Article

Noninvasive cell-tracking methods.

Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 15.7). 09/2011; 8(11):677-88. DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.141
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Cell-based therapies, such as adoptive immunotherapy and stem-cell therapy, have received considerable attention as novel therapeutics in oncological research and clinical practice. The development of effective therapeutic strategies using tumor-targeted cells requires the ability to determine in vivo the location, distribution, and long-term viability of the therapeutic cell populations as well as their biological fate with respect to cell activation and differentiation. In conjunction with various noninvasive imaging modalities, cell-labeling methods, such as exogenous labeling or transfection with a reporter gene, allow visualization of labeled cells in vivo in real time, as well as monitoring and quantifying cell accumulation and function. Such cell-tracking methods also have an important role in basic cancer research, where they serve to elucidate novel biological mechanisms. In this Review, we describe the basic principles of cell-tracking methods, explain various approaches to cell tracking, and highlight recent examples for the application of such methods in animals and humans.

2 Followers
 · 
164 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cancer is one of the most common diseases afflicting people globally. New therapeutic approaches are needed due to the complexity of cancer as a disease. Many current treatments are very toxic and have modest efficacy at best. Increased understanding of tumor biology and immunology has allowed the development of specific immunotherapies with minimal toxicity. It is important to highlight the performance of monoclonal antibodies, immune adjuvants, vaccines and cell-based treatments. Although these approaches have shown varying degrees of clinical efficacy, they illustrate the potential to develop new strategies. Targeted immunotherapy is being explored to overcome the heterogeneity of malignant cells and the immune suppression induced by both the tumor and its microenvironment. Nanodelivery strategies seek to minimize systemic exposure to target therapy to malignant tissue and cells. Intracellular penetration has been examined through the use of functionalized particulates. These nano-particulate associated medicines are being developed for use in imaging, diagnostics and cancer targeting. Although nano-particulates are inherently complex medicines, the ability to confer, at least in principle, different types of functionality allows for the plausible consideration these nanodelivery strategies can be exploited for use as combination medicines. The development of targeted nanodelivery systems in which therapeutic and imaging agents are merged into a single platform is an attractive strategy. Currently, several nanoplatform-based formulations, such as polymeric nanoparticles, micelles, liposomes and dendrimers are in preclinical and clinical stages of development. Herein, nanodelivery strategies presently investigated for cancer immunotherapy, cancer targeting mechanisms and nanocarrier functionalization methods will be described. We also intend to discuss the emerging nano-based approaches suitable to be used as imaging techniques and as cancer treatment options.
    Frontiers in Chemistry 11/2014; 2(105):1. DOI:10.3389/fchem.2014.00105
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Molecular imaging is rapidly gaining recognition as a tool with the capacity to improve every facet of cancer care. Molecular imaging in oncology can be defined as in vivo characterization and measurement of the key biomolecules and molecularly based events that are fundamental to the malignant state. This article outlines the basic principles of molecular imaging as applied in oncology with both established and emerging techniques. It provides examples of the advantages that current molecular imaging techniques offer for improving clinical cancer care as well as drug development. It also discusses the importance of molecular imaging for the emerging field of theranostics and offers a vision of how molecular imaging may one day be integrated with other diagnostic techniques to dramatically increase the efficiency and effectiveness of cancer care.
    Molecular oncology 03/2012; 6(2):182-95. DOI:10.1016/j.molonc.2012.02.005 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cerenkov luminescence imaging (CLI) is an emerging hybrid modality that utilizes the light emission from many commonly used medical isotopes. Cerenkov radiation (CR) is produced when charged particles travel through a dielectric medium faster than the speed of light in that medium. First described in detail nearly 100 years ago, CR has only recently applied for biomedical imaging purposes. The modality is of considerable interest as it enables the use of widespread luminescence imaging equipment to visualize clinical diagnostic (all PET radioisotopes) and many therapeutic radionuclides. The amount of light detected in CLI applications is significantly lower than other that in other optical imaging techniques such as bioluminescence and fluorescence. However, significant advantages include the use of approved radiotracers and lack of an incident light source, resulting in high signal to background ratios. As well, multiple subjects may be imaged concurrently (up to 5 in common bioluminescent equipment), conferring both cost and time benefits. This review summarizes the field of Cerenkov luminescence imaging to date. Applications of CLI discussed include intraoperative radionuclide-guided surgery, monitoring of therapeutic efficacy, tomographic optical imaging capabilities, and the ability to perform multiplexed imaging using fluorophores excited by the Cerenkov radiation. While technical challenges still exist, Cerenkov imaging has materialized as an important molecular imaging modality.
    American Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 01/2012; 2(2):163-73. · 3.25 Impact Factor