REFERENCES
1. Baghban R, Roshangar L, Jahanban-Esfahlan R, et al. Tumor microenvironment complexity and therapeutic implications at a glance. Cell Commun Signal 2020;18:59.
2. Król M, Pawłowski KM, Majchrzak K, Szyszko K, Motyl T. Why chemotherapy can fail? Pol J Vet Sci 2010;13:399-406.
3. Boyce MW, Labonia GJ, Hummon AB, Lockett MR. Assessing chemotherapeutic effectiveness using a paper-based tumor model. Analyst 2017;142:2819-27.
4. Jain RK, Munn LL, Fukumura D. Measuring vascular permeability in mice. Cold Spring Harb Protoc 2013;2013:444-6.
5. Madden AJ, Rawal S, Sandison K, et al. Evaluation of the efficiency of tumor and tissue delivery of carrier-mediated agents (CMA) and small molecule (SM) agents in mice using a novel pharmacokinetic (PK) metric: relative distribution index over time (RDI-OT). J Nanoparticle Res 2014;16:2662.
6. Truong AS, Lockett MR. Oxygen as a chemoattractant: Confirming cellular hypoxia in paper-based invasion assays. Analyst 2016;141:3874-82.
7. Diop-Frimpong B, Chauhan VP, Krane S, Boucher Y, Jain RK. Losartan inhibits collagen I synthesis and improves the distribution and efficacy of nanotherapeutics in tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011;108:2909-14.
8. Geevarghese A, Herman IM. Pericyte-endothelial crosstalk: Implications and opportunities for advanced cellular therapies. Transl Res 2014;163:296-306.
9. Stylianopoulos T, Jain RK. Combining two strategies to improve perfusion and drug delivery in solid tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013;110:18632-7.
10. Zhang B, Hu Y, Pang Z. Modulating the tumor microenvironment to enhance tumor nanomedicine delivery. Front Pharmacol 2017;8:952.
11. Cairns R, Papandreou I, Denko N. Overcoming physiologic barriers to cancer treatment by molecularly targeting the tumor microenvironment. Mol Cancer Res 2006;4:61-70.
12. Jing X, Yang F, Shao C, et al. Role of hypoxia in cancer therapy by regulating the tumor microenvironment. Mol Cancer 2019;18:157.
13. Lucas AT, White TF, Deal AM, et al. Profiling the relationship between tumor-associated macrophages and pharmacokinetics of liposomal agents in preclinical murine models. Nanomedicine 2017;13:471-82.
14. Zamboni WC, Eiseman JL, Strychor S, et al. Tumor disposition of pegylated liposomal CKD-602 and the reticuloendothelial system in preclinical tumor models. J Liposome Res 2011;21:70-80.
15. Zhao CY, Cheng R, Yang Z, Tian ZM. Nanotechnology for cancer therapy based on chemotherapy. Molecules 2018;23:826.
16. Jain RK. Normalizing tumor microenvironment to treat cancer: Bench to bedside to biomarkers. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:2205-18.
17. Henke E, Nandigama R, Ergün S. Extracellular Matrix in the Tumor Microenvironment and Its Impact on Cancer Therapy. Front Mol Biosci 2020;6:160.
18. Gonzalez-Avila G, Sommer B, Mendoza-Posada DA, Ramos C, Garcia-Hernandez AA, Falfan-Valencia R. Matrix metalloproteinases participation in the metastatic process and their diagnostic and therapeutic applications in cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2019;137:57-83.
19. Nwabo KAH, Kamga PT, Simo RT, et al. Mesenchymal stromal cells’ role in tumor microenvironment: involvement of signaling pathways. Cancer Biol Med 2017;14:129-41.
20. Liu T, Zhou L, Li D, Andl T, Zhang Y. Cancer-associated fibroblasts build and secure the tumor microenvironment. Front Cell Dev Biol 2019;7:60.
21. Yoshida GJ. Regulation of heterogeneous cancer-associated fibroblasts: The molecular pathology of activated signaling pathways. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2020;39:112.
22. Yin Y, Yao S, Hu Y, et al. The immune-microenvironment confers chemoresistance of colorectal cancer through macrophage-derived IL6. Clin Cancer Res 2017;23:7375-87.
23. Castells M, Thibault B, Delord JP, Couderc B. Implication of tumor microenvironment in chemoresistance: Tumor-associated stromal cells protect tumor cells from cell death. Int J Mol Sci 2012;13:9545-71.
24. Senthebane DA, Rowe A, Thomford NE, et al. The role of tumor microenvironment in chemoresistance: To survive, keep your enemies closer. Int J Mol Sci 2017;18:1586.
25. Bagnoli M, Granata A, Nicoletti R, et al. Choline metabolism alteration: A focus on ovarian cancer. Front Oncol 2016;6:153.
26. Saggar JK, Yu M, Tan Q, Tannock IF. The tumor microenvironment and strategies to improve drug distribution. Front Oncol 2013;3:154.
27. Zhong S, Jeong JH, Chen Z, Chen Z, Luo JL. Targeting tumor microenvironment by small-molecule inhibitors. Transl Oncol 2020;13:57-69.
28. Correia AL, Bissell MJ. The tumor microenvironment is a dominant force in multidrug resistance. Drug Resist Updat 2012;15:39-49.
29. Graham K, Unger E. Overcoming tumor hypoxia as a barrier to radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy in cancer treatment. Int J Nanomedicine 2018;13:6049-58.
30. Tian Y, Zhang Y, Teng Z, et al. pH-dependent transmembrane activity of peptide-functionalized gold nanostars for computed tomography/photoacoustic imaging and photothermal therapy. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2017;9:2114-22.
31. Liu H, Wang H, Xu Y, et al. Lactobionic acid-modified dendrimer-entrapped gold nanoparticles for targeted computed tomography imaging of human hepatocellular carcinoma. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2014;6:6944-53.
32. Kim Y, Oh Y-H, Oh E, Kim H-S. Chip-based protease assay using fluorescence resonance energy transfer between quantum dots and fluorophores. Biochip J 2007;1:228-33.
33. Ramanathan RK, Korn RL, Raghunand N, et al. Correlation between ferumoxytol uptake in tumor lesions by MRI and response to nanoliposomal irinotecan in patients with advanced solid tumors: A pilot study. Clin Cancer Res 2017;23:363848.
34. Cuccarese MF, Dubach JM, Pfirschke C, et al. Heterogeneity of macrophage infiltration and therapeutic response in lung carcinoma revealed by 3D organ imaging. Nat Commun 2017;8:14293.
35. Banerjee SR, Foss CA, Horhota A, et al. 111In- and IRDye800CW-Labeled PLA-PEG Nanoparticle for Imaging Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Expressing Tissues. Biomacromolecules 2017;18:201-9.
36. Lee H, Shields AF, Siegel BA, et al. 64Cu-MM-302 positron emission tomography quantifies variability of enhanced permeability and retention of nanoparticles in relation to treatment response in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2017;23:4190-202.
37. Rojas JD, Papadopoulou V, Czernuszewicz TJ, et al. Ultrasound Measurement of Vascular Density to Evaluate Response to Anti-Angiogenic Therapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2019;66:873-80.
38. Du J, Lane LA, Nie S. Stimuli-responsive nanoparticles for targeting the tumor microenvironment. J Control Release 2015;219:205-14.
39. Yin C, Wen G, Liu C, et al. Organic Semiconducting Polymer Nanoparticles for Photoacoustic Labeling and Tracking of Stem Cells in the Second Near-Infrared Window. ACS Nano 2018;12:12201-11.
40. Wu X, Hu J, Zhou L, et al. In vivo tracking of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle-labeled mesenchymal stem cell tropism to malignant gliomas using magnetic resonance imaging: Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg 2008;108:320-9.
41. Karageorgis A, Dufort S, Sancey L, et al. An MRI-based classification scheme to predict passive access of 5 to 50-nm large nanoparticles to tumors. Sci Rep 2016;6:21417.
42. Miller MA, Gadde S, Pfirschke C, et al. Predicting therapeutic nanomedicine efficacy using a companion magnetic resonance imaging nanoparticle. Sci Transl Med 2015;7:314ra183.
43. Hauge A, Wegner CS, Gaustad JV, Simonsen TG, Andersen LMK, Rofstad EK. Diffusion-weighted MRI-derived ADC values reflect collagen I content in PDX models of uterine cervical cancer. Oncotarget 2017;8:105682-91.
44. Wahyudi H, Reynolds AA, Li Y, Owen SC, Yu SM. Targeting collagen for diagnostic imaging and therapeutic delivery. J Control Release 2016;240:323-31.
45. Shiftan L, Israely T, Cohen M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging visualization of hyaluronidase in ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res 2005;65:10316-23.
46. Guo C, Sun L, Cai H, et al. Gadolinium-Labeled Biodegradable Dendron-Hyaluronic Acid Hybrid and Its Subsequent Application as a Safe and Efficient Magnetic Resonance Imaging Contrast Agent. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2017;9:23508-19.
47. Granot D, Addadi Y, Kalchenko V, Harmelin A, Kunz-Schughart LA, Neeman M. In vivo imaging of the systemic recruitment of fibroblasts to the angiogenic rim of ovarian carcinoma tumors. Cancer Res 2007;67:9180-9.
48. Granot D, Kunz-Schughart LA, Neeman M. Labeling fibroblasts with biotin-BSA-GdDTPA-FAM for tracking of tumor-associated stroma by fluorescence and MR imaging. Magn Reson Med 2005;54:789-97.
49. Reagan MR, Kaplan DL. Concise review: Mesenchymal stem cell tumor-homing: Detection methods in disease model systems. Stem Cells 2011;29:920-7.
50. Loebinger MR, Kyrtatos PG, Turmaine M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of mesenchymal stem cells homing to pulmonary metastases using biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles. Cancer Res 2009;69:8862-7.
51. Belmar-Lopez C, Mendoza G, Oberg D, et al. Tissue-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.
52. Lewis CE, Pollard JW. Distinct role of macrophages in different tumor microenvironments. Cancer Res 2006;66:605-12.
53. Zolnik BS, González-Fernández Á, Sadrieh N, Dobrovolskaia MA. Minireview: Nanoparticles and the immune system. Endocrinology 2010;2:458-65.
54. Song G, Wu H, Yoshino K, Zamboni WC. Factors affecting the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of liposomal drugs. J Liposome Res 2012;22:177-92.
55. Daldrup-Link HE, Golovko D, Ruffell B, et al. MRI of tumor-associated macrophages with clinically applicable iron oxide nanoparticles. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:5695-704.
56. Reichel D, Tripathi M, Perez JM. Biological effects of nanoparticles on macrophage polarization in the tumor microenvironment. Nanotheranostics 2019;3:66-88.
57. Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, et al. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2491-9.
58. Harisinghani MG, Weissleder R. Sensitive, noninvasive detection of lymph node metastases. PLoS Med 2004;1:e66.
59. Heesakkers RAM, Jager GJ, Hövels AM, et al. Prostate cancer: Detection of lymph node metastases outside the routine surgical area with ferumoxtran-10-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2009;251:408-14.
60. Lepage M, Dow WC, Melchior M, et al. Noninvasive detection of matrix metalloproteinase activity in vivo using a novel magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent with a solubility switch. Mol Imaging 2007;6:393-403.
61. Lebel R, Jastrzȩbska B, Therriault H, et al. Novel solubility-switchable MRI agent allows the noninvasive detection of matrix metalloproteinase-2 activity in vivo in a mouse model. Magn Reson Med 2008;60:1056-65.
62. Lebel R, Lepage M. A comprehensive review on controls in molecular imaging: Lessons from MMP-2 imaging. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2014;9:187-210.
63. Ansari C, Tikhomirov GA, Hong SH, et al. Development of novel tumor-targeted theranostic nanoparticles activated by membrane-type matrix metalloproteinases for combined cancer magnetic resonance imaging and therapy. Small 2014;10:566-75. 417
64. Matsuo K, Kamada R, Mizusawa K, et al. Specific detection and imaging of enzyme activity by signal-amplifiable self-assembling 19Fa MRI probes. Chemistry 2013;19:12875-83.
65. Crisp JL, Savariar EN, Glasgow HL, Ellies LG, Whitney MA, Tsien RY. Dual targeting of integrin αvβ3 and matrix metalloproteinase-2 for optical imaging of tumors and chemotherapeutic delivery. Mol Cancer Ther 2014;13:1514-25.
66. Kawamura W, Miura Y, Kokuryo D, et al. Density-tunable conjugation of cyclic RGD ligands with polyion complex vesicles for the neovascular imaging of orthotopic glioblastomas. Sci Technol Adv Mater 2015;16:035004.
67. Yan C, Wu Y, Feng J, et al. Anti-αvβ3 antibody guided three-step pretargeting approach using magnetoliposomes for molecular magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer angiogenesis. Int J Nanomedicine 2013;8:245-55.
68. Barrett T, Brechbiel M, Bernardo M, Choyke PL. MRI of tumor angiogenesis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26:235-49.
69. Willats L, Calamante F. The 39 steps: Evading error and deciphering the secrets for accurate dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. NMR Biomed 2013;26:913-31.
70. Morita N, Wang S, Chawla S, Poptani H, Melhem ER. Dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion weighted imaging in grading of nonenhancing astrocytomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;32:803-8.
71. Chakhoyan A, Raymond C, Chen J, et al. Probabilistic independent component analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MRI in metastatic brain tumors. Cancer Imaging 2019;19:14.
72. Barnes SL, Whisenant JG, Loveless ME, Yankeelov TE. Practical Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MRI in Small Animal Models of Cancer: Data Acquisition, Data Analysis, and Interpretation. Pharmaceutics 2012;4:442-78.
73. Brix G, Griebel J, Kiessling F, Wenz F. Tracer kinetic modelling of tumour angiogenesis based on dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and MRI measurements. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37 Suppl 1:S30-51.
74. Koh TS, Bisdas S, Koh DM, Thng CH. Fundamentals of tracer kinetics for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011;34:1262-76.
75. O’Connor JPB, Rose CJ, Waterton JC, Carano RAD, Parker GJM, Jackson A. Imaging intratumor heterogeneity: Role in therapy response, resistance, and clinical outcome. Clin Cancer Res 2015;21:249-57.
76. Koh DM, Collins DJ, Orton MR. Intravoxel incoherent motion in body diffusion-weighted MRI: Reality and challenges. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:1351-61.
77. Pathak AP, Penet MF, Bhujwalla ZM. MR Molecular Imaging of Tumor Vasculature and Vascular Targets. Adv Genet 2010;69:1-30.
78. Abramovitch R, Dafni H, Smouha E, Benjamin LE, Neeman M. In vivo prediction of vascular susceptibility to vascular endothelial growth factor withdrawal: Magnetic resonance imaging of C6 rat glioma in nude mice. Cancer Res 1999;59:5012-6.
79. Carmeliet P, Dor Y, Herber JM, et al. Role of HIF-1α in hypoxiamediated apoptosis, cell proliferation and tumour angiogenesis. Nature 1998;394:485-90.
80. O’Connor JPB, Boult JKR, Jamin Y, et al. Oxygen-enhanced MRI accurately identifies, quantifies, and maps tumor hypoxia in preclinical cancer models. Cancer Res 2016;76:787-95.
81. O’Connor JPB, Robinson SP, Waterton JC. Imaging tumour hypoxia with oxygen-enhanced MRI and BOLD MRI. Br J Radiol 2019;92:20180642.
82. White DA, Zhang Z, Li L, et al. Developing oxygen-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a prognostic biomarker of radiation response. Cancer Lett 2016;380:69-77.
83. Zhao D, Jiang L, Hahn EW, Mason RP. Comparison of1H blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) and 19F MRI to investigate tumor oxygenation. Magn Reson Med 2009;62:357-64.
84. Lin YC, Wang JJ, Hong JH, et al. Noninvasive monitoring of microvascular changes with partial irradiation using dynamic contrast-enhanced and blood oxygen level-dependent magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;85:1367-74.
85. Stoyanova R, Huang K, Sandler K, et al. Mapping tumor hypoxia in vivo using pattern recognition of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data. Transl Oncol 2012;5:437-47.
86. Egeland TAM, Gulliksrud K, Gaustad JV, Mathiesen B, Rofstad EK. Dynamic contrast-enhanced-MRI of tumor hypoxia. Magn Reson Med 2012;67:519-30.
87. Gulliksrud K, Øvrebø KM, Mathiesen B, Rofstad EK. Differentiation between hypoxic and non-hypoxic experimental tumors by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Radiother Oncol 2011;98:360-4.
88. Wojtkowiak JW, Verduzco D, Schramm KJ, Gillies RJ. Drug resistance and cellular adaptation to tumor acidic pH microenvironment. Mol Pharm 2011;8:2032-8.
89. Yamamoto K, Brender JR, Seki T, et al. Molecular Imaging of the Tumor Microenvironment Reveals the Relationship between Tumor Oxygenation, Glucose Uptake, and Glycolysis in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res 2020;80:2087-93.
90. Rodrigues TB, Serrao EM, Kennedy BWC, Hu DE, Kettunen MI, Brindle KM. Magnetic resonance imaging of tumor glycolysis using hyperpolarized 13 C-labeled glucose. Nat Med 2014;20:93-7.
91. Gallagher FA, Kettunen MI, Day SE, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of pH in vivo using hyperpolarized 13C-labelled bicarbonate. Nature 2008;453:940-3.
92. Scholz DJ, Janich MA, Köllisch U, et al. Quantified pH imaging with hyperpolarized 13C-bicarbonate. Magn Reson Med 2015;73:2274-82.
93. Ward KM, Balaban RS. Determination of pH using water protons and Chemical Exchange Dependent Saturation Transfer (CEST). Magn Reson Med 2000;44:799-802.
94. Huang Y, Coman D, Ali MM, Hyder F. Lanthanide ion (III) complexes of 1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane-1,4,7,10-tetraaminophosphonate for dual biosensing of pH with chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) and biosensor imaging of redundant deviation in shifts (BIRDS). Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2015;10:51-8.
95. Chen LQ, Randtke EA, Jones KM, Moon BF, Howison CM, Pagel MD. Evaluations of tumor acidosis within in vivo tumor models using parametric maps generated with AcidoCEST MRI. Mol Imaging Biol 2015;17:488-96.
96. Longo DL, Sun PZ, Consolino L, Michelotti FC, Uggeri F, Aime S. A general MRI-CEST ratiometric approach for pH imaging: Demonstration of in vivo pH mapping with iobitridol. J Am Chem Soc 2014;136:14333-6.
97. Aime S, Delli Castelli D, Terreno E. Novel pH-reporter MRI contrast agents. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2002;41:4334-6.
