxorubicin-loaded phospholipid microbubbles for targeted tumor therapy: in vivo characterization. J Control Release. 2010;148:368–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Price RJ, Skyba DM, Kaul S, et al. Delivery of colloidal particles and red blood cells to tissue through microvessel ruptures created by targeted microbubble destruction with ultrasound. Circulation. 1998;98:1264–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miller DL, Quddus J. Diagnostic ultrasound activation of contrast agent gas bodies induces capillary rupture in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97:10179–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miller DL, Quddus J. Lysis and sonoporation of epidermoid and phagocytic monolayer cells by diagnostic ultrasound activation of contrast agent gas bodies. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001;27:1107–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sasaki N, Kudo N, Nakamura K, et al. Activation of microbubbles by short-pulsed ultrasound enhances the cytotoxic effect of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum (II) in a canine thyroid adenocarcinoma cell line in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2012;38:109–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hobbs SK, Monsky WL, Yuan F, et al. Regulation of transport pathways in tumor vessels: role of tumor type and microenvironment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:4607–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hashizume H, Baluk P, Morikawa S, et al. Openings between defective endothelial cells explain tumor vessel leakiness. Am J Pathol. 2000;156:1363–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kindberg GM, Tolleshaug T, Roos N, et al. Hepatic clearance of Sonazoid perfluorobutane microbubbles by Kupffer cells does not reduce the ability of liver to phagocytose or degrade albumin microspheres. Cell Tissue Res. 2003;312:49–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sontum PC, Østensen J, Dyrstad K, et al. Acoustic properties of NC100100 and their relation with the microbubble size distribution. Invest Radiol. 1999;34:268–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lamb H. Hydrodynamics. 6th ed. New York: Dover Publications; 1932.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Postema M, van Wamel A, Lancée CT, et al. Ultrasound-induced encapsulated microbubble phenomena. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2004;30:827–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chomas JE, Dayton PA, May D, et al. Threshold of fragmentation for ultrasonic contrast agents. J Biom Opt. 2001;6:141–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kinoshita M, Hynynen K. Key factors that affect sonoporation efficiency in in vitro settings: the importance of standing wave in sonoporation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2007;359:860–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gervais DA, Arellano RS. Percutaneous tumor ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:789–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sipos JA. Advances in ultrasound for the diagnosis and management of thyroid cancer. Thyroid. 2009;19:1363–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Plante MK, Folsom JB, Zvara P. Prostatic tissue ablation by injection: a literature review. J Urol. 2004;172:20–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gullo JJ, Litterst CL, Maguire PJ, et al. Pharmacokinetics and protein binding of cis-dichlorodiammine platinum (II) administered as a one hour or as a twenty hour infusion. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1980;5:21–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stewart DJ, Benjamin RS, Luna M, et al. Human tissue distribution of platinum after cis-diamminedichloroplatinum. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1982;10:51–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Leunig M, Yuan F, Menger MD, et al. Angiogenesis, microvascular architecture, microhemodynamics, and interstitial fluid pressure during early growth of human adenocarcinoma LSI74T in SCID mice. Cancer Res. 1992;52:6553–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Song J, Klibanov AL, Hossack JA, et al. Acoustic attenuation by contrast agent microbubbles in superficial tissue markedly diminishes petechiae bioeffects in deep tissue. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:322–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Leighton TG. The acoustic bubble. London: Academic Press; 1994. p. 312–41.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Caskey CF, Stieger SM, Qin S, et al. Direct observations of ultrasound microbubble contrast agent interaction with the microvessel wall. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;122:1191–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Juffermans LJM, Dijkmans PA, Musters RJP, et al. Transient permeabilization of cell membranes by ultrasound-exposed microbubbles is related to formation of hydrogen peroxide. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2006;291:1595–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Society of Ultrasonics in Medicine 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noboru Sasaki
    • 1
  • Nobuki Kudo
    • 2
  • Kensuke Nakamura
    • 3
  • Sue Yee Lim
    • 1
  • Masahiro Murakami
    • 1
  • W. R. Bandula Kumara
    • 1
  • Yu Tamura
    • 1
  • Hiroshi Ohta
    • 1
  • Masahiro Yamasaki
    • 1
  • Mitsuyoshi Takiguchi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Laboratory of Veterinary Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Veterinary MedicineHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  2. 2.Laboratory of Biomedical Engineering, Graduate School of Information Science and TechnologyHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  3. 3.Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Graduate School of Veterinary MedicineHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations