Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use of VEGFR-2 Targeted Ultrasound Contrast Agent for the Early Evaluation of Response to Sorafenib in a Mouse Model of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

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

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess the early response to sorafenib using ultrasound molecular imaging in a murine model of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Procedures

A xenograft model of HCC was established. Then, mice were divided in two groups and received treatment (sorafenib) or placebo for 14 days. The treatment group was further divided into non-responders and responders according to the degree of growth. Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) was performed using VEGFR-2 targeted microbubbles (BR55, Bracco Suisse SA, Geneva, Switzerland). Dedicated software was used to quantify the amount of bound microbubbles in the tumor as a numerical value (differential targeted enhancement (dTE)). Tumors were then excised and western blot analysis performed.

Results

The dTE values decreased from day 0 to day +14 both in the treatment and control groups, but were lower in the former. The non-responder group had higher dTE levels at day 2 compared to responders (p = 0.019).

Conclusion

BR55 appears to be useful in the prediction of response to sorafenib in a xenograft model of HCC.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. El-Serag HB (2012) Epidemiology of viral hepatitis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 146:1264–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Forner A, Llovet JM, Bruix J (2012) Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet 379:1245–1255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bruix J, Sherman M (2011) American association for the study of liver disease. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53:1020–1022

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V et al (2008) Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 359:378–390

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Frenette C, Gish R (2012) Targeted systemic therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma: clinical perspectived, challenges and implications. World J Gastroenterol 18:498–506

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu L, Cao Y, Chen C et al (2006) Sorafenib blocks the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway, inhibits tumor angiogenesis, and induces tumor cell apoptosis in hepatocellular carcinoma model PVC/PRF/5. Cancer Res 66:11851–11858

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bergers G, Hanahan D (2008) Modes of resistance of anti-angiogenetic therapy. Nature 8:592–603

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim KW, Lee JM, Choi BI (2011) Assessment of the treatment response of HCC. Abdom Imaging 36:300–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Moschouris H, Malagari K, Gkoutzios P et al (2012) Intermediate and advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with the antiangiogenic agent sorafenib. Evaluation with unenhanced and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Med Ultrason 14:87–94

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lamuraglia M, Bridal SL, Santin M et al (2010) Clinical relevance of contrast enhanced ultrasound in monitoring anti-angiogenic therapy of cancer: current status and perspectives. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 73:202–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ehling J, Lammers T, Kiessling F (2012) Non-invasive imaging for studying anti-angiogenic therapy effects. Thromb Haemost 109:375–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Streeter JE, Herrera-Loeza SG et al (2013) A comparative evaluation of ultrasound molecular imaging, perfusion imaging, and volume measurements in evaluation response to therapy in patient-derived xenografts. Technol Cancer Res Treat 12:311–321

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sirsi S, Flexman M, Vlachos F et al (2012) Contrast ultrasound imaging for identification of earlz responder tumor models to anti-angiogenic therapy. Ultrasound Med Biol 38:1019–1029

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weis SM, Cheresh DA (2011) Tumor angiogenesis:molecular pathways and therapeutic targets. Nat Med 17:1359–1370

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tejpar S, Prenen H, Mazzone M (2012) Overcoming resistance to antiangiogenic therapies. Oncologist 17:1039–1050

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Deshpande N, Pysz MA, Willmann JK (2010) Molecular ultrasound assessment of tumor angiogenesis. Angiogenesis 13:175–188

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 45:89–95

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pysz MA, Foygel K, Rosenberg J et al (2010) Antiangiogenic cancer therapy: monitoring with molecular US and a clinically translatable contrast agent (BR55). Radiology 65:567–581

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kaneko OF, Willmann JK (2012) Ultrasound for molecular imaging and therapy in cancer. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2:87–97

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Baron Toaldo M. Use of VEGFR-2 targeted microbubbles (BR55, Bracco imaging) for the early ultrasound evaluation of response to antiangiogenic treatment in a xenograft model of hepatocarcinoma. PhD Thesis, March 2011. DOI: 10.6092/unibo/amsdottorato/3478. URL: http://amsdottorato.unibo.it/3478/