98. Sheth VR, Li Y, Chen LQ, Howison CM, Flask CA, Pagel MD. Measuring in vivo tumor pHe with CEST-FISP MRI. Magn Reson Med 2012;67:760-8.
99. Chen Y, Yin Q, Ji X, et al. Manganese oxide-based multifunctionalized mesoporous silica nanoparticles for pH-responsive MRI, ultrasonography and circumvention of MDR in cancer cells. Biomaterials 2012;33:7126-37.
100. Dixon WT, Ren J, Lubag AJM, et al. A concentration-independent method to measure exchange rates in PARACEST agents. Magn Reson Med 2010;63:625-32.
101. Marathe K, McVicar N, Li A, Bellyou M, Meakin S, Bartha R. Topiramate induces acute intracellular acidification in glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2016;130:465-72.
102. Albatany M, Li A, Meakin S, Bartha R. Dichloroacetate induced intracellular acidification in glioblastoma: in vivo detection using AACID-CEST MRI at 9.4 Tesla. J Neurooncol 2018;136:255-62.
103. Albatany M, Li A, Meakin S, Bartha R. In vivo detection of acute intracellular acidification in glioblastoma multiforme following a single dose of cariporide. Int J Clin Oncol 2018;23:812-9.
104. Albatany M, Ostapchenko VG, Meakin S, Bartha R. Brain tumor acidification using drugs simultaneously targeting multiple pH regulatory mechanisms. J Neurooncol 2019;144:453-62.
105. Harris RJ, Cloughesy TF, Liau LM, et al. PH-weighted molecular imaging of gliomas using amine chemical exchange saturation transfer MRI. Neuro Oncol 2015;17:1514-24.
106. Yao J, Tan CHP, Schlossman J, et al. pH-weighted amine chemical exchange saturation transfer echoplanar imaging (CEST-EPI) as a potential early biomarker for bevacizumab failure in recurrent glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2019;142:587-95.
107. Longo DL, Michelotti F, Consolino L, et al. In vitro and in vivo assessment of nonionic iodinated radiographic molecules as chemical exchange saturation transfer magnetic resonance imaging tumor perfusion agents. Invest Radiol 2016;51:155-62.
108. Longo DL, Bartoli A, Consolino L, et al. In vivo imaging of tumor metabolism and acidosis by combining PET and MRI-CEST pH imaging. Cancer Res 2016;76:6463-70.
109. Anemone A, Consolino L, Conti L, et al. In vivo evaluation of tumour acidosis for assessing the early metabolic response and onset of resistance to dichloroacetate by using magnetic resonance pH imaging. Int J Oncol 2017;51:498-506.
110. Aime S, Calabi L, Biondi L, et al. Iopamidol: Exploring the potential use of a well-established x-ray contrast agent for MRI. Magn Reson Med 2005;53:830-4.
111. Anemone A, Consolino L, Longo DL. MRI-CEST assessment of tumour perfusion using X-ray iodinated agents: comparison with a conventional Gd-based agent. Eur Radiol 2017;27:2170-9.
112. Jones KM, Randtke EA, Yoshimaru ES, et al. Clinical Translation of Tumor Acidosis Measurements with AcidoCEST MRI. Mol Imaging Biol 2017;19:617-25.
113. Sun PZ, Longo DL, Hu W, Xiao G, Wu R. Quantification of iopamidol multi-site chemical exchange properties for ratiometric chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) imaging of pH. Phys Med Biol 2014;59:4493-504.
114. Jones KM, Randtke EA, Howison CM, Pagel MD. Respiration gating and Bloch fitting improve pH measurements with acidoCEST MRI in an ovarian orthotopic tumor model. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2016;9788:978815.
115. Randtke EA, Granados JC, Howison CM, Pagel MD, Cárdenas-Rodríguez J. Multislice CEST MRI improves the spatial assessment of tumor pH. Magn Reson Med 2017;78:97-106.
116. Wu R, Longo DL, Aime S, Sun PZ. Quantitative description of radiofrequency (RF) power-based ratiometric chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) pH imaging. NMR Biomed 2015;28:555-65.
117. Arena F, Irrera P, Consolino L, Colombo Serra S, Zaiss M, Longo DL. Flip-angle based ratiometric approach for pulsed CEST-MRI pH imaging. J Magn Reson 2018;287:1-9.
118. Khalil MM, Tremoleda JL, Bayomy TB, Gsell W. Molecular SPECT Imaging: An Overview. Int J Mol Imaging 2011;2011:796025.
119. Phelps ME. PET: The merging of biology and imaging into molecular imaging. J Nucl Med 2000;41:661-81.
120. Chen K, Chen X. Design and Development of Molecular Imaging Probes. Curr Top Med Chem 2010;10:1227-36.
122. Scherer RL, McIntyre JO, Matrisian LM. Imaging matrix metalloproteinases in cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2008;27:679-90.
123. Dwyer RM, Ryan J, Havelin RJ, et al. Mesenchymal stem cell-mediated delivery of the sodium iodide symporter supports radionuclide imaging and treatment of breast cancer. Stem Cells 2011;29:1149-57.
124. Sakr TM, Essa BM, El-Essawy FA, El-Mohty AA. Synthesis and biodistribution of 99m Tc-PyDA as a potential marker for tumor hypoxia imaging. Radiochemistry 2014;56:76-80.
125. Juergens RA, Zukotynski KA, Singnurkar A, Snider DP, Valliant JF, Gulenchyn KY. Imaging Biomarkers in Immunotherapy. Biomark Cancer 2016;8:1-13.
126. Man F, Lammers T, T. M. de Rosales R. Imaging Nanomedicine-Based Drug Delivery: a Review of Clinical Studies. Mol Imaging Biol 2018;20:683-95.
127. Koukourakis MI, Koukouraki S, Giatromanolaki A, et al. Liposomal doxorubicin and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:3512-21.
128. Koukourakis MI, Koukouraki S, Giatromanolaki A, et al. High intratumoral accumulation of stealth liposomal doxorubicin in sarcomas - Rationale for combination with radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 2000;39:207-11.
129. Pérez-Medina C, Abdel-Atti D, Tang J, et al. Nanoreporter PET predicts the efficacy of anti-cancer nanotherapy. Nat Commun 2016;7:11838.
130. Matusiak N, Castelli R, Tuin AW, et al. A dual inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases and a disintegrin and metalloproteinases, [18F]FB-ML5, as a molecular probe for non-invasive MMP/ADAM-targeted imaging. Bioorganic Med Chem 2015;23:192-202.
131. Altiparmak B, Lambrecht FY, Citak A. Design of radiolabeled gelatinase inhibitor peptide (99mTc-CLP) and evaluation in rats. Appl Radiat Isot 2014;89:130-3.
132. Da Rocha Gomes S, Miguel J, Azéma L, et al. 99mTc-MAG3-aptamer for imaging human tumors associated with high level of matrix metalloprotease-9. Bioconjug Chem 2012;23:2192-200.
133. Kondo N, Temma T, Shimizu Y, Watanabe H, Higano K, Takagi Y, et al. Miniaturized antibodies for imaging membrane type-1 matrix metalloproteinase in cancers. Cancer Sci 2013;104:495-501.
134. van Duijnhoven SMJ, Robillard MS, Nicolay K, Grüll H. In vivo biodistribution of radiolabeled MMP-2/9 activatable cell-penetrating peptide probes in tumor-bearing mice. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2015;10:59-66.
135. Huang T, Civelek AC, Zheng H, et al. (18)F-misonidazole PET imaging of hypoxia in micrometastases and macroscopic xenografts of human non-small cell lung cancer: a correlation with autoradiography and histological findings. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;3:142-53.
136. Knoop K, Kolokythas M, Klutz K, et al. Image-guided, tumor stroma-targeted 131 i therapy of hepatocellular cancer after systemic mesenchymal stem cell-mediated nis gene delivery. Mol Ther 2011;19:1704-13.
137. Wolfs E, Struys T, Notelaers T, et al. 18F-FDG labeling of mesenchymal stem cells and multipotent adult progenitor cells for PET imaging: Effects on ultrastructure and differentiation capacity. J Nucl Med 2013;54:447-54.
138. Patrick PS, Kolluri KK, Zaw Thin M, et al. Lung delivery of MSCs expressing anti-cancer protein TRAIL visualised with 89Zr-oxine PET-CT. Stem Cell Res Ther 2020;11:256.
139. Locke LW, Mayo MW, Yoo AD, Williams MB, Berr SS. PET imaging of tumor associated macrophages using mannose coated 64Cu liposomes. Biomaterials 2012;33:7785-93.
140. Rashidian M, Keliher EJ, Bilate AM, et al. Noninvasive imaging of immune responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015;112:6146-51.
141. Tavaré R, McCracken MN, Zettlitz KA, Knowles SM, Salazar FB, Olafsen T, et al. Engineered antibody fragments for immuno-PET imaging of endogenous CD8 + T cells in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014;111:1108-13.
142. Chotipanich C, Promteangtrong C, Kunawudhi A, et al. (11)C-Choline and FDG PET/CT Imaging of Primary Cholangiocarcinoma: A Comparative Analysis. Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol 2015;3:18-25.
