Advertisement

Nanosystems for Multimodality In vivo Imaging

  • Jinzi Zheng
  • David A. Jaffray
  • Christine Allen
Part of the Fundamental Biomedical Technologies book series (FBMT, volume 4)

The inherent differences and the complementary nature of existing imaging systems have prompted the quest for multimodality imaging platforms that allow for integration of images acquired at different scales (i.e., whole organism, organ, suborgan, cell, and subcellular) and at various stages of disease treatment (i.e., diagnostic, preoperative, intraoperative, and follow-up images). The successful development of a contrast agent platform that is able to provide persistent and colocalized signal enhancements across multiple imaging systems has the potential to seamlessly bridge wide ranges of spatial, temporal, and sensitivity scales and to be employed throughout a variety of clinical scenarios.

Keywords

Contrast Agent Magn Reson Image Diethylene Triamine Pentaacetic Acid Specific Cell Population Organic Fluorophores 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alfano, R.R., Demos, S.G., and Gayen, S.K., 1997. Advances in optical imaging of biomedical media. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 820: 248–270; discussion 271.PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, R.R. and Parrish, J.A., 1981. The optics of human skin. J Invest Dermatol, 13–19.Google Scholar
  3. Bocher, M., et al., 2000. Gamma camera-mounted anatomical X-ray tomography: technology, system characteristics and first images. Eur J Nucl Med, 619–627.Google Scholar
  4. Bonvento, M.J., et al., 2006. CT angiography with gadolinium-based contrast media. Acad Radiol, 13: 979–985.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calliada, F., et al., 1998. Ultrasound contrast agents: basic principles. Eur J Radiol, 27 Suppl 2: S157–S160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caravan, P., et al., 1999. Gadolinium(III) chelates as MRI contrast agents: structure, dynamics, and applications. Chem Rev, 99: 2293–2352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cassidy, P.J. and Radda, G.K., 2005. Molecular imaging perspectives. J R Soc Interface, 2: 133–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans, E., 1955. The Atomic Nucleus. New York: McGraw-Hill.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Exadaktylos, A.K., et al., 2005. The role of contrast-enhanced spiral CT imaging versus chest X-rays in surgical therapeutic concepts and thoracic aortic injury: a 29-year Swiss retrospective analysis of aortic surgery. Cardiovasc J S Afr, 162–165.Google Scholar
  10. Fahrig, R., et al., 2003. First use of a truly-hybrid X-ray/MR imaging system for guidance of brain biopsy. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 995–997; discussion 997.Google Scholar
  11. Fahrig, R., et al., 2001. Truly hybrid interventional MR/X-ray system: investigation of in vivo applications. Acad Radiol, 1200–1207.Google Scholar
  12. Fahrig, R., et al., 2001. A truly hybrid interventional MR/X-ray system: feasibility demonstration. J Magn Reson Imaging, 294–300.Google Scholar
  13. Firat, A.K., et al., 2006. The effect of intravenous gadolinium-DTPA on diffusion-weighted imaging. Neuroradiology, 48: 465–470.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischman, A.J., Alpert, N.M., and Rubin, R.H., 2002. Pharmacokinetic imaging: a noninvasive method for determining drug distribution and action. Clin Pharmacokinet, 41: 581–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fossheim, S.L., et al., 1999. Paramagnetic liposomes as MRI contrast agents: influence of liposomal physicochemical properties on the in vitro relaxivity. Magn Reson Imaging, 17: 83–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frangioni, J.V., 2003. In vivo near-infrared fluorescence imaging. Curr Opin Chem Biol, 7: 626–634.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Froehlich, J., 2006. MR contrast agents, in How Does MRI Work? An Introduction to the Physics and Function of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, D. Weishaupt, V. Kochli, and B. Marincek, Eds. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer, pp. 103–118.Google Scholar
  18. Gao, X., et al., 2005. In vivo molecular and cellular imaging with quantum dots. Curr Opin Biotechnol, 16: 63–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gao, X., Chung, L.W., and Nie, S., 2007. Quantum dots for in vivo molecular and cellular imaging. Methods Mol Biol, 374: 135–146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gillies, R.J., 2002. In vivo molecular imaging. J Cell Biochem Suppl, 39: 231–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gimi, B., et al., 2005. Molecular imaging of cancer: applications of magnetic resonance methods. Proc IEEE, 93: 784–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hainfeld, J.F., et al., 2006. Gold nanoparticles: a new X-ray contrast agent. Br J Radiol,79: 248–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hashizume, M., 2007. MRI-guided laparoscopic and robotic surgery for malignancies. Int J Clin Oncol, 12: 94–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hobbs, S.K., et al., 1998. Regulation of transport pathways in tumor vessels: role of tumor type and microenvironment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 4607–4612.Google Scholar
