Cargando…

A Comparison of Imaging Techniques to Monitor Tumor Growth and Cancer Progression in Living Animals

Introduction and Purpose. Monitoring solid tumor growth and metastasis in small animals is important for cancer research. Noninvasive techniques make longitudinal studies possible, require fewer animals, and have greater statistical power. Such techniques include FDG positron emission tomography (FD...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Puaux, Anne-Laure, Ong, Lai Chun, Jin, Yi, Teh, Irvin, Hong, Michelle, Chow, Pierce K. H., Golay, Xavier, Abastado, Jean-Pierre
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3216304/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22121481
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/321538
_version_ 1782216489975152640
author Puaux, Anne-Laure
Ong, Lai Chun
Jin, Yi
Teh, Irvin
Hong, Michelle
Chow, Pierce K. H.
Golay, Xavier
Abastado, Jean-Pierre
author_facet Puaux, Anne-Laure
Ong, Lai Chun
Jin, Yi
Teh, Irvin
Hong, Michelle
Chow, Pierce K. H.
Golay, Xavier
Abastado, Jean-Pierre
author_sort Puaux, Anne-Laure
collection PubMed
description Introduction and Purpose. Monitoring solid tumor growth and metastasis in small animals is important for cancer research. Noninvasive techniques make longitudinal studies possible, require fewer animals, and have greater statistical power. Such techniques include FDG positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and optical imaging, comprising bioluminescence imaging (BLI) and fluorescence imaging (FLI). This study compared the performance and usability of these methods in the context of mouse tumor studies. Methods. B16 tumor-bearing mice (n = 4 for each study) were used to compare practicality, performance for small tumor detection and tumor burden measurement. Using RETAAD mice, which develop spontaneous melanomas, we examined the performance of MRI (n = 6 mice) and FDG-PET (n = 10 mice) for tumor identification. Results. Overall, BLI and FLI were the most practical techniques tested. Both BLI and FDG-PET identified small nonpalpable tumors, whereas MRI and FLI only detected macroscopic, clinically evident tumors. FDG-PET and MRI performed well in the identification of tumors in terms of specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value. Conclusion. Each of the four methods has different strengths that must be understood before selecting them for use.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3216304
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32163042011-11-25 A Comparison of Imaging Techniques to Monitor Tumor Growth and Cancer Progression in Living Animals Puaux, Anne-Laure Ong, Lai Chun Jin, Yi Teh, Irvin Hong, Michelle Chow, Pierce K. H. Golay, Xavier Abastado, Jean-Pierre Int J Mol Imaging Research Article Introduction and Purpose. Monitoring solid tumor growth and metastasis in small animals is important for cancer research. Noninvasive techniques make longitudinal studies possible, require fewer animals, and have greater statistical power. Such techniques include FDG positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and optical imaging, comprising bioluminescence imaging (BLI) and fluorescence imaging (FLI). This study compared the performance and usability of these methods in the context of mouse tumor studies. Methods. B16 tumor-bearing mice (n = 4 for each study) were used to compare practicality, performance for small tumor detection and tumor burden measurement. Using RETAAD mice, which develop spontaneous melanomas, we examined the performance of MRI (n = 6 mice) and FDG-PET (n = 10 mice) for tumor identification. Results. Overall, BLI and FLI were the most practical techniques tested. Both BLI and FDG-PET identified small nonpalpable tumors, whereas MRI and FLI only detected macroscopic, clinically evident tumors. FDG-PET and MRI performed well in the identification of tumors in terms of specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value. Conclusion. Each of the four methods has different strengths that must be understood before selecting them for use. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2011 2011-11-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3216304/ /pubmed/22121481 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/321538 Text en Copyright © 2011 Anne-Laure Puaux et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Puaux, Anne-Laure
Ong, Lai Chun
Jin, Yi
Teh, Irvin
Hong, Michelle
Chow, Pierce K. H.
Golay, Xavier
Abastado, Jean-Pierre
A Comparison of Imaging Techniques to Monitor Tumor Growth and Cancer Progression in Living Animals
title A Comparison of Imaging Techniques to Monitor Tumor Growth and Cancer Progression in Living Animals
title_full A Comparison of Imaging Techniques to Monitor Tumor Growth and Cancer Progression in Living Animals
title_fullStr A Comparison of Imaging Techniques to Monitor Tumor Growth and Cancer Progression in Living Animals
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Imaging Techniques to Monitor Tumor Growth and Cancer Progression in Living Animals
title_short A Comparison of Imaging Techniques to Monitor Tumor Growth and Cancer Progression in Living Animals
title_sort comparison of imaging techniques to monitor tumor growth and cancer progression in living animals
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3216304/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22121481
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/321538
work_keys_str_mv AT puauxannelaure acomparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals
AT onglaichun acomparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals
AT jinyi acomparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals
AT tehirvin acomparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals
AT hongmichelle acomparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals
AT chowpiercekh acomparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals
AT golayxavier acomparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals
AT abastadojeanpierre acomparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals
AT puauxannelaure comparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals
AT onglaichun comparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals
AT jinyi comparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals
AT tehirvin comparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals
AT hongmichelle comparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals
AT chowpiercekh comparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals
AT golayxavier comparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals
AT abastadojeanpierre comparisonofimagingtechniquestomonitortumorgrowthandcancerprogressioninlivinganimals