Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound assessment of the vascular effects of novel therapeutics in early stage trials

  • Ultrasound
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Imaging is key in the accurate monitoring of response to cancer therapies targeting tumour vascularity to inhibit its growth and dissemination. Dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound (DCE ultrasound) is a quantitative method with the advantage of being non-invasive, widely available, portable, cost effective, highly sensitive and reproducible using agents that are truly intravascular. Under the auspices of the initiative of the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre Imaging Network, bringing together experts from the UK, Europe and North America for a 2-day workshop in May 2010, this consensus paper aims to provide guidance on the use of DCE ultrasound in the measurement of tumour vascular support in clinical trials.

Key Points

• DCE ultrasound can quantify and extract specific blood flow parameters, such as flow velocity, relative vascular volume and relative blood flow rate.

• DCE ultrasound can be performed repeatedly and is therefore ideally suited for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies evaluating vascular-targeted drugs.

• DCE ultrasound provides a reproducible method of assessing the vascular effects of therapy in pre-clinical and early clinical trials, which is easily translatable into routine clinical practice.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferrara N, Kerbel RS (2005) Angiogenesis as a therapeutic target. Nature 438:967–974

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Folkman J (2007) Angiogenesis: an organizing principle for drug discovery? Nat Rev Drug Discov 6:273–286

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kerbel R, Folkman J (2002) Clinical translation of angiogenesis inhibitors. Nat Rev Cancer 2:727–739

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205–216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC et al (2007) Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol 25:1753–1759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nathan PD, Vinayan A, Stott D et al (2010) CT response assessment combining reduction in both size and arterial phase density correlates with time to progression in metastatic renal cancer patients treated with targeted therapies. Cancer Biol Ther 9:15–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rini BI, Atkins MB (2009) Resistance to targeted therapy in renal-cell carcinoma. Lancet Oncol 10:992–1000

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Levashova Z, Backer M, Hamby CV et al (2010) Molecular imaging of changes in the prevalence of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor in sunitinib-treated murine mammary tumors. J Nucl Med 51:959–966

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hahn OM, Yang C, Medved M et al (2008) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging pharmacodynamic biomarker study of sorafenib in metastatic renal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 26:4572–4578

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilson SR, Burns PN (2010) Microbubble-enhanced US in body imaging: what role? Radiology 257:24–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Quaia E (2011) The real capabilities of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the characterization of solid focal lesions. Eur Radiol 21(3):457–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Quaia E (2011) Assessment of tissue perfusion by contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Eur Radiol 21:604–615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wei K, Jayaweera AR, Firoozan S, Linka A, Skyba DM, Kaul S (1998) Quantification of myocardial blood flow with ultrasound-induced destruction of microbubbles administered as a constant venous infusion. Circulation 97:473–483

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Krix M, Kiessling F, Vosseler S, Farhan N, Mueller MM, Bohlen P, Fusenig NE, Delorme S (2003) Sensitive noninvasive monitoring of tumor perfusion during antiangiogenic therapy by intermittent bolus-contrast power Doppler sonography. Cancer Res 63:8264–8270

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Arditi M, Frinking PJA, Zhou X et al (2006) A new formalism for the quantification of tissue perfusion by the destruction-replenishment method in contrast ultrasound imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 53:1118–1129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Palmowski M, Lederle W, Gaetjens J, Socher M, Hauff P, Bzyl J, Semmler W, Günther RW, Kiessling F (2010) Comparison of conventional time-intensity curves vs. maximum intensity over time for post-processing of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 75:e149–e153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hudson JM, Karshafian R, Burns PN (2009) Quantification of flow using ultrasound and microbubbles: a disruption replenishment model based on physical principles. Ultrasound Med Biol 35:2007–2020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Averkiou M, Lampaskis M, Kyriakopoulou K et al (2010) Quantification of tumor microvascularity with respiratory gated contrast enhanced ultrasound for monitoring therapy. Ultrasound Med Biol 36:68–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Williams R, Hudson JM, Lloyd B et al (2011) Dynamic microbubble contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE ultrasound) to measure tumor response to targeted therapy: a proposed clinical protocol with results from renal cell carcinoma patients receiving anti-angiogenic therapy. Radiology 260:581–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Strouthos C, Lampaskis M, Sboros V et al (2010) Indicator dilution models for the quantification of microvascular blood flow with bolus administration of ultrasound contrast agents. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 57:1296–1310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bertolotto M, Pozzato G, Croce LS et al (2006) Blood flow changes in hepatocellular carcinoma after the administration of thalidomide assessed by reperfusion kinetics during microbubble infusion: preliminary results. Invest Radiol 41:15–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. De Giorgi U, Aliberti C, Benea G et al (2005) Effect of angiosonography to monitor response during imatinib treatment in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Clin Cancer Res 11:6171–6176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lamuraglia M, Escudier B, Chami L et al (2006) To predict progression-free survival and overall survival in metastatic renal cancer treated with sorafenib: pilot study using dynamic contrast-enhanced Doppler ultrasound. Eur J Cancer 42:2472–2479

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lassau N, Koscielny S, Albiges L et al (2010) Metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib: early evaluation of treatment response using dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Clin Cancer Res 16:1216–1225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lassau N, Koscielny S, Chami L et al (2011) Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: early evaluation of response to bevacizumab therapy at dynamic contrast-enhanced US with quantification – preliminary results. Radiology 258:291–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lassau N, Lamuraglia M, Chami L et al (2006) Gastrointestinal stromal tumors treated with imatinib: monitoring response with contrast-enhanced sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:1267–1273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Caproni N, Marchisio F, Pecchi A, Canossi B, Battista R, D’Alimonte P, Torricelli P (2010) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the characterisation of breast masses: utility of quantitative analysis in comparison with MRI. Eur Radiol 20(6):1384–1395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre Imaging Steering Committee and Secretariat for organising the two-day workshop in May 2010 and all the speakers and delegates who contributed to this initiative. The Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre Initiative is jointly funded by Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research in England and the Departments of Health for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Imaging Department, Imperial College London NHS Trust, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK

    Edward Leen & Thomas Gauthier

  2. Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Cyprus, 75 Kallipoleos Str., 1678, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Michalakis Averkiou

  3. Bracco Suisse SA, Geneva Research Center and Manufacturing Site, 31 route de la Galaise, Plan-les-Ouates, CH-1228, Geneva, Suisse, Switzerland

    Marcel Arditi

  4. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Room S660, Toronto, ON, M4N 3 M5, Canada

    Peter Burns

  5. Bracco Imaging SpA, Via XXV Aprile 4, 20097, Milan, Italy

    Daniela Bokor

  6. Philips Healthcare, 22100 Bothell Everett Highway, Bothell, WA, 98021-8431, USA

    Thomas Gauthier

  7. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of California, San Diego, 200 W. Arbor Drive, MC8756, San Diego, CA, 92103, USA

    Yuko Kono

  8. Radiology Department, Pitie Salpetriere Hospital, 47-83 Bd de l’hôpital, 75013, Paris, France

    Olivier Lucidarme

Authors
  1. Edward Leen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michalakis Averkiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcel Arditi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Burns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniela Bokor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas Gauthier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yuko Kono
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Olivier Lucidarme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward Leen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leen, E., Averkiou, M., Arditi, M. et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound assessment of the vascular effects of novel therapeutics in early stage trials. Eur Radiol 22, 1442–1450 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2373-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2373-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation