Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sonoporation-Enhanced Chemotherapy Significantly Reduces Primary Tumour Burden in an Orthotopic Pancreatic Cancer Xenograft

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Molecular Imaging and Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Adenocarcinoma of the pancreas remains one of the most lethal human cancers. The high mortality rates associated with this form of cancer are subsequent to late-stage clinical presentation and diagnosis, when surgery is rarely possible and of modest chemotherapeutic impact. Survival rates following diagnosis with advanced pancreatic cancer are very low; typical mortality rates of 50 % are expected within 3 months of diagnosis. However, adjuvant chemotherapy improves the prognosis of patients even after palliative surgery, and successful newer neoadjuvant chemotherapeutical modalities have recently been reported. For patients whose tumours appear unresectable, chemotherapy remains the only option. During the past two decades, the nucleoside analogue gemcitabine has become the first-line chemotherapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In this study, we aim to increase the delivery of gemcitabine to pancreatic tumours by exploring the effect of sonoporation for localised drug delivery of gemcitabine in an orthotopic xenograft mouse model of pancreatic cancer.

Experimental Design

An orthotopic xenograft mouse model of luciferase expressing MIA PaCa-2 cells was developed, exhibiting disease development similar to human pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Subsequently, two groups of mice were treated with gemcitabine alone and gemcitabine combined with sonoporation; saline-treated mice were used as a control group. A custom-made focused ultrasound transducer using clinically safe acoustic conditions in combination with SonoVue® ultrasound contrast agent was used to induce sonoporation in the localised region of the primary tumour only. Whole-body disease development was measured using bioluminescence imaging, and primary tumour development was measured using 3D ultrasound.

Results

Following just two treatments combining sonoporation and gemcitabine, primary tumour volumes were significantly lower than control groups. Additional therapy dramatically inhibited primary tumour growth throughout the course of the disease, with median survival increases of up to 10 % demonstrated in comparison to the control groups.

Conclusion

Combined sonoporation and gemcitabine therapy significantly impedes primary tumour development in an orthotopic xenograft model of human pancreatic cancer, suggesting additional clinical benefits for patients treated with gemcitabine in combination with sonoporation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society Cancer Facts and Figures (2013) http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-036845.pdf

  2. Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA (2000) Cancer statistics, 2000. CA Cancer J Clin 50:7–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen EL, Prinz RA (2007) Long-term survival after pancreatic cancer treatment. Am J Surg 194:S127–S130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hartlapp I, Muller J, Kenn W et al (2013) Complete pathological remission of locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer (LAPC) after intensified neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Onkologie 36:123–125

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Friess H et al (2004) A randomized trial of chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 350:1200–1210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Neoptolemos JP, Dunn JA, Stocken DD et al (2001) Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 358:1576–1585

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. el-Kamar FG, Grossbard ML, Kozuch PS (2003) Metastatic pancreatic cancer: emerging strategies in chemotherapy and palliative care. Oncologist 8:18–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Marechal R, Bachet JB, Mackey JR et al (2012) Levels of gemcitabine transport and metabolism proteins predict survival times of patients treated with gemcitabine for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Gastroenterology 143(664–674):e661–666

    Google Scholar 

  9. Camp-Sorell D (2010) Chemotherapy toxicities and management. In: Yarbro CH, Wujcik D, Gobel BH (eds) Cancer nursing: principles and practice. Jones & Bartlett, Sudbury

    Google Scholar 

  10. Erchinger FG, Dimcevski G, Engjom T, Gilja OH (2011) Transabdominal ultrasonography of the pancreas: basic and new aspects. Imaging Med 3:412–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Simpson DH, Burns PN, Averkiou MA (2001) Techniques for perfusion imaging with microbubble contrast agents. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 48:1483–1494

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stride E, Saffari N (2003) Microbubble ultrasound contrast agents: a review. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med 217:429–447

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Postema MAB (2004) Medical bubbles. Michiel Postema, Bergschenhoek

