Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 299–306 | Cite as

Functionalized Magnetonanoparticles in Visualization of Intracranial Tumors on MRI

  • Massoud Akhtari
  • Whitney Pope
  • Gary Mathern
  • Rex Moats
  • Andrew Frew
  • Mark Mandelkern
Research Article



The development of nonradioactive and targeted magnetonanoparticles (MNP) capable of crossing the blood–brain barrier (BBB) and of concentrating in and enhancing the contrast of intracranial tumors on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).


Nonradioactive 2-deoxy-d-glucose (2DG) was covalently attached to magnetonanoparticles composed of iron oxide and dextran and prepared for intravenous (tail) injection in the naïve rats and mouse models of glioma. MR images were acquired at 3 and 7 T.


2DG-MNP increased tumor visibility and improved delineation of tumor margins. Histopathology confirmed that 2DG-MNP crossed the BBB and accumulated within brain parenchyma.


Nonradioactive 2DG-MNP can cross an intact BBB on and improve visualization of tumor and tumor margins on MRI.

Key words

Magnetonanoparticles Targeted Glioma 2-Deoxyglucose MRI Contrast 



The authors are greatly indebted to Dr. Gevorg Karapetian and Dr. Ira Harutyunyan for their invaluable help and input with acquisition of the MR images. The authors are also indebted to Dr. Leonard Rome of UCLA School of Medicine Dean’s Office for his foresight and support of this project. This Work was supported by generous grants from Stein/Oppenheimer Award, Jane and Terry Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior Chairman’s, Opportunity funds, and Weil Fund, as well as, Office of the Dean, David Geffen School of Medicine, Davis Fund.

Conflict of Interest

The technology used in these studies is owned by the University of California, and Dr. Akhtari has received royalty payments from the University of California during the past 3 years. None of the other authors has any conflict of interest. We confirm that we have read the Journal’s position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this report is consistent with those guidelines.


  1. 1.
    Wen PY, Norden AD, Drappatz J, Quant E (2010) Response assessment challenges in clinical trials of gliomas. Curr Oncol Rep 12:68–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van den Bent MJ, Wefel JS, Schiff D et al (2011) Response assessment in neuro-oncology (a report of the RANO group): assessment of outcome in trials of diff use low-grade gliomas. Lancet Oncol 12:583–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Groot JF, Fuller G, Kumar AJ et al (2010) Tumor invasion after treatment of glioblastoma with bevacizumab: radiographic and pathologic correlation in humans and mice. Neuro-Oncology 12:233–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bulakbasi N, Kocaoglu M, Ors F, Tayfun C, Ucoz T et al (2003) Combination of single-voxel proton MR spectroscopy and apparent diffusion coefficient calculation in the evaluation of common brain tumors. Am J Neuroradiol 24:225–233PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calli C, Kitis O, Yunten N et al (2006) Perfusion and diffusion MR imaging in enhancing malignant cerebral tumors. Eur J Radiol 58:394–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen W (2007) Clinical applications of PET in brain tumors. J Nucl Med 48:1468–1481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Akhtari M, Bragin A, Moats R, Frew A, Mandelkern M. (2012a) Functionalized magnetonanoparticles in imaging brain neuronal activity using MRI. Brain Topogr 25(4):374–88 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Islam T, Harisinghani MG (2009) Overview of nanoparticle use in cancer imaging. Cancer Biomark 5:61–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akhtari M, Bragin A, Cohen M et al (2008) Targeted magnetonanoparticles in the diagnosis, localization, and enhanced therapy of epilepsy. Epilepsia 49:1419–1430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Muldoon LL, Sandor M, Pinkston KE, Neuwelt EA (2005) Imaging, distribution, and toxicity of superparamagnetic iron oxide magnetic resonance nanoparticles in the rat brain and intracerebral tumor. Neurosurgery 57:785–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Molday HS (1984) US Pat 2,452,773Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aydogan B, Li J, Rajh T, Chaudhary A, Chmura SJ (2010) AuNP-DG: deoxyglucose-labeled gold nanoparticles as X-ray computed tomography contrast agents for cancer imaging. Mol Imaging Biol 12:463–467PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Akhtari M. Engel J. Pat # WO 2009/123734 A1Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beers Y (1953) Introduction to the theory of error. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc, Cambridge, p 42Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anzai Y, Piccoli CW, Outwater EK et al (2003) Evaluation of neck and body metastases to nodes with ferumoxtran 10-enhanced MR imaging: phase III safety and efficacy study. Radiology 228:777–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Islam T, Wolf G (2009) The pharmacokinetics of the lymphotropic nanoparticle MRI contrast agent ferumoxtran-10. Cancer Biomark 5:69–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Corot C, Robert P, Idée JM, Port M (2006) Recent advances in iron oxide nanocrystal technology for medical imaging. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 58:1471–1504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Molecular Imaging Society 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Massoud Akhtari
    • 1
  • Whitney Pope
    • 5
  • Gary Mathern
    • 2
  • Rex Moats
    • 3
  • Andrew Frew
    • 2
  • Mark Mandelkern
    • 4
  1. 1.Jane and Terry Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, David Geffen school of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Neurosurgery, David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Children’s Hospital of Los AngelesUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Department of PhysicsUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  5. 5.Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations