Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26045964›Full record

ArticleJournal of therapeutic ultrasound2015

High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation enhancement in vivo via phase-shift nanodroplets compared to microbubbles.

Linsey C Moyer, Kelsie F Timbie, Paul S Sheeran, Richard J Price, G Wilson Miller, Paul A Dayton

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of therapeutic ultrasound, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Acoustically Activatable Drug-Loaded Nanodroplets for Mechanochemical Therapy in Solid Tumors.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Overview of Therapeutic Ultrasound Applications and Safety Considerations: 2024 Update.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Acoustomechanically activatable liposomes for ultrasonic drug uncaging.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Repeated Acoustic Vaporization of Perfluorohexane Nanodroplets for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Imaging.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Linsey C MoyerJoint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and NC State University Campus, Box 7575, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA.
Kelsie F TimbieDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Box 800759, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908 USA.
Paul S SheeranJoint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and NC State University Campus, Box 7575, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA.
Richard J PriceDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Box 800759, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908 USA ; Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia, Box 801339, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908 USA.
G Wilson MillerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Box 800759, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908 USA ; Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia, Box 801339, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908 USA.
Paul A DaytonJoint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and NC State University Campus, Box 7575, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA.
University of Virginia · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USNorth Central State College · US

Funding

SEEDING POSTDOCTORAL INNOVATORS IN RESEARCH &EDUCATIONK12GM000678 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DONALD T LYSLE, Kathryn Joanna Reissner · 1999 to 2026
$30.9M
Brain Tumor-Penetrating Nanoparticle Delivery with MR-Guided Focused UltrasoundR01CA164789 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI HANES, JUSTIN S., PRICE, RICHARD J. · 2012 to 2016
$3.1M
MRI-Guided miRNA Nanoparticle Delivery to Glioblastoma With Focused UltrasoundR01EB020147 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI HANES, JUSTIN S., PRICE, RICHARD J. · 2015 to 2018
$2.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA164789NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB020147NIGMS NIH HHS K12 GM000678
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) surgical procedures, there is a need to rapidly ablate pathological tissue while minimizing damage to healthy tissue. Current techniques are limited by relatively long procedure times and risks of off-target heating of healthy tissue. One possible solution is the use of microbubbles, which can improve the efficiency of thermal energy delivery during HIFU procedures. However, microbubbles also suffer from limitations such as low spatial selectivity and short circulation time in vivo. In this study, the use of a dual-perfluorocarbon nanodroplet that can enhance thermal ablation, yet retains high spatial selectivity and circulation half-life, was evaluated in vivo and compared to traditional microbubble agents during HIFU ablations of rat liver.

methodsHigh-intensity focused ultrasound (1.1 MHz, 4.1 MPa, 15-s continuous wave) was applied to rat liver in vivo, and heating was monitored during sonication by magnetic resonance thermometry. Thermometry data were analyzed to quantify temperature rise and ablated area, both at the target and prefocally, for HIFU applied 5, 15, or 95 min after intravenous injection of either nanodroplet or microbubble agents. Sham control experiments (no injected agents) were also performed.

resultsAt all three time points, nanodroplets significantly enhanced thermal delivery to the target, achieving temperatures 130 % higher and ablated areas 30 times larger than no-agent control sonications. Nanodroplets did not significantly enhance off-target surface heating. Microbubbles also resulted in significantly greater thermal delivery, but heating was concentrated at the proximal surface of the animal, causing skin burns. Furthermore, microbubbles resulted in lower thermal delivery to the desired target than even the control case, with the notable exception of the 95-min time point.

conclusionsResults indicate that the nanodroplet formulation studied here can substantially increase thermal delivery at the acoustic focus while avoiding prefocal heating. In contrast, microbubbles resulted in greater prefocal heating and less heating at the target. Furthermore, nanodroplets are sufficiently stable to enhance HIFU ablation in vivo for at least 1.5 h after injection. The use of a dual-perfluorocarbon nanodroplet formulation as described herein could substantially reduce HIFU procedure times without increasing the risk of skin burns.

Indexed as

AblationAcoustic droplet vaporizationDecafluorobutaneDodecafluoropentaneFocused ultrasound surgeryNanodropletNanoemulsionPerfluorocarbonPhase-change contrast agent

Identifiers

PMID26045964
PMCPMC4455327
OpenAlexW1536056017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.