Advertisement

Neurotherapeutics

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 67–87 | Cite as

Applications of Focused Ultrasound in Cerebrovascular Diseases and Brain Tumors

  • Francesco PradaEmail author
  • M. Yashar S. Kalani
  • Kaan Yagmurlu
  • Pedro Norat
  • Massimiliano Del Bene
  • Francesco DiMeco
  • Neal F. Kassell
Review

Abstract

Oncology and cerebrovascular disease constitute two of the most common diseases afflicting the central nervous system. Standard of treatment of these pathologies is based on multidisciplinary approaches encompassing combination of interventional procedures such as open and endovascular surgeries, drugs (chemotherapies, anti-coagulants, anti-platelet therapies, thrombolytics), and radiation therapies. In this context, therapeutic ultrasound could represent a novel diagnostic/therapeutic in the armamentarium of the surgeon to treat these diseases. Ultrasound relies on mechanical energy to induce numerous physical and biological effects. The application of this technology in neurology has been limited due to the challenges with penetrating the skull, thus limiting a prompt translation as has been seen in treating pathologies in other organs, such as breast and abdomen. Thanks to pivotal adjuncts such as multiconvergent transducers, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance, MRI thermometry, implantable transducers, and acoustic windows, focused ultrasound (FUS) is ready for prime-time applications in oncology and cerebrovascular neurology. In this review, we analyze the evolution of FUS from the beginning in 1950s to current state-of-the-art. We provide an overall picture of actual and future applications of FUS in oncology and cerebrovascular neurology reporting for each application the principal existing evidences.

Key Words

Neuro-oncology cerebrovascular neurology focused ultrasound therapeutic ultrasound neurosurgery 

Notes

Acknowledgments:

The authors would like to thank the Focused Ultrasound Foundation for the support provided for both manuscript and figures. The authors also would like to acknowledge John Snell, PhD, for having developed and shared the images for fig. n. 2 from Kranion software (open source interactive transcranial focused ultrasound visualization system software).

Required Author Forms

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Previous Presentation

This paper has never been presented.

Supplementary material

13311_2018_683_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2.4 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 2466 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Curie J, Curie P. Development by pressure of polar electricity in hemihedral crystals with inclined faces. Bull soc min de France. 1880;3:90.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Constantin C, Paul L. Production of submarine signals and the location of suemarine orjects. Google Patents 1923.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hill C, Bamber J. Methodology for clinical investigation. Physical Princip Med Ultrason 2004:255–302.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gersten J, Kawashima E. Recent advances in fundamental aspects of ultrasound and muscle. Br J Phys Med 1955;18(5):106–109.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    James JA, Dalton G, Bullen M, Freundlich H, Hopkins J. The ultrasonic treatment of Meniere’s disease. J Laryngol Otol 1960;74(10):730–757.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith A, Fisher G, Macleod I, Preshaw R, Stavney L, Gordon D. The effect of ultrasound on the gastric mucosa and its secretion of acid. Br J Surg 1966;53(8):720–725.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lynn JG, Zwemer RL, Chick AJ, Miller AE. A new method for the generation and use of focused ultrasound in experimental biology. J Gen Physiol 1942;26(2):179.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fry W, Meyers R. Ultrasonic method of modifying brain structures. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 1962;22(3–5):315–327.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heimburger R. Ultrasound augmentation of central nervous system tumor therapy. Indiana Med 1985;78:469–476.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hynynen K, Clement GT, McDannold N, et al. 500-element ultrasound phased array system for noninvasive focal surgery of the brain: a preliminary rabbit study with ex vivo human skulls. Magn Reson Med 2004;52(1):100–107.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jolesz FA, Hynynen K. Magnetic resonance image-guided focused ultrasound surgery. Cancer J (Sudbury, Mass). 2002;8:S100–S112.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jolesz FA, Hynynen K, McDannold N, Tempany C. MR imaging–controlled focused ultrasound ablation: a noninvasive image-guided surgery. Magn Reson Imaging Clin 2005;13(3):545–560.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nyborg WL. Biological effects of ultrasound: development of safety guidelines. Part II: general review. Ultrasound Med Biol 2001;27(3):301–333.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hynynen K. Demonstration of enhanced temperature elevation due to nonlinear propagation of focussed ultrasound in dog’s thigh in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol 1987;13(2):85–91.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ter Haar G, Coussios C. High intensity focused ultrasound: physical principles and devices. Int J Hyperthermia 2007;23(2):89–104.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghanouni P, Pauly KB, Elias WJ, et al. Transcranial MRI-guided focused ultrasound: a review of the technologic and neurologic applications. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(1):150–159.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tempany CM, McDannold NJ, Hynynen K, Jolesz FA. Focused ultrasound surgery in oncology: overview and principles. Radiology 2011;259(1):39–56.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kennedy JE. High-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of solid tumours. Nat Rev Cancer 2005;5(4):321.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frenkel V, Etherington A, Greene M, et al. Delivery of liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) in a breast cancer tumor model: investigation of potential enhancement by pulsed-high intensity focused ultrasound exposure. Acad Radiol 2006;13(4):469–479.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dalecki D. Mechanical bioeffects of ultrasound. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2004;6:229–248.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krasovitski B, Frenkel V, Shoham S, Kimmel E. Intramembrane cavitation as a unifying mechanism for ultrasound-induced bioeffects. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2011:201015771.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sidhu PS, Cantisani V, Dietrich CF, et al. The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations for the clinical practice of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in non-hepatic applications: update 2017 (long version). Ultraschall Med 2018;39(02):e2-e44.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prada F, Perin A, Martegani A, et al. Intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasound for brain tumor surgery. Neurosurgery 2014;74(5):542–552.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prada F, Vitale V, Del Bene M, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging versus contrast-enhanced US: a comparison in glioblastoma surgery by using intraoperative fusion imaging. Radiology 2017;285(1):242–249.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tung Y-S, Vlachos F, Choi JJ, Deffieux T, Selert K, Konofagou EE. In vivo transcranial cavitation threshold detection during ultrasound-induced blood–brain barrier opening in mice. Phys Med Biol 2010;55(20):6141.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hancock HA, Smith LH, Cuesta J, et al. Investigations into pulsed high-intensity focused ultrasound–enhanced delivery: preliminary evidence for a novel mechanism. Ultrasound Med Biol 2009;35(10):1722–1736.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frenkel V, Gurka R, Liberzon A, Shavit U, Kimmel E. Preliminary investigations of ultrasound induced acoustic streaming using particle image velocimetry. Ultrasonics 2001;39(3):153–156.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hynynen K, Pomeroy O, Smith DN, et al. MR imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery of fibroadenomas in the breast: a feasibility study. Radiology 2001;219(1):176–185.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Furusawa H, Namba K, Thomsen S, et al. Magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound surgery of breast cancer: reliability and effectiveness. J Am Coll Surg 2006;203(1):54–63.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stewart EA, Rabinovici J, Tempany CM, et al. Clinical outcomes of focused ultrasound surgery for the treatment of uterine fibroids. Fertil Steril 2006;85(1):22–29.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fennessy FM, Kong CY, Tempany CM, Swan JS. Quality-of-life assessment of fibroid treatment options and outcomes. Radiology. 2011;259(3):785–792.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Funaki K, Fukunishi H, Sawada K. Clinical outcomes of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery for uterine myomas: 24-month follow-up. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;34(5):584–589.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zaher S, Lyons D, Regan L. Uncomplicated term vaginal delivery following magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery for uterine fibroids. Biomed Imaging Intervention J 2010;6(2):e28.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Catane R, Beck A, Inbar Y, et al. MR-guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) for the palliation of pain in patients with bone metastases—preliminary clinical experience. Ann Oncol 2006;18(1):163–167.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Blana A, Walter B, Rogenhofer S, Wieland WF. High-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: 5-year experience. Urology 2004;63(2):297–300.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Illing R, Kennedy J, Wu F, et al. The safety and feasibility of extracorporeal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for the treatment of liver and kidney tumours in a Western population. Br J Cancer 2005;93(8):890.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Leslie T, Kennedy J. High intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of abdominal and gynaecological diseases. Int J Hyperthermia 2007;23(2):173–182.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Uchida T, Ohori M, Egawa S. Minimally invasive therapy for bladder and prostate cancer. Gan to kagaku ryoho Cancer Chemother 2001;28(8):1094–8.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Elias WJ, Lipsman N, Ondo WG, et al. A randomized trial of focused ultrasound thalamotomy for essential tremor. N Engl J Med 2016;375(8):730–739.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hynynen K, McDannold N, Clement G, et al. Pre-clinical testing of a phased array ultrasound system for MRI-guided noninvasive surgery of the brain—a primate study. Eur J Radiol 2006;59(2):149–156.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Medel R, Monteith SJ, Elias WJ, et al. Magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound surgery: part 2: a review of current and future applications. Neurosurgery 2012;71(4):755–763.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lepock JR. Measurement of protein stability and protein denaturation in cells using differential scanning calorimetry. Methods 2005;35(2):117–125.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Guthkelch A, Carter L, Cassady J, et al. Treatment of malignant brain tumors with focused ultrasound hyperthermia and radiation: results of a phase I trial. J Neurooncol 1991;10(3):271–284.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ram Z, Cohen ZR, Harnof S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided, high-intensity focused ultrasound forbrain tumortherapy. Neurosurgery 2006;59(5):949–956.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Park JW, Jung S, Jung TY, Lee MC, editors. Focused ultrasound surgery for the treatment of recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma: a preliminary report. AIP Conference Proceedings; 2006: AIP.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hynynen K, Clement G. Clinical applications of focused ultrasound—the brain. Int J Hyperthermia 2007;23(2):193–202.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    McDannold N, Clement GT, Black P, Jolesz F, Hynynen K. Transcranial magnetic resonance imaging–guided focused ultrasound surgery of brain tumors: initial findings in 3 patients. Neurosurgery 2010;66(2):323–332.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Coluccia D, Fandino J, Schwyzer L, et al. First noninvasive thermal ablation of a brain tumor with MR-guided focused ultrasound. J Ther Ultrasound 2014;2:17.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yu T, Wang G, Hu K, Ma P, Bai J, Wang Z. A microbubble agent improves the therapeutic efficiency of high intensity focused ultrasound: a rabbit kidney study. Urol Res 2004;32(1):14–19.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    McDannold NJ, Vykhodtseva NI, Hynynen K. Microbubble contrast agent with focused ultrasound to create brain lesions at low power levels: MR imaging and histologic study in rabbits. Radiology 2006;241(1):95–106.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hynynen K. Ultrasound for drug and gene delivery to the brain. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2008;60(10):1209–1217.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Burgess A, Hynynen K. Drug delivery across the blood–brain barrier using focused ultrasound. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2014;11(5):711–721.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    McDannold N, Vykhodtseva N, Hynynen K. Targeted disruption of the blood–brain barrier with focused ultrasound: association with cavitation activity. Phys Med Biol 2006;51(4):793.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Treat LH, McDannold N, Vykhodtseva N, Zhang Y, Tam K, Hynynen K. Targeted delivery of doxorubicin to the rat brain at therapeutic levels using MRI-guided focused ultrasound. Int J Cancer 2007;121(4):901–907.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mei J, Cheng Y, Song Y, et al. Experimental study on targeted methotrexate delivery to the rabbit brain via magnetic resonance imaging–guided focused ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med 2009;28(7):871–880.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Liu H-L, Hua M-Y, Yang H-W, et al. Magnetic resonance monitoring of focused ultrasound/magnetic nanoparticle targeting delivery of therapeutic agents to the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2010:201003388.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fan C-H, Ting C-Y, Chang Y-C, Wei K-C, Liu H-L, Yeh C-K. Drug-loaded bubbles with matched focused ultrasound excitation for concurrent blood–brain barrier opening and brain-tumor drug delivery. Acta Biomater 2015;15:89–101.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wei KC, Chu PC, Wang HY, et al. Focused ultrasound-induced blood-brain barrier opening to enhance temozolomide delivery for glioblastoma treatment: a preclinical study. PLoS One 2013;8(3):e58995.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Chen PY, Hsieh HY, Huang CY, Lin CY, Wei KC, Liu HL. Focused ultrasound-induced blood-brain barrier opening to enhance interleukin-12 delivery for brain tumor immunotherapy: a preclinical feasibility study. J Transl Med 2015;13:93.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Alonso A, Reinz E, Leuchs B, et al. Focal delivery of AAV2/1-transgenes into the rat brain by localized ultrasound-induced BBB opening. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids 2013;2:e73.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kinoshita M, McDannold N, Jolesz FA, Hynynen K. Noninvasive localized delivery of herceptin to the mouse brain by MRI-guided focused ultrasound-induced blood-brain barrier disruption. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006;103(31):11719–11723.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    McDannold N, Arvanitis CD, Vykhodtseva N, Livingstone MS. Temporary disruption of the blood-brain barrier by use of ultrasound and microbubbles: safety and efficacy evaluation in rhesus macaques. Cancer Res 2012;72(14):3652–3663.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Woodworth GF, Dunn GP, Nance EA, Hanes J, Brem H. Emerging insights into barriers to effective brain tumor therapeutics. Front Oncol 2014;4:126.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Iliff JJ, Wang M, Liao Y, et al. A paravascular pathway facilitates CSF flow through the brain parenchyma and the clearance of interstitial solutes, including amyloid beta. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(147):147ra11.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Liu Y, Paliwal S, Bankiewicz KS, et al. Ultrasound-enhanced drug transport and distribution in the brain. AAPS PharmSciTech 2010;11(3):1005–1017.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Nance EA, Woodworth GF, Sailor KA, et al. A dense poly(ethylene glycol) coating improves penetration of large polymeric nanoparticles within brain tissue. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(149):149ra19.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ziadloo A, Xie J, Frenkel V. Pulsed focused ultrasound exposures enhance locally administered gene therapy in a murine solid tumor model. J Acoust Soc Am 2013;133(3):1827–1834.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mehier-Humbert S, Bettinger T, Yan F, Guy RH. Plasma membrane poration induced by ultrasound exposure: implication for drug delivery. J Control Release 2005;104(1):213–222.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Canney MS, Chavrier F, Tsysar S, Chapelon JY, Lafon C, Carpentier A. A multi-element interstitial ultrasound applicator for the thermal therapy of brain tumors. J Acoust Soc Am 2013;134(2):1647–1655.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    N’Djin WA, Burtnyk M, Lipsman N, et al. Active MR-temperature feedback control of dynamic interstitial ultrasound therapy in brain: in vivo experiments and modeling in native and coagulated tissues. Med Phys 2014;41(9):093301.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Christian E, Yu C, Apuzzo ML. Focused ultrasound: relevant history and prospects for the addition of mechanical energy to the neurosurgical armamentarium. World Neurosurg 2014;82(3–4):354–365.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Cohen-Inbar O, Xu Z, Sheehan JP. Focused ultrasound-aided immunomodulation in glioblastoma multiforme: a therapeutic concept. J Ther Ultrasound 2016;4:2.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Mauri G, Nicosia L, Xu Z, et al. Focused ultrasound: tumour ablation and its potential to enhance immunological therapy to cancer. Br J Radiol. 2018;91(1083):20170641.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hu Z, Yang XY, Liu Y, et al. Release of endogenous danger signals from HIFU-treated tumor cells and their stimulatory effects on APCs. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2005;335(1):124–131.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Chen PY, Wei KC, Liu HL. Neural immune modulation and immunotherapy assisted by focused ultrasound induced blood-brain barrier opening. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2015;11(11):2682–2687.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Deng J, Zhang Y, Feng J, Wu F. Dendritic cells loaded with ultrasound-ablated tumour induce in vivo specific antitumour immune responses. Ultrasound Med Biol 2010;36(3):441–448.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hu Z, Yang XY, Liu Y, et al. Investigation of HIFU-induced anti-tumor immunity in a murine tumor model. J Transl Med 2007;5:34.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hsu PH, Wei KC, Huang CY, et al. Noninvasive and targeted gene delivery into the brain using microbubble-facilitated focused ultrasound. PLoS One 2013;8(2):e57682.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Lu P, Zhu XQ, Xu ZL, Zhou Q, Zhang J, Wu F. Increased infiltration of activated tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes after high intensity focused ultrasound ablation of human breast cancer. Surgery 2009;145(3):286–293.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Finley DS, Pouliot F, Shuch B, et al. Ultrasound-based combination therapy: potential in urologic cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2011;11(1):107–113.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kampinga HH. Cell biological effects of hyperthermia alone or combined with radiation or drugs: a short introduction to newcomers in the field. Int J Hyperthermia 2006;22(3):191–196.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Escoffre J-M, Novell A, Serriere S, Lecomte T, Bouakaz A. Irinotecan delivery by microbubble-assisted ultrasound: in vitro validation and a pilot preclinical study. Mol Pharm 2013;10(7):2667–2675.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Collis J, Manasseh R, Liovic P, et al. Cavitation microstreaming and stress fields created by microbubbles. Ultrasonics 2010;50(2):273–279.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Liang H, Tang J, Halliwell M. Sonoporation, drug delivery, and gene therapy. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med 2010;224(2):343–361.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Kaplitt MG, Feigin A, Tang C, et al. Safety and tolerability of gene therapy with an adeno-associated virus (AAV) borne GAD gene for Parkinson’s disease: an open label, phase I trial. Lancet (London, England). 2007;369(9579):2097–2105.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    D’Souza AL, Tseng JR, Pauly KB, et al. A strategy for blood biomarker amplification and localization using ultrasound. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009;106(40):17152–17157.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Song C, Park H, Lee C, Griffin R. Implications of increased tumor blood flow and oxygenation caused by mild temperature hyperthermia in tumor treatment. Int J Hyperthermia 2005;21(8):761–767.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Yu T, Li S, Zhao J, Mason TJ. Ultrasound: a chemotherapy sensitizer. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2006;5(1):51–60.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Muenyi CS, Pinhas AR, Fan TW, Brock GN, Helm CW, States JC. Sodium arsenite ± hyperthermia sensitizes p53-expressing human ovarian cancer cells to cisplatin by modulating platinum-DNA damage responses. Toxicol Sci 2012;127(1):139–149.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Lee Y-Y, Cho YJ, Choi J-J, et al. The effect of high-intensity focused ultrasound in combination with cisplatin using a xenograft model of cervical cancer. Anticancer Res 2012;32(12):5285–5289.