  25. Houston, J.P., et al., 2005. Quality analysis of in vivo near-infrared fluorescence and conventional gamma images acquired using a dual-labeled tumor-targeting probe. J Biomed Opt, 10: 054010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hsieh, J., 2003. Computed Tomography: Principles, Design, Artifacts, and Recent Advances. Bellingham, Washington: SPIE–The International Society for Optical Engineering.Google Scholar
  27. Hsu, C.P., et al., 2005. Liver tumor gross margin identification and ablation monitoring during liver radiofrequency treatment. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 16: 1473–1478.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Huh, Y.M., et al., 2005. In vivo magnetic resonance detection of cancer by using multifunctional magnetic nanocrystals. J Am Chem Soc, 127: 12387–12391.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jaffray, D.A., et al., 2002. Flat-panel cone-beam computed tomography for image-guided radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 1337–1349.Google Scholar
  30. Josephson, L., et al., 2002. Near-infrared fluorescent nanoparticles as combined MR/optical imaging probes. Bioconjug Chem, 13: 554–560.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kale, A.A. and Torchilin, V.P., 2007. Design, synthesis, and characterization of pH-sensitive PEG-PE conjugates for stimuli-sensitive pharmaceutical nanocarriers: the effect of substitutes at the hydrazone linkage on the ph stability of PEG-PE conjugates. Bioconjug Chem, 18: 363–370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaul, S., 2004. Microbubbles and ultrasound: a bird’s eye view. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc, 115: 137–148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kim, K.Y., 2007. Nanotechnology platforms and physiological challenges for cancer therapeutics. Nanomedicine, 3: 103–110.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kircher, M.F., et al., 2003. A multimodal nanoparticle for preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and intraoperative optical brain tumor delineation. Cancer Res, 63: 8122–8125.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Koenig, S.H. and Brown, R.D., 1994. Relaxometry and MRI, in NMR in Physiology and Biomedicine, R.J. Gillies, Ed. San Diego, CA: Academic, p. 70.Google Scholar
  36. Koyama, Y., et al., 2007. A dendrimer-based nanosized contrast agent dual-labeled for magnetic resonance and optical fluorescence imaging to localize the sentinel lymph node in mice. J Magn Reson Imaging, 25: 866–871.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krause, W., 1999. Delivery of diagnostic agents in computed tomography. Adv Drug Deliv Rev, 159–173.Google Scholar
  38. Levin, C.S., 2005. Primer on molecular imaging technology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 32 Suppl 2: S325–S345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Li, C., et al., 2006. Dual optical and nuclear imaging in human melanoma xenografts using a single targeted imaging probe. Nucl Med Biol, 33: 349–358.PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  40. Li, H., et al., 2004. MR and fluorescent imaging of low-density lipoprotein receptors. Acad Radiol, 11: 1251–1259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lindner, D., et al., 2006. Application of intraoperative 3D ultrasound during navigated tumor resection. Minim Invasive Neurosurg, 49: 197–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lucas, A.J., et al., 2006. Development of a combined microPET-MR system. Technol Cancer Res Treat, 5: 337–341.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Maeda, H., et al., 2000. Tumor vascular permeability and the EPR effect in macromolecular therapeutics: a review. J Control Release, 271–284.Google Scholar
  44. McCulloch, M., et al., 2000. Ultrasound contrast physics: a series on contrast echocardiography, article 3. J Am Soc Echocardiogr, 13: 959–967.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McVeigh, E.R., et al., 2006. Real-time interactive MRI-guided cardiac surgery: aortic valve replacement using a direct apical approach. Magn Reson Med, 56: 958–964.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Medarova, Z., et al., 2006. In vivo imaging of tumor response to therapy using a dual-modality imaging strategy. Int J Cancer, 118: 2796–2802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moore, A., et al., 2004. In vivo targeting of underglycosylated MUC-1 tumor antigen using a multimodal imaging probe. Cancer Res, 64: 1821–1827.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mutzel, W. and U. Speck, 1980. Pharmacokinetics and biotransformation of iohexol in the rat and the dog. Acta Radiol Suppl, 87–92.Google Scholar