143. Jadvar H. Prostate cancer: PET with 18F-FDG, 18F- or 11C-acetate, and 18F- or 11C-choline. J Nucl Med 2011;52:81-9.
144. Kryza D, Tadino V, Filannino MA, Villeret G, Lemoucheux L. Fully automated [18F]fluorocholine synthesis in the TracerLab MXFDG Coincidence synthesizer. Nucl Med Biol 2008;35:255-60.
145. Kumar R, Zhuang H, Alavi A. PET in the management of urologic malignancies. Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42:1141-53. ix
146. Laking GR, West C, Buckley DL, Matthews J, Price PM. Imaging vascular physiology to monitor cancer treatment. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2006;58:95-113.
147. Wilson RA, Shea MJ, de Landsheere CM, et al. Validation of quantitation of regional myocardial blood flow in vivo with 11C-labeled human albumin microspheres and positron emission tomography. Circulation 1984;70:717-23.
148. Mullani NA, Herbst RS, Abbruzzese JL, Barron B, Lamki L, Charnsangavej C, et al. First pass FDG measured blood flow in tumors: A comparison with O-15 labeled water measured blood flow. Clin Positron Imaging 2000;3:153.
149. Laking GR, Price PM. Positron emission tomographic imaging of angiogenesis and vascular function. Br J Radiol 2003;76 Spec No 1:S50-9.
150. Hoffend J, Mier W, Schuhmacher J, et al. Gallium-68-DOTA-albumin as a PET blood-pool marker: Experimental evaluation in vivo. Nucl Med Biol 2005;32:287-92.
151. Kimura RH, Wang L, Shen B, et al. Evaluation of integrin αvβ6 cystine knot PET tracers to detect cancer and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Nat Commun 2019;10:4673.
152. Flechsig P, Lindner T, Loktev A, et al. PET/CT Imaging of NSCLC with a αvβ6 Integrin-Targeting Peptide. Mol Imaging Biol 2019;21:973-83.
153. Notni J, Reich D, Maltsev OV, et al. In Vivo PET imaging of the cancer integrin αvβ6 using 68Ga-labeled cyclic RGD nonapeptides. J Nucl Med 2017;58:671-7.
154. Beer AJ, Grosu AL, Carlsen J, et al. [18F]Galacto-RGD positron emission tomography for imaging of αvβ3 expression on the neovasculature in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:6610-6.
155. Beer AJ, Haubner R, Sarbia M, et al. Positron emission tomography using [18F]Galacto-RGD identifies the level of integrin αvβ3 expression in man. Clin Cancer Res 2006; doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0266.
156. Haubner R, Wester HJ, Burkhart F, et al. Glycosylated RGD-containing peptides: Tracer for tumor targeting and angiogenesis imaging with improved biokinetics. J Nucl Med 2001;42:326-36.
157. Chen K, Cai W, Li ZB, Wang H, Chen X. Quantitative PET imaging of VEGF receptor expression. Mol Imaging Biol 2009;11:15-22.
159. Levashova Z, Backer M V., Horng G, Felsher D, Backer JM, Blankenberg FG. SPECT and PET imaging of EGF receptors with site-specifically labeled EGF and dimeric EGF. Bioconjug Chem 2009;20:742-9.
160. Nagengast WB, De Vries EG, Hospers GA, et al. In vivo VEGF imaging with radiolabeled bevacizumab in a human ovarian tumor xenograft. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1313-9.
161. Collingridge DR, Carroll VA, Glaser M, et al. The development of [124I]iodinated-VG76e: A novel tracer for imaging vascular endothelial growth factor in vivo using positron emission tomography. Cancer Res 2002;62:5912-9.
162. Scheer MGW, Stollman TH, Boerman OC, et al. Imaging liver metastases of colorectal cancer patients with radiolabelled bevacizumab: Lack of correlation with VEGF-A expression. Eur J Cancer 2008;44:1835-40.
163. Strauss LG, Koczan D, Klippel S, et al. Impact of angiogenesis-related gene expression on the tracer kinetics of 18F-FDG in colorectal tumors. J Nucl Med 2008;49:1238-44.
164. Cai W, Chen K, Mohamedali KA, et al. PET of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor expression. J Nucl Med 2006;47:2048-56.
165. Backer M V., Levashova Z, Patel V, et al. Molecular imaging of VEGF receptors in angiogenic vasculature with single-chain VEGF-based probes. Nat Med 2007;13:504-9.
166. Carlin S, Zhang H, Reese M, Ramos NN, Chen Q, Ricketts SA. A comparison of the imaging characteristics and microregional distribution of 4 hypoxia PET tracers. J Nucl Med 2014;55:515-21.
167. Kelada OJ, Carlson DJ. Molecular imaging of tumor hypoxia with positron emission tomography. Radiat Res 2014;181:335-49.
168. Kobayashi K, Hirata K, Yamaguchi S, et al. FMISO PET at 4 hours showed a better lesion-to-background ratio uptake than 2 hours in brain tumors. J Nucl Med 2015.
169. Kawai N, Lin W, Cao WD, et al. Correlation between 18F-fluoromisonidazole PET and expression of HIF-1α and VEGF in newly diagnosed and recurrent malignant gliomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2014;41:1870-8.
170. Gérard M, Corroyer-Dulmont A, Lesueur P, et al. Hypoxia Imaging and Adaptive Radiotherapy: A State-of-the-Art Approach in the Management of Glioma. Front Med 2019;6:117.
171. Peeters SGJA, Zegers CML, Lieuwes NG, et al. A comparative study of the hypoxia PET tracers [18F]HX4, [18F]FAZA, and [18F]FMISO in a preclinical tumor model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015;91:351-9.
172. Segard T, Robins PD, Yusoff IF, et al. Detection of hypoxia with 18F-fluoromisonidazole (18F-FMISO) PET/CT in suspected or proven pancreatic cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2013;38:1-6.
173. Servagi-Vernat S, Differding S, Hanin FX, et al. A prospective clinical study of 18 F-FAZA PET-CT hypoxia imaging in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma before and during radiation therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2014;41:1544-52.
174. Tachibana I, Nishimura Y, Shibata T, et al. A prospective clinical trial of tumor hypoxia imaging with 18f-fluoromisonidazole positron emission tomography and computed tomography (f-miso pet/ct) before and during radiation therapy. J Radiat Res 2013;54:1078-84.
175. Yu W, Qiao F, Su X, et al. 18F-HX4/18F-FMISO-based micro PET for imaging of tumor hypoxia and radiotherapy-associated changes in mice. Biomed Pharmacother 2019;119:109454.
176. Bourgeois M, Rajerison H, Guerard F, et al. Contribution of [64Cu]-ATSM PET in molecular imaging of tumour hypoxia compared to classical [18F] -MISO - a selected review. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur 2011;14:90-5.
177. Wu Y, Hao G, Ramezani S, et al. [(68)Ga]-HP-DO3A-nitroimidazole: A promising agent for PET detection of tumor hypoxia. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2015;10:465-72.
178. Flavell RR, Truillet C, Regan MK, et al. Caged [(18)F]FDG Glycosylamines for Imaging Acidic Tumor Microenvironments Using Positron Emission Tomography. Bioconjug Chem 2016;27:170-8.
179. Wyatt LC, Lewis JS, Andreev OA, Reshetnyak YK, Engelman DM. Applications of pHLIP Technology for Cancer Imaging and Therapy. Trends Biotechnol 2017;35:653-64.
180. Vavere AL, Biddlecombe GB, Spees WM, et al. A novel technology for the imaging of acidic prostate tumors by positron emission tomography. Cancer Res 2009;69:4510-6.
181. Demoin DW, Wyatt LC, Edwards KJ, et al. PET Imaging of Extracellular pH in Tumors with 64Cu- and 18F-Labeled pHLIP Peptides: A Structure-Activity Optimization Study. Bioconjug Chem 2016;27:2014-23.
182. Hanafy NA, Dini L, Citti C, Cannazza G, Leporatti S. Inihibition of glycolysis by using a micro/nano-lipid bromopyruvic chitosan carrier as a promising tool to improve treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Nanomaterials 2018;8:34.
183. Miao Y, Zhang LF, Guo R, et al. (18)F-FDG PET/CT for Monitoring the Response of Breast Cancer to miR-143-Based Therapeutics by Targeting Tumor Glycolysis. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids 2016;5:e357.
184. Witney TH, James ML, Shen B, et al. PET imaging of tumor glycolysis downstream of hexokinase through noninvasive measurement of pyruvate kinase M2. Sci Transl Med 2015;7:310ra169.
185. Kwee SA, Lim J. Metabolic positron emission tomography imaging of cancer: Pairing lipid metabolism with glycolysis. World J Radiol 2016;8:851-6.
187. Wang CL, Cohan RH, Ellis JH, Adusumilli S, Dunnick NR. Frequency, management, and outcome of extravasation of nonionic iodinated contrast medium in 69,657 intravenous injections. Radiology 2007;243:80-7.
188. Sahani DV, Kalva SP, Hamberg LM, et al. Assessing tumor perfusion and treatment response in rectal cancer with multisection CT: initial observations. Radiology 2005;234:785-92.
189. Fushiki H, Kanoh-Azuma T, Katoh M, et al. Quantification of mouse pulmonary cancer models by microcomputed tomography imaging. Cancer Sci 2009;100:1544-9.
190. Samei E, Saunders RS, Badea CT, et al. Micro-CT imaging of breast tumors in rodents using a liposomal, nanoparticle contrast agent. Int J Nanomedicine 2009;4:277-82.
