Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23932272›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in medicine & biology2013

Acoustic characterization and pharmacokinetic analyses of new nanobubble ultrasound contrast agents.

Hanping Wu, Nicolas G Rognin, Tianyi M Krupka, Luis Solorio, Hiroki Yoshiara, Gilles Guenette, Christopher Sanders, Naohisa Kamiyama, Agata A Exner

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 138 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Medical Imaging Technology and Imaging Agents.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Hanping WuDepartments of Radiology, Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Nicolas G Rognin
Tianyi M Krupka
Luis Solorio
Hiroki Yoshiara
Gilles Guenette
Christopher Sanders
Naohisa Kamiyama
Agata A Exner
Case Western Reserve University · USToshiba (United States) · USToshiba (Japan) · JP

Funding

Sensitizer Delivery for Focused Hyperthermia Cancer TreatmentR01CA136857 · NCI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI EXNER, AGATA A · 2009 to 2013
$1.9M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA136857
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In contrast to the clinically used microbubble ultrasound contrast agents, nanoscale bubbles (or nanobubbles) may potentially extravasate into tumors that exhibit more permeable vasculature, facilitating targeted molecular imaging and drug delivery. Our group recently presented a simple strategy using the non-ionic surfactant Pluronic as a size control excipient to produce nanobubbles with a mean diameter of 200 nm that exhibited stability and echogenicity on par with microbubbles. The objective of this study was to carry out an in-depth characterization of nanobubble properties as compared with Definity microbubbles, both in vitro and in vivo. Through use of a tissue-mimicking phantom, in vitro experiments measured the echogenicity of the contrast agent solutions and the contrast agent dissolution rate over time. Nanobubbles were found to be more echogenic than Definity microbubbles at three different harmonic frequencies (8, 6.2 and 3.5 MHz). Definity microbubbles also dissolved 1.67 times faster than nanobubbles. Pharmacokinetic studies were then performed in vivo in a subcutaneous human colorectal adenocarcinoma (LS174T) in mice. The peak enhancement and decay rates of contrast agents after bolus injection in the liver, kidney and tumor were analyzed. No significant differences were observed in peak enhancement between the nanobubble and Definity groups in the three tested regions (tumor, liver and kidney). However, the decay rates of nanobubbles in tumor and kidney were significantly slower than those of Definity in the first 200-s fast initial phase. There were no significant differences in the decay rates in the liver in the initial phase or in three regions of interest in the terminal phase. Our results suggest that the stability and acoustic properties of the new nanobubble contrast agents are superior to those of the clinically used Definity microbubbles. The slower washout of nanobubbles in tumors suggests potential entrapment of the bubbles within the tumor parenchyma.

Indexed as

NanoparticlesAnimalsFluorocarbonsMaterials TestingMetabolic Clearance RateMiceMice, NudeOrgan SpecificityPhantoms, ImagingPoloxamerTissue DistributionUltrasonographyFluorocarbonsperflutrenpluronic L61PoloxamerCancerNanobubblePharmacokinetic studyUltrasound contrast agents

Identifiers

PMID23932272
PMCPMC3786045
OpenAlexW2166407284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.