  21. Wilhelm SM, Carter C, Tang L et al (2004) BAY 43–9006 exhibits broad spectrum oral antitumor activity and targets the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway and receptor tyrosine kinase involved in tumor progression and angiogenesis. Cancer Res 64:7099–7109

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tardy I, Pochon S, Theraulaz M et al (2010) Ultrasound molecular imaging of VEGFR2 in a rat prostate tumor model using BR55. Invest Radiol 45:573–578

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Willman JK, Paulmurugan R, Chen K et al (2008) US imaging in tumor angiogenesis with microbubbles targeted to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor type 2. Radiology 246:508–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pysz MA, Guracar I, Tuan L, Willmann JK (2012) Fast microbubble dwell-time based ultrasonic molecular imaging approach for quantification and monitoring of angiogenesis in cancer. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2:68–80

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Blivet-Van Eggelpoel MJ, Chettouh H, Fartoux L et al (2012) Epidermal growth factor receptor and HER-3 restrict cell response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma cells. J Hepatol 57:108–115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cai W, Rao J, Gambhir SS (2006) How molecular imaging is speeding up antiangiogenetic drug development. Mol Cancer Ther 5:2624–2633

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Korpanty G, Carbon JG, Grayburn PA et al (2007) Monitoring response to anticancer therapy by targeting microbubbles to tumor vasculature. Clin Cancer Res 13:323–330

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tanaka S, Arii S (2009) Molecular targeted therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Sci 100:1–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Huang J, Zhang X, Tang Q et al (2011) Prognostic significance and potential therapeutic targets of VEGFR2 in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Pathol 64:343–348

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Liu Y, Poon RT, Li Q et al (2005) Both antiangiogenesis- and angiogenesis-independent effects are responsible for hepatocellular carcinoma growth arrest by tyrosine kinase inhibitor PTK787/ZK222584. Cancer Res 65:3691–3699

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dhillon AS, Hagan S, Rath O, Kolch W (2007) MAP kinase signaling pathways in cancer. Oncogene 26:3279–3290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rose A, Grandoch M, vom Dorp F et al (2010) Stimulatory effects of the multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib on human bladder cancer cells. Br J Pharmacol 160:1690–1698

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang Z, Zhou X, Shen H et al (2009) Phosphorylated ERK is a potential predictor of sensitivity to sorafenib when treating hepatocellular carcinoma: evidence from an in vitro study. BMC Med 7:41

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Reagan-Shaw S, Nihal M, Ahmad N (2007) Dose translation from animal to human studies revisited. FASEB J 22:659–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would express their gratitude to Prof. Francois Tranquart and to Dr. Laurent Mercier, from Bracco, for proving the targeted microbubbles and quantification software without charge. The authors are also grateful to Dr. Laura Porretti and Dr. Federico Colombo, University of Milan, for helpful advice. The study was supported by funds from the Italian Ministry of Health (Project Giovani Ricercatori 038/GR-2009-1606660), without involvement in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Conflict of Interest

Bolondi has received speaker fees from Bracco; Piscaglia received honorary lectures fees from Bracco, Siemens and Bayer Healthcare; he acted in advisory boards of GE and Bayer Healthcare; a research contract agreement with Esaote is active in the Department.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra 50, 40064, Ozzano dell’Emilia, Bologna, Italy

    Marco Baron Toaldo & Mario Cipone

  2. Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 9, 40138, Bologna, Italy

    Veronica Salvatore, Sara Marinelli, Chiara Palamà, Luca Croci, Laura Venerandi, Luigi Bolondi & Fabio Piscaglia

  3. Policlinico S.Orsola Malpighi, CRBA, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Via Massarenti 9, 40138, Bologna, Italy

    Maddalena Milazzo

Authors
  1. Marco Baron Toaldo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Veronica Salvatore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sara Marinelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chiara Palamà
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maddalena Milazzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Luca Croci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Laura Venerandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mario Cipone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Luigi Bolondi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Fabio Piscaglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabio Piscaglia.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(MOV 11265 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baron Toaldo, M., Salvatore, V., Marinelli, S. et al. Use of VEGFR-2 Targeted Ultrasound Contrast Agent for the Early Evaluation of Response to Sorafenib in a Mouse Model of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Mol Imaging Biol 17, 29–37 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-014-0764-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-014-0764-x

Key words

Search

Navigation