Cargando…

Orthotopic Versus Allotopic Implantation: Comparison of Radiological and Pathological Characteristics

BACKGROUND: In experimental animal models, implantation location might influence the heterogeneity and overall development of the tumor, leading to an interpretation bias. PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of implantation location in experimental tumor model using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cai, YeYu, Chen, TaiLi, Liu, JiaYi, Peng, ShuHui, Liu, Huan, Lv, Min, Ding, ZhuYuan, Zhou, ZiYi, Li, Lan, Zeng, Shan, Xiao, EnHua
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9291575/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34611963
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27940
_version_ 1784749168061841408
author Cai, YeYu
Chen, TaiLi
Liu, JiaYi
Peng, ShuHui
Liu, Huan
Lv, Min
Ding, ZhuYuan
Zhou, ZiYi
Li, Lan
Zeng, Shan
Xiao, EnHua
author_facet Cai, YeYu
Chen, TaiLi
Liu, JiaYi
Peng, ShuHui
Liu, Huan
Lv, Min
Ding, ZhuYuan
Zhou, ZiYi
Li, Lan
Zeng, Shan
Xiao, EnHua
author_sort Cai, YeYu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In experimental animal models, implantation location might influence the heterogeneity and overall development of the tumor, leading to an interpretation bias. PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of implantation location in experimental tumor model using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and pathological findings. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Forty‐five breast cancer‐bearing mice underwent orthotopic (N = 15) and heterotopic (intrahepatic [N = 15] and subcutaneous [N = 15]) implantation. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Sequences including: T1‐weighted turbo spin echo sequence, T2‐weighted blade sequence, diffusion‐weighted imaging, pre‐ and post‐contrast T1 mapping, multi‐echo T2 mapping at 3.0 T. ASSESSMENT: MRI was performed at 7, 14, and 21 days after implantation. Native T1, post‐contrast T1, T2, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of tumors, the tumor volume and necrosis volume within tumor were obtained. Lymphocyte cells from H&E staining, Ki67‐positive, and CD31‐positive cells from immunohistochemistry were determined. STATISTICAL TESTS: One‐way analysis of variance and Spearman's rank correlation were performed. P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The tumor volume (intrahepatic vs. orthotopic vs. subcutaneous: 587.50 ± 77.62 mm(3) vs. 814.00 ± 43.85 mm(3) vs. 956.13 ± 119.22 mm(3)), necrosis volume within tumor (89.10 ± 26.60 mm(3) vs. 292.41 ± 57.92 mm(3) vs. 179.91 ± 31.73 mm(3), respectively), ADC at day 21 (543.41 ± 42.28 vs. 542.92 ± 99.67 vs. 369.83 ± 42.90, respectively), and post‐contrast T1 at all timepoints (day 7: 442.00 ± 11.52 vs. 435.00 ± 22.90 vs. 394.33 ± 29.95; day 14: 459.00 ± 26.11 vs. 436.83 ± 26.01 vs. 377.00 ± 27.83; day 21: 463.50 ± 23.49 vs. 458.00 ± 34.28 vs. 375.00 ± 30.55) were significantly different between three groups. Necrosis volumes of subcutaneous and intrahepatic tumors were significantly lower than those of orthotopic tumors. The CD31‐positive rate in the intrahepatic implantation was significantly higher than in orthotopic and subcutaneous groups. Necrosis volume (r = −0.71), ADC (r = −0.85), and post‐contrast T1 (r = −0.75) were strongly correlated with vascular invasion index. DATA CONCLUSION: Orthotopic and heterotopic tumors have their unique growth kinetics, necrosis volume, and vascular invasion. Non‐invasive MR quantitative parameters, including ADC and post‐contrast T1, may reflect vascular invasion in mice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9291575
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92915752022-07-20 Orthotopic Versus Allotopic Implantation: Comparison of Radiological and Pathological Characteristics Cai, YeYu Chen, TaiLi Liu, JiaYi Peng, ShuHui Liu, Huan Lv, Min Ding, ZhuYuan Zhou, ZiYi Li, Lan Zeng, Shan Xiao, EnHua J Magn Reson Imaging Research Articles BACKGROUND: In experimental animal models, implantation location might influence the heterogeneity and overall development of the tumor, leading to an interpretation bias. PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of implantation location in experimental tumor model using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and pathological findings. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Forty‐five breast cancer‐bearing mice underwent orthotopic (N = 15) and heterotopic (intrahepatic [N = 15] and subcutaneous [N = 15]) implantation. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Sequences including: T1‐weighted turbo spin echo sequence, T2‐weighted blade sequence, diffusion‐weighted imaging, pre‐ and post‐contrast T1 mapping, multi‐echo T2 mapping at 3.0 T. ASSESSMENT: MRI was performed at 7, 14, and 21 days after implantation. Native T1, post‐contrast T1, T2, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of tumors, the tumor volume and necrosis volume within tumor were obtained. Lymphocyte cells from H&E staining, Ki67‐positive, and CD31‐positive cells from immunohistochemistry were determined. STATISTICAL TESTS: One‐way analysis of variance and Spearman's rank correlation were performed. P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The tumor volume (intrahepatic vs. orthotopic vs. subcutaneous: 587.50 ± 77.62 mm(3) vs. 814.00 ± 43.85 mm(3) vs. 956.13 ± 119.22 mm(3)), necrosis volume within tumor (89.10 ± 26.60 mm(3) vs. 292.41 ± 57.92 mm(3) vs. 179.91 ± 31.73 mm(3), respectively), ADC at day 21 (543.41 ± 42.28 vs. 542.92 ± 99.67 vs. 369.83 ± 42.90, respectively), and post‐contrast T1 at all timepoints (day 7: 442.00 ± 11.52 vs. 435.00 ± 22.90 vs. 394.33 ± 29.95; day 14: 459.00 ± 26.11 vs. 436.83 ± 26.01 vs. 377.00 ± 27.83; day 21: 463.50 ± 23.49 vs. 458.00 ± 34.28 vs. 375.00 ± 30.55) were significantly different between three groups. Necrosis volumes of subcutaneous and intrahepatic tumors were significantly lower than those of orthotopic tumors. The CD31‐positive rate in the intrahepatic implantation was significantly higher than in orthotopic and subcutaneous groups. Necrosis volume (r = −0.71), ADC (r = −0.85), and post‐contrast T1 (r = −0.75) were strongly correlated with vascular invasion index. DATA CONCLUSION: Orthotopic and heterotopic tumors have their unique growth kinetics, necrosis volume, and vascular invasion. Non‐invasive MR quantitative parameters, including ADC and post‐contrast T1, may reflect vascular invasion in mice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021-10-05 2022-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9291575/ /pubmed/34611963 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27940 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Cai, YeYu
Chen, TaiLi
Liu, JiaYi
Peng, ShuHui
Liu, Huan
Lv, Min
Ding, ZhuYuan
Zhou, ZiYi
Li, Lan
Zeng, Shan
Xiao, EnHua
Orthotopic Versus Allotopic Implantation: Comparison of Radiological and Pathological Characteristics
title Orthotopic Versus Allotopic Implantation: Comparison of Radiological and Pathological Characteristics
title_full Orthotopic Versus Allotopic Implantation: Comparison of Radiological and Pathological Characteristics
title_fullStr Orthotopic Versus Allotopic Implantation: Comparison of Radiological and Pathological Characteristics
title_full_unstemmed Orthotopic Versus Allotopic Implantation: Comparison of Radiological and Pathological Characteristics
title_short Orthotopic Versus Allotopic Implantation: Comparison of Radiological and Pathological Characteristics
title_sort orthotopic versus allotopic implantation: comparison of radiological and pathological characteristics
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9291575/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34611963
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27940
work_keys_str_mv AT caiyeyu orthotopicversusallotopicimplantationcomparisonofradiologicalandpathologicalcharacteristics
AT chentaili orthotopicversusallotopicimplantationcomparisonofradiologicalandpathologicalcharacteristics
AT liujiayi orthotopicversusallotopicimplantationcomparisonofradiologicalandpathologicalcharacteristics
AT pengshuhui orthotopicversusallotopicimplantationcomparisonofradiologicalandpathologicalcharacteristics
AT liuhuan orthotopicversusallotopicimplantationcomparisonofradiologicalandpathologicalcharacteristics
AT lvmin orthotopicversusallotopicimplantationcomparisonofradiologicalandpathologicalcharacteristics
AT dingzhuyuan orthotopicversusallotopicimplantationcomparisonofradiologicalandpathologicalcharacteristics
AT zhouziyi orthotopicversusallotopicimplantationcomparisonofradiologicalandpathologicalcharacteristics
AT lilan orthotopicversusallotopicimplantationcomparisonofradiologicalandpathologicalcharacteristics
AT zengshan orthotopicversusallotopicimplantationcomparisonofradiologicalandpathologicalcharacteristics
AT xiaoenhua orthotopicversusallotopicimplantationcomparisonofradiologicalandpathologicalcharacteristics