    Google Scholar 

  14. Qiu Y, Zhang C, Tu J, Zhang D (2012) Microbubble-induced sonoporation involved in ultrasound-mediated DNA transfection in vitro at low acoustic pressures. J Biomech 45:1339–1345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Suzuki R, Oda Y, Utoguchi N, Maruyama K (2011) Progress in the development of ultrasound-mediated gene delivery systems utilizing nano- and microbubbles. J Control Release 149:36–41

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nejad SM, Hosseini SH, Akiyama H, Tachibana K (2011) Optical observations of cell sonoporation with low intensity ultrasound. Biochem Biophys Res Co 413:218–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kooiman K, Harteveld M, van der Steen AFW, de Jong N (2011) Sonoporation of endothelial cells by vibrating targeted microbubbles. J Control Release 154:35–41

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wu J, Pepe J, Rincon M (2006) Sonoporation, anti-cancer drug and antibody delivery using ultrasound. Ultrasonics 44:E21–E25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Delalande A, Kotopoulis S, Rovers T, Pichon C, Postema M (2011) Sonoporation at a low mechanical index. Bub Sci Eng Tech 3:3–11

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. van Wamel A, Bouakaz A, Bernard B, ten Cate F, de Jong N (2005) Controlled drug delivery with ultrasound and gas microbubbles. J Control Release 101:389–391

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Emmer M, Borsboom J, Van Wamel A, Versluis M, de Jong N (2005) Optical investigation of ultrasound induced encapsulated microbubble oscillations: threshold and hysteresis effects. Proc IEEE Ultrason Symp:981–984

  22. van Wamel A, Kooiman K, Harteveld M et al (2006) Vibrating microbubbles poking individual cells: drug transfer into cells via sonoporation. J Control Release 112:149–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Postema M, Kotopoulis S, Delalande A, Gilja OH (2012) Sonoporation: why microbubbles create pores. Ultraschall in Med 33:97–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Delalande A, Bouakaz A, Renault G et al (2011) Ultrasound and microbubble-assisted gene delivery in Achilles tendons: long lasting gene expression and restoration of fibromodulin KO phenotype. J Control Release 156:223–230

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Delalande A, Kotopoulis S, Postema M, Midoux P, Pichon C (2013) Sonoporation: mechanistic insights and ongoing challenges for gene transfer. Gene 525:191–199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gerold B, Rachmilevitch I, Prentice P (2013) Bifurcation of ensemble oscillations and acoustic emissions from early stage cavitation clouds in focused ultrasound. New J Phys 15:033044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gerold B, Kotopoulis S, McDougall C, McGloin D, Postema M, Prentice P (2011) Laser-nucleated acoustic cavitation in focused ultrasound. Rev Sci Instrum 82:044908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Piscaglia F, Nolsoe C, Dietrich CF et al (2012) The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical practice of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall Med 33:33–59

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ng KH (2002) International guidelines and regulations for the safe use of diagnostic ultrasound in medicine. J Med Ultrasound 10:5–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. British Medical Ultrasound Society (2000) Guidelines for the safe use of diagnostic ultrasound equipment. British Medical Ultrasound Society

  31. Fan Z, Kumon RE, Park J, Deng CX (2010) Intracellular delivery and calcium transients generated in sonoporation facilitated by microbubbles. J Control Release 142:31–39

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tlaxca JL, Anderson CR, Klibanov AL et al (2010) Analysis of in vitro transfection by sonoporation using cationic and neutral microbubbles. Ultrasound Med Biol 36:1907–1918

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Qiu Y, Luo Y, Zhang Y et al (2010) The correlation between acoustic cavitation and sonoporation involved in ultrasound-mediated DNA transfection with polyethylenimine (PEI) in vitro. J Control Release 145:40–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Czarnota GJ, Karshafian R, Burns PN et al (2012) Tumor radiation response enhancement by acoustical stimulation of the vasculature. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:E2033–2041

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lukianova-Hleb EY, Samaniego AP, Wen J, Metelitsa LS, Chang CC, Lapotko DO (2011) Selective gene transfection of individual cells in vitro with plasmonic nanobubbles. J Control Release 152:286–293

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hoffman RM (1999) Orthotopic metastatic mouse models for anticancer drug discovery and evaluation: a bridge to the clinic. Invest New Drug 17:343–359

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Bibby MC (2004) Orthotopic models of cancer for preclinical drug evaluation: advantages and disadvantages. Eur J Cancer 40:852–857

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Greis C (2004) Technology overview: SonoVue (Bracco, Milan). Eur Radiol 14:P11–P15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lu JY, Zou H, Greenleaf JF (1994) Biomedical ultrasound beam forming. Ultrasound Med Biol 20:403–428

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kotopoulis S, Dimcevski G, Gilja OH, Hoem D, Postema M (2013) Treatment of human pancreatic cancer using combined ultrasound, microbubbles, and gemcitabine: a clinical case study. Med Phys 40:072902–072909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Burris HA 3rd, Moore MJ, Andersen J et al (1997) Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 15:2403–2413

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. McCormack E, Mujic M, Osdal T, Bruserud O, Gjertsen BT (2013) Multiplexed mAbs: a new strategy in preclinical time-domain imaging of acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 121:e34–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. McCormack E, Silden E, West RM et al (2013) Nitroreductase, a near-infrared reporter platform for in vivo time-domain optical imaging of metastatic cancer. Cancer Res 73:1276–1286

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ozawa Y, Numata K, Tanaka K et al (2002) Contrast-enhanced sonography of small pancreatic mass lesions. J Ultrasound Med 21:983–991

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Poortinga AT (2012) Micron-sized antibubbles with tunable stability. Colloids Surf A: Physiochem Eng Aspects

  46. Zhang GN, Liang Y, Zhou LJ et al (2011) Combination of salinomycin and gemcitabine eliminates pancreatic cancer cells. Cancer Lett 313:137–144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Michaelis M, Doerr HW, Cinatl J (2007) Valproic acid as anti-cancer drug. Curr Pharm Design 13:3378–3393

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Kunnumakkara AB, Guha S, Krishnan S, Diagaradjane P, Gelovani J, Aggarwal BB (2007) Curcumin potentiates antitumor activity of gemcitabine in an orthotopic model of pancreatic cancer through suppression of proliferation, angiogenesis, and inhibition of nuclear factor-kappaB-regulated gene products. Cancer Res 67:3853–3861

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Norwegian Cancer Society (grant numbers 421828 and 732200), the Western Health Board of Norway (grant numbers 911182 and 911789) and the Bergen Research Foundation. The study was supported by MedViz (http://medviz.uib.no/), an interdisciplinary research cluster from Haukeland University Hospital, University of Bergen and Christian Michelsen Research AS. We would like to thank Lars Helgeland (Section for Pathology, The Gade Institute, University of Bergen) for his advice on histology.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Centre for Ultrasound in Gastroenterology, Haukeland University Hospital, Jonas Liesvei 65, 5021, Bergen, Norway

    Spiros Kotopoulis, Georg Dimcevski, Odd Helge Gilja & Michiel Postema

  2. Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Allégaten 55, 5007, Bergen, Norway

    Spiros Kotopoulis & Michiel Postema

  3. Centre de Biophysique Moléculaire, 45071, Orléans Cedex 2, France

    Anthony Delalande

  4. KinN Therapeutics, AS, 5021, Bergen, Norway

    Mihaela Popa

  5. Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Jonas Liesvei 65, 5021, Bergen, Norway

    Veronika Mamaeva, Odd Helge Gilja, Bjørn Tore Gjertsen & Emmet McCormack

Authors
  1. Spiros Kotopoulis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anthony Delalande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mihaela Popa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Veronika Mamaeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Georg Dimcevski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Odd Helge Gilja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michiel Postema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bjørn Tore Gjertsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Emmet McCormack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmet McCormack.

Additional information

Anthony Delalande and Mihaela Popa contributed equally.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 183 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kotopoulis, S., Delalande, A., Popa, M. et al. Sonoporation-Enhanced Chemotherapy Significantly Reduces Primary Tumour Burden in an Orthotopic Pancreatic Cancer Xenograft. Mol Imaging Biol 16, 53–62 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-013-0672-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-013-0672-5

Key words

Search

Navigation