Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24548481›Full record

ArticleJournal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society2014

A diaCEST MRI approach for monitoring liposomal accumulation in tumors.

Kannie W Y Chan, Tao Yu, Yuan Qiao, Qiang Liu, Ming Yang, Himatkumar Patel, Guanshu Liu, Kenneth W Kinzler, Bert Vogelstein, Jeff W M Bulte and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Multifunctional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Probes.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. CEST MRI trackable nanoparticle drug delivery systems.Biomedical materials (Bristol, England) · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Sugar-based biopolymers as novel imaging agents for molecular magnetic resonance imaging.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2019
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Analytical methods for investigatingJournal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2018
    Review
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

14 authors.

Kannie W Y ChanRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Division of MR Research, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21287, USA; F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore 21205, USA; Center for Nanomedicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21287, USA; Cellular Imaging Section and Vascular Biology Program, Institute for Cell Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21205, USA.
Tao YuCenter for Nanomedicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21287, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21205, USA.
Yuan QiaoThe Ludwig Center and Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the Hopkins-Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore 21287, USA.
Qiang LiuThe Ludwig Center and Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the Hopkins-Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore 21287, USA.
Ming YangCenter for Nanomedicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21287, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21205, USA.
Himatkumar PatelCenter for Nanomedicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21287, USA.
Guanshu LiuRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Division of MR Research, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21287, USA; F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore 21205, USA.
Kenneth W KinzlerThe Ludwig Center and Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the Hopkins-Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore 21287, USA.
Bert VogelsteinThe Ludwig Center and Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the Hopkins-Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore 21287, USA.
Jeff W M BulteRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Division of MR Research, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21287, USA; F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore 21205, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21205, USA; Cellular Imaging Section and Vascular Biology Program, Institute for Cell Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21205, USA.
Peter C M van ZijlRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Division of MR Research, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21287, USA; F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore 21205, USA.
Justin HanesCenter for Nanomedicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21287, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21205, USA; Department of Ophthalmology, The Wilmer Eye Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21287, USA.
Shibin ZhouThe Ludwig Center and Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the Hopkins-Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore 21287, USA.
Michael T McMahonRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Division of MR Research, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21287, USA; F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore 21205, USA; Center for Nanomedicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore 21287, USA. Electronic address: mtmcmaho@gmail.com.

Funding

Tumor Antigens for Individual Signatures and TherapyP50CA062924 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI LENNON, ANNE MARIE · 1993 to 2022
$54.6M
ValidationU54CA151838 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI POMPER, MARTIN G, SEARSON, PETER C · 2010 to 2014
$11.9M
MOLECULAR GENETIC ANALYSIS OF COLORECTAL CANCERR37CA043460 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI VOGELSTEIN, BERT · 1997 to 2016
$7.4M
Novel Approaches for CEST Labeling, Detection, Quantification and TranslationR01EB015032 · NIBIB · HUGO W. MOSER RES INST KENNEDY KRIEGER · PI VAN ZIJL, PETER CM · 2011 to 2019
$3.9M
Multi-Color Exchange Transfer Imaging of Drug Delivery NanocarriersR01EB015031 · NIBIB · HUGO W. MOSER RES INST KENNEDY KRIEGER · PI MCMAHON, MICHAEL T · 2011 to 2014
$2.4M
DIACEST Islet Cell Capsules for Immunoprotection, MR Detection, and pH SensingR01EB012590 · NIBIB · HUGO W. MOSER RES INST KENNEDY KRIEGER · PI MCMAHON, MICHAEL T · 2010 to 2013
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS CA62924NCI NIH HHS P50 CA062924NCI NIH HHS R37 CA043460NCI NIH HHS U54 CA151838NCI NIH HHS U54CA151838NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB012590NIBIB NIH HHS R01EB012590NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB015031NIBIB NIH HHS R01EB015031NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB015032NIBIB NIH HHS R01EB015032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanocarrier-based chemotherapy allows preferential delivery of therapeutics to tumors and has been found to improve the efficacy of cancer treatment. However, difficulties in tracking nanocarriers and evaluating their pharmacological fates in patients have limited judicious selection of patients to those who might most benefit from nanotherapeutics. To enable the monitoring of nanocarriers in vivo, we developed MRI-traceable diamagnetic Chemical Exchange Saturation Transfer (diaCEST) liposomes. The diaCEST liposomes were based on the clinical formulation of liposomal doxorubicin (i.e. DOXIL®) and were loaded with barbituric acid (BA), a small, organic, biocompatible diaCEST contrast agent. The optimized diaCEST liposomal formulation with a BA-to-lipid ratio of 25% exhibited 30% contrast enhancement at B1=4.7μT in vitro. The contrast was stable, with ~80% of the initial CEST signal sustained over 8h in vitro. We used the diaCEST liposomes to monitor the response to tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), an agent in clinical trials that increases vascular permeability and uptake of nanocarriers into tumors. After systemic administration of diaCEST liposomes to mice bearing CT26 tumors, we found an average diaCEST contrast at the BA frequency (5ppm) of 0.4% at B1=4.7μT while if TNF-α was co-administered the contrast increased to 1.5%. This novel approach provides a non-radioactive, non-metallic, biocompatible, semi-quantitative, and clinically translatable approach to evaluate the tumor targeting of stealth liposomes in vivo, which may enable personalized nanomedicine.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibiotics, AntineoplasticBarbituratesContrast MediaDoxorubicinDrug Delivery SystemsHEK293 CellsHep G2 CellsHumansLiposomesMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiceNeoplasmsOptical ImagingPolyethylene GlycolsTumor Necrosis Factor-alphaAntibiotics, AntineoplasticBarbituratesbarbituric acidContrast MediaDoxorubicinliposomal doxorubicinLiposomesPolyethylene GlycolsTumor Necrosis Factor-alphaBarbituric acidCESTDoxorubicinLiposomesMRITumor necrosis factor

Identifiers

PMID24548481
PMCPMC4000735

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.