  49. Namasivayam, S., et al., 2006. Adverse reactions to intravenous iodinated contrast media: a primer for radiologists. Emerg Radiol, 12: 210–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pandey, S.K., et al., 2005. Multimodality agents for tumor imaging (PET, fluorescence) and photodynamic therapy. A possible “see and treat” approach. J Med Chem, 48: 6286–6295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Phelps, M., 2003. PET: Molecular Imaging and Its Biological Applications. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Ponce, A.M., et al., 2006. Hyperthermia mediated liposomal drug delivery. Int J Hyperthermia, 22: 205–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rabin, O., et al., 2006. An X-ray computed tomography imaging agent based on long-circulating bismuth sulphide nanoparticles. Nat Mater, 5: 118–122.PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  54. Rygh, O.M., et al., 2006. Intraoperative navigated 3-dimensional ultrasound angiography in tumor surgery. Surg Neurol, 66: 581–592; discussion 592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Saeed, M., et al., 2005. MRI in guiding and assessing intramyocardial therapy, Eur Radiol, 851–863.Google Scholar
  56. Sandler, M., et al., 1989. Correlative Imaging–Nuclear Medicine, Magnetic Resonance, Computed Tomography and Ultrasound. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  57. Schellenberger, E.A., et al., 2004. Magneto/optical annexin V, a multimodal protein. Bioconjug Chem, 15: 1062–1067.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schnall, M. and Rosen, M. 2006. Primer on imaging technologies for cancer. J Clin Oncol, 24: 3225–3233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sima, P.D. and J.R. Kanofsky, 2000.Cyanine dyes as protectors of K562 cells from photosensitized cell damage. Photochem Photobiol, 71: 413–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith, A.M., Gao, X., and Nie, S., 2004. Quantum dot nanocrystals for in vivo molecular and cellular imaging. Photochem Photobiol, 80: 377–385.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Sosnovik, D.E., et al., 2005. Magnetic resonance imaging of cardiomyocyte apoptosis with a novel magneto-optical nanoparticle. Magn Reson Med, 54: 718–724.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Strable, E., et al., 2001. Synthesis and characterization of soluble iron oxide-dendrimer composites. Chem Mater, 13: 2201–2209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Torchilin, V.P., 2000. Drug targeting. Eur J Pharm Sci, S81–S91.Google Scholar
  64. Townsend, D.W. and Beyer, T., 2002. A combined PET/CT scanner: the path to true image fusion. Br J Radiol, S24–S30.Google Scholar
  65. Townsend, D.W., et al., 2004. PET/CT today and tomorrow. J Nucl Med, S4–S14.Google Scholar
  66. Trehin, R., et al., 2006. Fluorescent nanoparticle uptake for brain tumor visualization. Neoplasia, 8: 302–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tsui, M., 1996. Physics of SPECT. Radiographics, 16: 173–183.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Tweedle, M.F., et al., 1997. A noninvasive method for monitoring renal status at bedside. Invest Radiol, 802–805.Google Scholar
  69. Uematsu, M., et al., 1999. Daily positioning accuracy of frameless stereotactic radiation therapy with a fusion of computed tomography and linear accelerator (focal) unit: evaluation of z-axis with a z-marker. Radiother Oncol, 337–339.Google Scholar
  70. Wagenaar, D.J., et al., 2006. Rationale for the combination of nuclear medicine with magnetic resonance for pre-clinical imaging. Technol Cancer Res Treat, 5: 343–350.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Wang, S., et al., 2007. Core/shell quantum dots with high relaxivity and photoluminescence for multimodality imaging. J Am Chem Soc, 129: 3848–3856.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weishaupt, D., Kochli, V., and Marincek, B. 2003. How Does MRI Work? An Introduction to the Physics and Function of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  73. WT, M., 1999. Fluorescent and Luminescent Probes for Biological Activities. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  74. Zhang, Z., et al., 2005. Monomolecular multimodal fluorescence-radioisotope imaging agents. Bioconjug Chem, 16: 1232–1239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zheng, J., et al., 2006. Multimodal contrast agent for combined computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging applications. Invest Radiol, 41: 339–348.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zheng, J., et al., 2007. 2007. Longitudinal vascular imaging using a novel nano-encapsulated CT and MR contrast agent. Proc SPIE, 6511(Medical Imaging 2007).Google Scholar
  77. Zheng, J., et al., 2007. In vivo performance of a liposomal vascular contrast agent for CT and MR-based image guidance applications. Pharm Res, 24(6): 1193–1201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zielhuis, S.W., et al., 2006. Lanthanide-loaded liposomes for multimodality imaging and therapy. Cancer Biother Radiopharm, 21: 520–527.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jinzi Zheng
    • 1
  • David A. Jaffray
    • 1
  • Christine Allen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medical BiophysicsUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations