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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |