Applied Research of Ultrasound Microbubble in Tumor-Transferred Lymph Node Imaging and Treatment

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 269)

Abstract

The risk of cervical lymph nodal metastases is related to the stage and will significantly affect treatment of squamous cell carcinoma in tongue or cheek. Timely diagnosis and treatment of patients with metastatic lymph nodes of the neck is an important factor to improve survival rates. The advantage of ultrasound examination is non-invasive, so the indirect injection of lymphatic system has been put on the research agenda. This method is known as the organization injection, which means injecting colored injection into the space of tissues and organs. Ultrasound microbubbles injected into tissues can enhance local lymph nodes. Self-made Fluorocabon-filled surfactant contrast agent injected from primary cancer can turn into lymph tract and remarkably intense echoes of lymph node.

Keywords

Ultrasound microbubble Lymph nodes Metastatic Blood 

References

  1. 1.
    Kademani D (2007) Oral cancer. Mayo Clin Proc 82:878–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tang MX, Mulvana H, Gauthier T et al (2011) Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging: a review of sources of variability. Interface Focus 1:520–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yasufuku K, Nakajima T, Motoori K et al (2006) Comparison of endobronchial ultrasound, positron emission tomography, and CT for lymph node staging of lung cancer. Chest 130:710–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang WD, Luo JC, Qiu WL et al (1995) Computed tomography of the occult cervical lymph node metastasis in the malignant tumors of the head and neck. Chin J Radiol 8:543–546Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gramiak R, Shah PM (1968) Echocardiography of the aortic root. Investig Radiol 3:356–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salvatore V, Borghi A, Piscaglia F (2011) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for liver imaging: recent advances. Curr Pharm Des 18:2236–2252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rapoport N, Kennedy AM, Shea JE et al (2010) Ultrasonic nanotherapy of pancreatic cancer: lessons from ultrasound imaging. Mol Pharm 7:22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frenkel V (2008) Ultrasound mediated delivery of drugs and genes to solid tumors. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 60:1193–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ophir J, Parkerk J (1989) Contrast agents in diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 15:319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borden MA, Kruse DE, Caskey CY et al (2005) Influence of Lipid Shell Physicochemical Properties on Ultrasound-Induced Microbubble Destruction. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 52:1992–2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bloch SH, Wan MX, Dayton PA et al (2004) Optical observation of lipid- and polymer-shelled ultrasound microbubble contrast agents. Appl Phys Lett 84:631–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klibanov AL (2006) Microbubble contrast agents: targeted ultrasound imaging and ultrasound-assisted drug-delivery applications. Investig Radiol 41:354–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lindner JR, Song J, Christiansen J et al (2001) Ultrasound assessment of inflammation and renal tissue injury with microbubbles targeted to P-selectin. Circ 104:2107–2112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weller GE, Lu E, Csikari MM et al (2003) Ultrasound imaging of acute cardiac transplant rejection with microbubbles targeted to intercellular adhesion molecule-1. Circ 108:218–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krasovitski B, Kimmel E (2001) Gas bubble pulsation in a semiconfined space subjected to ultrasound. J Acoust Soc Am 109:891–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Skyba DM, Price RJ, Linka AZ et at (1998) Direct in vivo visualization of intravascular destruction of microbubbles by ultrasound and its local effects on tissue. Circ 98:290–293Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deng XD, Liu JB, Goldberg BB (2006) Experimental study in detecting sentinel lymph nodes by contrast-enhanced lymphatic ultrasonography. Shanghai Med Imaging 15:58–60Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang CJ, Wang ZG, Ran HT et at (2005) Effect of self-made fluorocabon-filled surfactant ultrasound enhanced contrast agent in lymph nodes. Chin J Ultrasound Ed 21:417–419Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang CJ, Wang ZG, Peng XQ et al (2006) Experimental study on ultrasound contrast agent enhancing images of inflammatory and metastatic lymph nodes of rabbits. Chin J Ultrasonography 15:142–145Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pang L, Qiu LH, Gao Z et al (2011) Experimental study on contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of metastatic lymph nodes of cheek carcinoma. J Clin Ultrasound Med 13:581–583Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological and Chemical EngineeringChongqing University of EducationChongqingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations