A comparative evaluation of EPR and OxyLite oximetry using a random sampling of pO(2) in a murine tumor.
Methods currently available for the measurement of oxygen concentrations (oximetry) in viable tissues differ widely from each other in their methodological basis and applicability. The goal of this study was to compare two novel methods, particulate-based electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) and OxyLite oximetry, in an experimental tumor model. EPR oximetry uses implantable paramagnetic particulates, whereas OxyLite uses fluorescent probes affixed on a fiber-optic cable. C3H mice were transplanted with radiation-induced fibrosarcoma (RIF-1) tumors in their hind limbs. Lithium phthalocyanine (LiPc) microcrystals were used as EPR probes. The pO(2) measurements were taken from random locations at a depth of approximately 3 mm within the tumor either immediately or 48 h after implantation of LiPc. Both methods revealed significant hypoxia in the tumor. However, there were striking differences between the EPR and OxyLite readings. The differences were attributed to the volume of tissue under examination and the effect of needle invasion at the site of measurement. This study recognizes the unique benefits of EPR oximetry in terms of robustness, repeatability and minimal invasiveness.
Vikram
Deepti S
DS
Center for Biomedical EPR Spectroscopy and Imaging, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Davis Heart and Lung Research Institute, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Bratasz
Anna
A
Ahmad
Rizwan
R
Kuppusamy
Periannan
P
D000818:Animals; D045744:Cell Line, Tumor; D004578:Electron Spin Resonance Spectroscopy / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D005354:Fibrosarcoma / Q000378:metabolism*; D051379:Mice; D008809:Mice, Inbred C3H; D010092:Oximetry / Q000379:methods*; D010100:Oxygen / Q000032:analysis*; D011897:Random Allocation; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013050:Spectrometry, Fluorescence / Q000379:methods*; D014018:Tissue Distribution
D010100:Oxygen
Radiother Oncol. 1993 Jan;26(1):45-50
8438086
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993 Jul 15;26(4):631-6
8330993
Cancer Lett. 2005 Apr 28;221(2):225-35
15808408
Cancer Res. 1996 Mar 1;56(5):941-3
8640781
Br J Radiol. 1999 Jul;72 (859):627-30
10624317
Physiol Meas. 2005 Jun;26(3):203-13
15798296
Cancer Res. 2002 Jun 15;62(12):3555-61
12068004
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Mar 15;55(4):1066-73
12605986
Br J Cancer. 1995 Oct;72(4):875-82
7547234
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992 May 6;84(9):707-11
1569605
Free Radic Biol Med. 2003 Nov 1;35(9):1138-48
14572616
Br J Cancer. 1987 Oct;56(4):395-400
3689657
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Jun 15;90(12):5438-42
8390665
Int J Radiat Biol. 2000 May;76(5):589-605
10866281
Radiat Res. 2001 Jan;155(1 Pt 1):15-25
11121211
Phys Med Biol. 1998 Jul;43(7):1957-75
9703059
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990 Oct;19(4):953-61
2211264
J Magn Reson. 2004 Sep;170(1):42-8
15324756
Magn Reson Med. 2005 Dec;54(6):1530-5
16276490
Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Sep;22(7):905-12
15288130
J Neurosurg. 2002 Feb;96(2):263-8
11838800
Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Jul 15;12(14 Pt 1):4209-17
16857793
Anal Biochem. 1991 Jun;195(2):330-51
1750689
Magn Reson Med. 2004 Sep;52(3):650-7
15334586
Cancer Lett. 2003 May 30;195(1):1-16
12767506
Br J Cancer. 1995 Oct;72(4):869-74
7547233
Magn Reson Med. 2002 Dec;48(6):980-6
12465107
Neoplasia. 2000 Jan-Apr;2(1-2):139-51
10933073
Radiat Res. 2001 Jun;155(6):837-46
11352767
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Aug 1;45(1):171-80
10477021
Radiat Res. 2002 Aug;158(2):167-73
12105986
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2001 Jun;280(6):H2533-44
11356608
Radiat Res. 1996 Apr;145(4):491-500
8600510