191. Ghaghada KB, Badea CT, Karumbaiah L, et al. Evaluation of tumor microenvironment in an animal model using a nanoparticle contrast agent in computed tomography imaging. Acad Radiol 2011;18:20-30.
192. Liu Y, Ai K, Lu L. Nanoparticulate X-ray computed tomography contrast agents: From design validation to in vivo applications. Acc Chem Res 2012;45:1817-27.
193. Meng X, Zhang H, Zhang M, et al. Negative CT Contrast Agents for the Diagnosis of Malignant Osteosarcoma. Adv Sci 2019;6:1901214.
194. Meng X, Wu Y, Bu W. Functional CT Contrast Nanoagents for the Tumor Microenvironment. Adv Healthc Mater 2020:e2000912.
195. Zou Y, Wei Y, Sun Y, et al. Cyclic RGD-functionalized and disulfide-crosslinked iodine-rich polymersomes as a robust and smart theranostic agent for targeted CT imaging and chemotherapy of tumor. Theranostics 2019;9:8061-72.
196. Luo G, Yu X, Jin C, et al. LyP-1-conjugated nanoparticles for targeting drug delivery to lymphatic metastatic tumors. Int J Pharm 2010;385:150-6.
197. Xing H, Zheng X, Ren Q, et al. Computed tomography imaging-guided radiotherapy by targeting upconversion nanocubes with significant imaging and radiosensitization enhancements. Sci Rep 2013;3:1751.
198. Shi H, Wang Z, Huang C, et al. A Functional CT Contrast Agent for In Vivo Imaging of Tumor Hypoxia. Small 2016;12:3995-4006.
199. Apte S, T. Chin F, E. Graves E. Molecular Imaging of Hypoxia: Strategies for Probe Design and Application. Curr Org Synth 2011;8:593-603.
200. Huo D, Liu S, Zhang C, et al. Hypoxia-Targeting, Tumor Microenvironment Responsive Nanocluster Bomb for Radical-Enhanced Radiotherapy. ACS Nano 2017;11:10159-74.
201. Facciabene A, Peng X, Hagemann IS, et al. Tumour hypoxia promotes tolerance and angiogenesis via CCL28 and T reg cells. Nature 2011;475:226-30.
202. Wang A, Yin L, He L, et al. An acidic pH/reduction dual-stimuli responsive nanoprobe for enhanced CT imaging of tumours in vivo. Nanoscale 2018;10:20126-30.
203. Xiong D, Zhang X, Peng S, Gu H, Zhang L. Smart pH-sensitive micelles based on redox degradable polymers as DOX/GNPs carriers for controlled drug release and CT imaging. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2018;163:29-40.
205. Tharkar P, Varanasi R, Wong WSF, Jin CT, Chrzanowski W. Nano-Enhanced Drug Delivery and Therapeutic Ultrasound for Cancer Treatment and Beyond. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2019;7:324.
206. Zhou QL, Chen ZY, Wang YX, Yang F, Lin Y, Liao YY. Ultrasound-mediated local drug and gene delivery using nanocarriers. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:963891.
207. Chowdhury SM, Lee T, Willmann JK. Ultrasound-guided drug delivery in cancer. Ultrasonography 2017;36:171-84.
208. Ghoshal G, Oelze ML, O’brien WD. Quantitative ultrasound history and successes. In: Quantitative Ultrasound in Soft Tissues 2013.
209. Feleppa EJ, Mamou J, Porter CR, MacHi J. Quantitative ultrasound in cancer imaging. Semin Oncol 2011;38:136-50.
210. Destrempes F, Cloutier G. Review of envelope statistics models for quantitative ultrasound imaging and tissue characterization. In: Quantitative Ultrasound in Soft Tissues 2013.
211. Mamou J, Oelze ML. Quantitative ultrasound in soft tissues. Quantitative Ultrasound in Soft Tissues 2013.
212. Lizzi FL, Ostromogilsky M, Feleppa EJ, Rorke MC, Yaremko MM. Relationship of Ultrasonic Spectral Parameters to Features of Tissue Microstructure. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 1987;34:319-29.
213. Chandraratna PA, Whittaker P, Chandraratna PM, Gallet J, Kloner RA, Hla A. Characterization of collagen by high-frequency ultrasound: evidence for different acoustic properties based on collagen fiber morphologic characteristics. Am Heart J 1997;133:364-8.
214. Kreitz S, Dohmen G, Hasken S, Schmitz-Rode T, Mela P, Jockenhoevel S. Nondestructive method to evaluate the collagen content of fibrin-based tissue engineered structures via ultrasound. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 2011;17:1021-6.
215. Mercado KP, Helguera M, Hocking DC, Dalecki D. Noninvasive Quantitative Imaging of Collagen Microstructure in Three-Dimensional Hydrogels Using High-Frequency Ultrasound. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 2015;21:671-82.
216. Riggin CN, Sarver JJ, Freedman BR, Thomas SJ, Soslowsky LJ. Analysis of collagen organization in mouse achilles tendon using high-frequency ultrasound imaging. J Biomech Eng 2014;136:021029.
217. Mohanty K, Papadopoulou V, Newsome IG, Shelton S, Dayton PA, Muller M. Ultrasound multiple scattering with microbubbles can differentiate between tumor and healthy tissue in vivo. Phys Med Biol 2019;64:115022.
218. Gessner RC, Frederick CB, Foster FS, Dayton PA. Acoustic angiography: a new imaging modality for assessing microvasculature architecture. Int J Biomed Imaging 2013;2013:936593.
220. Lindsey B, Rojas J, Martin K, Shelton S, Dayton P. Acoustic characterization of contrast-to-tissue ratio and axial resolution for dual-frequency contrast-specific acoustic angiography imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2014;61:1668-87.
221. Shelton SE, Lee YZ, Lee M, et al. Quantification of microvascular tortuosity during tumor evolution using acoustic angiography. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015;41:1896-904.
222. Shelton SE, Lindsey BD, Tsuruta JK, Foster FS, Dayton PA. Molecular acoustic angiography: a new technique for high-resolution superharmonic ultrasound molecular imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016;42:769-81.
223. Dunleavey JM, Xiao L, Thompson J, et al. Vascular channels formed by subpopulations of PECAM1+ melanoma cells. Nat Commun 2014;5:5200.
224. Kasoji SK, Rivera JN, Gessner RC, Chang SX, Dayton PA. Early assessment of tumor response to radiation therapy using high-resolution quantitative microvascular ultrasound imaging. Theranostics 2018;8:156-68.
225. Jiang Z zhen, Huang Y hua, Shen H liang, Liu X tian. Clinical applications of superb microvascular imaging in the liver, breast, thyroid, skeletal muscle, and carotid plaques. J Ultrasound Med 2019;38:2811-20.
226. Christensen-Jeffries K, Couture O, Dayton PA, et al. Super-resolution ultrasound imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2020;46:865-91.
227. Leung K. Microbubbles conjugated with anti-matrix metalloproteinase 2 mouse monoclonal antibody sc-13595. In: Molecular Imaging and Contrast Agent Database (MICAD) [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Center for Biotechnology Information (US); .
228. Pochon S, Tardy I, Bussat P, et al. BR55: a lipopeptide-based VEGFR2-targeted ultrasound contrast agent for molecular imaging of angiogenesis. Invest Radiol 2010;45:89-95.
229. Sugimoto K, Moriyasu F, Negishi Y, et al. Quantification in molecular ultrasound imaging a comparative study in mice between healthy liver and a human hepatocellular carcinoma xenograft. J Ultrasound Med 2012;31:1909-16.
230. Pysz MA, Foygel K, Rosenberg J, Gambhir SS, Schneider M, Willmann JK. Antiangiogenic cancer therapy: Monitoring with molecular US and a clinically translatable contrast agent (BR55). Radiology 2010;256:519-27.
231. Bzyl J, Palmowski M, Rix A, et al. The high angiogenic activity in very early breast cancer enables reliable imaging with VEGFR2-targeted microbubbles (BR55). Eur Radiol 2013;23:468-75.
232. Lindsey BD, Shelton SE, Foster FS, Dayton PA. Assessment of Molecular acoustic angiography for combined microvascular and molecular imaging in preclinical tumor models. Mol Imaging Biol 2017;19:194-202.
233. Lakshman M, Needles A. Screening and quantification of the tumor microenvironment with micro-ultrasound and photoacoustic imaging. Nat Methods 2015;12:iii-v.
234. Doyley MM, Parker KJ. Elastography: general principles and clinical applications. Ultrasound Clinics 2014;9:1-11.
235. Swartz MA, Lund AW. Lymphatic and interstitial flow in the tumour microenvironment: linking mechanobiology with immunity. Nat Rev Cancer 2012;12:210-9.
236. Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, et al. Breast disease: Clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology 2006;239:341-50.
237. Cho N, Woo KM, Jeong SP, Joo HC, Jang M, Min HS. Nonpalpable breast masses: evaluation by US elastography. Korean J Radiol 2008;9:111-8.
238. Cho N, Jang M, Lyou CY, Park JS, Choi HY, Moon WK. Distinguishing benign from malignant masses at breast US: Combined US elastography and color Doppler US-influence on radiologist accuracy. Radiology 2012;262:80-90.
239. Yi A, Cho N, Chang JM, Koo HR, La Yun B, Moon WK. Sonoelastography for 1786 non-palpable breast masses: Diagnostic value in the decision to biopsy. Eur Radiol 2012;22:1033-40.
240. Hao Y, Guo X, Ma B, Zhu L, Liu L. Relationship between ultrasound elastography and myofibroblast distribution in breast cancer and its clinical significance. Sci Rep 2016;6:19584.
241. Wang Y, Yao B, Li H, et al. Assessment of tumor stiffness with shear wave elastography in a human prostate cancer xenograft implantation model. J Ultrasound Med 2017;36:955-63.
242. Riegler J, Labyed Y, Rosenzweig S, et al. Tumor elastography and its association with collagen and the tumor microenvironment. Clin Cancer Res 2018;24:4455-67.
243. Insana MF, Pellot-Barakat C, Sridhar M, Lindfors KK. Viscoelastic imaging of breast tumor microenvironment with ultrasound. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2004;9:393-404.
244. Wang H, Mislati R, Ahmed R, et al. Elastography can map the local inverse relationship between shear modulus and drug delivery within the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma microenvironment. Clin Cancer Res 2019;25:2136-43.
245. Massoud TF, Gambhir SS. Molecular imaging in living subjects: Seeing fundamental biological processes in a new light. Genes Dev 2003;17:545-80.
247. Weissleder R, Nahrendorf M. Advancing biomedical imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015;112:14424-8.
248. Imamura T, Saitou T, Kawakami R. In vivo optical imaging of cancer cell function and tumor microenvironment. Cancer Sci 2018;109:912-8.
249. Jeevarathinam AS, Lemaster JE, Chen F, Zhao E, Jokerst J V. Photoacoustic imaging quantifies drug release from nanocarriers via redox chemistry of dye-labeled cargo. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2020;59:4678-83.
250. Laufer JG, Zhang EZ, Treeby BE, et al. In vivo preclinical photoacoustic imaging of tumor vasculature development and therapy. J Biomed Opt 2012;17:056016.
251. Lao Y, Xing D, Yang S, Xiang L. Noninvasive photoacoustic imaging of the developing vasculature during early tumor growth. Phys Med Biol 2008;53:4203-12.
252. Omar M, Schwarz M, Soliman D, Symvoulidis P, Ntziachristos V. Pushing the optical imaging limits of cancer with multi-frequency-band raster-scan optoacoustic mesoscopy (RSOM). Neoplasia 2015;17:208-14.
253. Chekkoury A, Nunes A, Gateau J, et al. High-resolution multispectral optoacoustic tomography of the vascularization and constitutive hypoxemia of cancerous tumors. Neoplasia 2016;18:459-67.
254. Li ML, Oh JT, Xie X, et al. Simultaneous molecular and hypoxia imaging of brain tumors in vivo using spectroscopic photoacoustic tomography. Proc IEEE 2008; doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2007.913515.
255. Raes F, Sobilo J, Le Mee M, et al. High resolution ultrasound and photoacoustic imaging of orthotopic lung cancer in mice: New perspectives for onco- pharmacology. PLoS One 2016;11:e0153532.
256. Lavaud J, Henry M, Coll JL, Josserand V. Exploration of melanoma metastases in mice brains using endogenous contrast photoacoustic imaging. Int J Pharm 2017;532:704-9.
257. Imai T, Muz B, Yeh CH, et al. Direct measurement of hypoxia in a xenograft multiple myeloma model by optical-resolution photoacoustic microscopy. Cancer Biol Ther 2017;18:101-5.
258. Quiros-Gonzalez I, Tomaszewski MR, Aitken SJ, et al. Optoacoustics delineates murine breast cancer models displaying angiogenesis and vascular mimicry. Br J Cancer 2018;118:1098-106.
259. Bendinger AL, Glowa C, Peter J, Karger CP. Photoacoustic imaging to assess pixel-based sO2 distributions in experimental prostate tumors. J Biomed Opt 2018;23:1-11.
260. Tomaszewski MR, Gonzalez IQ, O’Connor JP, et al. Oxygen enhanced Optoacoustic Tomography (OE-OT) reveals vascular dynamics in murine models of prostate cancer. Theranostics 2017;7:2900-13.
261. van den Berg PJ, Daoudi K, Steenbergen W. Review of photoacoustic flow imaging: its current state and its promises. Photoacoustics 2015;3:89-99.
262. Bohndiek SE, Sasportas LS, Machtaler S, Jokerst JV, Hori S, Gambhir SS. Photoacoustic tomography detects early vessel regression and normalization during ovarian tumor response to the antiangiogenic therapy trebananib. J Nucl Med 2015;56:1942-7.
263. Rich LJ, Seshadri M. Photoacoustic monitoring of tumor and normal tissue response to radiation. Sci Rep 2016;6:21237.
265. Knox HJ, Hedhli J, Kim TW, Khalili K, Dobrucki LW, Chan J. A bioreducible N-oxide-based probe for photoacoustic imaging of hypoxia. Nat Commun 2017;8:1794.
266. Chatni MR, Yao J, Danielli A, Favazza CP, Maslov KI, Wang LV. Functional photoacoustic microscopy of pH. J Biomed Opt 2011;16:100503.
267. Jo J, Lee CH, Kopelman R, Wang X. In vivo quantitative imaging of tumor pH by nanosonophore assisted multispectral photoacoustic imaging. Nat Commun 2017;8:471.
268. Lei H, Johnson LA, Liu S, et al. Characterizing intestinal inflammation and fibrosis in Crohn’s disease by photoacoustic imaging: feasibility study. Biomed Opt Express 2016;7:2837-48.
269. Zhu Y, Johnson LA, Huang Z, et al. Identifying intestinal fibrosis and inflammation by spectroscopic photoacoustic imaging: an animal study in vivo. Biomed Opt Express 2018;9:1590-1600.
270. Cao Y, Kole A, Hui J, et al. Fast assessment of lipid content in arteries in vivo by intravascular photoacoustic tomography. Sci Rep 2018;8:2400.
271. Wu PC, Hsieh TY, Tsai ZU, Liu TM. 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.
272. Dragulescu-Andrasi A, Kothapalli SR, Tikhomirov GA, Rao J, Gambhir SS. Activatable oligomerizable imaging agents for photoacoustic imaging of furin-like activity in living subjects. J Am Chem Soc 2013;135:11015-22.
273. Levi J, Kothapalli SR, Bohndiek S, et al. Molecular photoacoustic imaging of follicular thyroid carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:1494-502.
274. Yin L, Sun H, Zhang H, et al. Quantitatively visualizing tumor-related protease activity in vivo using a ratiometric photoacoustic probe. J Am Chem Soc 2019;141:3265-73.
275. Egeblad M, Werb Z. New functions for the matrix metalloproteinases in cancer progression. Nat Rev Cancer 2002;2:161-74.
276. Tzoumas S, Zaremba A, Klemm U, Nunes A, Schaefer K, Ntziachristos V. Immune cell imaging using multi-spectral optoacoustic tomography. Opt Lett 2014;39:3523-6.
277. Zheng S, Li H, Lai K, et al. Noninvasive photoacoustic and fluorescent tracking of optical dye labeled T cellular activities of diseased sites at new depth. J Biophotonics 2018;11:e201800073.
278. Filippi M, Garello F, Pasquino C, et al. Indocyanine green labeling for optical and photoacoustic imaging of mesenchymal stem cells after in vivo transplantation. J Biophotonics 2019;12:e201800035.
279. Weber J, Beard PC, Bohndiek SE. Contrast agents for molecular photoacoustic imaging. Nat Methods 2016;13:639-50.
280. Burke K, Brown E. The use of second harmonic generation to image the extracellular matrix during tumor progression. Intravital 2014;3:e984509.
281. Masedunskas A, Milberg O, Porat-Shliom N, et al. Intravital microscopy: a practical guide on imaging intracellular structures in live animals. Bioarchitecture 2012;2:143-57.
282. Sturm MB, Joshi BP, Lu S, et al. Targeted imaging of esophageal neoplasia with a fluorescently labeled peptide: first-in-human results. Sci Transl Med 2013;5:184ra61.
283. Pan Y, Volkmer JP, Mach KE, et al. Endoscopic molecular imaging of human bladder cancer using a CD47 antibody. Sci Transl Med 2014;6:260ra148.
284. Ricard C, Stanchi F, Rodriguez T, Amoureux MC, Rougon G, Debarbieux F. Dynamic quantitative intravital imaging of glioblastoma progression reveals a lack of correlation between tumor growth and blood vessel density. PLoS One 2013;8:e72655.
285. Fisher DT, Muhitch JB, Kim M, et al. Intraoperative intravital microscopy permits the study of human tumour vessels. Nat Commun 2016;7:10684.
286. Zomer A, Maynard C, Verweij FJ, et al. In vivo imaging reveals extracellular vesicle-mediated phenocopying of metastatic behavior. Cell 2015;161:1046-57.
287. Qi S, Li H, Lu L, et al. Long-term intravital imaging of the multicolor-coded tumor microenvironment during combination immunotherapy. Elife 2016;5:e14756.
288. Arlauckas SP, Garris CS, Kohler RH, et al. In vivo imaging reveals a tumor-associated macrophage-mediated resistance pathway in anti-PD-1 therapy. Sci Transl Med 2017;9:eaal3604.
289. Karagiannis GS, Pastoriza JM, Wang Y, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy induces breast cancer metastasis through a TMEM-mediated mechanism. Sci Transl Med 2017;9:eaan0026.
