Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Apr 19;7(5):1920-31.
doi: 10.1364/BOE.7.001920. eCollection 2016 May 1.

Ultrasound-guided photoacoustic imaging for the selective detection of EGFR-expressing breast cancer and lymph node metastases

Affiliations

Ultrasound-guided photoacoustic imaging for the selective detection of EGFR-expressing breast cancer and lymph node metastases

Meihua Zhang et al. Biomed Opt Express. .

Abstract

We assessed the use of ultrasound (US)-guided photoacoustic imaging (PAI) and anti-EGFR antibody-conjugated gold nanorods (anti-EGFR-GNs) to non-invasively detect EGFR-expressing primary tumor masses and regional lymph node (LN) metastases in breast tumor mice generated by injecting MCF-7 (EGFR-negative) or MDA-MB-231 (EGFR-positive) human breast cells using a preclinical Vevo 2100 LAZR Imaging system. Anti-EGFR-GNs provided a significant enhancement in the PA signal in MDA-MB-231 tumor and the axillary LN metastases relative to MCF-7 tumor and non-LN metastases. We demonstrated that US-guided PAI using anti-EGFR-GNs is highly sensitive for the selective visualization of EGFR-expressing breast primary tumors as well as LN micrometastases.

Keywords: (170.3880) Medical and biological imaging; (170.4580) Optical diagnostics for medicine; (170.5120) Photoacoustic imaging; (170.7170) Ultrasound.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Analysis of US-guided photoacoustic (PA) images and histology of the axillary LN of mice injected with ICG or gold nanorods (GN). (a) Non-invasive and dynamic fusion of US and PA images of the axillary LN region before and 0.5 h, 1 h, 2 h, 4 h and 24 h after ICG injection (5 pmol/g mouse). (b) Plot of PA signal amplitude in axillary LNs versus pre- and post-injection time of ICG. (c) Non-invasive and dynamical fusion of US and PA images of axillary LN region before and 4, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h after GN injection (0.005 pmol/g mouse). (d) Plot of PA signal amplitude in axillary LNs versus pre- and post-injection time of GN. The results represent the mean ± standard deviation in the ICG-mice group (n = 5) and the GN-mice group (n = 5), *p<0.05, **p<0.01, Arbitrary units (AU). (e, f) Photographs of isolated axillary LN before and after injection of ICG or GN. (g) H&E staining of microsectioned axillary LN isolated from mice 4 h post-injection of ICG. (h) H&E staining and silver staining of microsectioned axillary LN isolated from mice at 48 h post-injection of GN. The control (Cont) is a microsectioned axillary LN without injection of ICG or GN. Scale bar: 100 μm.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Analysis of EGFR expression in human breast cancer cell lines and US-guided PAI and histology acquired in MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 primary tumors of mice intravenously injected with anti-EGFR-GNs. (a) EGFR expression in MCF-7, BT-474, HCC-1954, HCC-1937, MDA-MB-453 and MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cell lines (by western blot). (b) Silver staining of MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells incubated with or without 120pmol/L of anti-EGFR-GNs for 24 h. Control (Cont) was incubated without 120pmol/L of anti-EGFR-GNs. (c) Non-invasive and dynamical fusion of US and PA images of MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 tumors before and 2 h, 4 h, 8 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h after intravenous injection with anti-EGFR-GNs (0.5 pmol/g mouse). (d) Plot of PA signal amplitude in MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 tumors versus pre- and post-injection of anti-EGFR-GNs. The results represent the mean ± standard deviation in the MCF-7-mice group (n = 5) and MDA-MB-231-mice group (n = 5). **p<0.01, Arbitrary units (AU). (e) H&E staining, EGFR immunostaining and silver staining of microsectioned MDA-MB-231 and MCF-7 primary tumors isolated from mice 48 h post-injection of anti-EGFR GN. Scale bar: 100 μm.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Analysis of US-guided PAI and histology acquired in MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 primary tumors of mice intravenously injected with non-targeted GNs. (a) Non-invasive and dynamical fusion of US and PA images of MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 tumors before and 2 h, 4 h, 8 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h after intravenous injection with non-targeted GNs (0.5pmol/g mouse). (b) Plot of PA signal amplitude in MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 tumors versus pre-and post-injection of non-targeted GNs. The results represented the mean ± standard deviation in the MCF-7-mice group (n = 5) and MDA-MB-231-mice group (n = 5). **p<0.01, Arbitrary units (AU). (c) H&E staining and silver staining of microsectioned MDA-MB-231 and MCF-7 primary tumor isolated from mice 48 h post-injection of non-targeted GNs. Scale bar: 100 μm.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Analysis of US-guided PAI and histology acquired in LN metastases of MDA-MB-231-Luc tumor-bearing mice injected with anti-EGFR-GNs into the primary tumor. (a, b) Non-invasive and dynamical fusion of US and PA images of axillary LN metastases and non-LN metastases in MDA-MB-231-Luc tumor-bearing mice 24 h after intratumoral injection with anti-EGFR-GNs (0.5 pmol/g mouse). (c) Plot of PA signal amplitude in axillary LN at pre- and post-injection of anti-EGFR-GNs. The results represent the mean ± standard deviation in the LN metastases mice group (n = 2) and non-LN metastases mice group (n = 4), Arbitrary units (AU). (d) In vivo (left) and ex vivo (right) bioluminescence imaging of MDA-MB-231-Luc tumor-bearing mice injected intraperitoneally with D-luciferin (150 μg/g mouse). Red and white circles indicate the excised primary tumor and axillary LN from ex vivo bioluminescence imaging. (e, f) H&E staining, EGFR and cytokeratin 8/18/19 immunostaining and silver staining of microsectioned axillary LNs isolated from mice at 48 h post-injection of anti-EGFR GNs. Scale bar: 100 μm.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Wu J. M., Fackler M. J., Halushka M. K., Molavi D. W., Taylor M. E., Teo W. W., Griffin C., Fetting J., Davidson N. E., De Marzo A. M., Hicks J. L., Chitale D., Ladanyi M., Sukumar S., Argani P., “Heterogeneity of breast cancer metastases: comparison of therapeutic target expression and promoter methylation between primary tumors and their multifocal metastases,” Clin. Cancer Res. 14(7), 1938–1946 (2008).10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4082 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Carey L. A., Rugo H. S., Marcom P. K., Mayer E. L., Esteva F. J., Ma C. X., Liu M. C., Storniolo A. M., Rimawi M. F., Forero-Torres A., Wolff A. C., Hobday T. J., Ivanova A., Chiu W. K., Ferraro M., Burrows E., Bernard P. S., Hoadley K. A., Perou C. M., Winer E. P., “TBCRC 001: randomized phase II study of cetuximab in combination with carboplatin in stage IV triple-negative breast cancer,” J. Clin. Oncol. 30(21), 2615–2623 (2012).10.1200/JCO.2010.34.5579 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ferraro D. A., Gaborit N., Maron R., Cohen-Dvashi H., Porat Z., Pareja F., Lavi S., Lindzen M., Ben-Chetrit N., Sela M., Yarden Y., “Inhibition of triple-negative breast cancer models by combinations of antibodies to EGFR,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110(5), 1815–1820 (2013).10.1073/pnas.1220763110 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Graham J., Muhsin M., Kirkpatrick P., “Cetuximab,” Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3(7), 549–550 (2004).10.1038/nrd1445 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wang L. V., Hu S., “Photoacoustic tomography: in vivo imaging from organelles to organs,” Science 335(6075), 1458–1462 (2012).10.1126/science.1216210 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources