Baetke Sarah C, Rix Anne, Tranquart François, Schneider Richard, Lammers Twan, Kiessling Fabian, Lederle Wiltrud
From the Department of Experimental Molecular Imaging, Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany (S.C.B., A.R., T.L., F.K., W.L.); Bracco Suisse SA, Geneva, Switzerland (F.T.); and Merck Serono, Darmstadt, Germany (R.S.).
Radiology. 2016 Feb;278(2):430-40. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015142899. Epub 2015 Aug 27.
To assess the ability of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor type 2 (VEGFR2)-targeted and nontargeted ultrasonography (US) to depict antiangiogenic therapy effects and to investigate whether first-pass kinetics obtained with VEGFR2-targeted microbubbles provide independent data about tumor vascularization.
Governmental approval was obtained for animal experiments. Vascularization in response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor or vehicle-control treatment (10 per group) in HaCaT-ras A-5RT3 xenografts was longitudinally assessed in mice by means of first-pass kinetics of nontargeted microbubbles (BR1, BR38; Bracco, Geneva, Switzerland) and VEGFR2-targeted microbubbles (BR55, Bracco) before and 4, 7, and 14 days after therapy. VEGFR2 expression was determined 8 minutes after BR55 injection with destruction-replenishment analysis. US data were validated with immunohistochemistry. Significant differences were evaluated with the Mann-Whitney test.
First-pass analysis with BR1, BR38, and BR55 showed similar tendencies toward decreasing vascularization, with a stronger decrease in tumors treated with anti-VEGF antibody. The median signal intensity (in arbitrary units [au]) of anti-VEGF antibody-treated versus control tumors at day 14 was as follows: BR1, 5.2 au (interquartile range [IQR], 3.2 au) vs 11.3 au (IQR, 10.0 au), respectively; BR38, 6.2 au (IQR, 3.5) vs 10.0 au (IQR, 7.8); and BR55, 9.5 au (IQR, 6.0 au) vs 13.8 au (IQR, 9.8) (P = .0230). VEGFR2 assessment with BR55 demonstrated significant differences between both groups throughout the therapy period (median signal intensity of anti-VEGF antibody-treated vs control tumors: 0.04 au [IQR, 0.1 au] vs 0.14 au [IQR, 0.08 au], respectively, at day 4, P = .0058; 0.04 au [IQR, 0.06 au] vs 0.13 au [IQR, 0.09 au] at day 7, P = .0058; and 0.06 au [IQR, 0.11 au] vs 0.16 au [IQR, 0.15 au] at day 14, P = .0247). Immunohistochemistry confirmed the lower microvessel density and VEGFR2-positive area fraction in tumors treated with anti-VEGF antibody.
Antiangiogenic therapy effects were detected earlier and more distinctly with VEGFR2-targeted US than with functional US. First-pass analyses with BR55, BR38, and BR1 revealed similar results, with a decrease in vascularization during therapy. Functional data showed that BR55 is not strongly affected by early binding of the microbubbles to VEGFR2. Thus, functional and molecular imaging of angiogenesis can be performed with BR55 within one examination.
评估靶向血管内皮生长因子受体2(VEGFR2)的超声检查(US)和非靶向超声检查描绘抗血管生成治疗效果的能力,并研究使用靶向VEGFR2的微泡获得的首过动力学是否能提供有关肿瘤血管生成的独立数据。
动物实验获得政府批准。通过非靶向微泡(BR1、BR38;意大利布瑞科公司,日内瓦,瑞士)和靶向VEGFR2的微泡(BR55,布瑞科公司)的首过动力学,在治疗前以及治疗后4、7和14天,纵向评估HaCaT-ras A-5RT3异种移植小鼠中抗血管内皮生长因子受体或载体对照治疗(每组10只)后的血管生成情况。在注射BR55后8分钟,通过破坏-补充分析确定VEGFR2表达。超声检查数据通过免疫组织化学进行验证。采用曼-惠特尼检验评估显著差异。
使用BR1、BR38和BR55进行的首过分析显示血管生成减少的趋势相似,用抗VEGF抗体治疗的肿瘤中血管生成减少更为明显。在第14天,抗VEGF抗体治疗组与对照组肿瘤的中位信号强度(以任意单位[au]计)如下:BR1分别为5.2 au(四分位间距[IQR],3.2 au)和11.3 au(IQR,10.0 au);BR38为6.2 au(IQR,3.5)和10.0 au(IQR,7.8);BR55为9.5 au(IQR,6.0 au)和13.8 au(IQR,9.8)(P = 0.0230)。使用BR55进行的VEGFR2评估显示,在整个治疗期间两组之间存在显著差异(抗VEGF抗体治疗组与对照组肿瘤的中位信号强度:在第4天分别为0.04 au[IQR,0.1 au]和0.14 au[IQR,0.08 au],P = 0.0058;在第7天为0.04 au[IQR,0.06 au]和0.13 au[IQR,0.09 au],P = 0.0058;在第14天为0.06 au[IQR,0.11 au]和0.16 au[IQR,0.15 au],P = 0.0247)。免疫组织化学证实,用抗VEGF抗体治疗的肿瘤中微血管密度和VEGFR2阳性面积分数较低。
与功能性超声检查相比,靶向VEGFR2的超声检查能更早、更清晰地检测到抗血管生成治疗效果。使用BR55、BR38和BR1进行的首过分析得出了相似的结果,即治疗期间血管生成减少。功能数据表明,BR55不受微泡与VEGFR2早期结合的强烈影响。因此,使用BR55可在一次检查中对血管生成进行功能和分子成像。