Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Modern Magnetic Resonance pp 1–21Cite as

Application of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Spectroscopy (MRS) in Preclinical Cancer Models

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

  • 134 Accesses

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) can offer functional and biochemical information on cancer cells and solid tumors. These imaging modalities may provide markers for tumor diagnosis, prognosis and treatment response, as well as insights into cancer biology and factors that promote tumor growth.

Brief descriptions on the various MRI and MRS techniques used to study tumor biology, physiology, metabolism, and treatment response are included in this chapter. Examples of preclinical MRI applications in studying cellular, physiological, and biomechanical properties of tumors and in assessing treatment response in tumor models are also presented, together with a brief description of MRS applications in examining tumor metabolism and therapies.

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

References

  1. Kauppinen RA, Peet AC. Using magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy in cancer diagnostics and monitoring: preclinical and clinical approaches. Cancer Biol Ther. 2011;12:665–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bell LK, Ainsworth NL, Lee SH, Griffiths JR. MRI & MRS assessment of the role of the tumour microenvironment in response to therapy. NMR Biomed. 2011;24:612–35.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chung Y-L, Stubbs M, Griffiths JR. Applications of MRS in cancer in pre-clinical models. In: Webb GA, editor. Modern magnetic resonance. 1st ed. Netherlands: Springer. p. 823–33.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chung Y-L, Griffiths JR. Metabolomic studies on cancer and on anticancer drugs by NMR ex vivo. eMagRes. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Weidensteiner C, Allegrini PR, Sticker-Jantscheff M, Romanet V, Ferretti S, McSheehy PM. Tumour T1 changes in vivo are highly predictive of response to chemotherapy and reflect the number of viable tumour cells – a preclinical MR study in mice. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Connor JP, Jackson A, Parker GJ, Roberts C, Jayson GC. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical trials of antivascular therapies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012;9:167–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ogawa S, Lee TM, Kay AR, Tank DW. Brain magnetic resonance imaging with contrast dependent on blood oxygenation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990;87:9868–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Buxton RB, Frank LR. A model for the coupling between cerebral blood flow and oxygen metabolism during neural stimulation. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1997;17:64–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. van Zijl PC, Eleff SM, Ulatowski JA, Oja JM, Ulug AM, Traystman RJ, Kauppinen RA. Quantitative assessment of blood flow, blood volume and blood oxygenation effects in functional magnetic resonance imaging. Nat Med. 1998;4:159–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Silvennoinen MJ, Clingman CS, Golay X, Kauppinen RA, van Zijl PCM. Comparison of the dependence of blood R-2 and R*(2) on oxygen saturation at 1.5 and 4.7 Tesla. Magn Reson Med. 2003;49:47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Howe FA, Robinson SP, McIntyre DJ, Stubbs M, Griffiths JR. Issues in flow and oxygenation dependent contrast (FLOOD) imaging of tumours. NMR Biomed. 2001;14:497–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rijpkema M, Schuuring J, Bernsen PL, Bernsen HJ, Kaanders JH, van der Kogel AJ, et al. BOLD MRI response to hypercapnic hyperoxia in patients with meningiomas: correlation with Gadolinium-DTPA uptake rate. Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;22:761–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Remmele S, Dahnke H, Flacke S, Soehle M, Wenningmann I, Kovacs A, et al. Quantification of the magnetic resonance signal response to dynamic (C)O(2)-enhanced imaging in the brain at 3 T: R*(2) BOLD vs. balanced SSFP. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31:1300–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Alonzi R, Padhani AR, Maxwell RJ, Taylor NJ, Stirling JJ, Wilson JI, et al. Carbogen breathing increases prostate cancer oxygenation: a translational MRI study in murine xenografts and humans. Br J Cancer. 2009;100:644–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. McPhail LD, Robinson SP. Intrinsic susceptibility MR imaging of chemically induced rat mammary tumors: relationship to histologic assessment of hypoxia and fibrosis. Radiology. 2010;254:110–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Baker LC, Boult JK, Jamin Y, Gilmour LD, Walker-Samuel S, Burrell JS, et al. Evaluation and immunohistochemical qualification of carbogen-induced DeltaR(2) as a noninvasive imaging biomarker of improved tumor oxygenation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87:160–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Valable S, Lemasson B, Farion R, Beaumont M, Segebarth C, Remy C, et al. Assessment of blood volume, vessel size, and the expression of angiogenic factors in two rat glioma models: a longitudinal in vivo and ex vivo study. NMR Biomed. 2008;21:1043–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tropres I, Grimault S, Vaeth A, Grillon E, Julien C, Payen JF, et al. Vessel size imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2001;45:397–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cercignani M, Horsfield MA. The physical basis of diffusion-weighted MRI. J Neurol Sci. 2001;186(Suppl 1):S11–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Padhani AR. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical oncology: current status and future directions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16:407–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Leach MO, Brindle KM, Evelhoch JL, Griffiths JR, Horsman MR, Jackson A, et al. The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:1599–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lin YC, Wang JJ, Hong JH, Lin YP, Lee CC, Wai YY, et al. Noninvasive monitoring of microvascular changes with partial irradiation using dynamic contrast-enhanced and blood oxygen level-dependent magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:1367–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chai WY, Chu PC, Tsai MY, Lin YC, Wang JJ, Wei KC, et al. Magnetic-resonance imaging for kinetic analysis of permeability changes during focused ultrasound-induced blood-brain barrier opening and brain drug delivery. J Control Release. 2014;192:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Golay X, Hendrikse J, Lim TC. Perfusion imaging using arterial spin labeling. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;15:10–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mariappan YK, Glaser KJ, Ehman RL. Magnetic resonance elastography: a review. Clin Anat. 2010;23:497–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Veiseh O, Gunn JW, Zhang M. Design and fabrication of magnetic nanoparticles for targeted drug delivery and imaging. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2010;62:284–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kohler N, Sun C, Fichtenholtz A, Gunn J, Fang C, Zhang M. Methotrexate-immobilized poly(ethylene glycol) magnetic nanoparticles for MR imaging and drug delivery. Small. 2006;2:785–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jain TK, Morales MA, Sahoo SK, Leslie-Pelecky DL, Labhasetwar V. Iron oxide nanoparticles for sustained delivery of anticancer agents. Mol Pharm. 2005;2:194–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Xiong XB, Ma Z, Lai R, Lavasanifar A. The therapeutic response to multifunctional polymeric nano-conjugates in the targeted cellular and subcellular delivery of doxorubicin. Biomaterials. 2010;31:757–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Patterson DM, Padhani AR, Collins DJ. Technology Insight: water diffusion MRI – a potential new biomarker of response to cancer therapy. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2008;5:220–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sinkus R, Van Beers BE, Vilgrain V, DeSouza N, Waterton JC. Apparent diffusion coefficient from magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker in oncology drug development. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:425–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gupta RK, Sinha U, Cloughesy TF, Alger JR. Inverse correlation between choline magnetic resonance spectroscopy signal intensity and the apparent diffusion coefficient in human glioma. Magn Reson Med. 1999;41:2–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gerstner ER, Sorensen AG. Diffusion and diffusion tensor imaging in brain cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2011;21:141–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Valonen PK, Lehtimaki KK, Vaisanen TH, Kettunen MI, Grohn OH, Yla-Herttuala S, et al. Water diffusion in a rat glioma during ganciclovir-thymidine kinase gene therapy-induced programmed cell death in vivo: correlation with cell density. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;19:389–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M, Ikushima I, Shigematu Y, Hirai T, et al. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI with echo-planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;9:53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Heijmen L, Ter Voert EE, Nagtegaal ID, Span P, Bussink J, Punt CJ, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging in liver metastases of colorectal cancer: reproducibility and biological validation. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:748–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Muraoka N, Uematsu H, Kimura H, Imamura Y, Fujiwara Y, Murakami M, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient in pancreatic cancer: characterization and histopathological correlations. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27:1302–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lin YC, Wang CC, Lin G, Lin YP, Wai YY, Ng SH, et al. A simple method to improve the quality of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging with rapid histologic correlation in a murine model. Mol Imaging. 2014;13:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mori S, Crain BJ, Chacko VP, van Zijl PC. Three-dimensional tracking of axonal projections in the brain by magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Neurol. 1999;45:265–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kim S, Pickup S, Hsu O, Poptani H. Diffusion tensor MRI in rat models of invasive and well-demarcated brain tumors. NMR Biomed. 2008;21:208–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mori S, Frederiksen K, van Zijl PC, Stieltjes B, Kraut MA, Solaiyappan M, et al. Brain white matter anatomy of tumor patients evaluated with diffusion tensor imaging. Ann Neurol. 2002;51:377–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jamin Y, Boult JK, Li J, Popov S, Garteiser P, Ulloa JL, et al. Exploring the biomechanical properties of brain malignancies and their pathologic determinants in vivo with magnetic resonance elastography. Cancer Res. 2015;75:1216–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Burrell JS, Walker-Samuel S, Baker LC, Boult JK, Jamin Y, Halliday J, et al. Exploring DeltaR(2) * and DeltaR(1) as imaging biomarkers of tumor oxygenation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;38:429–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. O’Connor JP, Boult JK, Jamin Y, Babur M, Finegan KG, Williams KJ, et al. Oxygen-enhanced MRI accurately identifies, quantifies, and maps tumor hypoxia in preclinical cancer models. Cancer Res. 2016;76:787–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Jain RK, Di Tomaso E, Duda DG, Loeffler JS, Sorensen AG, Batchelor TT. Angiogenesis in brain tumours. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007;8:610–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Miller JC, Pien HH, Sahani D, Sorensen AG, Thrall JH. Imaging angiogenesis: applications and potential for drug development. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:172–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zee YK, O’Connor JP, Parker GJ, Jackson A, Clamp AR, Taylor MB, et al. Imaging angiogenesis of genitourinary tumors. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7:69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Parker GJM, Padhani AR. T1-w DCE-MRI: T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. In: Tofts PS, editor. Quantitative MRI of the brain. Chippenham: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2004. p. 341–64.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Mueller-Lisse UG, Mueller-Lisse UL. Imaging of advanced renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol. 2010;28:253–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Moffat BA, Chenevert TL, Hall DE, Rehemtulla A, Ross BD. Continuous arterial spin labeling using a train of adiabatic inversion pulses. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;21:290–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Jamin Y, Glass L, Hallsworth A, George R, Koh DM, Pearson AD, et al. Intrinsic susceptibility MRI identifies tumors with ALKF1174L mutation in genetically-engineered murine models of high-risk neuroblastoma. PLoS One. 2014;9:e92886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kalber TL, Waterton JC, Griffiths JR, Ryan AJ, Robinson SP. Longitudinal in vivo susceptibility contrast MRI measurements of LS174T colorectal liver metastasis in nude mice. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;26:1451–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ungersma SE, Pacheco G, Ho C, Yee SF, Ross J, van Bruggen N, et al. Vessel imaging with viable tumor analysis for quantification of tumor angiogenesis. Magn Reson Med. 2010;63:1637–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Burrell JS, Bradley RS, Walker-Samuel S, Jamin Y, Baker LCJ, Boult JKR, et al. MRI measurements of vessel calibre in tumour xenografts: comparison with vascular corrosion casting. Microvasc Res. 2012;84:323–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Douma K, Oostendorp M, Slaaf DW, Post MJ, Backes WH, van Zandvoort MA. Evaluation of magnetic resonance vessel size imaging by two-photon laser scanning microscopy. Magn Reson Med. 2010;63:930–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Persigehl T, Ring J, Budny T, Hahnenkamp A, Stoeppeler S, Schwartz LH, et al. Vessel size imaging (VSI) by robust magnetic resonance (MR) relaxometry: MR-VSI of solid tumors in correlation with immunohistology and intravital microscopy. Mol Imaging. 2013;12:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kim E, Cebulla J, Ward BD, Rhie K, Zhang J, Pathak AP. Assessing breast cancer angiogenesis in vivo: which susceptibility contrast MRI biomarkers are relevant? Magn Reson Med. 2013;70:1106–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Rodrigues LM, Howe FA, Griffiths JR, Robinson SP. Tumor R2* is a prognostic indicator of acute radiotherapeutic response in rodent tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;19:482–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Moffat BA, Hall DE, Stojanovska J, McConville PJ, Moody JB, Chenevert TL, et al. Diffusion imaging for evaluation of tumor therapies in preclinical animal models. MAGMA. 2004;17:249–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Gross S, Gilead A, Scherz A, Neeman M, Salomon Y. Monitoring photodynamic therapy of solid tumors online by BOLD-contrast MRI. Nat Med. 2003;9:1327–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Zhao D, Jiang L, Hahn EW, Mason RP. Continuous low-dose (metronomic) chemotherapy on rat prostate tumors evaluated using MRI in vivo and comparison with histology. Neoplasia. 2005;7:678–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Padhani A. Science to practice: what does MR oxygenation imaging tell us about human breast cancer hypoxia? Radiology. 2010;254:1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Bradley DP, Tessier JJ, Ashton SE, Waterton JC, Wilson Z, Worthington PL, et al. Correlation of MRI biomarkers with tumor necrosis in Hras5 tumor xenograft in athymic rats. Neoplasia. 2007;9:382–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Lemasson B, Christen T, Tizon X, Farion R, Fondraz N, Provent P, et al. Assessment of multiparametric MRI in a human glioma model to monitor cytotoxic and anti-angiogenic drug effects. NMR Biomed. 2011;24:473–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Walker-Samuel S, Boult JK, McPhail LD, Box G, Eccles SA, Robinson SP. Non-invasive in vivo imaging of vessel calibre in orthotopic prostate tumour xenografts. Int J Cancer. 2012;130:1284–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Farrar CT, Kamoun WS, Ley CD, Kim YR, Catana C, Kwon SJ, et al. Sensitivity of MRI tumor biomarkers to VEGFR inhibitor therapy in an orthotopic mouse glioma model. PLoS One. 2011;6:e17228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Sampath D, Oeh J, Wyatt SK, Cao TC, Koeppen H, Eastham-Anderson J, et al. Multimodal microvascular imaging reveals that selective inhibition of class I PI3K is sufficient to induce an antivascular response. Neoplasia. 2013;15:694–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Vogel-Claussen J, Gimi B, Artemov D, Bhujwalla ZM. Diffusion-weighted and macromolecular contrast enhanced MRI of tumor response to antivascular therapy with ZD6126. Cancer Biol Ther. 2007;6:1469–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Jamin Y, Tucker ER, Poon E, Popov S, Vaughan L, Boult JK, et al. Evaluation of clinically translatable MR imaging biomarkers of therapeutic response in the TH-MYCN transgenic mouse model of neuroblastoma. Radiology. 2013;266:130–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. McSheehy PMJ, Weidensteiner C, Cannet C, Ferretti S, Laurent D, Ruetz S, et al. Quantified tumor T1 is a generic early-response imaging biomarker for chemotherapy reflecting cell viability. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:212–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Graham TJ, Box G, Tunariu N, Crespo M, Spinks TJ, Miranda S, et al. Preclinical evaluation of imaging biomarkers for prostate cancer bone metastasis and response to cabozantinib. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106:dju033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Ardenkjaer-Larsen JH, Fridlund B, Gram A, Hansson G, Hansson L, Lerche MH, et al. Increase in signal-to-noise ratio of >10,000 times in liquid-state NMR. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:10158–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Ward CS, Venkatesh HS, Chaumeil MM, Brandes AH, Vancriekinge M, Dafni H, et al. Noninvasive detection of target modulation following phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibition using hyperpolarized 13C magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Cancer Res. 2010;70:1296–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Lin G, Hill DK, Andrejeva G, Boult JK, Troy H, Fong AC, et al. Dichloroacetate induces autophagy in colorectal cancer cells and tumours. Br J Cancer. 2014;111:375–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Day SE, Kettunen MI, Gallagher FA, Hu DE, Lerche M, Wolber J, et al. Detecting tumor response to treatment using hyperpolarized 13C magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. Nat Med. 2007;13:1382–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Brindle K, Chekmenev EY, Comment A, Cunningham CH, et al. Analysis of cancer metabolism by imaging hyperpolarized nuclei: prospects for translation to clinical research. Neoplasia. 2011;13:81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144:646–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Schulze A, Harris AL. How cancer metabolism is tuned for proliferation and vulnerable to disruption. Nature. 2012;491:364–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Bulik M, Jancalek R, Vanicek J, Skoch A, Mechl M. Potential of MR spectroscopy for assessment of glioma grading. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2013;115:146–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Kundu S, Chopra S, Verma A, Mahantshetty U, Engineer R, Shrivastava SK. Functional magnetic resonance imaging in cervical cancer: current evidence and future directions. J Cancer Res Ther. 2012;8:11–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Chen W, Zu Y, Huang Q, Chen F, Wang G, Lan W, et al. Study on metabonomic characteristics of human lung cancer using high resolution magic-angle spinning 1H NMR spectroscopy and multivariate data analysis. Magn Reson Med. 2011;66:1531–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Bolan PJ. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the breast: current status. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2013;21:625–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Penet MF, Gadiya MM, Krishnamachary B, Nimmagadda S, Pomper MG, Artemov D, et al. Metabolic signatures imaged in cancer-induced cachexia. Cancer Res. 2011;71:6948–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Palmnas MS, Vogel HJ. The future of NMR metabolomics in cancer therapy: towards personalizing treatment and developing targeted drugs? Metabolites. 2013;3:373–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Chung Y-L, Madhu B, Griffiths JR. Metabolism and metabolomics by MRS. eMagRes. 2015;4:689–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Glunde K, Bhujwalla ZM, Ronen SM. Choline metabolism in malignant transformation. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011;11:835–48.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

GL acknowledges the support received from the Chang Gung Medical Foundation (Taiwan) with Grants CMRPG3B1923, CMRPG3C1872, and CIRPG3E0021. Y-LC is supported by funding received from the CR-UK Cancer Imaging Centre in association with the MRC and Department of Health (England) grant C1060/A10334, C1060/A16464, NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. We would also like to thank Dr. Yu-Chun Lin, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, and Drs. Yann Jamin, Jin Li, and Simon P Robinson, The Institute of Cancer Research, United Kingdom, for providing us with figures for this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Imaging and Intervention, Clinical Phenome Centre and Imaging Core Lab, Institute for Radiological Research, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan

    Gigin Lin

  2. Cancer Research UK Cancer Imaging Centre, Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, 123 Old Brompton Road, London, SW7 3RP, UK

    Yuen-Li Chung

Authors
  1. Gigin Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuen-Li Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuen-Li Chung .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Society of Chemistry, London, United Kingdom

    Graham A. Webb

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Lin, G., Chung, YL. (2017). Application of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Spectroscopy (MRS) in Preclinical Cancer Models. In: Webb, G. (eds) Modern Magnetic Resonance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28275-6_99-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28275-6_99-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28275-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28275-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Chemistry and Mat. ScienceReference Module Physical and Materials ScienceReference Module Chemistry, Materials and Physics

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation