Abstract
Tumors are often characterized by hypoxia, vascular abnormalities, low extracellular pH, increased interstitial fluid pressure, altered choline-phospholipid metabolism, and aerobic glycolysis (Warburg effect). The impact of these tumor characteristics has been investigated extensively in the context of tumor development, progression, and treatment response, resulting in a number of non-invasive imaging biomarkers. More recent evidence suggests that cancer cells undergo metabolic reprograming, beyond aerobic glycolysis, in the course of tumor development and progression. The resulting altered metabolic content in tumors has the ability to affect cell signaling and block cellular differentiation. Additional emerging evidence reveals that the interaction between tumor and stroma cells can alter tumor metabolism (leading to metabolic reprograming) as well as tumor growth and vascular features. This review will summarize previous and current preclinical, non-invasive, multimodal imaging efforts to characterize the tumor microenvironment, including its stromal components and understand tumor–stroma interaction in cancer development, progression, and treatment response.
Introduction—The Tumor Microenvironment (TME)
The TME (Figure 1A), composed of tumor cells and stroma, is often characterized by hypoxia, vascular abnormalities, low extracellular pH (pHe), increased interstitial fluid pressure (1–7), increased aerobic glycolysis (Warburg effect) (8, 9), glutamine addiction (10–13), and altered choline-phospholipid metabolism (14–19). Recent evidence suggests that metabolic reprograming in the course of tumor development and progression increases in more aggressive cancer cells/tumors the ability to easily adapt metabolism to the most advantageous pathways, beyond the Warburg effect, in order to ensure their growth and survival in response to varying environmental stimuli, such as hypoxia or limited nutrient supply (20–24). Altered metabolic content in tumors may affect cell signaling and degree of cellular differentiation (11, 25–27).
Figure 1
While previous research focused extensively on the tumor cells, over the last two decades or so, further evidence emerged that the tumor stroma is altered during tumor development/progression and that the tumor–stroma interaction plays an essential role in tumor metabolism (Figure 2), development, progression, and treatment response (2, 22, 23, 26, 28–37).
Figure 2
The stroma in solid tumors consists of extracellular matrix (ECM), and stromal cells, including fibroblasts, endothelial cells, pericytes, and various immune cells, such as macrophages, neutrophils, mast cells, myeloid progenitors, and lymphocytes (Figure 1A), with cancer cells playing an active role in the recruitment and metabolic reprograming of stromal cells (Figure 2) (22, 26, 40) and the dynamic remodeling of ECM by tumor and stromal cells promoting tumor progression (41–44).
Multiple preclinical imaging techniques (Table 1; Figure 1B) have been developed to visualize and quantify specific characteristics of the TME (5, 45, 46). This review summarizes the efforts to image and characterize non-invasively the TME (Figure 1), including its stromal components, and tumor–stroma interaction (Figures 2–7) in preclinical cancer. Stromal components and their imaging are described in the context of preclinical cancer in Section “The Tumor Stroma and Its Imaging.” Section “Non-invasive Multimodal Imaging of Tumor–Stroma Interaction” focuses on the more recent attempts to assess the interaction of stromal components with cancer cells by non- or minimally invasive preclinical multimodal imaging.
Table 1
| Imaging modality | Resolution | Contrast agent | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-plane | Coverage/depths | Temporal per frame | ||||
| Optical | Bioluminescence imaging (47, 48) | BLI | >3–5 μm | 1–2 cm | >1 s to min | Reporter genes |
| Fluorescence imaging (47, 48) | FLI | 2–3 µm | <1 cm | >1 s to min | Fluorophores, fluorescent nanoparticles | |
| Fluorescence lifetime microscopy (49) | FLIM | nm range | ~1,000 μm | >1 s to min | Fluorophores, fluorescent nanoparticles | |
| Fluorescence micro-lymphangiography (50) | FML | 50 µm | 200 µm | Video rates | FITC-dextran | |
| Fluorescence molecular tomography (51, 52) | FMT | <1 mm | 1–2 mm | >1 s to min | NIRF dyes, quantum dots, reporter genes | |
| Fourier transform infrared imaging (53–56) | FTIR | >~3–5 μm | <20 μm | >1 ms to min | Endogenous | |
| Near-infrared fluorescence imaging (50) | NIRF | ~200 μm | <3–4 cm | 50–800 ms | NIRF dyes, quantum dots, reporter genes | |
| Optical coherence tomography (57) | OCT | <7.5 μm | 2–3 mm | <1 s | Endogenous | |
| Photoacoustic imaging (tomography) (52, 58–60) | PAI (PAT) | 100 µm | <5–6 cm | >1 s to min | Fluorophores, nanoparticles, quantum dots | |
| Second-harmonic generation microscopy (61, 62) | SHG | <1 μm | ≤1 mm | >10 s | Endogenous | |
| Third-harmonic generation microscopy (61) | THG | <1 μm | ≤1 mm | >10 s | Endogenous | |
| X-rays | Computer tomography (47, 48, 50, 52) | CT | ~50–200 μm | Whole body | >20 s | Water-soluble, iodinated probes |
| Magnetic resonance | Magnetic resonance imaging (47, 48, 50, 52, 63) | MRI | ~25–100 μm | Whole body | >2 min | Label-free |
| 0.1–0.3 mm | Whole body | min to h | Gd- or iron-oxide-based probes; dendrimer-based macromolecules | |||
| Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (64) | MRSI | mm range | Whole body | min to h | Endogenous; injected marker or metabolic substrates | |
| Electron paramagnetic resonance imaging (65) | EPR | >0.5 mm | cm | min to h | Injected tracer | |
| Nuclear | Positron emission tomography (47, 48, 52) | PET | 1–2 mm | Whole body | >10 s to min | Radiolabeled substrates (nutrients, antibodies, antibody fragments), activatable probes |
| Single photon emission computer tomography (47, 52) | SPECT | 1–2 mm | Whole body | min | Radiolabeled antibodies, antibody fragments, and antigens | |
| Ultrasound | Ultrasound imaging (47, 52) | US | 50–500 µm | mm to cm | >1 s to min | Endogenous; targeted microbubbles |
Summary of modalities for in vivo imaging of the tumor microenvironment in preclinical (small animal) tumor models.
Imaging modalities are color-coded separating optical, X-ray, magnetic resonance-, nuclear-(radioactivity-), and ultrasound-based imaging methods.
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
The Tumor Stroma and Its Imaging
In this chapter, we describe briefly the stromal components and their imaging with its strengths and limitations.
The ECM
The ECM, a complex structure composed of laminins, collagens, proteoglycans, fibronectin, elastin, etc. (71), changes its composition during cancer progression (41, 72, 73). Many of its components are regulated by matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) which are involved in growth signaling [by proteolytic activation of the transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) pathway], apoptosis, and angiogenesis (73–76).
Available imaging methods focus on targeting the ECM component itself or the enzymes that degrade it, typically, by using activatable imaging probes (Figure 1B; Table 1). Imaging of cell–matrix adhesion can elucidate the dynamic interplay of cells and surrounding tissue during ECM remodeling, immune cell recruitment, wound healing, and cancer metastasis (77).
Collagen Imaging
Methods, such as colorimetry (78), weight measurements (79), atomic force microscopy (80–82), and immunostaining (83–85), to image collagen structures risk their destruction and are limited by their in vivo translatability. The dorsal skinfold (window) chamber setup allows optical measurements by replacing skin with glass but may lead to collagen structural changes due to inflammation and mechanotransduction by the glass (86). The advances in ultrafast optics significantly improved the ability to image fibrillar collagen (the predominant structural protein in mammalian ECM and mostly type I) by second-harmonic generation (SHG) or third-harmonic generation (61) microscopy in vivo and ex vivo (87–91). The strength of SHG imaging is its specificity to fibrillar collagen (62, 87, 89, 92) and that it can be fairly easily combined with other optical imaging methods, in vivo (Figures 3–5A) and ex vivo (49, 90, 93–95). Ability for clinical translation has been demonstrated in breast cancer patients by combining SHG and bright-field high-resolution microscopy with large field of view to design a semi-automated technique to predict survival based on collagen fiber classifications (93). Recently, confocal microscopy has been used in vivo to detect collagen turnover after introduction of fluorescent fibrillar collagen into the dermis of live mice (96). However, all optical imaging methods suffer from their limited imaging depth, rendering them often an invasive tool and limiting their clinical translation (49, 57). Thus, the diagnosis and treatment of pathologies related to collagen remodeling has benefited greatly from the development of collagen-binding or hybridizing peptides, bearing an imaging contrast agent (CA) for, e.g., magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or fluorescence imaging, or theranostic agents, to image triple-helical, intact, and/or unfolded, denatured collagen and treatment response (97). Other imaging modalities [e.g., ultrasound (US) (98, 99), optical coherence tomography (OCT) (100, 101), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopic imaging (53), or multispectral photoacoustic imaging (PAI) (102)], and various collagen-targeted agents, e.g., quantum dots (84, 85, 103, 104) or collagen-mimetic peptide-based imaging agents (105, 106) are being developed/applied to improve collagen imaging and to measure collagen turnover during tissue remodeling.
MMP Imaging
The key role that various MMPs play during cancer initiation and progression, with clear links to tumor invasion and metastasis (107), make them desirable treatment and cancer imaging targets (108). Targeted probes to image MMPs in vivo by optical imaging (fluorescence and bioluminescence), positron emission tomography (PET), single photon emission computer tomography (SPECT), and MRI have been developed (108–110), with a “broad-spectrum” MMP-activatable fluorescence probe available commercially (MMPSense, PerkinElmer, Akron, OH, USA). Each modality and imaging probe displays strengths and weaknesses in effectively imaging MMP activity (108, 110). However, optical imaging has limited penetration depth (108) and, while tomography is possible, anatomical information is lacking. Targeted, inhibitor-based PET and SPECT probes harness the excellent sensitivity of radioactive tracers and may be theranostic, but their synthesis may be difficult and, so far, it has not been possible to quantify proteolytic activity in vivo due to non-specific binding (108, 109, 111). Recently, an 18F-labeled MMP-activatable PET probe has been developed to overcome the lack of specificity of inhibitor-based probes (112). Photoacoustic tomography (PAT or PAI) (58, 113, 114) combines ultrasonic resolution with electromagnetic-enhanced contrast to obtain quantitative information on tissue structure, blood flow, and perfusion, and, through targeted probes (59), on receptor status or enzyme activity. For example, a photoacoustic probe activated by MMP-2 and MMP-9 demonstrated sensing of MMP-2/-9 activity in a follicular thyroid carcinoma model (115). With an imaging depth of >30 mm, depending on setup and desired spatial resolution (58), PAT expands on the tissue penetration of up to 20 mm typical for optical imaging (51, 108) and is thus suitable to monitor non-invasively tumor characteristics in orthotopic preclinical cancer models. The lack of anatomical/morphological information inherent to optical imaging, PAT/PAI, and PET/SPECT can be overcome by multimodal imaging. Using fluorescence molecular tomography (FMT) (51) coregistered with MRI, Salaun et al. (116) found increasing MMP-13 levels as lung tumors progressed. In skin squamous cell carcinoma xenografts, MMP-2, -3, -7, -9, -12, and -13 activities correlated with degree of angiogenesis and tumor invasion, as imaged by FMT combined with μCT (117). PAT/PAI, combined with US and OCT, can provide non-invasively morphological and functional tumor characteristics (60). Molecular MRI to measure MMP activity using protease-modulated CAs is still emerging and is hampered by its insensitivity, requiring long acquisition times but is potentially quantitative, and anatomical information can be obtained in the same setting (108, 109). Of note is that the interpretation of MMP images obtained with the typically broad-spectrum probes (110) is further complicated by the function of MMPs in biological processes beyond ECM remodeling (111).
Proteoglycan (Hyaluronan) Imaging
Another major ECM constitutent, the proteoglycan hyaluronan [hyaluronic acid (HA), hyaluronate] is a high molecular weight glycosaminoglycan with a significant role in tumor growth and metastasis (118, 119), acting as tumor suppressor or promoter depending on its molecular weight (120).
It is degraded by hyaluronidases (Hyals), with hyaluronidase-1, -2 (Hyal1, Hyal2) currently being the most studied in cancer (119). Hyal1 overexpression has been associated with more aggressive tumors in a variety of epithelial cancers (e.g., bladder, colorectal, breast, and ovary), while Hyal2 may function as a tumor suppressor or promoter (119). The development of various HA probes to image HA turnover and clearance and of theranostic HA probes where encapsulated drugs are released in response to Hyal activity (119, 121, 122) has expanded greatly in recent years, and a detailed review is beyond the scope of this paper. HA probes often exploit the high specificity of HA for the CD44 receptor, a transmembrane receptor overexpressed in many tumor cell types (120, 121, 123–134). Single moiety, HA-based CAs have been used to image Hyals activity by MRI (135) and NIRF (124). Fluorescence correlation spectroscopy and Forster resonance energy transfer of HA-conjugated probes have shown promise in quantitative bladder cancer staging by detecting shedded Hyals in urine samples (119). Also, fluorescent HA probes may be used in an intraoperative to assess Hyal activity or drug delivery of theranostic probes (119). Often, HA probes contain more than one CA moiety to harness the strength of multimodal imaging, such as MRI/optical imaging (123, 136), MRI/computer tomography (CT) (137), NIRF/CT (138), or NIRF/PA imaging (139–141) to improve diagnostic capability and monitoring of therapeutic efficacy (121, 142).
Other ECM Constitutents
Only a few studies report the in vivo imaging of other ECM constituents, such as fibronectin or laminins, in cancer. Fibronectin, whose expression increases with epithelial–mesenchymal transition, is typically targeted to image tumor-associated angiogenesis (143, 144). Laminins are a family of glycoproteins which interact with other ECM proteins, assuring the ECM organization, and are involved in cellular signal transduction pathways (145), cell adhesion, migration, and proliferation (146) and thus affect in cancer, tumor invasion, angiogenesis, and metastasis (145, 147). While laminins and their function have been studied extensively in vitro or ex vivo (29, 148–150), in vivo studies directly imaging laminins have been limited. Cuesta et al. developed a fluorescent trimerbody recognizing an angiogenesis-associated laminin epitope, accumulating in tumors (151). Other studies have used imaging agents targeting laminin cell surface receptors directly or indirectly to detect or treat tumors (152–154).
Mesenchymal Stromal (Stem) Cells (MSCs), Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts (CAFs), and Immune Cells
By tumor cells recruited adult, multipotent, non-hematopoietic stem cells (mesenchymal stromal (stem) cells, MSCs), typically derived from adipose tissue and bone marrow, have been found to differentiate into osteoblasts, CAFs, and pericytes among other cell types (155). In tumors, MSCs may contribute to tumor initiation, progression, angiogenesis, and metastasis, while also impacting immune function (155).
Cancer-associated fibroblasts are fibroblasts that reside within the tumor or tumor margins (156). They promote tumorigenic features, such as drug resistance, ECM modulation, chronic inflammation, and invasiveness (156). They may originate from normal fibroblasts or smooth muscle cells (altered by tumor cells), bone marrow-derived stem cells (mesenchymal stromal (stem) cells, MSCs), recruited and altered by tumor cells, or epithelial cells through transdifferentiation to myofibroblasts, or endothelial cells through endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition (156–158).
The TME (Figure 1) includes various immune cells: innate [tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs)], neutrophils, mast cells, myeloid-derived suppressor, dendritic, and natural killer cells, and adaptive (T and B lymphocytes), with TAMs and T cells the most prevalent cell types (159). Immune cells may enhance tumor growth and metastasis or exhibit antitumor immunity by modulating the immune and inflammatory milieu in the TME through paracrine and autocrine cell interactions, and thus, affecting the production of pro-angiogenic and growth factors, proteases, recruitment of other hematopoietic cells, or release of reactive oxygen or nitrogen species (159, 160). Immunotherapy aims at enhancing the antitumor activity of tumor-associated immune cells (161).
MSC Imaging
In preclinical cancer models, the preferential homing of ex vivo cultured MSCs to tumor tissue and metastasis has been imaged non-invasively in vivo after intravenous/arterial injection of MSCs, pre-(multi-)labeled with bioluminescence (162–167), fluorescence (168), MRI (169–171), PET (170–173), or SPECT (171, 174) imaging probes (175). The tumor effects and/or localization of MSCs, pre-labeled with an imaging probe and coinjected with tumor cells, have been monitored in vivo with MRI (176) and bioluminescence (177–180) imaging. The preferential accumulation of MSCs at sites of inflammation and tumors makes them an ideal vehicle for treatment delivery (155, 181, 182), and combined treatment/imaging MSC moieties are being developed for cell tracking and treatment monitoring (175, 177, 178, 183). While overall safe clinically (175, 184), ex vivo culture and pre-labeling of MSCs may lead to secondary tumors (185) and/or impact functionality (186). Using fluorescent, transgenic mice (187), potentially avoids ex vivo culture and pre-labeling of MSCs, with the disadvantage that typically all cell types express the imaging marker, limiting the in vivo identification of different stromal cell types, unless pre-labeled.
CAF Imaging
Various markers, such as α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA), vimentin, and fibroblast-activation protein α (FAP), have been used to identify CAFs (188). In preclinical models, CAFs have been shown to promote breast tumor growth and metastasis by enhancing the recruitment of immune suppressor cells and TAMs (189) and to mediate collagen remodeling (190). The high expression of FAP in CAFs (191, 192) makes it a desirable target for diagnostic and therapeutic imaging, although it may also be expressed in some other tissues and tumor cells (192–194). One difficulty for the development of FAP-targeted in vivo imaging probes is that FAP shares peptide substrates with other post-prolyl peptidases, resulting in non-specific binding in vivo (192). Thus to track CAFs in vivo by MRI or NIRF imaging, Granot et al. took advantage of caveolae-mediated endocytosis in fibroblasts by pre-labeling CAFs in vitro with the CAs biotin-bovine serum albumin-gadolinium diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid, Feridex, or 1,1′-dioctadecyl-3,3,3-tetramethylindotricarbocyanine iodide (195, 196). Recently developed FAP-specific, activatable NIR fluorescence probes (193, 194) show promise in in vivo imaging of FAP-expressing tumors. And novel cancer treatments based on the depletion of FAP-expressing stromal cells would greatly benefit from monitoring response in vivo with improved multimodal imaging probes (197).
Immune Cell Imaging and Monitoring of Immunotherapy
Multiple recent reviews summarize the imaging techniques applied to track various immune cell types in vivo and to monitor immunotherapy response, including the ability to optimize administration route of therapeutic immune cells (45, 47, 61, 63, 198–202).
To visualize immune cells in vivo, cells may be labeled ex vivo with paramagnetic, fluorescent, or radiochemical probes for MRI, FLI, or PET/SPECT respectively or transfected with reporter genes for PET, SPECT, bioluminescence imaging (BLI), and/or FLI (or FMT) before injection into the host (45, 198, 201, 203–206). Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, dendritic cells (DCs), or TAMs can be imaged by FLI or PET/SPECT, using fluorescently labeled (Figure 6) or radiolabeled antibodies or antibody fragments targeting cell-type specific surface receptors (198, 199, 201). Delivery of full-size antibodies may be affected by vascular dysfunction in tumors, thus, potentially affecting image quality and interpretation [false positives, reduced specificity (50)]. Targeted US microbubbles have been used to track B7-H3 expressing TAMs and tumor cells (198). The high endocytic activity of TAMs facilitates their imaging by MRI, PET, and to a lesser extent by CT, FLI, US, Raman imaging, or PAI, using nanoparticles, either uncoated (e.g., ultra-small superparamagnetic iron-oxide nanoparticles for MRI) or coated to increase macrophage affinity (199, 200). Nanoparticle uptake may vary across different macrophage populations and may be detected also in other cell types (e.g., tumor cells) to a variable degree, confounding potentially macrophage tracking, but has been used successfully in clinical lymph node cancer staging by MRI (200). Cellular MRI of DC migration using CAs (iron oxide-based nanoparticles, perfluorocarbon emulsions) permits repeated monitoring (a limitation in PET/SPECT) and does not require pre-labeling with reporter genes, as in BLI or FLI, but has lower sensitivity (63). Intravital microscopy of stroma–tumor cell dynamics (207) has been an essential tool in assessing lymphocytic interactions in tumors and draining lymph nodes by optical imaging (208). The clinical translatability of these imaging methods has been reviewed previously (202, 209), with optical methods currently limited to intraoperative imaging (50).
Tumor Vasculature and Lymphatics—Endothelial Cells and Pericytes
Endothelial cells line the inside of tumor blood vessels and lymphatics and interact with pericytes and vascular smooth muscle cells in the vessel wall (Figure 1) (210–212). Cancer-associated endothelial cells often display an enhanced angiogenic potential (211), due to proangionenic factors secreted from cancer cells and/or tumor–stroma cells, forming heterogeneous neovasculature of enhanced permeability (6). The role of pericytes in tumor vascular development is still largely unexplored (212).
Tumors outgrowing their vascular supply lead to constant vascular remodeling, acute and permanent hypoxic tumor areas, and nutrient deprivation (23, 45, 213), increasing treatment resistance (due to, e.g., reduced radical formation in hypoxic tumor areas affecting radiotherapy and limiting drug delivery of chemotherapeutics) (214–216).
Imaging of Tumor Vascularity
Vascular function and distribution has been assessed in vivo non-invasively by MRI (45, 217–226), CT (μCT) (45, 52, 227, 228), H215O or 11C PET (45, 217), US (45, 52, 229) [clinical (230)], PAI (45, 58, 114), and intravital optical imaging methods (231), such as FLI (48), second-generation OCT [optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI)] (Figure 5) (45, 48, 52, 68), and FMT (45).
In vascular MRI, five acquisition methods are used to measure the enhancement of exogenous (i, ii) or endogenous (iii–v) contrast dynamically: (i) Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI, which exploits the shortening of the T1 relaxation time of water protons near a CA, typically Gd-based and low molecular weight (223, 229), (ii) dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC)-MRI, which measures the effect of the CA (e.g., Gd-based CA or superparamagnetic iron oxide particles) on the T2 and T2* relaxation time of nearby water protons (218, 222), (iii) arterial spin labeling (ASL)-MRI, where the dynamic measurement of the in- and out-flow of magnetically labeled water protons, which serve as endogenous “CA,” characterizes the vasculature in a region of interest (223, 232), (iv) blood oxygen level dependent MRI (BOLD-MRI) where oxyhemoglobin confers diamagnetic and deoxyhemoglobin paramagnetic contrast, respectively (223), and (v) diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI), where intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) reflects vascular perfusion (64, 224, 229, 233, 234).
In DCE- and DSC-MRI, the first pass of the exogenous CA uptake is characterized by the venous or arterial input function (219, 220, 222, 235–237), after which the CA distributes throughout the vasculature, extravasates at sites of leaky blood vessels into the interstitium, and is ultimately cleared from the body. Rate and path (e.g., liver and kidney) of tissue and vascular clearance are dependent on the specific CA (e.g., size and type of CA) used (223, 225, 238). Hemodynamic parameters, such as vessel density, vascular permeability, vascular perfusion, extravascular space, vessel size and plasma volume, etc., are either derived from semiquantitative measures of signal enhancement (220, 239–241) or from pharmacokinetic modeling of signal-versus-time curves (222, 242) with the underlying principle based on standard tracer-kinetic theory of linear and stationary systems (221, 243) and the model adjusted to account for variations of CA characteristics, e.g., low versus high molecular weight (impacting the ability of the CA to extravasate), receptor targeted (e.g., ανβ3-integrin), extra- or intracellular or both, with exchange (218, 223, 235, 244). More recently vascular feature-based analyses have been developed to assess intratumor vascular heterogeneity (245, 246).
Hemodynamic parameters conferred from ASL- and BOLD-MRI are tissue blood flow and volume (223, 232). Tissue perfusion and diffusivity are obtained from IVIM DW-MRI by fitting data with a bi-exponential model (224).
Similarly to DCE-MRI, DCE-CT has been used clinically to obtain blood flow, blood volume, and permeability with the disadvantage of radioactivity limiting serial monitoring and often worse spatial resolution than DCE-MRI (227, 228). In preclinical models, the relatively high radiation dose of μCT limits its in vivo use (45), and vascular networks have been assessed ex vivo (247). Viscosity of CA for DCE-CT may also result in complications, such as vessel rupture, and DCE-μCT still suffers from artifacts generated from, e.g., bones or large vessels (52). Generally, functional vascular parameters similar to DCE-MRI can be extracted from DCE-μCT data (52, 248).
While H215O PET measures specifically tissue perfusion (217), the short half-life of 15O limits the applicability of vascular perfusion measurements by PET (45). Vascular permeability can be obtained from dynamic PET using the macromolecular CAs 68Gd-DOTA-albumin (45), 11C-methylalbumin (limited by the 20.4 min short half-life of 11C), or 68Ga-transferrin (217). However, lack of accompanying anatomical information and ionizing radiation limits (especially serial) vascularity measurements by PET, despite its potential higher sensitivity than DCE-MRI and its ability to directly measure tissue perfusion.
Tumor angiogenesis, i.e., perfusion and vascular density have been successfully measured in small animals by Doppler or contrast-enhanced US with microbubbles (non-targeted and targeted to, e.g., VEGFR2 (249), ανβ3-integrin, or endoglin) with a spatial resolution of ~50–100 μm (45, 52, 229). One advantage of the combining contrast-enhanced and non-contrast-enhanced high-frequency volumetric power Doppler US is the ability to distinguish mature and immature vessels (52). While US is cheaper than DCE-MRI, it is not suitable for whole-body imaging, has limited soft tissue contrast, and is to some extent user dependent, limiting its applicability, especially for monitoring of antiangiogenic treatments (52).
In PAI of tumor angiogenesis, the intrinsic contrast from hemoglobin permits visualization of microvasculature and quantification of blood oxygen saturation (45, 52), with its usefulness recently extended to flow imaging (114). Submillimeter resolution is achieved, albeit restricted to depth of a few centimeters (58). Reporter genes or endogenous targeted CAs extend the ability to visualize and quantify tumor angiogenesis in vivo (52). The hemodynamic response to external stimuli or treatment is quantified from contrast changes after image reconstruction (52, 58, 114).
Blood vessel diameter, surface area, and branching pattern have been assessed with intravital optical imaging methods during tumor growth and/or treatment (Figure 5) (45, 48, 52, 68, 231).
Imaging of Lymphatic Tumor Vasculature
Imaging of the lymphatic system is here summarized only briefly, as is has been reviewed in detail previously (50, 250). The lymphatic system (Figure 1) drains lymph fluid from interstitial space to the venous circulation, thus, maintaining tissue fluid homoeostatis, transports immune cells to lymphoid organs, and plays a role in lipid absorption (50, 250). While the lymphatic vasculature near tumors provides a route for metastatic dissemination of cancer cells, its role has only been explored by non-invasive imaging methods over the past decade (50, 250). Lymphangiography traces the drainage of a CA for X-ray, CT, MRI, US, PAI, or optical imaging but is lacking specificity, requiring direct injection into a lymph vessel (difficult to perform in preclinical models) or intradermal injection near sites draining into the dermal capillary plexus (50, 250). Identifying sentinel lymph nodes containing cancer cells has been achieved with intravenously injected CAs that identify blocked drainage or directly target cancer cells (50). In vivo OCT (or OFDI) and laser speckle imaging permit CA-free visualization of lymphatics (Figure 5) (68, 250). The most specific imaging approach to identify and characterize the lymphatic system is to use CAs, targeted to lymphatic vascular-specific molecules, i.e., vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-3 (VEGFR-3), lymphatic vessel hyaluronan receptor-1 (LYVE-1), podoplanin, or prospero-related homeodomain transcription factor PROX1, with LYVE-1 the most widely used lymphatic endothelial cell marker (250). LYVE-1-targeted CAs have been developed for PET (251) and optical imaging (252). Preclinically, fluorescent or bioluminescent gene reporters in transgenic mouse models have been also been used to visualize lymphatics, typically by intravital imaging methods (50).
Metabolic Imaging
Metabolic reprograming during tumor development and progression leads to a characteristic in vivo tumor metabolic phenotype (see Section “Introduction—The Tumor Microenvironment”).
Choline-Phospholipid Metabolism
Changes in choline-phospholipid metabolism have typically been assessed preclinically (and clinically) by non-invasive 31P and 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy or spectroscopic imaging (MRS or MRSI) (14–16, 18, 253). Choline uptake and metabolic conversion have also been assessed with high sensitivity by 18F-fluoro-, 3H-, or 11C-choline PET and successfully translated to the clinic (254–257). As with any PET tracer though, radiolabeled choline PET does not discriminate between different metabolites (256), limiting its value for pathway studies.
Hypoxia
Tumor hypoxia has been imaged non-invasively and visualized directly by hypoxia markers accumulating in hypoxic cells using PET, electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), or 19F MRS (65, 248, 258–266). Delivery of a specific hypoxia marker to less vascularized regions, which are typically associated with hypoxia, may impact the intensity of the accumulating hypoxia marker (246, 267). Since evolution of chronic or acute hypoxia in tissue is linked to the vascular delivery of oxygen, several indirect MRI methods based on vascular features associated with tumor hypoxia, such as BOLD, TOLD, or DCE-MRI, have been developed to identify hypoxic areas or hypoxia changes in tumors (64, 246, 268–271). Tissue oxygen tensions have been mapped by 19F MRI oxymetry using perfluorocarbons; as with any exogenous tracer, these measurements are vascular delivery dependent, and thus, potentially biased toward well-perfused tumor regions (271). While carbonic anhydrase-IX (CA-IX) has been proposed as an intrinsic hypoxia marker in tumors, CA-IX expression, measured by immunohistochemistry, correlated to hypoxia in some and not in other studies (260). Nevertheless, attempts are underway to image CA-IX expression in vivo by PET (272), NIRF (273), and SPECT (274).
Glycolysis and Lactate
Tumor glycolysis is typically assessed by in vivo PET using the cellular entrapment of 18F-FDG, after uptake of 18F-FDG by glucose transporters (GLUT-1, GLUT-3; often overexpressed in cancer) and subsequent phosphorylation by hexokinase II (256, 275). While it is quite insensitive, 13C MRS has been applied preclinically to evaluate glycolysis and the 13C labeling of downstream metabolites (275–277). Detection sensitivity of 13C MRS can be significantly improved by magnetization transfer techniques or indirect inverse detection (276, 277). Hyperpolarization of 13C-labeled substrates increases detection sensitivity up to 10,000-fold, with the caveats that the hyperpolarization is short lived and currently limited to few substrates, including glucose (64, 275, 276, 278, 279). Compressed sensing can further improve acquisition speed and spatial resolution in hyperpolarized (HP) 13C MRSI (280). Lactate production from precursors, such as 13C-labeled pyruvate or glucose, can be rapidly assessed globally and localized by HP 13C MRSI (278, 279). Steady state levels of tumor lactate have been assessed by 1H MRS and MRSI, using spectral editing methods to suppress the high lipid signal overlapping lactate (64, 275, 281–285).
pH
Measuring tumor tissue pH non-invasively is challenging, and various methods have been and are being developed to measure preclinically extracellular and/or intracellular pH (pHe or pHi) (64, 286).
Tumor pHe and pHi distributions can be obtained by 31P MRS/MRSI using 3-aminopropylphosphonate (287, 288). However, insensitivity of 31P MRSI limits its spatial resolution and restricts broad applicability. Thus, 1H MRSI pHe markers have been developed to improve detection sensitivity (288–291). To shorten acquisition times and improve sensitivity further, with potential for clinical translation, HP 13C MRSI of injected bicarbonate has been proposed for pH imaging, with pH (predominantly pHi, though it does not distinguish between pHi and pHe) calculated from the signal intensity ratio of hyperpolarized to 13CO2 (292, 293). However, the reaction is dependent on CA-IX activity in the tissue, thus, calibration has to be performed for each tissue type separately, restricting its applicability (294). Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) MRI detects the pH-dependent chemical exchange between an amide proton and surrounding water molecules (291, 295). In acidoCEST, the pH dependence of the CEST effect ratio of a CEST agent with two amide protons, generating two CEST effects, is used to measure pHe (295–297). Challenges to measure pH by acidoCEST include its low sensitivity, requiring optimization of experimental parameters (295), and it may not always be a given that the CEST effect is solely visible for the amide protons of the selected CEST agent and only affected by pH (291).
Recently, the pH-dependency of cellular membrane insertion of radiolabeled pH (low) insertion peptides has been used to image tumor pH (at the intra-/extracellular interface) preclinically with PET (298–301).
Other non-invasive imaging modalities assessing pH in vivo include optical imaging with pH-sensitive dyes (302–304) or a pH-sensitive reporter gene (305), ratiometric PAI with pH-sensitive nanoprobes (306, 307), MRI using a CA with pH-sensitive (and concentration-dependent) relaxivity, with the difficulty of measuring in vivo the CA concentration (291), and EPR spectroscopy (308, 309).
Additionally, pH-sensitive probes are being developed as theranostic agents, combining treatment with diagnostic and monitoring ability (310–314). Of note is that all exogenous pH markers are delivery dependent and may not be clinically translatable, adding further challenges to pHe/pHi imaging.
Non-Invasive Multimodal Imaging of Tumor–Stroma Interaction
Here, after a brief overview and some examples of recently recognized tumor–stroma interactions (see Section “Tumor–Stroma Interactions”), ongoing efforts to apply directly non-invasive multimodal imaging to characterize and understand tumor–stroma interaction in the context of tumor development, progression, and treatment will be summarized (see Section “Non-invasive In Vivo Imaging of Tumor–Stroma Interactions”). As is evident from the comparably fewer studies (see Section “Non-invasive In Vivo Imaging of Tumor–Stroma Interactions”), it is much more challenging to image directly and non-invasively the tumor–stroma interaction in in vivo cancer animal models (237, 315) and to confirm in vitro and ex vivo findings.
Tumor–Stroma Interactions
Tumor stroma interactions focus on the complex crosstalk between cancer and stromal cells and cell interactions with the ECM (316–320). These interactions are mediated by chemokines, soluble factors from enzymes, growth factors, extracellular vesicles (e.g., exosomes) and/or microRNAs, etc., and regulate enzymes activities, expression of genes and proteins, and metabolic pathways involved in tumor growth, metastases, survival, and drug resistance (37, 188, 211, 319–325). In this section, we present selected examples of in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo tumor growth studies that highlight tumor–stroma interactions by using preclinical models that attempt to incorporate/simulate microenvironmental conditions of ultimately clinical relevance.
Various in vitro models mimicking the TME, such as cocultures between stromal and tumor cells or CAF-derived exosomes and cancer cells (326), 3D culture systems (327), bioreactors for live cell studies (20, 277, 328–330) have been developed to understand the nature and mechanisms behind tumor–stroma interactions by, e.g., gene expression microarrays from cocultures (331).
For example, in in vitro 2D and 3D cultures of the two breast cancer cell lines MDA-MB-231 and MCF-7 cocultured with CAFs or control fibroblasts, CAFs promoted invasion and proliferation in both MDA-MB-231 and MCF-7, and the more invasive MDA-MB-231 increased α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA, a marker of fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transition) expression of CAFs contrary to the non-invasive MCF-7 (332), demonstrating reciprocal interaction. In cocultures of the cervical cancer cell line CSCC7 with CAFs or control fibroblasts, increased CSCC7 migration was associated with a CAF-induced decrease and partial replacement of fibrillar ECM components with laminin-1 (148). In 3D cocultures of oral tongue squamous cancer cells and CAFs in matrigel, CAFs (and CAF-conditioned medium) promoted growth, proliferation, migration, and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition of the cancer cells (333). As observed by OCT, 3D cocultures of breast cancer cells and immortalized fibroblasts induced larger and more spherical acini with increased lumen size than cocultures using immortalized breast cells (101). Besides CAFs, the presence of TAMs has been shown also to affect ECM remodeling (334). For example, excretion of MMPs into the supernatant increased significantly in coculture of two breast cancer cell lines and macrophages, enhancing tumor cell invasiveness, and not in the benign breast cell line/macrophage coculture (335).
Tumor cells and CAFs also interact metabolically (Figure 2). As shown in vitro, CAFs take up and metabolize extracellular lactate (38) and export pyruvate which is taken up and metabolized by cancer cells (336) (Figure 2). Other research implies that epithelial cancer cells use metabolites, such as lactate, ketone bodies, and glutamine, excreted by CAFs in response to cancer cell-induced oxidative stress (39, 334, 337) (Figures 1 and 2). Glycolysis and glutamine-dependent reductive carboxylation increased in cancer cells following oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) inhibition induced by exposure to CAF-derived exosomes (326). Additionally, immune cells and adipocytes may further impact the metabolic tumor phenotype (334). Closer to the in vivo scenario, ex vivo tumor/stroma immunostaining, molecular profiling from tissue microarrays of excised tumors (338), or multiplexed staining and in situ transcriptome profiling techniques (339) improve further our understanding of tumor–stroma interaction. For example, Choi et al. (338) classified breast cancer subtypes of patient tumors into four subgroups defined by the ex vivo expression of the glycolysis markers Glut-1 and/or CA-IX in the tumor and stroma, respectively: Warburg type (tumor: GLUT-1 and/or CA-IX positive; stroma: Glut-1 and CAIX negative), reverse Warburg type (tumor: Glut-1 and CAIX negative; stroma: GLUT-1 and/or CA-IX positive), mixed type (tumor and stroma: GLUT-1 and/or CA-IX positive), and null type (tumor and stroma: Glut-1 and CAIX negative). The Warburg and mixed type were predominantly associated with triple-negative breast cancer, while the reverse Warburg and null-types predominantly associated with luminal breast cancer (338).
These data/models of metabolic interaction between cancer cells and CAFs or other stromal cells highlight the complexities of metabolic crosstalk and the need for further research to understand how metabolic plasticity of tumor and stromal cells benefit tumor progression and evasion of treatment.
While MSCs can dedifferentiate into various stromal cells after recruitment to tumors, many questions about the mechanisms of MSC homing and MSC–cancer cell interaction are still topics for future research (155). In a recent study, MSCs promoted in vivo growth of subcutaneous colorectal tumor models by a β1-integrin-dependent interaction of MSCs and cancer cells (340). Coinjection of breast or prostate cancer cells with either normal fibroblasts or CAFs into animal models showed that, compared to normal fibroblasts, the presence of CAFs enhanced tumor growth (341, 342) and, as shown for the breast model, increased angiogenesis through elevated stromal cell-derived factor 1 via recruitment of endothelial progenitor cells (341). As demonstrated by in vivo fluorescence imaging and caliper tumor volume measurements, coinjection of human endometrial cancer cells with CAFs into nude mice increased tumor growth compared to tumor initiation without coinjection of CAFs (343). It was shown that the proliferation of endometrial cancer cells was increased in the presence of CAFs through the activation of JAK/STAT3/c-myc pathway (343).
Tumor–stroma interactions may sensitize tumors to treatment or be a source of treatment resistance across a wide range of therapeutics (320). And targeting tumor–stroma interactions by targeting its mediators, such as chemokines, may improve treatment response. For example, as observed with BLI, treatment of a prostate cancer model with the CXCR4-specific inhibitor AMD3100 in combination with docetaxel significantly reduced tumor growth compared to docetaxel alone (344). As a high-throughput alternative to in vivo models, an in vitro tumor cell-specific bioluminescence imaging (CS-BLI) assay for tumor–stroma cell cocultures has been proposed (345). Using this assay, it was shown that multiple myeloma cells exhibited chemoresistance to dexamethasone and doxorubicin when cocultured with bone marrow stromal cells, while effectiveness of reversine was enhanced by the presence of stromal cells (345).
Novel treatments, targeting tumor–stroma interaction by therapeutic targeting of adhesion, proteolysis, and/or signaling pathways, may improve on current treatment regimens and overcome treatment resistance (2, 346).
Non-Invasive In Vivo Imaging of Tumor–Stroma Interactions
Studying tumor–stroma interactions in vivo enables the comprehensive characterization of the TME and its impact on treatment efficacy, potentially leading to improved diagnosis, to the identification of new treatment targets, and closing further the gap between preclinical and clinical studies (320). While single imaging methods have been used to image different aspects of the TME, only recently multimodal imaging has become more frequent. One major challenge of imaging the TME is that tumor and stromal cells use common pathways (286), necessitating cell-type-specific labeling and ideally imaging with cellular resolution. Localized, high-resolution imaging or combining multiple imaging modalities may to some extent overcome this inherent challenge. Intravital microscopy (66), which is considered a minimally invasive imaging modality, provides high-resolution imaging, including imaging of cellular processes (86, 208, 347), and has been to date the method of choice to study cancer cell interaction with the TME (Figures 3–5).
By using transgenic mice expressing green fluorescent protein (GFP) in all cells or in specific organs or driven by a cell marker and tumor cells expressing red fluorescent protein (RFP) (237, 348) or GFP in the nucleus and RFP in the cytoplasm (349), whole-body fluorescence imaging has been used to study tumor–TME interactions. While morphology and location of cells may help to identify what type of stromal cell may be involved in a specific biological process (237), specificity is lacking as all cell types of the host express the same fluorescence and ex vivo studies are needed for confirmation (349). By ex vivo validation of cell types, it was confirmed in a GFP-expressing mammary tumor model and a host with GFP-expressing macrophages, that both, cancer cells and macrophages migrated into microneedles filled with EGF, TGF-alpha, and CSF-1, as detected by multiphoton intravital microscopy (350). Using these techniques, it has been shown that paracrine loops associated with macrophage and tumor cell interaction impact tumor cell migration, intravasation, and dissemination (351).
Using intravital microscopy with multiphoton laser scanning microcopy (LSM) and SHG imaging of a human soft tissue sarcoma in VEGF-GFP mice, increased ECM remodeling by CAFs after exposure to relaxin has been imaged in vivo, with the involvement of CAFs confirmed by ex vivo cell typing (352). Using human, DsRed2- and nuclear histone 2B (H2B)-EGFP-expressing fibrosarcoma cells implanted into deep dermis of nude mice, tumor growth and tumor cell invasion into the surrounding tissue could be imaged by epifluorescence microscopy (Figure 3A) (66). In the same tumors, morphology (including collagen fibers), neoangiogenesis, cancer cell mitosis, and apoptosis were assessed in vivo during tumor growth by intravital microscopy with FLI and SHG (Figure 3B) (66). Multiphoton LSM combined with collagen (SHG) imaging of murine mammary tumors grown from a mix of a low-metastatic cell line expressing GFP and a high-metastatic subline transfected expressing CFP (cyan fluorescence protein) in the cytoplasm has been used to track and visualize cell shape, subcellular structures, and behavior in vivo (67) (Figure 4). The motility of the cells with the larger metastatic potential was about 4.5-fold higher than in the cells with low-metastatic potential with migration along collagen fibers (67).
Beyond migration and imaging of vasculature and collagen structures, the redox ratio based on endogenous NADH/(FAD + NADH) had been imaged by intravital microscopy with multiphoton fluorescence lifetime microscopy (FLIM), and redox ratio changes have been found to relate to changes observed by 18F-FDG PET, and, in ovarian cancer, were related to disease risk (49). As fluorescence lifetime changes with binding state and TME of metabolic enzymes (49), multiphoton FLIM, combined with other imaging modalities and intravital microscopy, is uniquely qualified to observe such changes in vivo, with the limitation of imaging depth.
Tumor vascularization, lymph vasculature, and vascular response to treatment have also been evaluated by intravital microscopy within the context of tumor growth and collagen structures (Figure 5) (66, 68, 86). Alexander et al. (66) imaged the intra- and perilymphatic invasion of fluorescent fibrosarcoma cells, indicative of a potential route of metastatic dissemination via the lymph vasculature located at the tumor margin (Figure 5A). Using intrinsic contrast, Vakoc et al. (68) imaged the antivascular effect of an antiangiogenic agent inhibiting VEGFR-2 on the tumor vasculature in vivo at the microscopic level, depicting lymph and blood vessels (Figure 5B). They found in response to VEGFR-2 blockade that intratumor vessel length and mean vessel diameter decreased, as tumor growth was delayed (68).
Nakasone et al. (353, 354) showed by intravital microscopy with a microlensed spinning-disk confocal microscope (355) of tumors in MMTV-PyMT mice expressing ACTB-ECFP in all host cells and c-fms-EGFP in myeloid cells, respectively, that vascular permeability and innate immune cell infiltration impact response to doxorubicin. The accumulation of macrophages with tumor growth as well as increased macrophage infiltration with increased metastatic ability have been imaged non-invasively in breast cancer models by fluorescence-reflectance imaging using a fluorescently labeled specific probe for alarmin S100A9, a calcium-binding protein secreted by monocytes/macrophages with the protein complex S100A8/A9 acting as mediator between tumor and immune cells (69) (Figure 6).
The fairly recent development of MRI/PET instrumentation permits the simultaneous imaging of metabolic, anatomical, and dynamic information, including cell tracking using appropriate labeled probes, during tumor progression and in response to treatment (70, 356–358) (Figure 7). The ability to effectively observe intratumoral function and heterogeneity over time by simultaneous MRI/PET has been demonstrated in a carcinoembryonic antigen-expressing colorectal adenocarcinoma model (Figure 7) (70). A recent study showed that microvessel volume and density index (determined from MRI) were significantly lower for glioblastoma tumors treated with bevacicumab and the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor BEZ235 combined than for tumors treated with bevacicumab alone, while 18F-FET (O-(2-[18F]Fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine) uptake, a PET tracer to assess vessel amino acid transport, remained unchanged between the two treatments (359). Further, tumor growth, as determined from MRI, and cell proliferation, as determined from 18F-FLT PET, were the same for the bevacicumab/BEZ235 combination therapy and the bevacicumab alone treatment groups (359). The in vivo results were validated by ex vivo studies (359).
While still significant more research needs to be done, these studies show the potential of harnessing the strengths of different imaging modalities to image tumor–stroma interaction within the TME in vivo, and thus, enhancing our understanding of its impact on tumor growth and treatment response.
Conclusion
The strengths of optical imaging are its high sensitivity for CAs, ability to use a wide range of probes, including activatable probes and reporter genes, and compared to other imaging modalities, such as MRI and PET, low cost. However, optical imaging is typically semiquantitative, limited by penetration depth, small field of view, and, depending on method, high background signals and lack of tomographic information. Some of these limitations are overcome by PAI, which permits real-time quantitative imaging but is hampered by the range of available CAs. Ultrasound imaging is a low cost, rapid, real-time imaging modality with high temporal and spatial resolution, but has a limited field of view with low soft tissue contrast, and is typically semiquantitative and user dependent. Computer tomography is rapid, permits whole-body imaging, has high spatial resolution, is user independent, and mostly low cost, but is limited by its low sensitivity to CAs, lack of endogenous soft tissue contrast and exposure to radiation. Scanners for MRI (MRSI), PET, and SPECT are high in cost with the distinct advantage of whole-body imaging capabilities. While MRI has excellent soft tissue contrast, high spatial resolution, and has a wide range of methods available for tissue imaging and vessel characterization, it is limited by its low sensitivity and the fairly long acquisitions, the latter particularly prominent in spectroscopic imaging. To overcome these challenges, new methods, such as hyperpolarized 13C MRSI, are being actively developed. The high sensitivity of PET and SPECT, respectively, is offset by their low resolution (1–2 mm), lack of morphological information and radiation exposure from the radioactive tracers, whose half-lives range from 75 s (Rb-82) to 4.18 days (I-124) for PET radioisotopes and from 6 h (Tc-99m) to 59 days (I-125) for SPECT tracers. With the advancement of MRI/PET, the power of various MRS and MRI methods beyond anatomy and DCE-MRI, such as MRS(I), can be harnessed for future studies, distinguishing itself from PET/CT with reduced radiation exposure, the latter making MRI/PET a powerful tool for serial monitoring.
While CT, MRI (MRSI), PET, SPECT, and US are already standard imaging tools in the clinic, for localized applications, e.g., detecting cancer cells at tumor margins during surgery (360), optical imaging is being assiduously developed. Aside from physical parameters specific to each imaging modality, clinical imaging of tumor–stroma interaction will also be in part defined by the successful development of safe tracers/CAs.
In the majority of preclinical studies, specific aspects of the TME and its stromal components have been investigated separately (a few aspects at a time), selecting the non-invasive preclinical imaging modality best suited for the task. However, recent strong evidence pointing to the importance of the interaction between tumor cells and multiple components of the TME in tumor development, growth, metastases, and treatment response, including drug resistance, has generated a strong interest to further develop imaging technologies to investigate tumor–stroma interactions non-invasively in vivo. Despite recent research efforts, the comprehensive characterization (including serial monitoring) of the TME and tumor–stroma interactions non-invasively in vivo requires further advancement and to take advantage of the strengths of multimodal imaging tools for preclinical studies, and ultimately for clinical translation.
Statements
Author contributions
EA and NR: conception, design, and writing of review article.
Funding
We acknowledge salary support for Dr. N. Ramamonjisoa from a Cycle for Sarcoma grant and an Imaging and Radiation Sciences grant from MSKCC, as well as salary support for Dr. E. Ackerstaff from grants R01 CA172846 (NIH), R01 CA163980 (NIH), P50 CA092629 (NIH), and PC120233 (DOD). We also acknowledge the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center support grant P30 CA008748
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr. Radka Stoyanova and Dr. Avigdor Leftin for their helpful reading of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
VaupelPKallinowskiFOkunieffP. Blood flow, oxygen and nutrient supply, and metabolic microenvironment of human tumors: a review. Cancer Res (1989) 49(23):6449–65.