290. Ntziachristos V. Going deeper than microscopy: the optical imaging frontier in biology. Nat Methods 2010;7:603-14.
291. Vakoc BJ, Lanning RM, Tyrrell JA, et al. Three-dimensional microscopy of the tumor microenvironment in vivo using optical frequency domain imaging. Nat Med 2009;15:1219-23.
292. Junankar S, Shay G, Jurczyluk J, et al. Real-time intravital imaging establishes tumor-associated macrophages as the extraskeletal target of bisphosphonate action in cancer. Cancer Discov 2015;5:35-42.
293. Smith BR, Kempen P, Bouley D, et al. Shape matters: intravital microscopy reveals surprising geometrical dependence for nanoparticles in tumor models of extravasation. Nano Lett 2012;12:3369-77.
294. Winfree S, Hato T, Day RN. Intravital microscopy of biosensor activities and intrinsic metabolic states. Methods 2017;128:95-104.
295. Niesner R, Andresen V, Neumann J, Spiecker H, Gunzer M. The power of single and multibeam two-photon microscopy for high-resolution and high-speed deep tissue and intravital imaging. Biophys J 2007;93:2519-29.
296. You S, Tu H, Chaney EJ, et al. Intravital imaging by simultaneous label-free autofluorescence-multiharmonic microscopy. Nat Commun 2018;9:2125.
297. Katsuno Y, Hanyu A, Kanda H, et al. Bone morphogenetic protein signaling enhances invasion and bone metastasis of breast cancer cells through Smad pathway. Oncogene 2008;27:6322-33.
298. Hara-Miyauchi C, Tsuji O, Hanyu A, et al. Bioluminescent system for dynamic imaging of cell and animal behavior. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2012;419:188-93.
299. Rathbun CM, Prescher JA. Bioluminescent probes for imaging biology beyond the culture dish. Biochemistry 2017;56:5178-84.
300. Kim YP, Daniel WL, Xia Z, Xie H, Mirkin CA, Rao J. Bioluminescent nanosensors for protease detection based upon gold nanoparticle-luciferase conjugates. Chem Commun 2010;46:76-8.
301. Xia Z, Xing Y, So MK, Koh AL, Sinclair R, Rao J. Multiplex detection of protease activity with quantum dot nanosensors prepared by intein-mediated specific bioconjugation. Anal Chem 2008;80:8649-55.
302. Yao H, Zhang Y, Xiao F, Xia Z, Rao J. Quantum dot/bioluminescence resonance energy transfer based highly sensitive detection of proteases. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2007;46:4346-9.
303. Xia Z, Xing Y, Jeon J, et al. Immobilizing reporters for molecular imaging of the extracellular microenvironment in living animals. ACS Chem Biol 2011;6:1117-26.
304. Kidd S, Spaeth E, Dembinski JL, et al. Direct evidence of mesenchymal stem cell tropism for tumor and wounding microenvironments using in vivo bioluminescent imaging. Stem Cells 2009;27:2614-23.
305. Doucette T, Rao G, Yang Y, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells display tumor-specific tropism in an RCAS/Ntv-a glioma model. Neoplasia 2011;13:716-25.
306. Cao J, Hou S, Ding H, et al. In vivo tracking of systemically administered allogeneic bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in normal rats through bioluminescence imaging. Stem Cells Int 2016;2016:3970942.
307. Allen AB, Gazit Z, Su S, Stevens HY, Guldberg RE. In vivo bioluminescent tracking of mesenchymal stem cells within large hydrogel constructs. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 2014;20:806-16.
308. Conway M, Xu T, Kirkpatrick A, Ripp S, Sayler G, Close D. Real-time tracking of stem cell viability, proliferation, and differentiation with autonomous bioluminescence imaging. BMC Biol 2020;18:79.
309. Vilela CAP, Souza LEB, Siqueira RC, Calado RT, Covas DT, Paula JS. Ex vivo evaluation of intravitreal mesenchymal stromal cell viability using bioluminescence imaging. Stem Cell Res Ther 2018;9:155.
310. Baklaushev VP, Kilpeläinen A, Petkov S, et al. Luciferase expression allows bioluminescence imaging but imposes limitations on the orthotopic mouse (4T1) model of breast cancer. Sci Rep 2017;7:7715.
311. Moriyama EH, Niedre MJ, Jarvi MT, et al. The influence of hypoxia on bioluminescence in luciferase-transfected gliosarcoma tumor cells in vitro. Photochem Photobiol Sci 2008;7:675-80.
312. Khalil AA, Jameson MJ, Broaddus WC, et al. The influence of hypoxia and pH on bioluminescence imaging of luciferase-transfected tumor cells and xenografts. Int J Mol Imaging 2013;2013:287697.
313. Gao Y, Lin Y, Liu T, et al. Bioluminescent probe for tumor hypoxia detection via CYP450 reductase in living animals. Anal Chem 2017;89:12488-93.
314. Saha D, Dunn H, Zhou H, et al. In vivo bioluminescence imaging of tumor hypoxia dynamics of breast cancer brain metastasis in a mouse model. J Vis Exp 2011:3175.
315. McMillin DW, Delmore J, Weisberg E, et al. Tumor cell-specific bioluminescence platform to identify stroma-induced changes to anticancer drug activity. Nat Med 2010;16:483-9.
316. Correa de Sampaio P, Auslaender D, Krubasik D, et al. A heterogeneous in vitro three dimensional model of tumour-stroma interactions regulating sprouting angiogenesis. PLoS One 2012;7:e30753.
317. Hoffman RM. The multiple uses of fluorescent proteins to visualize cancer in vivo. Nat Rev Cancer 2005;5:796-806.
319. Nakamura M, Suetsugu A, Hasegawa K, et al. Color-coded imaging distinguishes cancer cells, stromal cells, and recombinant cancer-stromal cells in the tumor microenvironment during metastasis. Anticancer Res 2018;38:4417-23.
320. Yang M, Li L, Jiang P, Moossa AR, Penman S, Hoffman RM. Dual-color fluorescence imaging distinguishes tumor cells from induced host angiogenic vessels and stromal cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:14259-62.
321. Yang M, Jiang P, Hoffman RM. Whole-body subcellular multicolor imaging of tumor-host interaction and drug response in real time. Cancer Res 2007;67:5195-200.
322. Egeblad M, Ewald AJ, Askautrud HA, et al. Visualizing stromal cell dynamics in different tumor microenvironments by spinning disk confocal microscopy. Dis Model Mech 2008;1:155-67. discussion 165
323. Mochizuki N, Yamashita S, Kurokawa K, et al. Spatio-temporal images of growth-factor-induced activation of Ras and Rap1. Nature 2001;411:1065-8.
324. Brown LF, Berse B, Jackman RW, et al. Expression of vascular permeability factor (vascular endothelial growth factor) and its receptors in breast cancer. Hum Pathol 1995;26:86-91.
325. Hanyu A, Kojima K, Hatake K, et al. Functional in vivo optical imaging of tumor angiogenesis, growth, and metastasis prevented by administration of anti-human VEGF antibody in xenograft model of human fibrosarcoma HT1080 cells. Cancer Sci 2009;100:2085-92.
326. Mayes PA, Dicker DT, Liu YY, El-Deiry WS. Noninvasive vascular imaging in fluorescent tumors using multispectral unmixing. Biotechniques 2008;45:459-60. 461-4
327. Li G, Xing Y, Wang J, Conti PS, Chen K. Near-infrared fluorescence imaging of CD13 receptor expression using a novel Cy5.5-labeled dimeric NGR peptide. Amino Acids 2014;46:1547-56.
328. Biswal NC, Gamelin JK, Yuan B, Backer MV, Backer JM, Zhu Q. Fluorescence imaging of vascular endothelial growth factor in tumors for mice embedded in a turbid medium. J Biomed Opt 2010;15:016012.
329. Choi M, Chung T, Choi K, Choi C. Dynamic fluorescence imaging for multiparametric measurement of tumor vasculature. In: Imaging, Manipulation, and Analysis of Biomolecules, Cells, and Tissues VII 2009.
330. Zhang Y, So MK, Rao J. Protease-modulated cellular uptake of quantum dots. Nano Lett 2006;6:1988-92.
331. Xie J, Zhang F, Aronova M, et al. Manipulating the power of an additional phase: a flower-like au-Fe 3O4 optical nanosensor for imaging protease expressions in vivo. ACS Nano 2011;5:3043-51.
332. Cobos-Correa A, Trojanek JB, Diemer S, Mall MA, Schultz C. Membrane-bound FRET probe visualizes MMP12 activity in pulmonary inflammation. Nat Chem Biol 2009;5:628-30.
333. Park SY, Lee SM, Kim GB, Kim YP. Gold nanoparticle-based fluorescence quenching via metal coordination for assaying protease activity. Gold Bull 2012;45:213-9.
334. Lee S, Cha EJ, Park K, et al. A near-infrared-fluorescence-quenched gold-nanoparticle imaging probe for in vivo drug screening and protease activity determination. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2008;47:2804-7.
335. Li X, Shepard HM, Cowell JA, et al. Parallel accumulation of tumor hyaluronan, collagen, and other drivers of tumor progression. Clin Cancer Res 2018;24:4798-807.
336. Qi B, Crawford AJ, Wojtynek NE, et al. Tuned near infrared fluorescent hyaluronic acid conjugates for delivery to pancreatic cancer for intraoperative imaging. Theranostics 2020;10:3413-29.
