Article

Imaging angiogenesis: applications and potential for drug development.

Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 100 Charles River Plaza, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment (Impact Factor: 15.16). 03/2005; 97(3):172-87. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dji023
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recognition of the importance of angiogenesis to tumor growth and metastasis has led to efforts to develop new drugs that are targeted to angiogenic vasculature. Clinical trials of these agents are challenging, both because there is no agreed upon method of establishing the correct dosage for drugs whose mechanism of action is not primarily cytotoxic and because of the long time it takes to determine whether such drugs have a clinical effect. Therefore, there is a need for rapid and effective biomarkers to establish drug dosage and monitor clinical response. This review addresses the potential of imaging as a way to accurately and reliably assess changes in angiogenic vasculature in response to therapy. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of several imaging modalities, including positron emission tomography, x-ray computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, and optical imaging, for imaging angiogenic vasculature. We also discuss the analytic methods used to derive blood flow, blood volume, empirical semiquantitative hemodynamic parameters, and quantitative hemodynamic parameters from pharmacokinetic modeling. We examine the validity of these methods, citing studies that test correlations between data derived from imaging and data derived from other established methods, their reproducibility, and correlations between imaging-derived hemodynamic parameters and other pathologic indicators, such as microvessel density, pathology score, and disease outcome. Finally, we discuss which imaging methods are most likely to have the sensitivity and reliability required for monitoring responses to cancer therapy and describe ways in which imaging has been used in clinical trials to date.

Full-text

Available from: Homer Pien, Aug 02, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
106 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Exactly assessing tumor response to different dose of chemotherapy would help to tailor therapy for individual patients. This study was to determine the feasibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the evaluation of tumor vascular response to different dose cisplatin. MCF-7 breast cancer bearing mice were treated with different dose of cisplatin in group B (1 mg/kg) and group C (3 mg/kg). A control group A was given with saline. Sequential CEUS was performed on days 0, 3 and 7 of the treatment, in which time-signal intensity curves were obtained from the intratumoral and depth-matched liver parenchyma. Peak enhancement (PE), area under the curve of wash-in (WiAUC), wash-in rate (WiR) and wash-in perfusion index (WiPI) were calculated from perfusion time-intensity curves and normalized with respect to the adjacent liver parenchyma. Histopathological analysis was conducted to evaluate tumor cell density and microvascular density (MVD). Significant decreases in tumor normalized perfusion parameters were observed on day 3 in the high dose group and on day 7 in the low dose group. On day 7, nPE, nWiAUC, and nWiPI significantly decreased in group C and group B as compared with group A (P < 0.05), and further decreased in group C as compared with group B (P < 0.05). Significant decreases of tumor cell density and MVD were seen in treated group (group B and C) compared to control group (P < 0.05) and further decrease in group C compared to group B (P < 0.05). Dynamic CEUS for quantification of tumor perfusion could be used to evaluate tumor vascular response to different dose of chemotherapy.
    BMC Cancer 01/2015; 15(1):1170. DOI:10.1186/s12885-015-1170-8 · 3.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: We hypothesized that bortezomib, an agent that suppresses HIF-1α transcriptional activity, when combined with bevacizumab, would obviate the HIF-1α resistance pathway. The objectives of this phase I trial were to assess safety and biological activity of this combination. Experimental Design: Patients with advanced, refractory malignancies were eligible. Patients received bevacizumab and bortezomib (3-week cycle) with dose expansions permitted if responses were seen and for assessing correlates. Pharmacodynamic assessment included plasma VEGF, VEGFR2, 20S proteasome inhibition, dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI), and HIF-1α tumor expression. Results: Ninety-one patients were treated (median=6 prior treatments). The FDA-approved doses of both drugs were safely reached, and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) is bevacizumab 15 mg/kg with bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2. Four patients attained partial response (PR) and seven patients achieved stable disease (SD) ≥6 months (Total SD≥6 months/PR=11 (12%)). The most common drug-related toxicities included thrombocytopenia (23%) and fatigue (19%). DCE-MRI analysis demonstrated no dose-dependent decreases in Ktrans although analysis was limited by small sample size (N=12). Conclusion: Combination bevacizumab and bortezomib is well-tolerated and has demonstrated clinical activity in patients with previously treated advanced malignancy. Pharmacodynamic assessment suggests that inhibition of angiogenic activity was achieved.
    Oncotarget 07/2014; · 6.63 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Angiogenesis is an essential component of the growth and dissemination of solid malignancies and is mediated by several proangiogenic factors. The most widely studied proangiogenic factor is vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). A major class of molecular targeted therapies (MTTs) inhibit the VEGF axis and are referred to as antiangiogenic MTTs. There are two main types of anti-VEGF MTTs: drugs targeting circulating VEGF and drugs interfering with the activity of the VEGF receptors. The cancers against which antiangiogenic MTTs have had the greatest effect are gliomas, non-small cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor. These cancers respond to antiangiogenic MTTs in a different way than they respond to conventional chemotherapy. Instead of the traditional Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), each of these cancers therefore requires its own individualized treatment response criteria (TRC). Examples of individualized TRC include the Response Assessment in Neuro-oncology (RANO) criteria for gliomas, modified RECIST for hepatocellular carcinoma, and Morphology, Attenuation, Size, and Structure (MASS) criteria for renal cell carcinoma. Furthermore, antiangiogenic MTTs have a unique spectrum of class-specific and drug-specific toxic effects, some of which can be detected at imaging. Increasing use of antiangiogenic MTTs in clinical practice necessitates that radiologists be aware of these drugs, their response patterns, and TRC as well as their toxic effect profiles. (©)RSNA, 2015.
    Radiographics 03/2015; 35(2):455-474. DOI:10.1148/rg.352140119 · 2.73 Impact Factor