2
LiottaLAKohnEC. The microenvironment of the tumour-host interface. Nature (2001) 411(6835):375–9.10.1038/35077241
3
SwietachPVaughan-JonesRDHarrisAL. Regulation of tumor pH and the role of carbonic anhydrase 9. Cancer Metastasis Rev (2007) 26(2):299–310.10.1007/s10555-007-9064-0
4
PathakAPArtemovDWardBDJacksonDGNeemanMBhujwallaZM. Characterizing extravascular fluid transport of macromolecules in the tumor interstitium by magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer Res (2005) 65(4):1425–32.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-3682
5
LeBleuVS. Imaging the tumor microenvironment. Cancer J (2015) 21(3):174–8.10.1097/PPO.0000000000000118
6
PayneSJJonesL. Influence of the tumor microenvironment on angiogenesis. Future Oncol (2011) 7(3):395–408.10.2217/fon.11.13
7
PouyssegurJDayanFMazureNM. Hypoxia signalling in cancer and approaches to enforce tumour regression. Nature (2006) 441(7092):437–43.10.1038/nature04871
8
WarburgO. On respiratory impairment in cancer cells. Science (1956) 124(3215):269–70.
9
WarburgOWindFNegeleinE. The metabolism of tumors in the body. J Gen Physiol (1927) 8(6):519–30.10.1085/jgp.8.6.519
10
DayeDWellenKE. Metabolic reprogramming in cancer: unraveling the role of glutamine in tumorigenesis. Semin Cell Dev Biol (2012) 23(4):362–9.10.1016/j.semcdb.2012.02.002
11
De VittoHPerez-ValenciaJRadosevichJA. Glutamine at focus: versatile roles in cancer. Tumour Biol (2016) 37(2):1541–58.10.1007/s13277-015-4671-9
12
WiseDRThompsonCB. Glutamine addiction: a new therapeutic target in cancer. Trends Biochem Sci (2010) 35(8):427–33.10.1016/j.tibs.2010.05.003
13
DeBerardinisRJMancusoADaikhinENissimIYudkoffMWehrliSet alBeyond aerobic glycolysis: transformed cells can engage in glutamine metabolism that exceeds the requirement for protein and nucleotide synthesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2007) 104(49):19345–50.10.1073/pnas.0709747104
14
AckerstaffEGlundeKBhujwallaZM. Choline phospholipid metabolism: a target in cancer cells?J Cell Biochem (2003) 90(3):525–33.10.1002/jcb.10659
15
GlundeKAckerstaffEMoriNJacobsMABhujwallaZM. Choline phospholipid metabolism in cancer: consequences for molecular pharmaceutical interventions. Mol Pharm (2006) 3(5):496–506.10.1021/mp060067e
16
PodoF. Tumour phospholipid metabolism. NMR Biomed (1999) 12(7):413–39.10.1002/(SICI)1099-1492(199911)12:7<413::AID-NBM587>3.3.CO;2-L
17
RidgwayND. The role of phosphatidylcholine and choline metabolites to cell proliferation and survival. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol (2013) 48(1):20–38.10.3109/10409238.2012.735643
18
GlundeKBhujwallaZMRonenSM. Choline metabolism in malignant transformation. Nat Rev Cancer (2011) 11(12):835–48.10.1038/nrc3162
19
AwwadHMGeiselJObeidR. The role of choline in prostate cancer. Clin Biochem (2012) 45(18):1548–53.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.08.012
20
SimoesRVSerganovaISKruchevskyNLeftinAShestovAAThalerHTet alMetabolic plasticity of metastatic breast cancer cells: adaptation to changes in the microenvironment. Neoplasia (2015) 17(8):671–84.10.1016/j.neo.2015.08.005
21
YoshidaGJ. Metabolic reprogramming: the emerging concept and associated therapeutic strategies. J Exp Clin Cancer Res (2015) 34:111.10.1186/s13046-015-0221-y
22
XingYZhaoSZhouBPMiJ. Metabolic reprogramming of the tumour microenvironment. FEBS J (2015) 282(20):3892–8.10.1111/febs.13402
23
PoletFFeronO. Endothelial cell metabolism and tumour angiogenesis: glucose and glutamine as essential fuels and lactate as the driving force. J Intern Med (2013) 273(2):156–65.10.1111/joim.12016
24
DeBerardinisRJLumJJHatzivassiliouGThompsonCB. The biology of cancer: metabolic reprogramming fuels cell growth and proliferation. Cell Metab (2008) 7(1):11–20.10.1016/j.cmet.2007.10.002
25
MarchiqIPouyssegurJ. Hypoxia, cancer metabolism and the therapeutic benefit of targeting lactate/H(+) symporters. J Mol Med (Berl) (2016) 94(2):155–71.10.1007/s00109-015-1307-x
26
HanahanDWeinbergRA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell (2011) 144(5):646–74.10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013
27
Romero-GarciaSMoreno-AltamiranoMMPrado-GarciaHSanchez-GarciaFJ. Lactate contribution to the tumor microenvironment: mechanisms, effects on immune cells and therapeutic relevance. Front Immunol (2016) 7:52.10.3389/fimmu.2016.00052
28
ParkCCBissellMJBarcellos-HoffMH. The influence of the microenvironment on the malignant phenotype. Mol Med Today (2000) 6(8):324–9.10.1016/S1357-4310(00)01756-1
29
MahadevanDVon HoffDD. Tumor-stroma interactions in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Mol Cancer Ther (2007) 6(4):1186–97.10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0686
30
KopfsteinLChristoforiG. Metastasis: cell-autonomous mechanisms versus contributions by the tumor microenvironment. Cell Mol Life Sci (2006) 63(4):449–68.10.1007/s00018-005-5296-8
31
JodeleSBlavierLYoonJMDeClerckYA. Modifying the soil to affect the seed: role of stromal-derived matrix metalloproteinases in cancer progression. Cancer Metastasis Rev (2006) 25(1):35–43.10.1007/s10555-006-7887-8
32
FarnsworthWE. Prostate stroma: physiology. Prostate (1999) 38(1):60–72.10.1002/(SICI)1097-0045(19990101)38:1<60::AID-PROS8>3.0.CO;2-3
33
RomeroILMukherjeeAKennyHALitchfieldLMLengyelE. Molecular pathways: trafficking of metabolic resources in the tumor microenvironment. Clin Cancer Res (2015) 21(4):680–6.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2198
34
Martinez-OutschoornUEPavlidesSHowellAPestellRGTanowitzHBSotgiaFet alStromal-epithelial metabolic coupling in cancer: integrating autophagy and metabolism in the tumor microenvironment. Int J Biochem Cell Biol (2011) 43(7):1045–51.10.1016/j.biocel.2011.01.023
35
RatnikovBJeonYJSmithJWRonaiZA. Right on TARGET: glutamine metabolism in cancer. Oncoscience (2015) 2(8):681–3.10.18632/oncoscience.205
36
LisantiMPMartinez-OutschoornUESotgiaF. Oncogenes induce the cancer-associated fibroblast phenotype: metabolic symbiosis and “fibroblast addiction” are new therapeutic targets for drug discovery. Cell Cycle (2013) 12(17):2723–32.10.4161/cc.25695
37
CorreiaALBissellMJ. The tumor microenvironment is a dominant force in multidrug resistance. Drug Resist Updat (2012) 15(1–2):39–49.10.1016/j.drup.2012.01.006
38
RattiganYIPatelBBAckerstaffESukenickGKoutcherJAGlodJWet alLactate is a mediator of metabolic cooperation between stromal carcinoma associated fibroblasts and glycolytic tumor cells in the tumor microenvironment. Exp Cell Res (2012) 318(4):326–35.10.1016/j.yexcr.2011.11.014
39
PavlidesSVeraIGandaraRSneddonSPestellRGMercierIet alWarburg meets autophagy: cancer-associated fibroblasts accelerate tumor growth and metastasis via oxidative stress, mitophagy, and aerobic glycolysis. Antioxid Redox Signal (2012) 16(11):1264–84.10.1089/ars.2011.4243
40
HanahanDCoussensLM. Accessories to the crime: functions of cells recruited to the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Cell (2012) 21(3):309–22.10.1016/j.ccr.2012.02.022
41
PickupMWMouwJKWeaverVM. The extracellular matrix modulates the hallmarks of cancer. EMBO Rep (2014) 15(12):1243–53.10.15252/embr.201439246
42
HagedornHGBachmeierBENerlichAG. Synthesis and degradation of basement membranes and extracellular matrix and their regulation by TGF-beta in invasive carcinomas (Review). Int J Oncol (2001) 18(4):669–81.10.3892/ijo.18.4.669
43
TurleySJCremascoVAstaritaJL. Immunological hallmarks of stromal cells in the tumour microenvironment. Nat Rev Immunol (2015) 15(11):669–82.10.1038/nri3902
44
FriedlPBrockerEB. The biology of cell locomotion within three-dimensional extracellular matrix. Cell Mol Life Sci (2000) 57(1):41–64.10.1007/s000180050498
45
NarunskyLOrenRBochnerFNeemanM. Imaging aspects of the tumor stroma with therapeutic implications. Pharmacol Ther (2014) 141(2):192–208.10.1016/j.pharmthera.2013.10.003
46
KobayashiHLongmireMROgawaMChoykePL. Rational chemical design of the next generation of molecular imaging probes based on physics and biology: mixing modalities, colors and signals. Chem Soc Rev (2011) 40(9):4626–48.10.1039/c1cs15077d
47
YounHHongKJ. In vivo non invasive molecular imaging for immune cell tracking in small animals. Immune Netw (2012) 12(6):223–9.10.4110/in.2012.12.6.223
48
ZhouZNBoimelPJSegallJE. Tumor-stroma: in vivo assays and intravital imaging to study cell migration and metastasis. Drug Discov Today Dis Models (2011) 8(2–3):95–112.10.1016/j.ddmod.2011.07.003
49
ProvenzanoPPEliceiriKWKeelyPJ. Multiphoton microscopy and fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (FLIM) to monitor metastasis and the tumor microenvironment. Clin Exp Metastasis (2009) 26(4):357–70.10.1007/s10585-008-9204-0
50
Sevick-MuracaEMKwonSRasmussenJC. Emerging lymphatic imaging technologies for mouse and man. J Clin Invest (2014) 124(3):905–14.10.1172/JCI71612
51
StukerFRipollJRudinM. Fluorescence molecular tomography: principles and potential for pharmaceutical research. Pharmaceutics (2011) 3(2):229–74.10.3390/pharmaceutics3020229
52
EhlingJLammersTKiesslingF. Non-invasive imaging for studying anti-angiogenic therapy effects. Thromb Haemost (2013) 109(3):375–90.10.1160/TH12-10-0721
53
NoreenRChienCCChenHHBobroffVMoennerMJaverzatSet alFTIR spectro-imaging of collagen scaffold formation during glioma tumor development. Anal Bioanal Chem (2013) 405(27):8729–36.10.1007/s00216-013-7337-8
54
BhargavaR. Infrared spectroscopic imaging: the next generation. Appl Spectrosc (2012) 66(10):1091–120.10.1366/12-06801
55
BellisolaGSorioC. Infrared spectroscopy and microscopy in cancer research and diagnosis. Am J Cancer Res (2012) 2(1):1–21.
56
LaschPNaumannD. Spatial resolution in infrared microspectroscopic imaging of tissues. Biochim Biophys Acta (2006) 1758(7):814–29.10.1016/j.bbamem.2006.06.008
57
DhawanAPD’AlessandroBFuX. Optical imaging modalities for biomedical applications. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng (2010) 3:69–92.10.1109/RBME.2010.2081975
58
XuMHWangLHV. Photoacoustic imaging in biomedicine. Rev Sci Instrum (2006) 77(4).10.1063/1.2195024
59
WuDHuangLJiangMSJiangH. Contrast agents for photoacoustic and thermoacoustic imaging: a review. Int J Mol Sci (2014) 15(12):23616–39.10.3390/ijms151223616
60
MallidiSLukeGPEmelianovS. Photoacoustic imaging in cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment guidance. Trends Biotechnol (2011) 29(5):213–21.10.1016/j.tibtech.2011.01.006
61
WeigelinBBakkerGJFriedlP. Third harmonic generation microscopy of cells and tissue organization. J Cell Sci (2016) 129(2):245–55.10.1242/jcs.152272
62
StruplerMPenaAMHernestMTharauxPLMartinJLBeaurepaireEet alSecond harmonic imaging and scoring of collagen in fibrotic tissues. Opt Express (2007) 15(7):4054–65.10.1364/OE.15.004054
63
DekabanGAHamiltonAMFinkCAAuBde ChickeraSNRibotEJet alTracking and evaluation of dendritic cell migration by cellular magnetic resonance imaging. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol (2013) 5(5):469–83.10.1002/wnan.1227
64
BokachevaLAckerstaffELeKayeHCZakianKKoutcherJA. High-field small animal magnetic resonance oncology studies. Phys Med Biol (2014) 59(2):R65–127.10.1088/0031-9155/59/2/R65
65
VikramDSZweierJLKuppusamyP. Methods for noninvasive imaging of tissue hypoxia. Antioxid Redox Signal (2007) 9(10):1745–56.10.1089/ars.2007.1717
66
AlexanderSKoehlGEHirschbergMGeisslerEKFriedlP. Dynamic imaging of cancer growth and invasion: a modified skin-fold chamber model. Histochem Cell Biol (2008) 130(6):1147–54.10.1007/s00418-008-0529-1
67
SahaiEWyckoffJPhilipparUSegallJEGertlerFCondeelisJ. Simultaneous imaging of GFP, CFP and collagen in tumors in vivo using multiphoton microscopy. BMC Biotechnol (2005) 5:14.10.1186/1472-6750-5-14
68
VakocBJLanningRMTyrrellJAPaderaTPBartlettLAStylianopoulosTet alThree-dimensional microscopy of the tumor microenvironment in vivo using optical frequency domain imaging. Nat Med (2009) 15(10):1219–23.10.1038/nm.1971
69
BeckerAGrosse HokampNZenkerSFlores-BorjaFBarzcykKVargaGet alOptical in vivo imaging of the alarmin S100A9 in tumor lesions allows for estimation of the individual malignant potential by evaluation of tumor-host cell interaction. J Nucl Med (2015) 56(3):450–6.10.2967/jnumed.114.146688
70
NgTSBadingJRParkRSohiHProcissiDColcherDet alQuantitative, simultaneous PET/MRI for intratumoral imaging with an MRI-compatible PET scanner. J Nucl Med (2012) 53(7):1102–9.10.2967/jnumed.111.099861
71
MechamRP. Overview of extracellular matrix. Curr Protoc Cell Biol (2012) Chapter 10:Unit 10.1.10.1002/0471143030.cb1001s57
72
LuPWeaverVMWerbZ. The extracellular matrix: a dynamic niche in cancer progression. J Cell Biol (2012) 196(4):395–406.10.1083/jcb.201102147
73
LuPTakaiKWeaverVMWerbZ. Extracellular matrix degradation and remodeling in development and disease. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol (2011) 3(12):a005058.10.1101/cshperspect.a005058
74
KessenbrockKPlaksVWerbZ. Matrix metalloproteinases: regulators of the tumor microenvironment. Cell (2010) 141(1):52–67.10.1016/j.cell.2010.03.015
75
VermaRPHanschC. Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs): chemical-biological functions and (Q)SARs. Bioorg Med Chem (2007) 15(6):2223–68.10.1016/j.bmc.2007.01.011
76
Page-McCawAEwaldAJWerbZ. Matrix metalloproteinases and the regulation of tissue remodelling. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol (2007) 8(3):221–33.10.1038/nrm2125
77
WorthDCParsonsM. Advances in imaging cell-matrix adhesions. J Cell Sci (2010) 123(Pt 21):3629–38.10.1242/jcs.064485
78
ValderramaRNavarroSCampoECampsJGimenezAParesAet alQuantitative measurement of fibrosis in pancreatic tissue. Evaluation of a colorimetric method. Int J Pancreatol (1991) 10(1):23–9.
79
TaskiranDTaskiranEYercanHKutayFZ. Quantification of total collagen in rabbit tendon by the sirius red method. Tr J Med Sci (1999) 29:7–9.
80
PlodinecMLoparicMAebiU. Imaging collagen II using atomic force microscopy (AFM). Cold Spring Harb Protoc (2010) 2010(10):db.rot5501.10.1101/pdb.prot5501
81
MallerOHansenKCLyonsTRAcerbiIWeaverVMPrekerisRet alCollagen architecture in pregnancy-induced protection from breast cancer. J Cell Sci (2013) 126(Pt 18):4108–10.10.1242/jcs.121590
82
StamovDRStockEFranzCMJahnkeTHaschkeH. Imaging collagen type I fibrillogenesis with high spatiotemporal resolution. Ultramicroscopy (2015) 149:86–94.10.1016/j.ultramic.2014.10.003
83
DangTTPrechtlAMPearsonGW. Breast cancer subtype-specific interactions with the microenvironment dictate mechanisms of invasion. Cancer Res (2011) 71(21):6857–66.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-1818
84
PengCWLiuXLChenCLiuXYangXQPangDWet alPatterns of cancer invasion revealed by QDs-based quantitative multiplexed imaging of tumor microenvironment. Biomaterials (2011) 32(11):2907–17.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.12.053
85
FangMPengCWYuanJPZhangZLPangDWLiY. Coevolution of the tumor microenvironment revealed by quantum dot-based multiplexed imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma. Future Oncol (2013) 9(7):1029–37.10.2217/fon.13.63
86
AlexanderSWeigelinBWinklerFFriedlP. Preclinical intravital microscopy of the tumour-stroma interface: invasion, metastasis, and therapy response. Curr Opin Cell Biol (2013) 25(5):659–71.10.1016/j.ceb.2013.07.001
87
WuPCHsiehTYTsaiZULiuTM. In vivo quantification of the structural changes of collagens in a melanoma microenvironment with second and third harmonic generation microscopy. Sci Rep (2015) 5:8879.10.1038/srep08879
88
WilliamsRMZipfelWRWebbWW. Multiphoton microscopy in biological research. Curr Opin Chem Biol (2001) 5(5):603–8.10.1016/S1367-5931(00)00241-6
89
ZoumiAYehATrombergBJ. Imaging cells and extracellular matrix in vivo by using second-harmonic generation and two-photon excited fluorescence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2002) 99(17):11014–9.10.1073/pnas.172368799
90
KeikhosraviABredfeldtJSSagarAKEliceiriKW. Second-harmonic generation imaging of cancer. Methods Cell Biol (2014) 123:531–46.10.1016/B978-0-12-420138-5.00028-8
91
RajaAMXuSSunWZhouJTaiDCChenCSet alPulse-modulated second harmonic imaging microscope quantitatively demonstrates marked increase of collagen in tumor after chemotherapy. J Biomed Opt (2010) 15(5):056016.10.1117/1.3497565
92
DrifkaCRTodJLoefflerAGLiuYThomasGJEliceiriKWet alPeriductal stromal collagen topology of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma differs from that of normal and chronic pancreatitis. Mod Pathol (2015) 28(11):1470–80.10.1038/modpathol.2015.97
93
BredfeldtJSLiuYConklinMWKeelyPJMackieTREliceiriKW. Automated quantification of aligned collagen for human breast carcinoma prognosis. J Pathol Inform (2014) 5:28.10.4103/2153-3539.139707
94
KirkpatrickNDAndreouSHoyingJBUtzingerU. Live imaging of collagen remodeling during angiogenesis. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol (2007) 292(6):H3198–206.10.1152/ajpheart.01234.2006
95
PfefferCPOlsenBRGanikhanovFLegareF. Multimodal nonlinear optical imaging of collagen arrays. J Struct Biol (2008) 164(1):140–5.10.1016/j.jsb.2008.07.002
96
MadsenDHBuggeTH. Imaging collagen degradation in vivo highlights a key role for M2-polarized macrophages in extracellular matrix degradation. Oncoimmunology (2013) 2(12):e27127.10.4161/onci.27127
97
WahyudiHReynoldsAALiYOwenSCYuSM. Targeting collagen for diagnostic imaging and therapeutic delivery. J Control Release (2016) 240:323–31.10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.01.007
98
MercadoKPHelgueraMHockingDCDaleckiD. Noninvasive quantitative imaging of collagen microstructure in three-dimensional hydrogels using high-frequency ultrasound. Tissue Eng Part C Methods (2015) 21(7):671–82.10.1089/ten.TEC.2014.0527
99
RigginCNSarverJJFreedmanBRThomasSJSoslowskyLJ. Analysis of collagen organization in mouse achilles tendon using high-frequency ultrasound imaging. J Biomech Eng (2014) 136(2):021029.10.1115/1.4026285
100
RingHCMogensenMHussainAASteadmanNBanzhafCThemstrupLet alImaging of collagen deposition disorders using optical coherence tomography. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol (2015) 29(5):890–8.10.1111/jdv.12708
101
ChhetriRKPhillipsZFTroesterMAOldenburgAL. Longitudinal study of mammary epithelial and fibroblast co-cultures using optical coherence tomography reveals morphological hallmarks of pre-malignancy. PLoS One (2012) 7(11):e49148.10.1371/journal.pone.0049148
102
WangPWangPWangHWChengJX. Mapping lipid and collagen by multispectral photoacoustic imaging of chemical bond vibration. J Biomed Opt (2012) 17(9):96010–1.10.1117/1.JBO.17.9.096010
103
FangMYuanJPPengCWPangDWLiY. Quantum dots-based in situ molecular imaging of dynamic changes of collagen IV during cancer invasion. Biomaterials (2013) 34(34):8708–17.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.07.069
104
ZhengHMChenCWuXHChenJSunSSunJZet alQuantum dot-based in situ simultaneous molecular imaging and quantitative analysis of EGFR and collagen IV and identification of their prognostic value in triple-negative breast cancer. Tumour Biol (2016) 37(2):2509–18.10.1007/s13277-015-4079-6
105
JinHEFarrRLeeSW. Collagen mimetic peptide engineered M13 bacteriophage for collagen targeting and imaging in cancer. Biomaterials (2014) 35(33):9236–45.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.07.044
106
LiYFossCAPomperMGYuSM. Imaging denatured collagen strands in vivo and ex vivo via photo-triggered hybridization of caged collagen mimetic peptides. J Vis Exp (2014) 83:e51052.10.3791/51052
107
BrownGTMurrayGI. Current mechanistic insights into the roles of matrix metalloproteinases in tumour invasion and metastasis. J Pathol (2015) 237(3):273–81.10.1002/path.4586
108
SchererRLMcIntyreJOMatrisianLM. Imaging matrix metalloproteinases in cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev (2008) 27(4):679–90.10.1007/s10555-008-9152-9
109
YangYHongHZhangYCaiW. Molecular imaging of proteases in cancer. Cancer Growth Metastasis (2009) 2:13–27.
110
LebelRLepageM. A comprehensive review on controls in molecular imaging: lessons from MMP-2 imaging. Contrast Media Mol Imaging (2014) 9(3):187–210.10.1002/cmmi.1555
111
ShayGLynchCCFingletonB. Moving targets: emerging roles for MMPs in cancer progression and metastasis. Matrix Biol (2015) 44-46:200–6.10.1016/j.matbio.2015.01.019
112
ChuangCHChuangKHWangHERofflerSRShieaJTTzouSCet alIn vivo positron emission tomography imaging of protease activity by generation of a hydrophobic product from a noninhibitory protease substrate. Clin Cancer Res (2012) 18(1):238–47.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0608
113
CoxBLauferJGArridgeSRBeardPC. Quantitative spectroscopic photoacoustic imaging: a review. J Biomed Opt (2012) 17(6):061202.10.1117/1.JBO.17.6.061202
114
van den BergPJDaoudiKSteenbergenW. Review of photoacoustic flow imaging: its current state and its promises. Photoacoustics (2015) 3(3):89–99.10.1016/j.pacs.2015.08.001
115
LeviJKothapalliSRBohndiekSYoonJKDragulescu-AndrasiANielsenCet alMolecular photoacoustic imaging of follicular thyroid carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res (2013) 19(6):1494–502.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-3061
116
SalaunMPengJHensleyHHRoderNFliederDBHoulle-CrepinSet alMMP-13 in-vivo molecular imaging reveals early expression in lung adenocarcinoma. PLoS One (2015) 10(7):e0132960.10.1371/journal.pone.0132960
117
Al RawashdehWArnsSGremseFEhlingJKnuchel-ClarkeRKraySet alOptical tomography of MMP activity allows a sensitive noninvasive characterization of the invasiveness and angiogenesis of SCC xenografts. Neoplasia (2014) 16(3):235–46,246.e1.10.1016/j.neo.2014.03.005
118
TooleBP. Hyaluronan promotes the malignant phenotype. Glycobiology (2002) 12(3):37R–42R.10.1093/glycob/12.3.37R
119
McAteeCOBaryckiJJSimpsonMA. Emerging roles for hyaluronidase in cancer metastasis and therapy. Adv Cancer Res (2014) 123:1–34.10.1016/B978-0-12-800092-2.00001-0
120
ChoiKYSaravanakumarGParkJHParkK. Hyaluronic acid-based nanocarriers for intracellular targeting: interfacial interactions with proteins in cancer. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces (2012) 99:82–94.10.1016/j.colsurfb.2011.10.029
121
TripodoGTrapaniATorreMLGiammonaGTrapaniGMandracchiaD. Hyaluronic acid and its derivatives in drug delivery and imaging: recent advances and challenges. Eur J Pharm Biopharm (2015) 97(Pt B):400–16.10.1016/j.ejpb.2015.03.032
122
VeisehMTurleyEA. Hyaluronan metabolism in remodeling extracellular matrix: probes for imaging and therapy of breast cancer. Integr Biol (Camb) (2011) 3(4):304–15.10.1039/c0ib00096e
123
ChoHJYoonHYKooHKoSHShimJSChoJHet alHyaluronic acid-ceramide-based optical/MR dual imaging nanoprobe for cancer diagnosis. J Control Release (2012) 162(1):111–8.10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.06.011
124
SwierczewskaMChoiKYMertzELHuangXZhangFZhuLet alA facile, one-step nanocarbon functionalization for biomedical applications. Nano Lett (2012) 12(7):3613–20.10.1021/nl301309g
125
ParkJKuMKimEParkYHongYHaamSet alCD44-specific supramolecular hydrogels for fluorescence molecular imaging of stem-like gastric cancer cells. Integr Biol (Camb) (2013) 5(4):669–72.10.1039/c3ib20203h
126
ParkJHChoHJYoonHYYoonISKoSHShimJSet alHyaluronic acid derivative-coated nanohybrid liposomes for cancer imaging and drug delivery. J Control Release (2014) 174:98–108.10.1016/j.jconrel.2013.11.016
127
LimEKKimHOJangEParkJLeeKSuhJSet alHyaluronan-modified magnetic nanoclusters for detection of CD44-overexpressing breast cancer by MR imaging. Biomaterials (2011) 32(31):7941–50.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.06.077
128
LiJHeYSunWLuoYCaiHPanYet alHyaluronic acid-modified hydrothermally synthesized iron oxide nanoparticles for targeted tumor MR imaging. Biomaterials (2014) 35(11):3666–77.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.01.011
129
YoonHYKooHChoiKYLeeSJKimKKwonICet alTumor-targeting hyaluronic acid nanoparticles for photodynamic imaging and therapy. Biomaterials (2012) 33(15):3980–9.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.02.016
130
YoonHYKooHChoiKYChan KwonIChoiKParkJHet alPhoto-crosslinked hyaluronic acid nanoparticles with improved stability for in vivo tumor-targeted drug delivery. Biomaterials (2013) 34(21):5273–80.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.03.050
131
ThomasRGMoonMJLeeHSasikalaARKimCSParkIKet alHyaluronic acid conjugated superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle for cancer diagnosis and hyperthermia therapy. Carbohydr Polym (2015) 131:439–46.10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.06.010
132
RavarFSaadatEGholamiMDehghankelishadiPMahdaviMAzamiSet alHyaluronic acid-coated liposomes for targeted delivery of paclitaxel, in-vitro characterization and in-vivo evaluation. J Control Release (2016) 229:10–22.10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.03.012
133
YangRMFuCPLiNNWangLXuXDYangDYet alGlycosaminoglycan-targeted iron oxide nanoparticles for magnetic resonance imaging of liver carcinoma. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl (2014) 45:556–63.10.1016/j.msec.2014.09.038
134
SongSQiHXuJGuoPChenFLiFet alHyaluronan-based nanocarriers with CD44-overexpressed cancer cell targeting. Pharm Res (2014) 31(11):2988–3005.10.1007/s11095-014-1393-4
135
ShiftanLIsraelyTCohenMFrydmanVDafniHSternRet alMagnetic resonance imaging visualization of hyaluronidase in ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res (2005) 65(22):10316–23.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-3947
136
HouLYangXRenJWangYZhangHFengQet alA novel redox-sensitive system based on single-walled carbon nanotubes for chemo-photothermal therapy and magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Nanomedicine (2016) 11:607–24.10.2147/IJN.S98476
137
LiJHuYYangJWeiPSunWShenMet alHyaluronic acid-modified Fe3O4@Au core/shell nanostars for multimodal imaging and photothermal therapy of tumors. Biomaterials (2015) 38:10–21.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.10.065
138
JinYMaXFengSLiangXDaiZTianJet alHyaluronic acid modified tantalum oxide nanoparticles conjugating doxorubicin for targeted cancer theranostics. Bioconjug Chem (2015) 26(12):2530–41.10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.5b00551
139
LiWZhengCPanZChenCHuDGaoGet alSmart hyaluronidase-actived theranostic micelles for dual-modal imaging guided photodynamic therapy. Biomaterials (2016) 101:10–9.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.05.019
140
FengQZhangYZhangWShanXYuanYZhangHet alTumor-targeted and multi-stimuli responsive drug delivery system for near-infrared light induced chemo-phototherapy and photoacoustic tomography. Acta Biomater (2016) 38:129–42.10.1016/j.actbio.2016.04.024
141
UthamanSBomJSKimHSJohnJVBomHSKimSJet alTumor homing indocyanine green encapsulated micelles for near infrared and photoacoustic imaging of tumors. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater (2016) 104(4):825–34.10.1002/jbm.b.33607
142
SwierczewskaMHanHSKimKParkJHLeeS. Polysaccharide-based nanoparticles for theranostic nanomedicine. Adv Drug Deliv Rev (2016) 99(Pt A):70–84.10.1016/j.addr.2015.11.015
143
SolliniMBoniRTrainoACLazzeriEPasqualettiFModeoLet alNew approaches for imaging and therapy of solid cancer. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2015) 59(2):168–83.
144
Abou-ElkacemLWilsonKEJohnsonSMChowdhurySMBachawalSHackelBJet alUltrasound molecular imaging of the breast cancer neovasculature using engineered fibronectin scaffold ligands: a novel class of targeted contrast ultrasound agent. Theranostics (2016) 6(11):1740–52.10.7150/thno.15169
145
Givant-HorwitzVDavidsonBReichR. Laminin-induced signaling in tumor cells. Cancer Lett (2005) 223(1):1–10.10.1016/j.canlet.2004.08.030
146
AumailleyM. The laminin family. Cell Adh Migr (2013) 7(1):48–55.10.4161/cam.22826
147
PatarroyoMTryggvasonKVirtanenI. Laminin isoforms in tumor invasion, angiogenesis and metastasis. Semin Cancer Biol (2002) 12(3):197–207.10.1016/S1044-579X(02)00023-8
148
FullarADudasJOlahLHollosiPPappZSobelGet alRemodeling of extracellular matrix by normal and tumor-associated fibroblasts promotes cervical cancer progression. BMC Cancer (2015) 15:256.10.1186/s12885-015-1272-3
149
MazzoccaACoppariRDe FrancoRChoJYLibermannTAPinzaniMet alA secreted form of ADAM9 promotes carcinoma invasion through tumor-stromal interactions. Cancer Res (2005) 65(11):4728–38.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-4449
150
MoilanenJMKokkonenNLoffekSVayrynenJPSyvaniemiEHurskainenTet alCollagen XVII expression correlates with the invasion and metastasis of colorectal cancer. Hum Pathol (2015) 46(3):434–42.10.1016/j.humpath.2014.11.020
151
CuestaAMSanchez-MartinDSanzLBonetJCompteMKremerLet alIn vivo tumor targeting and imaging with engineered trivalent antibody fragments containing collagen-derived sequences. PLoS One (2009) 4(4):e5381.10.1371/journal.pone.0005381
152
KoliakosGTrontzosCKouzi-KoliakosKKanellakiMGrammaticosP. Lung carcinoma imaging using a synthetic laminin derivative radioiodinated peptide YIGSR. J Nucl Med (1997) 38(12):1940–4.