337. Lopès A, Cassé AH, Billard E, et al. Deciphering the immune microenvironment of a tissue by digital imaging and cognition network. Sci Rep 2018;8:16692.
338. Ke CC, Liu RS, Suetsugu A, et al. In vivo fluorescence imaging reveals the promotion of mammary tumorigenesis by mesenchymal stromal cells. PLoS One 2013;8:e69658.
339. Germain RN, Miller MJ, Dustin ML, Nussenzweig MC. Dynamic imaging of the immune system: progress, pitfalls and promise. Nat Rev Immunol 2006;6:497-507.
340. Quante M, Tu SP, Tomita H, et al. Bone marrow-derived myofibroblasts contribute to the mesenchymal stem cell niche and promote tumor growth. Cancer Cell 2011;19:257-72.
341. Zhao H, Yang L, Baddour J, et al. Tumor microenvironment derived exosomes pleiotropically modulate cancer cell metabolism. Elife 2016;5:e10250.
342. Li YY, Tao YW, Gao S, et al. Cancer-associated fibroblasts contribute to oral cancer cells proliferation and metastasis via exosome-mediated paracrine miR-34a-5p. EBioMedicine 2018;36:209-20.
343. Lo PC, Chen J, Stefflova K, et al. Photodynamic molecular beacon triggered by fibroblast activation protein on cancer-associated fibroblasts for diagnosis and treatment of epithelial cancers. J Med Chem 2009;52:358-68.
344. Cai Q, Yu T, Zhu W, Xu Y, Qian X. A turn-on fluorescent probe for tumor hypoxia imaging in living cells. Chem Commun 2015;51:14739-41.
345. Tian X, Li Z, Sun Y, Wang P, Ma H. Near-infrared fluorescent probes for hypoxia detection via joint regulated enzymes: design, synthesis, and application in living cells and mice. Anal Chem 2018;90:13759-66.
346. Yang D, Tian HY, Zang TN, Li M, Zhou Y, Zhang JF. Hypoxia imaging in cells and tumor tissues using a highly selective fluorescent nitroreductase probe. Sci Rep 2017;7:9174.
347. Mirabello V, Cortezon-Tamarit F, Pascu SI. Oxygen sensing, hypoxia tracing and in vivo imaging with functional metalloprobes for the early detection of non-communicable diseases. Front Chem 2018;6:27.
348. Wang L, Li C. PH responsive fluorescence nanoprobe imaging of tumors by sensing the acidic microenvironment. J Mater Chem 2011;21:15862-71.
349. Fang M, Adhikari R, Bi J, et al. Fluorescent probes for sensitive and selective detection of pH changes in live cells in visible and near-infrared channels. J Mater Chem B 2017;5:9579-90.
350. Liu Q, Zheng C, Zhao H, Wang K, Tao W. Tumor cell pH detection based on CdSe quantum dots’ fluorescence charateristics. Technol Health Care 2019;27:239-47.
351. Anemone A, Consolino L, Arena F, Capozza M, Longo DL. Imaging tumor acidosis: a survey of the available techniques for mapping in vivo tumor pH. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2019;38:25-49.
352. Stuker F, Ripoll J, Rudin M. Fluorescence molecular tomography: principles and potential for pharmaceutical research. Pharmaceutics 2011;3:229-74.
353. Leimgruber A, Berger C, Cortez-Retamozo V, et al. Behavior of endogenous Tumor-associated macrophages assessed in vivo using a functionalized nanoparticle. Neoplasia 2009;11:459-68. 2 p following 468
354. Li L, Du Y, Chen X, Tian J. Fluorescence molecular imaging and tomography of matrix metalloproteinase-activatable near-infrared fluorescence probe and image-guided orthotopic glioma resection. Mol Imaging Biol 2018;20:930-9.
355. Zhang Q, Bindokas V, Shen J, Fan H, Hoffman RM, Xing HR. Time-course imaging of therapeutic functional tumor vascular normalization by antiangiogenic agents. Mol Cancer Ther 2011;10:1173-84.
356. Montet X, Figueiredo JL, Alencar H, Ntziachristos V, Mahmood U, Weissleder R. Tomographic fluorescence imaging of tumor vascular volume in mice. Radiology 2007;242:751-8.
357. Theek B, Gremse F, Kunjachan S, et al. Characterizing EPR-mediated passive drug targeting using contrast-enhanced functional ultrasound imaging. J Control Release 2014;182:83-9.
358. Ntziachristos V, Tung CH, Bremer C, Weissleder R. Fluorescence molecular tomography resolves protease activity in vivo. Nat Med 2002;8:757-60.
359. Fujimoto JG, Pitris C, Boppart SA, Brezinski ME. Optical coherence tomography: an emerging technology for biomedical imaging and optical biopsy. Neoplasia 2000;2:9-25.
360. Goswami M, Wang X, Zhang P, et al. Novel window for cancer nanotheranostics: non-invasive ocular assessments of tumor growth and nanotherapeutic treatment efficacy in vivo. Biomed Opt Express 2019;10:151-66.
361. Marvdashti T, Duan L, Aasi SZ, Tang JY, Ellerbee Bowden AK. Classification of basal cell carcinoma in human skin using machine learning and quantitative features captured by polarization sensitive optical coherence tomography. Biomed Opt Express 2016;7:3721-35.
362. Kiseleva E, Kirillin M, Feldchtein F, et al. Differential diagnosis of human bladder mucosa pathologies in vivo with cross-polarization optical coherence tomography. Biomed Opt Express 2015;6:1464-76.
363. Chhetri RK, Phillips ZF, Troester MA, Oldenburg AL. Longitudinal study of mammary epithelial and fibroblast co-cultures using optical coherence tomography reveals morphological hallmarks of pre-malignancy. PLoS One 2012 2012;7:e49148.
364. Winkler AM, Rice PFS, Weichsel J, et al. In vivo, dual-modality OCT/LIF imaging using a novel VEGF receptor-targeted NIR fluorescent probe in the AOM-treated mouse model. Mol Imaging Biol 2011;13:1173-82.
365. De Carvalho N, Welzel J, Schuh S, et al. The vascular morphology of melanoma is related to Breslow index: an in vivo study with dynamic optical coherence tomography. Exp Dermatol 2018;27:1280-6.
367. Liba O, Sorelle ED, Sen D, De La Zerda A. Contrast-enhanced optical coherence tomography with picomolar sensitivity for functional in vivo imaging. Sci Rep 2016;6:23337.
368. Si P, Yuan E, Liba O, et al. Gold nanoprisms as optical coherence tomography contrast agents in the second near-infrared window for enhanced angiography in live animals. ACS Nano 2018;12:11986-94.
369. Si P, Sen D, Dutta R, et al. In vivo molecular optical coherence tomography of lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronan receptors. Sci Rep 2017;7:1086.
370. Sorelle ED, Yecies DW, Liba O, et al. Spatiotemporal tracking of brain-tumor-associated myeloid cells in vivo through optical coherence tomography with plasmonic labeling and speckle modulation. ACS Nano 2019;13:7985-95.
371. John R, Rezaeipoor R, Adie SG, et al. In vivo magnetomotive optical molecular imaging using targeted magnetic nanoprobes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:8085-90.
372. Fernandes C, Suares D, Yergeri MC. Tumor Microenvironment Targeted Nanotherapy. Front Pharmacol 2018;9:1230.
373. García-Figueiras R, Baleato-González S, Padhani AR, et al. How clinical imaging can assess cancer biology. Insights Imaging 2019;10:28.
374. Wu Y, Zhang W, Li J, Zhang Y. Optical imaging of tumor microenvironment. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;3:1-15.
375. Youn H, Hong KJ. In vivo non invasive molecular imaging for immune cell tracking in small animals. Immune Netw 2012;12:223-9.
376. Condeelis J, Weissleder R. In vivo imaging in cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2010;2:a003848.
377. Schinkel AFL, Kaspar M, Staub D. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: clinical applications in patients with atherosclerosis. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;32:35-48.
378. Barr RG. Contrast enhanced ultrasound for focal liver lesions: how accurate is it? Abdom Radiol 2018;43:1128-33.
379. Mallidi S, Luke GP, Emelianov S. Photoacoustic imaging in cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment guidance. Trends Biotechnol 2011;29:213-21.
380. Choo YW, Jeong J, Jung K. Recent advances in intravital microscopy for investigation of dynamic cellular behavior in vivo. BMB Rep 2020;53:357-66.
381. Ramamonjisoa N, Ackerstaff E. Characterization of the tumor microenvironment and tumor-stroma interaction by non-invasive preclinical imaging. Front Oncol 2017;7:3.
382. Ottobrini L, Martelli C, Trabattoni DL, Clerici M, Lucignani G. In vivo imaging of immune cell trafficking in cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:949-68.
383. Narunsky L, Oren R, Bochner F, Neeman M. Imaging aspects of the tumor stroma with therapeutic implications. Pharmacol Ther 2014;141:192-208.
384. Krohn KA, Link JM, Mason RP. Molecular imaging of hypoxia. J Nucl Med 2008;49 Suppl 2:129S-48S.
385. Dogra P, Adolphi NL, Wang Z, et al. Establishing the effects of mesoporous silica nanoparticle properties on in vivo disposition using imaging-based pharmacokinetics. Nat Commun 2018;9:4551.
386. Schmid D, Park CG, Hartl CA, et al. T cell-targeting nanoparticles focus delivery of immunotherapy to improve antitumor immunity. Nat Commun 2017;8:1747.
