2076859 Effect of Microbubble-Enhanced Ultrasound on Percutaneous Ethanol Ablation of Rat Walker-256 Tumor

Wenhong Gao,Li Zhang,Lu Qiao,Dong Zhang,Juan Tu,Zheng Liu,Feng Xie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.12.247

IF: 3.694

2015-01-01

Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology

Abstract:ObjectivesPercutaneous ethanol ablation (PEA) is an effective method for treating small liver cancer. Microbubble-enhanced ultrasound (MEUS) is potentially able to promote PEA by disrupting tumor circulation. In this study, the treatment combining MEUS and PEA was performed to find any synergistic effects in tumor ablation.MethodsTen rats bearing subcutaneous Walker-256 tumors were treated with a high-pressure amplitude therapeutic ultrasound (TUS) with intravenous microbubble injection. The other eighteen tumor-bearing rats treated by MEUS or PEA only served as the controls. The TUS was operated at the frequency of 831 KHz with a pressure amplitude of 4.3 MPa. Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) were performed to estimate the tumor perfusion. The tumor necrosis was determined by histological examination.ResultsCEUS showed that the tumor blood perfusion almost vanished in all animals after treatment. The contrast peak intensity of tumor dropped 84.8% in the MEUS+PEA treated tumors when compared to 46.3% (p<0.05) in the PEA treated tumors 24 hours after treatment. The tumor necrosis rate of the combination treatment was 97.50%, much higher than that of the MEUS (66.2%) and the PEA (81.0%) treated tumors.ConclusionsTabled 1The tumor CEUS PI and AUC Values Before and 24 Hours After TreatmentgroupsNBefore TreatmentAfter Treatment24h After TreatmentPI (%)AUC (%s)PI (%)AUC (%s)PI (%)AUC (%s)MEUS837.1±7.91941.5±587.612.6±3.2†396.4±110.3†25.7±6.2*†‡1098.1±190.4*†‡PEA1038.5±9.31709.1±669.8--20.7±9.2*†811.5±522.7*†MEUS+PEA1038.1±4.71721.6±462.69.1±5.8†9.1±5.8†5.8±2.8†168.8±133.5†Note. —Data are the means ± standard deviations.*p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference compared with the MEUS+PEA group.† p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference compared with the value before treatment.‡ p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference compared with the value right after treatment. Open table in a new tab ObjectivesPercutaneous ethanol ablation (PEA) is an effective method for treating small liver cancer. Microbubble-enhanced ultrasound (MEUS) is potentially able to promote PEA by disrupting tumor circulation. In this study, the treatment combining MEUS and PEA was performed to find any synergistic effects in tumor ablation. Percutaneous ethanol ablation (PEA) is an effective method for treating small liver cancer. Microbubble-enhanced ultrasound (MEUS) is potentially able to promote PEA by disrupting tumor circulation. In this study, the treatment combining MEUS and PEA was performed to find any synergistic effects in tumor ablation. MethodsTen rats bearing subcutaneous Walker-256 tumors were treated with a high-pressure amplitude therapeutic ultrasound (TUS) with intravenous microbubble injection. The other eighteen tumor-bearing rats treated by MEUS or PEA only served as the controls. The TUS was operated at the frequency of 831 KHz with a pressure amplitude of 4.3 MPa. Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) were performed to estimate the tumor perfusion. The tumor necrosis was determined by histological examination. Ten rats bearing subcutaneous Walker-256 tumors were treated with a high-pressure amplitude therapeutic ultrasound (TUS) with intravenous microbubble injection. The other eighteen tumor-bearing rats treated by MEUS or PEA only served as the controls. The TUS was operated at the frequency of 831 KHz with a pressure amplitude of 4.3 MPa. Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) were performed to estimate the tumor perfusion. The tumor necrosis was determined by histological examination. ResultsCEUS showed that the tumor blood perfusion almost vanished in all animals after treatment. The contrast peak intensity of tumor dropped 84.8% in the MEUS+PEA treated tumors when compared to 46.3% (p<0.05) in the PEA treated tumors 24 hours after treatment. The tumor necrosis rate of the combination treatment was 97.50%, much higher than that of the MEUS (66.2%) and the PEA (81.0%) treated tumors. CEUS showed that the tumor blood perfusion almost vanished in all animals after treatment. The contrast peak intensity of tumor dropped 84.8% in the MEUS+PEA treated tumors when compared to 46.3% (p<0.05) in the PEA treated tumors 24 hours after treatment. The tumor necrosis rate of the combination treatment was 97.50%, much higher than that of the MEUS (66.2%) and the PEA (81.0%) treated tumors. ConclusionsTabled 1The tumor CEUS PI and AUC Values Before and 24 Hours After TreatmentgroupsNBefore TreatmentAfter Treatment24h After TreatmentPI (%)AUC (%s)PI (%)AUC (%s)PI (%)AUC (%s)MEUS837.1±7.91941.5±587.612.6±3.2†396.4±110.3†25.7±6.2*†‡1098.1±190.4*†‡PEA1038.5±9.31709.1±669.8--20.7±9.2*†811.5±522.7*†MEUS+PEA1038.1±4.71721.6±462.69.1±5.8†9.1±5.8†5.8±2.8†168.8±133.5†Note. —Data are the means ± standard deviations.*p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference compared with the MEUS+PEA group.† p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference compared with the value before treatment.‡ p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference compared with the value right after treatment. Open table in a new tab Note. —Data are the means ± standard deviations. *p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference compared with the MEUS+PEA group. † p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference compared with the value before treatment. ‡ p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference compared with the value right after treatment.