153
FujitaMLeeBSKhazenzonNMPenichetMLWawrowskyKAPatilRet alBrain tumor tandem targeting using a combination of monoclonal antibodies attached to biopoly(beta-l-malic acid). J Control Release (2007) 122(3):356–63.10.1016/j.jconrel.2007.05.032
154
StelterLTsengJCTorosjanALevinBLongoVAPillarsettyNet alTumor-specific targeting with modified Sindbis viral vectors: evaluation with optical imaging and positron emission tomography in vivo. Mol Imaging Biol (2013) 15(2):166–74.10.1007/s11307-012-0585-8
155
DroujinineIAEckertMAZhaoW. To grab the stroma by the horns: from biology to cancer therapy with mesenchymal stem cells. Oncotarget (2013) 4(5):651–64.10.18632/oncotarget.1040
156
MadarSGoldsteinIRotterV. ‘Cancer associated fibroblasts’ – more than meets the eye. Trends Mol Med (2013) 19(8):447–53.10.1016/j.molmed.2013.05.004
157
XingFSaidouJWatabeK. Cancer associated fibroblasts (CAFs) in tumor microenvironment. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed) (2010) 15:166–79.10.2741/3613
158
ShigaKHaraMNagasakiTSatoTTakahashiHTakeyamaH. Cancer-associated fibroblasts: their characteristics and their roles in tumor growth. Cancers (Basel) (2015) 7(4):2443–58.10.3390/cancers7040902
159
GrivennikovSIGretenFRKarinM. Immunity, inflammation, and cancer. Cell (2010) 140(6):883–99.10.1016/j.cell.2010.01.025
160
PollardJW. Tumour-educated macrophages promote tumour progression and metastasis. Nat Rev Cancer (2004) 4(1):71–8.10.1038/nrc1256
161
CoussensLMZitvogelLPaluckaAK. Neutralizing tumor-promoting chronic inflammation: a magic bullet?Science (2013) 339(6117):286–91.10.1126/science.1232227
162
KiddSSpaethEDembinskiJLDietrichMWatsonKKloppAet alDirect evidence of mesenchymal stem cell tropism for tumor and wounding microenvironments using in vivo bioluminescent imaging. Stem Cells (2009) 27(10):2614–23.10.1002/stem.187
163
KloppAHSpaethELDembinskiJLWoodwardWAMunshiAMeynREet alTumor irradiation increases the recruitment of circulating mesenchymal stem cells into the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Res (2007) 67(24):11687–95.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-1406
164
CompteMCuestaAMSanchez-MartinDAlonso-CaminoVVicarioJLSanzLet alTumor immunotherapy using gene-modified human mesenchymal stem cells loaded into synthetic extracellular matrix scaffolds. Stem Cells (2009) 27(3):753–60.10.1634/stemcells.2008-0831
165
XiangJTangJSongCYangZHirstDGZhengQJet alMesenchymal stem cells as a gene therapy carrier for treatment of fibrosarcoma. Cytotherapy (2009) 11(5):516–26.10.1080/14653240902960429
166
KiddSCaldwellLDietrichMSamudioISpaethELWatsonKet alMesenchymal stromal cells alone or expressing interferon-beta suppress pancreatic tumors in vivo, an effect countered by anti-inflammatory treatment. Cytotherapy (2010) 12(5):615–25.10.3109/14653241003631815
167
DoucetteTRaoGYangYGuminJShinojimaNBekeleBNet alMesenchymal stem cells display tumor-specific tropism in an RCAS/Ntv-a glioma model. Neoplasia (2011) 13(8):716–25.10.1593/neo.101680
168
KeCCLiuRSSuetsuguAKimuraHHoJHLeeOKet alIn vivo fluorescence imaging reveals the promotion of mammary tumorigenesis by mesenchymal stromal cells. PLoS One (2013) 8(7):e69658.10.1371/journal.pone.0069658
169
WuXHuJZhouLMaoYYangBGaoLet alIn vivo tracking of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle-labeled mesenchymal stem cell tropism to malignant gliomas using magnetic resonance imaging. Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg (2008) 108(2):320–9.10.3171/JNS/2008/108/2/0320
170
HuangXZhangFWangHNiuGChoiKYSwierczewskaMet alMesenchymal stem cell-based cell engineering with multifunctional mesoporous silica nanoparticles for tumor delivery. Biomaterials (2013) 34(7):1772–80.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.11.032
171
Belmar-LopezCMendozaGObergDBurnetJSimonCCervelloIet alTissue-derived mesenchymal stromal cells used as vehicles for anti-tumor therapy exert different in vivo effects on migration capacity and tumor growth. BMC Med (2013) 11:139.10.1186/1741-7015-11-139
172
HungSCDengWPYangWKLiuRSLeeCCSuTCet alMesenchymal stem cell targeting of microscopic tumors and tumor stroma development monitored by noninvasive in vivo positron emission tomography imaging. Clin Cancer Res (2005) 11(21):7749–56.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0876
173
KnoopKKolokythasMKlutzKWillhauckMJWunderlichNDraganoviciDet alImage-guided, tumor stroma-targeted 131I therapy of hepatocellular cancer after systemic mesenchymal stem cell-mediated NIS gene delivery. Mol Ther (2011) 19(9):1704–13.10.1038/mt.2011.93
174
DwyerRMRyanJHavelinRJMorrisJCMillerBWLiuZet alMesenchymal stem cell-mediated delivery of the sodium iodide symporter supports radionuclide imaging and treatment of breast cancer. Stem Cells (2011) 29(7):1149–57.10.1002/stem.665
175
ShahK. Mesenchymal stem cells engineered for cancer therapy. Adv Drug Deliv Rev (2012) 64(8):739–48.10.1016/j.addr.2011.06.010
176
LoebingerMRKyrtatosPGTurmaineMPriceANPankhurstQLythgoeMFet alMagnetic resonance imaging of mesenchymal stem cells homing to pulmonary metastases using biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles. Cancer Res (2009) 69(23):8862–7.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-1912
177
SasportasLSKasmiehRWakimotoHHingtgenSvan de WaterJAMohapatraGet alAssessment of therapeutic efficacy and fate of engineered human mesenchymal stem cells for cancer therapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2009) 106(12):4822–7.10.1073/pnas.0806647106
178
UchiboriROkadaTItoTUrabeMMizukamiHKumeAet alRetroviral vector-producing mesenchymal stem cells for targeted suicide cancer gene therapy. J Gene Med (2009) 11(5):373–81.10.1002/jgm.1313
179
JiaXHDuYMaoDWangZLHeZQQiuJDet alZoledronic acid prevents the tumor-promoting effects of mesenchymal stem cells via MCP-1 dependent recruitment of macrophages. Oncotarget (2015) 6(28):26018–28.10.18632/oncotarget.4658
180
MeleshinaAVCherkasovaEIShirmanovaMVKlementievaNVKiselevaEVSnopovaLBet alInfluence of mesenchymal stem cells on metastasis development in mice in vivo. Stem Cell Res Ther (2015) 6:15.10.1186/s13287-015-0003-7
181
OzawaKSatoKOhIOzakiKUchiboriRObaraYet alCell and gene therapy using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). J Autoimmun (2008) 30(3):121–7.10.1016/j.jaut.2007.12.008
182
CaimiPFReeseJLeeZLazarusHM. Emerging therapeutic approaches for multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. Curr Opin Hematol (2010) 17(6):505–13.10.1097/MOH.0b013e32833e5b18
183
MaderEKMaeyamaYLinYButlerGWRussellHMGalanisEet alMesenchymal stem cell carriers protect oncolytic measles viruses from antibody neutralization in an orthotopic ovarian cancer therapy model. Clin Cancer Res (2009) 15(23):7246–55.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1292
184
CentenoCJSchultzJRCheeverMRobinsonBFreemanMMarascoW. Safety and complications reporting on the re-implantation of culture-expanded mesenchymal stem cells using autologous platelet lysate technique. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther (2010) 5(1):81–93.10.2174/157488810790442796
185
TolarJNautaAJOsbornMJPanoskaltsis MortariAMcElmurryRTBellSet alSarcoma derived from cultured mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cells (2007) 25(2):371–9.10.1634/stemcells.2005-0620
186
BoddingtonSESuttonEJHenningTDNedopilAJSenninoBKimAet alLabeling human mesenchymal stem cells with fluorescent contrast agents: the biological impact. Mol Imaging Biol (2011) 13(1):3–9.10.1007/s11307-010-0322-0
187
MyersJTPetrosiuteAHuangAY. Utilization of multiphoton imaging for real-time fate determination of mesenchymal stem cells in an immunocompetent mouse model. J Stem Cell Res Ther (2014) 4(7):1000217.10.4172/2157-7633.1000217
188
OrimoAWeinbergRA. Heterogeneity of stromal fibroblasts in tumors. Cancer Biol Ther (2007) 6(4):618–9.10.4161/cbt.6.4.4255
189
LiaoDLuoYMarkowitzDXiangRReisfeldRA. Cancer associated fibroblasts promote tumor growth and metastasis by modulating the tumor immune microenvironment in a 4T1 murine breast cancer model. PLoS One (2009) 4(11):e7965.10.1371/journal.pone.0007965
190
HanleyCJNobleFWardMBullockMDrifkaCMelloneMet alA subset of myofibroblastic cancer-associated fibroblasts regulate collagen fiber elongation, which is prognostic in multiple cancers. Oncotarget (2016) 7(5):6159–74.10.18632/oncotarget.6740
191
KoczorowskaMMTholenSBucherFLutzLKizhakkedathuJNDe WeverOet alFibroblast activation protein-alpha, a stromal cell surface protease, shapes key features of cancer associated fibroblasts through proteome and degradome alterations. Mol Oncol (2016) 10(1):40–58.10.1016/j.molonc.2015.08.001
192
BrennenWNIsaacsJTDenmeadeSR. Rationale behind targeting fibroblast activation protein-expressing carcinoma-associated fibroblasts as a novel chemotherapeutic strategy. Mol Cancer Ther (2012) 11(2):257–66.10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-11-0340
193
LiJChenKLiuHChengKYangMZhangJet alActivatable near-infrared fluorescent probe for in vivo imaging of fibroblast activation protein-alpha. Bioconjug Chem (2012) 23(8):1704–11.10.1021/bc300278r
194
RugerRTansiFLRabenholdMSteinigerFKontermannREFahrAet alIn vivo near-infrared fluorescence imaging of FAP-expressing tumors with activatable FAP-targeted, single-chain Fv-immunoliposomes. J Control Release (2014) 186:1–10.10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.04.050
195
GranotDAddadiYKalchenkoVHarmelinAKunz-SchughartLANeemanM. In vivo imaging of the systemic recruitment of fibroblasts to the angiogenic rim of ovarian carcinoma tumors. Cancer Res (2007) 67(19):9180–9.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-0684
196
GranotDKunz-SchughartLANeemanM. Labeling fibroblasts with biotin-BSA-GdDTPA-FAM for tracking of tumor-associated stroma by fluorescence and MR imaging. Magn Reson Med (2005) 54(4):789–97.10.1002/mrm.20628
197
LoAWangLCSchollerJMonslowJAveryDNewickKet alTumor-promoting desmoplasia is disrupted by depleting FAP-expressing stromal cells. Cancer Res (2015) 75(14):2800–10.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-3041
198
JuergensRAZukotynskiKASingnurkarASniderDPValliantJFGulenchynKY. Imaging biomarkers in immunotherapy. Biomark Cancer (2016) 8(Suppl 2):1–13.10.4137/BIC.S31805
199
FreiseACWuAM. In vivo imaging with antibodies and engineered fragments. Mol Immunol (2015) 67(2 Pt A):142–52.10.1016/j.molimm.2015.04.001
200
WeisslederRNahrendorfMPittetMJ. Imaging macrophages with nanoparticles. Nat Mater (2014) 13(2):125–38.10.1038/nmat3780
201
MalviyaGGalliFSonniISignoreA. Imaging T-lymphocytes in inflammatory diseases: a nuclear medicine approach. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2014) 58(3):237–57.
202
AarntzenEHSrinivasMRaduCGPuntCJBoermanOCFigdorCGet alIn vivo imaging of therapy-induced anti-cancer immune responses in humans. Cell Mol Life Sci (2013) 70(13):2237–57.10.1007/s00018-012-1159-2
203
OttobriniLMartelliCTrabattoniDLClericiMLucignaniG. In vivo imaging of immune cell trafficking in cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2011) 38(5):949–68.10.1007/s00259-010-1687-7
204
DubeyP. Reporter gene imaging of immune responses to cancer: progress and challenges. Theranostics (2012) 2(4):355–62.10.7150/thno.3903
205
SinghASRaduCGRibasA. PET imaging of the immune system: immune monitoring at the whole body level. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2010) 54(3):281–90.
206
JhaPGolovkoDBainsSHostetterDMeierRWendlandMFet alMonitoring of natural killer cell immunotherapy using noninvasive imaging modalities. Cancer Res (2010) 70(15):6109–13.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-3774
207
LohelaMWerbZ. Intravital imaging of stromal cell dynamics in tumors. Curr Opin Genet Dev (2010) 20(1):72–8.10.1016/j.gde.2009.10.011
208
ZalTChodaczekG. Intravital imaging of anti-tumor immune response and the tumor microenvironment. Semin Immunopathol (2010) 32(3):305–17.10.1007/s00281-010-0217-9
209
SrinivasMAarntzenEHBulteJWOyenWJHeerschapAde VriesIJet alImaging of cellular therapies. Adv Drug Deliv Rev (2010) 62(11):1080–93.10.1016/j.addr.2010.08.009
210
ArmulikAAbramssonABetsholtzC. Endothelial/pericyte interactions. Circ Res (2005) 97(6):512–23.10.1161/01.RES.0000182903.16652.d7
211
KohlhappFJMitraAKLengyelEPeterME. MicroRNAs as mediators and communicators between cancer cells and the tumor microenvironment. Oncogene (2015) 34(48):5857–68.10.1038/onc.2015.89
212
ArmulikAGenoveGBetsholtzC. Pericytes: developmental, physiological, and pathological perspectives, problems, and promises. Dev Cell (2011) 21(2):193–215.10.1016/j.devcel.2011.07.001
213
CasazzaADi ConzaGWenesMFinisguerraVDeschoemaekerSMazzoneM. Tumor stroma: a complexity dictated by the hypoxic tumor microenvironment. Oncogene (2014) 33(14):1743–54.10.1038/onc.2013.121
214
VarlottoJStevensonMA. Anemia, tumor hypoxemia, and the cancer patient. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2005) 63(1):25–36.10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.04.049
215
VaupelPMayerA. Hypoxia in cancer: significance and impact on clinical outcome. Cancer Metastasis Rev (2007) 26(2):225–39.10.1007/s10555-007-9055-1
216
RafatMAliRGravesEE. Imaging radiation response in tumor and normal tissue. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2015) 5(4):317–32.
217
de LangenAJvan den BoogaartVEMarcusJTLubberinkM. Use of H2(15)O-PET and DCE-MRI to measure tumor blood flow. Oncologist (2008) 13(6):631–44.10.1634/theoncologist.2007-0235
218
WillatsLCalamanteF. The 39 steps: evading error and deciphering the secrets for accurate dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. NMR Biomed (2013) 26(8):913–31.10.1002/nbm.2833
219
LovelessMEHallidayJLiessCXuLDortchRDWhisenantJet alA quantitative comparison of the influence of individual versus population-derived vascular input functions on dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI in small animals. Magn Reson Med (2012) 67(1):226–36.10.1002/mrm.22988
220
BarnesSLWhisenantJGLovelessMEYankeelovTE. Practical dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in small animal models of cancer: data acquisition, data analysis, and interpretation. Pharmaceutics (2012) 4(3):442–78.10.3390/pharmaceutics4030442
221
KohTSBisdasSKohDMThngCH. Fundamentals of tracer kinetics for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging (2011) 34(6):1262–76.10.1002/jmri.22795
222
CalamanteF. Perfusion MRI using dynamic-susceptibility contrast MRI: quantification issues in patient studies. Top Magn Reson Imaging (2010) 21(2):75–85.10.1097/RMR.0b013e31821e53f5
223
BarrettTBrechbielMBernardoMChoykePL. MRI of tumor angiogenesis. J Magn Reson Imaging (2007) 26(2):235–49.10.1002/jmri.20991
224
Le BihanDPouponCAmadonALethimonnierF. Artifacts and pitfalls in diffusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging (2006) 24(3):478–88.10.1002/jmri.20683
225
BarrettTKobayashiHBrechbielMChoykePL. Macromolecular MRI contrast agents for imaging tumor angiogenesis. Eur J Radiol (2006) 60(3):353–66.10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.06.025
226
NeemanMGiladAADafniHCohenB. Molecular imaging of angiogenesis. J Magn Reson Imaging (2007) 25(1):1–12.10.1002/jmri.20774
227
KidwellCSHsiaAW. Imaging of the brain and cerebral vasculature in patients with suspected stroke: advantages and disadvantages of CT and MRI. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep (2006) 6(1):9–16.10.1007/s11910-996-0003-1
228
van ElmptWDasMHullnerMSharifiHZegersCMReymenBet alCharacterization of tumor heterogeneity using dynamic contrast enhanced CT and FDG-PET in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol (2013) 109(1):65–70.10.1016/j.radonc.2013.08.032
229
CyranCCPaprottkaPMEisenblatterMClevertDARistCNikolaouKet alVisualization, imaging and new preclinical diagnostics in radiation oncology. Radiat Oncol (2014) 9:3.10.1186/1748-717X-9-3
230
ChenMWangWPJiaWRTangLWangYZhanWWet alThree-dimensional contrast-enhanced sonography in the assessment of breast tumor angiogenesis: correlation with microvessel density and vascular endothelial growth factor expression. J Ultrasound Med (2014) 33(5):835–46.10.7863/ultra.33.5.835
231
KoehlGEGaumannAGeisslerEK. Intravital microscopy of tumor angiogenesis and regression in the dorsal skin fold chamber: mechanistic insights and preclinical testing of therapeutic strategies. Clin Exp Metastasis (2009) 26(4):329–44.10.1007/s10585-008-9234-7
232
DetreJAZhangWRobertsDASilvaACWilliamsDSGrandisDJet alTissue specific perfusion imaging using arterial spin labeling. NMR Biomed (1994) 7(1–2):75–82.10.1002/nbm.1940070112
233
Le BihanDBretonELallemandDAubinMLVignaudJLaval-JeantetM. Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology (1988) 168(2):497–505.10.1148/radiology.168.2.3393671
234
Garcia-FigueirasRPadhaniARBaleato-GonzalezS. Therapy monitoring with functional and molecular MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am (2016) 24(1):261–88.10.1016/j.mric.2015.08.003
235
IngrischMSourbronS. Tracer-kinetic modeling of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and CT: a primer. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn (2013) 40(3):281–300.10.1007/s10928-013-9315-3
236
PathakAPGimiBGlundeKAckerstaffEArtemovDBhujwallaZM. Molecular and functional imaging of cancer: advances in MRI and MRS. Methods Enzymol (2004) 386:3–60.10.1016/S0076-6879(04)86001-4
237
YangMLiLJiangPMoossaARPenmanSHoffmanRM. Dual-color fluorescence imaging distinguishes tumor cells from induced host angiogenic vessels and stromal cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2003) 100(24):14259–62.10.1073/pnas.2436101100
238
GeraldesCFLaurentS. Classification and basic properties of contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. Contrast Media Mol Imaging (2009) 4(1):1–23.10.1002/cmmi.265
239
LeachMOBrindleKMEvelhochJLGriffithsJRHorsmanMRJacksonAet alThe assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br J Cancer (2005) 92(9):1599–610.10.1038/sj.bjc.6602550
240
BradleyDPTessierJJAshtonSEWatertonJCWilsonZWorthingtonPLet alCorrelation of MRI biomarkers with tumor necrosis in Hras5 tumor xenograft in athymic rats. Neoplasia (2007) 9(5):382–91.10.1593/neo.07145
241
HsuYHFerlGZNgCM. GPU-accelerated nonparametric kinetic analysis of DCE-MRI data from glioblastoma patients treated with bevacizumab. Magn Reson Imaging (2013) 31(4):618–23.10.1016/j.mri.2012.09.007
242
BrixGLuchtRGriebelJ. Tracer kinetic analysis of signal time series from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Biomed Tech (Berl) (2006) 51(5–6):325–30.10.1515/BMT.2006.065
243
SourbronSPBuckleyDL. Tracer kinetic modelling in MRI: estimating perfusion and capillary permeability. Phys Med Biol (2012) 57(2):R1–33.10.1088/0031-9155/57/2/R1
244
SourbronSPBuckleyDL. Classic models for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. NMR Biomed (2013) 26(8):1004–27.10.1002/nbm.2940
245
O’ConnorJPRoseCJWatertonJCCaranoRAParkerGJJacksonA. Imaging intratumor heterogeneity: role in therapy response, resistance, and clinical outcome. Clin Cancer Res (2015) 21(2):249–57.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0990
246
StoyanovaRHuangKSandlerKChoHCarlinSZanzonicoPBet alMapping tumor hypoxia in vivo using pattern recognition of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data. Transl Oncol (2012) 5(6):437–47.10.1593/tlo.12319
247
FritzVNoelDBouquetCOpolonPVoideRApparaillyFet alAntitumoral activity and osteogenic potential of mesenchymal stem cells expressing the urokinase-type plasminogen antagonist amino-terminal fragment in a murine model of osteolytic tumor. Stem Cells (2008) 26(11):2981–90.10.1634/stemcells.2008-0139
248
KoyasuSTsujiYHaradaHNakamotoYNobashiTKimuraHet alEvaluation of tumor-associated stroma and its relationship with tumor hypoxia using dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and 18F misonidazole PET in murine tumor models. Radiology (2015) 278(3):734–41.10.1148/radiol.2015150416
249
ManciniMGrecoASalvatoreGLiuzziRDi MaroGVergaraEet alImaging of thyroid tumor angiogenesis with microbubbles targeted to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor type 2 in mice. BMC Med Imaging (2013) 13:31.10.1186/1471-2342-13-31
250
YousefiSZhiZWangRK. Label-free optical imaging of lymphatic vessels within tissue beds. IEEE J Sel Top Quantum Electron (2014) 20(2):6800510.10.1109/JSTQE.2013.2278073
251
MumprechtVHonerMViglBProulxSTTrachselEKasparMet alIn vivo imaging of inflammation- and tumor-induced lymph node lymphangiogenesis by immuno-positron emission tomography. Cancer Res (2010) 70(21):8842–51.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-0896
252
BhangSHWonNLeeTJJinHNamJParkJet alHyaluronic acid-quantum dot conjugates for in vivo lymphatic vessel imaging. ACS Nano (2009) 3(6):1389–98.10.1021/nn900138d
253
PodoFCanevariSCaneseRPisanuMERicciAIorioE. MR evaluation of response to targeted treatment in cancer cells. NMR Biomed (2011) 24(6):648–72.10.1002/nbm.1658
254
ChallapalliAAboagyeEO. Positron emission tomography imaging of tumor cell metabolism and application to therapy response monitoring. Front Oncol (2016) 6:44.10.3389/fonc.2016.00044
255
CuccurulloVDi StasioGDEvangelistaLCastoriaGMansiL. Biochemical and pathophysiological premises to positron emission tomography with choline radiotracers. J Cell Physiol (2017) 232(2):270–5.10.1002/jcp.25478
256
HaberkornUMarkertAMierWAskoxylakisVAltmannA. Molecular imaging of tumor metabolism and apoptosis. Oncogene (2011) 30(40):4141–51.10.1038/onc.2011.169
257
ZhuAMarcusDMShuHKShimH. Application of metabolic PET imaging in radiation oncology. Radiat Res (2012) 177(4):436–48.10.1667/RR2702.1
258
LjungkvistASBussinkJKaandersJHvan der KogelAJ. Dynamics of tumor hypoxia measured with bioreductive hypoxic cell markers. Radiat Res (2007) 167(2):127–45.10.1667/RR0719.1
259
RobinsonSPGriffithsJR. Current issues in the utility of 19F nuclear magnetic resonance methodologies for the assessment of tumour hypoxia. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci (2004) 359(1446):987–96.10.1098/rstb.2003.1376
260
TatumJLKelloffGJGilliesRJArbeitJMBrownJMChaoKSet alHypoxia: importance in tumor biology, noninvasive measurement by imaging, and value of its measurement in the management of cancer therapy. Int J Radiat Biol (2006) 82(10):699–757.10.1080/09553000601002324
261
ThorwarthDEschmannSMPaulsenFAlberM. A kinetic model for dynamic [18F]-Fmiso PET data to analyse tumour hypoxia. Phys Med Biol (2005) 50(10):2209–24.10.1088/0031-9155/50/10/002
262
ZanzonicoPO’DonoghueJChapmanJDSchneiderRCaiSLarsonSet alIodine-124-labeled iodo-azomycin-galactoside imaging of tumor hypoxia in mice with serial microPET scanning. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2004) 31(1):117–28.10.1007/s00259-003-1322-y
263
RajendranJGKrohnKA. F-18 fluoromisonidazole for imaging tumor hypoxia: imaging the microenvironment for personalized cancer therapy. Semin Nucl Med (2015) 45(2):151–62.10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2014.10.006
264
AckerstaffESuehiroMKruchevskyNCarlinSRosenfeldEHBurgmanPet al, editors. Trifluoromisonidazole detects hypoxia – an in vivo and in vitro multimodality study. ISMRM 19th Annual Meeting & Exhibition. Montreal, Canada (2011).
265
SerganovaIHummJLingCBlasbergR. Tumor hypoxia imaging. Clin Cancer Res (2006) 12(18):5260–4.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0517
266
PenetMFKrishnamacharyBChenZJinJBhujwallaZM. Molecular imaging of the tumor microenvironment for precision medicine and theranostics. Adv Cancer Res (2014) 124:235–56.10.1016/B978-0-12-411638-2.00007-0
267
GulliksrudKVestvikIKGalappathiKMathiesenBRofstadEK. Detection of different hypoxic cell subpopulations in human melanoma xenografts by pimonidazole immunohistochemistry. Radiat Res (2008) 170(5):638–50.10.1667/RR1400.1
268
WhiteDAZhangZLiLGerberichJStojadinovicSPeschkePet alDeveloping oxygen-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a prognostic biomarker of radiation response. Cancer Lett (2016) 380(1):69–77.10.1016/j.canlet.2016.06.003
269
ZhaoDPacheco-TorresJHallacRRWhiteDPeschkePCerdanSet alDynamic oxygen challenge evaluated by NMR T1 and T2* – insights into tumor oxygenation. NMR Biomed (2015) 28(8):937–47.10.1002/nbm.3325
270
HallacRRZhouHPidikitiRSongKStojadinovicSZhaoDet alCorrelations of noninvasive BOLD and TOLD MRI with pO2 and relevance to tumor radiation response. Magn Reson Med (2014) 71(5):1863–73.10.1002/mrm.24846
271
MasonRPZhaoDPacheco-TorresJCuiWKodibagkarVDGulakaPKet alMultimodality imaging of hypoxia in preclinical settings. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2010) 54(3):259–80.
272
LauJZhangZJenniSKuoHTLiuZVulloDet alPET imaging of carbonic anhydrase IX expression of HT-29 tumor xenograft mice with (68)Ga-labeled benzenesulfonamides. Mol Pharm (2016) 13(3):1137–46.10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.5b00934
273
LvPCRoyJPuttKSLowPS. Evaluation of a carbonic anhydrase IX-targeted near-infrared dye for fluorescence-guided surgery of hypoxic tumors. Mol Pharm (2016) 13(5):1618–25.10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00065
274
LvPCPuttKSLowPS. Evaluation of nonpeptidic ligand conjugates for SPECT imaging of hypoxic and carbonic anhydrase IX-expressing cancers. Bioconjug Chem (2016) 27(7):1762–9.10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.6b00271
275
Di GialleonardoVWilsonDMKeshariKR. The potential of metabolic imaging. Semin Nucl Med (2016) 46(1):28–39.10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2015.09.004
276
GlundeKBhujwallaZM. Metabolic tumor imaging using magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Semin Oncol (2011) 38(1):26–41.10.1053/j.seminoncol.2010.11.001
277
ValetteJTiretBBoumezbeurF. Experimental strategies for in vivo13C NMR spectroscopy. Anal Biochem (2016).10.1016/j.ab.2016.08.003
278
DafniHRonenSM. Dynamic nuclear polarization in metabolic imaging of metastasis: common sense, hypersense and compressed sensing. Cancer Biomark (2010) 7(4):189–99.10.3233/CBM-2010-0185
279
ChenAPTroppJHurdREVan CriekingeMCarvajalLGXuDet alIn vivo hyperpolarized 13C MR spectroscopic imaging with 1H decoupling. J Magn Reson (2009) 197(1):100–6.10.1016/j.jmr.2008.12.004
280
HuSLustigMBalakrishnanALarsonPEBokRKurhanewiczJet al3D compressed sensing for highly accelerated hyperpolarized (13)C MRSI with in vivo applications to transgenic mouse models of cancer. Magn Reson Med (2010) 63(2):312–21.10.1002/mrm.22233
281
HeQXuRZShkarinPPizzornoGLee-FrenchCHRothmanDLet alMagnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging of tumor metabolic markers for cancer diagnosis, metabolic phenotyping, and characterization of tumor microenvironment. Dis Markers (2003) 19(2–3):69–94.10.1155/2004/424395
282
HetheringtonHPAvisonMJShulmanRG. 1H homonuclear editing of rat brain using semiselective pulses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (1985) 82(10):3115–8.10.1073/pnas.82.10.3115
283
LeeSCHuangMQNelsonDSPickupSWehrliSAdegbolaOet alIn vivo MRS markers of response to CHOP chemotherapy in the WSU-DLCL2 human diffuse large B-cell lymphoma xenograft. NMR Biomed (2008) 21(7):723–33.10.1002/nbm.1250
284
LeeSCPoptaniHPickupSJenkinsWTKimSKochCJet alEarly detection of radiation therapy response in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma xenografts by in vivo1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy and imaging. NMR Biomed (2010) 23(6):624–32.10.1002/nbm.1505
285
MuruganandhamMKoutcherJAPizzornoGHeQ. In vivo tumor lactate relaxation measurements by selective multiple-quantum-coherence (Sel-MQC) transfer. Magn Reson Med (2004) 52(4):902–6.10.1002/mrm.20206
286
Del VecchioSZannettiAIommelliFLettieriABrunettiASalvatoreM. Molecular imaging of tumor microenvironment: challenges and perspectives. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2010) 54(3):249–58.
287
GilliesRJLiuZBhujwallaZ. 31P-MRS measurements of extracellular pH of tumors using 3-aminopropylphosphonate. Am J Physiol (1994) 267(1 Pt 1):C195–203.
288
RaghunandN. Tissue pH measurement by magnetic resonance spectroscopy and imaging. Methods Mol Med (2006) 124:347–64.10.1385/1-59745-010-3:347
289
van SluisRBhujwallaZMRaghunandNBallesterosPAlvarezJCerdanSet alIn vivo imaging of extracellular pH using 1H MRSI. Magn Reson Med (1999) 41(4):743–50.10.1002/(SICI)1522-2594(199904)41:4<743::AID-MRM13>3.3.CO;2-Q
290
ProventPBenitoMHibaBFarionRLopez-LarrubiaPBallesterosPet alSerial in vivo spectroscopic nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of lactate and extracellular pH in rat gliomas shows redistribution of protons away from sites of glycolysis. Cancer Res (2007) 67(16):7638–45.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-3459
291
Perez-MayoralENegriVSoler-PadrosJCerdanSBallesterosP. Chemistry of paramagnetic and diamagnetic contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy pH responsive contrast agents. Eur J Radiol (2008) 67(3):453–8.10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.02.048
292
GallagherFAKettunenMIBrindleKM. Imaging pH with hyperpolarized 13C. NMR Biomed (2011) 24(8):1006–15.10.1002/nbm.1742
293
GallagherFAKettunenMIDaySEHuDEArdenkjaer-LarsenJHZandtRet alMagnetic resonance imaging of pH in vivo using hyperpolarized 13C-labelled bicarbonate. Nature (2008) 453(7197):940–3.10.1038/nature07017
294
GallagherFASladenHKettunenMISerraoEMRodriguesTBWrightAet alCarbonic anhydrase activity monitored in vivo by hyperpolarized 13C-magnetic resonance spectroscopy demonstrates its importance for pH regulation in tumors. Cancer Res (2015) 75(19):4109–18.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-0857
295
MoonBFJonesKMChenLQLiuPRandtkeEAHowisonCMet alA comparison of iopromide and iopamidol, two acidoCEST MRI contrast media that measure tumor extracellular pH. Contrast Media Mol Imaging (2015) 10(6):446–55.10.1002/cmmi.1647
296
ChenLQRandtkeEAJonesKMMoonBFHowisonCMPagelMD. Evaluations of tumor acidosis within in vivo tumor models using parametric maps generated with acido CEST MRI. Mol Imaging Biol (2015) 17(4):488–96.10.1007/s11307-014-0816-2
297
RandtkeEAGranadosJCHowisonCMPagelMDCardenas-RodriguezJ. Multislice CEST MRI improves the spatial assessment of tumor pH. Magn Reson Med (2016).10.1002/mrm.26348
298
VavereALBiddlecombeGBSpeesWMGarbowJRWijesingheDAndreevOAet alA novel technology for the imaging of acidic prostate tumors by positron emission tomography. Cancer Res (2009) 69(10):4510–6.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-3781
299
DemoinDWWyattLCEdwardsKJAbdel-AttiDSarparantaMPouratJet alPET imaging of extracellular pH in tumors with (64)Cu- and (18)F-labeled pHLIP peptides: a structure-activity optimization study. Bioconjug Chem (2016) 27(9):2014–23.10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.6b00306
300
Viola-VillegasNTCarlinSDAckerstaffESevakKKDivilovVSerganovaIet alUnderstanding the pharmacological properties of a metabolic PET tracer in prostate cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2014) 111(20):7254–9.10.1073/pnas.1405240111
301
MachollSMorrisonMSIvesonPArboBEAndreevOAReshetnyakYKet alIn vivo pH imaging with (99m)Tc-pHLIP. Mol Imaging Biol (2012) 14(6):725–34.10.1007/s11307-012-0549-z
302
MartinGRJainRK. Noninvasive measurement of interstitial pH profiles in normal and neoplastic tissue using fluorescence ratio imaging microscopy. Cancer Res (1994) 54(21):5670–4.
303
SchremlSMeierRJWolfbeisOSLandthalerMSzeimiesRMBabilasP. 2D luminescence imaging of pH in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2011) 108(6):2432–7.10.1073/pnas.1006945108
304
WangLFanZZhangJChangyiYHuangCGuYet alEvaluating tumor metastatic potential by imaging intratumoral acidosis via pH-activatable near-infrared fluorescent probe. Int J Cancer (2015) 136(4):E107–16.10.1002/ijc.29153
305
ShirmanovaMVDruzhkovaINLukinaMMMatlashovMEBelousovVVSnopovaLBet alIntracellular pH imaging in cancer cells in vitro and tumors in vivo using the new genetically encoded sensor SypHer2. Biochim Biophys Acta (2015) 1850(9):1905–11.10.1016/j.bbagen.2015.05.001
306
ChenQLiuXChenJZengJChengZLiuZ. A self-assembled albumin-based nanoprobe for in vivo ratiometric photoacoustic pH imaging. Adv Mater (2015) 27(43):6820–7.10.1002/adma.201503194
307
SongJKimJHwangSJeonMJeongSKimCet al“Smart” gold nanoparticles for photoacoustic imaging: an imaging contrast agent responsive to the cancer microenvironment and signal amplification via pH-induced aggregation. Chem Commun (Camb) (2016) 52(53):8287–90.10.1039/c6cc03100e
308
KhramtsovVVGrigor’evIAFosterMALurieDJNicholsonI. Biological applications of spin pH probes. Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand) (2000) 46(8):1361–74.
309
SamouilovAEfimovaOVBobkoAASunZPetryakovSEubankTDet alIn vivo proton-electron double-resonance imaging of extracellular tumor pH using an advanced nitroxide probe. Anal Chem (2014) 86(2):1045–52.10.1021/ac402230h
310
ChenYAiKLiuJSunGYinQLuL. Multifunctional envelope-type mesoporous silica nanoparticles for pH-responsive drug delivery and magnetic resonance imaging. Biomaterials (2015) 60:111–20.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.05.003
311
ZhangSQianXZhangLPengWChenY. Composition-property relationships in multifunctional hollow mesoporous carbon nanosystems for pH-responsive magnetic resonance imaging and on-demand drug release. Nanoscale (2015) 7(17):7632–43.10.1039/c5nr00451a
312
MinKHMinHSLeeHJParkDJYheeJYKimKet alpH-controlled gas-generating mineralized nanoparticles: a theranostic agent for ultrasound imaging and therapy of cancers. ACS Nano (2015) 9(1):134–45.10.1021/nn506210a
313
LvRYangPHeFGaiSYangGDaiYet alAn imaging-guided platform for synergistic photodynamic/photothermal/chemo-therapy with pH/temperature-responsive drug release. Biomaterials (2015) 63:115–27.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.05.016
314
YuQLiuYCaoCLeFQinXSunDet alThe use of pH-sensitive functional selenium nanoparticles shows enhanced in vivo VEGF-siRNA silencing and fluorescence imaging. Nanoscale (2014) 6(15):9279–92.10.1039/c4nr02423k
315
BougnaudSGolebiewskaAOudinAKeunenOHarterPNMaderLet alMolecular crosstalk between tumour and brain parenchyma instructs histopathological features in glioblastoma. Oncotarget (2016) 7(22):31955–71.10.18632/oncotarget.7454
316
UngefrorenHSebensSSeidlDLehnertHHassR. Interaction of tumor cells with the microenvironment. Cell Commun Signal (2011) 9:18.10.1186/1478-811X-9-18
317
LangleyRRFidlerIJ. The seed and soil hypothesis revisited – the role of tumor-stroma interactions in metastasis to different organs. Int J Cancer (2011) 128(11):2527–35.10.1002/ijc.26031
318
WitzIP. Tumor-microenvironment interactions: dangerous liaisons. Adv Cancer Res (2008) 100:203–29.10.1016/S0065-230X(08)00007-9
319
PietrasKOstmanA. Hallmarks of cancer: interactions with the tumor stroma. Exp Cell Res (2010) 316(8):1324–31.10.1016/j.yexcr.2010.02.045
320
McMillinDWNegriJMMitsiadesCS. The role of tumour-stromal interactions in modifying drug response: challenges and opportunities. Nat Rev Drug Discov (2013) 12(3):217–28.10.1038/nrd3870
321
BhowmickNAMosesHL. Tumor-stroma interactions. Curr Opin Genet Dev (2005) 15(1):97–101.10.1016/j.gde.2004.12.003
322
BrunoSCollinoFIavelloACamussiG. Effects of mesenchymal stromal cell-derived extracellular vesicles on tumor growth. Front Immunol (2014) 5:382.10.3389/fimmu.2014.00382
323
LeeJCondelloSYakubovBEmersonRCaperell-GrantAHitomiKet alTissue transglutaminase mediated tumor-stroma interaction promotes pancreatic cancer progression. Clin Cancer Res (2015) 21(19):4482–93.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0226
324
GangadharaSBarrett-LeePNicholsonRIHiscoxS. Pro-metastatic tumor-stroma interactions in breast cancer. Future Oncol (2012) 8(11):1427–42.10.2217/fon.12.134
325
LugaVWranaJL. Tumor-stroma interaction: revealing fibroblast-secreted exosomes as potent regulators of Wnt-planar cell polarity signaling in cancer metastasis. Cancer Res (2013) 73(23):6843–7.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-1791
326
ZhaoHYangLBaddourJAchrejaABernardVMossTet alTumor microenvironment derived exosomes pleiotropically modulate cancer cell metabolism. Elife (2016) 5:e10250.10.7554/eLife.10250
327
HoltonSEBergamaschiAKatzenellenbogenBSBhargavaR. Integration of molecular profiling and chemical imaging to elucidate fibroblast-microenvironment impact on cancer cell phenotype and endocrine resistance in breast cancer. PLoS One (2014) 9(5):e96878.10.1371/journal.pone.0096878
328
AckerstaffEArtemovDGilliesRJBhujwallaZM. Hypoxia and the presence of human vascular endothelial cells affect prostate cancer cell invasion and metabolism. Neoplasia (2007) 9(12):1138–51.10.1593/neo.07568
329
GilliesRJGalonsJPMcGovernKASchererPGLienYHJobCet alDesign and application of NMR-compatible bioreactor circuits for extended perfusion of high-density mammalian cell cultures. NMR Biomed (1993) 6(1):95–104.10.1002/nbm.1940060115
330
PengXRecchiaFAByrneBJWittsteinISZiegelsteinRCKassDA. In vitro system to study realistic pulsatile flow and stretch signaling in cultured vascular cells. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol (2000) 279(3):C797–805.
331
Casbas-HernandezPFlemingJMTroesterMA. Gene expression analysis of in vitro cocultures to study interactions between breast epithelium and stroma. J Biomed Biotechnol (2011) 2011:520987.10.1155/2011/520987
332
AngelucciCMaulucciGLamaGProiettiGColabianchiAPapiMet alEpithelial-stromal interactions in human breast cancer: effects on adhesion, plasma membrane fluidity and migration speed and directness. PLoS One (2012) 7(12):e50804.10.1371/journal.pone.0050804
333
LiHZhangJChenSWLiuLLLiLGaoFet alCancer-associated fibroblasts provide a suitable microenvironment for tumor development and progression in oral tongue squamous cancer. J Transl Med (2015) 13:198.10.1186/s12967-015-0551-8
334
IcardPKafaraPSteyaertJMSchwartzLLincetH. The metabolic cooperation between cells in solid cancer tumors. Biochim Biophys Acta (2014) 1846(1):216–25.10.1016/j.bbcan.2014.06.002
335
HagemannTRobinsonSCSchulzMTrumperLBalkwillFRBinderC. Enhanced invasiveness of breast cancer cell lines upon co-cultivation with macrophages is due to TNF-alpha dependent up-regulation of matrix metalloproteases. Carcinogenesis (2004) 25(8):1543–9.10.1093/carcin/bgh146
336
GiatromanolakiAKoukourakisMIKoutsopoulosAMendrinosSSivridisE. The metabolic interactions between tumor cells and tumor-associated stroma (TAS) in prostatic cancer. Cancer Biol Ther (2012) 13(13):1284–9.10.4161/cbt.21785
337
MorandiAChiarugiP. Metabolic implication of tumor:stroma crosstalk in breast cancer. J Mol Med (Berl) (2014) 92(2):117–26.10.1007/s00109-014-1124-7
338
ChoiJKimDHJungWHKooJS. Metabolic interaction between cancer cells and stromal cells according to breast cancer molecular subtype. Breast Cancer Res (2013) 15(5):R78.10.1186/bcr3472
339
GuldnerIHZhangS. A journey to uncharted territory: new technical frontiers in studying tumor-stromal cell interactions. Integr Biol (Camb) (2015) 7(2):153–61.10.1039/c4ib00192c
340
WidderMLutzkendorfJCaysaHUnverzagtSWickenhauserCBenndorfRAet alMultipotent mesenchymal stromal cells promote tumor growth in distinct colorectal cancer cells by a beta1-integrin-dependent mechanism. Int J Cancer (2015) 138(4):964–75.10.1002/ijc.29844
341
OrimoAGuptaPBSgroiDCArenzana-SeisdedosFDelaunayTNaeemRet alStromal fibroblasts present in invasive human breast carcinomas promote tumor growth and angiogenesis through elevated SDF-1/CXCL12 secretion. Cell (2005) 121(3):335–48.10.1016/j.cell.2005.02.034
342
OlumiAFGrossfeldGDHaywardSWCarrollPRTlstyTDCunhaGR. Carcinoma-associated fibroblasts direct tumor progression of initiated human prostatic epithelium. Cancer Res (1999) 59(19):5002–11.10.1371/journal.pone.0068923
343
SubramaniamKSOmarISKwongSCMohamedZWooYLMat AdenanNAet alCancer-associated fibroblasts promote endometrial cancer growth via activation of interleukin-6/STAT-3/c-Myc pathway. Am J Cancer Res (2016) 6(2):200–13.
344
DomanskaUMTimmer-BosschaHNagengastWBOude MunninkTHKruizingaRCAnaniasHJet alCXCR4 inhibition with AMD3100 sensitizes prostate cancer to docetaxel chemotherapy. Neoplasia (2012) 14(8):709–18.10.1593/neo.12324
345
McMillinDWDelmoreJWeisbergENegriJMGeerDCKlippelSet alTumor cell-specific bioluminescence platform to identify stroma-induced changes to anticancer drug activity. Nat Med (2010) 16(4):483–9.10.1038/nm.2112
346
SebensSSchaferH. The tumor stroma as mediator of drug resistance – a potential target to improve cancer therapy?Curr Pharm Biotechnol (2012) 13(11):2259–72.10.2174/138920112802501999
347
MaedaAKulbatskiIDaCostaRS. Emerging applications for optically enabled intravital microscopic imaging in radiobiology. Mol Imaging (2015) 14(9):452–74.
348
HoffmanRM. Imaging tumor angiogenesis with fluorescent proteins. APMIS (2004) 112(7–8):441–9.10.1111/j.1600-0463.2004.apm11207-0806.x
349
YangMJiangPHoffmanRM. Whole-body subcellular multicolor imaging of tumor-host interaction and drug response in real time. Cancer Res (2007) 67(11):5195–200.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-4590
350
WyckoffJWangWLinEYWangYPixleyFStanleyERet alA paracrine loop between tumor cells and macrophages is required for tumor cell migration in mammary tumors. Cancer Res (2004) 64(19):7022–9.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-1449
351
DovasAPatsialouAHarneyASCondeelisJCoxD. Imaging interactions between macrophages and tumour cells that are involved in metastasis in vivo and in vitro. J Microsc (2013) 251(3):261–9.10.1111/j.1365-2818.2012.03667.x
352
PerentesJYMcKeeTDLeyCDMathiewHDawsonMPaderaTPet alIn vivo imaging of extracellular matrix remodeling by tumor-associated fibroblasts. Nat Methods (2009) 6(2):143–5.10.1038/nmeth.1295
353
NakasoneESAskautrudHAKeesTParkJHPlaksVEwaldAJet alImaging tumor-stroma interactions during chemotherapy reveals contributions of the microenvironment to resistance. Cancer Cell (2012) 21(4):488–503.10.1016/j.ccr.2012.02.017
354
NakasoneESAskautrudHAEgebladM. Live imaging of drug responses in the tumor microenvironment in mouse models of breast cancer. J Vis Exp (2013) 73:e50088.10.3791/50088
355
EwaldAJWerbZEgebladM. Dynamic, long-term in vivo imaging of tumor-stroma interactions in mouse models of breast cancer using spinning-disk confocal microscopy. Cold Spring Harb Protoc (2011) 2011(2):db.to97.10.1101/pdb.top97
356
CherrySR. The 2006 Henry N. Wagner lecture: of mice and men (and positrons) – advances in PET imaging technology. J Nucl Med (2006) 47(11):1735–45.
357
JudenhoferMSCatanaCSwannBKSiegelSBJungWINuttREet alPET/MR images acquired with a compact MR-compatible PET detector in a 7-T magnet. Radiology (2007) 244(3):807–14.10.1148/radiol.2443061756
358
CatanaCWuYJudenhoferMSQiJPichlerBJCherrySR. Simultaneous acquisition of multislice PET and MR images: initial results with a MR-compatible PET scanner. J Nucl Med (2006) 47(12):1968–76.
359
O’HalloranPJVielTMurrayDWWachsmuthLSchwegmannKWagnerSet alMechanistic interrogation of combination bevacizumab/dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor response in glioblastoma implementing novel MR and PET imaging biomarkers. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2016) 43(9):1673–83.10.1007/s00259-016-3343-3
360
GarlandMYimJJBogyoM. A bright future for precision medicine: advances in fluorescent chemical probe design and their clinical application. Cell Chem Biol (2016) 23(1):122–36.10.1016/j.chembiol.2015.12.003
Summary
Keywords
cancer, microenvironment, stroma, metabolic cooperation, tumor–stroma interaction, preclinical multimodal imaging
Citation
Ramamonjisoa N and Ackerstaff E (2017) Characterization of the Tumor Microenvironment and Tumor–Stroma Interaction by Non-invasive Preclinical Imaging. Front. Oncol. 7:3. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2017.00003
Received
21 October 2016
Accepted
05 January 2017
Published
31 January 2017
Volume
7 - 2017
Edited by
Franca Podo, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy
Reviewed by
Piotr Kozlowski, University of British Columbia, Canada; Silvana Canevari, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori (IRCCS), Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2017 Ramamonjisoa and Ackerstaff.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ellen Ackerstaff, ackerste@mskcc.org
Specialty section: This article was submitted to Cancer Imaging and Diagnosis, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.