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Carpentier A, Canney M, Vignot A, et al. Clinical trial of blood-brain barrier disruption by pulsed ultrasound. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(343):343re2.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Monteith S, Sheehan J, Medel R, et al. Potential intracranial applications of magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound surgery: a review. J Neurosurg 2013;118(2):215–221.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Beccaria K, Canney M, Goldwirt L, et al. Opening of the blood-brain barrier with an unfocused ultrasound device in rabbits. J Neurosurg 2013;119(4):887–898.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Beccaria K, Canney M, Goldwirt L, et al. Ultrasound-induced opening of the blood-brain barrier to enhance temozolomide and irinotecan delivery: an experimental study in rabbits. J Neurosurg 2016;124(6):1602–1610.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Goldwirt L, Canney M, Horodyckid C, et al. Enhanced brain distribution of carboplatin in a primate model after blood–brain barrier disruption using an implantable ultrasound device. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2016;77(1):211–216.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Horodyckid C, Canney M, Vignot A, et al. Safe long-term repeated disruption of the blood-brain barrier using an implantable ultrasound device: a multiparametric study in a primate model. J Neurosurg 2017;126(4):1351–1361.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Gutierrez MI, Penilla EH, Leija L, Vera A, Garay JE, Aguilar G. Novel cranial implants of yttria-stabilized zirconia as acoustic windows for ultrasonic brain therapy. Adv Healthc Mater 2017;6(21):1700214.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Suehiro S, Ohnishi T, Yamashita D, et al. Enhancement of antitumor activity by using 5-ALA–mediated sonodynamic therapy to induce apoptosis in malignant gliomas: significance of high-intensity focused ultrasound on 5-ALA-SDT in a mouse glioma model. J Neurosurg 2018:1–13.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Hu Z, Fan H, Lv G, et al. 5-Aminolevulinic acid-mediated sonodynamic therapy induces anti-tumor effects in malignant melanoma via p53-miR-34a-Sirt1 axis. J Dermatol Sci 2015;79(2):155–162.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Li Y, Zhou Q, Hu Z, et al. 5-Aminolevulinic acid-based sonodynamic therapy induces the apoptosis of osteosarcoma in mice. PLoS One 2015;10(7):e0132074.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Tachibana K, Feril LB, Jr., Ikeda-Dantsuji Y. Sonodynamic therapy. Ultrasonics 2008;48(4):253–259.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Tang W, Liu Q, Wang X, Wang P, Zhang J, Cao B. Potential mechanism in sonodynamic therapy and focused ultrasound induced apoptosis in sarcoma 180 cells in vitro. Ultrasonics 2009;49(8):786–793.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Heron M. Deaths: leading causes for 2014. National vital statistics reports: from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System. 2016;65(5):1–96.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2015 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2015;131(4):e29–e322.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T, et al. 2018 guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2018;49(3):e46-e110.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Chia NH, Leyden JM, Newbury J, Jannes J, Kleinig TJ. Determining the number of ischemic strokes potentially eligible for endovascular thrombectomy: a population-based study. Stroke 2016;47(5):1377–1380.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Schwamm LH, Ali SF, Reeves MJ, et al. Temporal trends in patient characteristics and treatment with intravenous thrombolysis among acute ischemic stroke patients at Get With The Guidelines-Stroke hospitals. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2013;6(5):543–549.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Albers GW, Marks MP, Kemp S, et al. Thrombectomy for stroke at 6 to 16 hours with selection by perfusion imaging. N Engl J Med 2018;378(8):708–718.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Nogueira RG, Jadhav AP, Haussen DC, et al. Thrombectomy 6 to 24 hours after stroke with a mismatch between deficit and infarct. N Engl J Med 2018;378(1):11–21.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Hemphill JC, 3rd, Greenberg SM, Anderson CS, et al. Guidelines for the management of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2015;46(7):2032–2060.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Burgess A, Huang Y, Waspe AC, Ganguly M, Goertz DE, Hynynen K. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for dissolution of clots in a rabbit model of embolic stroke. PLoS One 2012;7(8):e42311.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Ilyas A, Chen CJ, Ding D, et al. Magnetic resonance-guided, high-intensity focused ultrasound sonolysis: potential applications for stroke. Neurosurg Focus 2018;44(2):E12.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Monteith SJ, Kassell NF, Goren O, Harnof S. Transcranial MR-guided focused ultrasound sonothrombolysis in the treatment of intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurosurg Focus 2013;34(5):E14.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Weiss HL, Selvaraj P, Okita K, et al. Mechanical clot damage from cavitation during sonothrombolysis. J Acoust Soc Am 2013;133(5):3159–3175.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Anschuetz R, Bernard HR. Ultrasonic irradiation and atherosclerosis. Surgery 1965;57(4):549–553.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Aaslid R, Markwalder TM, Nornes H. Noninvasive transcranial Doppler ultrasound recording of flow velocity in basal cerebral arteries. J Neurosurg 1982;57(6):769–774.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Medel R, Crowley RW, McKisic MS, Dumont AS, Kassell NF. Sonothrombolysis: an emerging modality for the management of stroke. Neurosurgery 2009;65(5):979–993; discussion 93.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Maxwell AD, Owens G, Gurm HS, Ives K, Myers DD, Jr., Xu Z. Noninvasive treatment of deep venous thrombosis using pulsed ultrasound cavitation therapy (histotripsy) in a porcine model. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011;22(3):369–377.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Wright C, Hynynen K, Goertz D. In vitro and in vivo high-intensity focused ultrasound thrombolysis. Invest Radiol 2012;47(4):217–225.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Monteith SJ, Harnof S, Medel R, et al. Minimally invasive treatment of intracerebral hemorrhage with magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound. J Neurosurg 2013;118(5):1035–1045.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Harnof S, Zibly Z, Hananel A, et al. Potential of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound for intracranial hemorrhage: an in vivo feasibility study. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2014;23(6):1585–1591.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Alexandrov AV, Demchuk AM, Felberg RA, et al. High rate of complete recanalization and dramatic clinical recovery during tPA infusion when continuously monitored with 2-MHz transcranial doppler monitoring. Stroke 2000;31(3):610–614.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Alexandrov AV, Molina CA, Grotta JC, et al. Ultrasound-enhanced systemic thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 2004;351(21):2170–2178.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Daffertshofer M, Gass A, Ringleb P,et al. Transcranial low-frequency ultrasound-mediated thrombolysis in brain ischemia: increased risk of hemorrhage with combined ultrasound and tissue plasminogen activator: results of a phase II clinical trial. Stroke 2005;36(7):1441–1446.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Eggers J, Konig IR, Koch B, Handler G, Seidel G. Sonothrombolysis with transcranial color-coded sonography and recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator in acute middle cerebral artery main stem occlusion: results from a randomized study. Stroke 2008;39(5):1470–1475.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Ahadi G, Welch CS, Grimm MJ, Fisher DJ, Zadicario E, Ernstrom K, et al. Transcranial sonothrombolysis using high-intensity focused ultrasound: impact of increasing output power on clot fragmentation. J Ther Ultrasound 2013;1:22.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Kamp MA, Fischer I, Buhner J, et al. 5-ALA fluorescence of cerebral metastases and its impact for the local-in-brain progression. Oncotarget 2016;7(41):66776–66789.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Prada F, Bene MD, Fornaro R, Vetrano IG, Martegani A, Aiani L, et al. Identification of residual tumor with intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasound during glioblastoma resection. Neurosurg Focus 2016;40(3):E7.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Prada F, Mattei L, Del Bene M, et al. Intraoperative cerebral glioma characterization with contrast enhanced ultrasound. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:9.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Wang TR, Bond AE, Dallapiazza RF, et al. Transcranial magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy for tremor: technical note. Neurosurg Focus 2018;44(2):E3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Prada
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • M. Yashar S. Kalani
    • 2
  • Kaan Yagmurlu
    • 2
  • Pedro Norat
    • 2
  • Massimiliano Del Bene
    • 1
    • 4
  • Francesco DiMeco
    • 1
    • 5
    • 6
  • Neal F. Kassell
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryFondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo BestaMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Neurological SurgeryUniversity of Virginia Health Science CenterCharlottesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Focused Ultrasound FoundationCharlottesvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Experimental OncologyIRCCS European Institute of OncologyMilanItaly
  5. 5.Department of Pathophysiology and TransplantationUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  6. 6.Department of Neurological SurgeryJohns Hopkins Medical SchoolBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations