4.6 Article

Colocalization of Gadolinium-Diethylene Triamine Pentaacetic Acid With High-Molecular-Weight Molecules After Intracerebral Convection-Enhanced Delivery in Humans

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 69, 期 3, 页码 668-676

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182181ba8

关键词

Brain neoplasms; Convection; Drug delivery systems; Gadolinium DTPA; Iodine radioisotopes; Magnetic resonance imaging; Positron-emission tomography

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P50-NS020023, 1R25-NS065731-01]
  2. NCRR/NIH [1 UL1 RR024128-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Convection-enhanced delivery (CED) permits site-specific therapeutic drug delivery within interstitial spaces at increased dosages through circumvention of the blood-brain barrier. CED is currently limited by suboptimal methodologies for monitoring the delivery of therapeutic agents that would permit technical optimization and enhanced therapeutic efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a readily available small-molecule MRI contrast agent, gadolinium-diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-DTPA), could effectively track the distribution of larger therapeutic agents. METHODS: Gd-DTPA was coinfused with the larger molecular tracer, I-124-labeled human serum albumin (I-124-HSA), during CED of an EGFRvIII-specific immunotoxin as part of treatment for a patient with glioblastoma. RESULTS: Infusion of both tracers was safe in this patient. Analysis of both Gd-DTPA and I-124-HSA during and after infusion revealed a high degree of anatomical and volumetric overlap. CONCLUSION: Gd-DTPA may be able to accurately demonstrate the anatomic and volumetric distribution of large molecules used for antitumor therapy with high resolution and in combination with fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) imaging, and provide additional information about leaks into cerebrospinal fluid spaces and resection cavities. Similar studies should be performed in additional patients to validate our findings and help refine the methodologies we used.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据