SUMMARY:Noninvasive imaging should facilitate the analysis of changes in experimental tumors and metastases-expressing photoproteins and result in improved data consistency and experimental animal welfare. We analyzed quantitative aspects of noninvasive imaging of luciferase-labeled tumors by comparing the efficiency of noninvasive light detection with in vitro quantification of luciferase activity. An intensified charge coupled device video camera was used to noninvasively image luciferase-expressing human prostate tumors and metastases in nude mice, after ip inoculation of luciferin. Repeated imaging of anesthetized animals after intervening growth periods allowed monitoring of tumor and metastases development. Comparison of photon events recorded in tumor images with the number of relative light units from luminometric quantification of homogenates from the same tumors, revealed that the efficiency with which light escapes tumors is inversely related to tumor size and that intensified charge coupled device images alone are not sufficient for quantitative evaluation of tumor growth. However, a combined videometric and luminometric approach did allow quantification and was used to show the cytostatic effects of paclitaxel in three different human prostate tumors growing in nude mice. (Lab Invest 2002, 82:1563-1571.

BACKGROUND Sensitive procedures for quantitative measurement of tumor cell spread as a function of time and primary tumor size are necessary to generate models of metastasis and formulate therapies. METHODS Prostate carcinoma cells PC‐3.luc expressing the luciferase gene were intramuscularly inoculated in nude mice to generate experimental tumors. Metastatic cells in target organs were easily counted by their capacity to produce light. RESULTS Tumor cells were very mobile and migrated to all the target organs examined: lymph nodes, brain, bone, lungs, liver, kidney, spleen, testicles, prostate, seminal vesicle, and scrotum. Organ colonization started very early, 14 days after inoculation, when primary tumors were very small and produced an amount of light equivalent to that generated by 2 × 104 tumor cells in vitro (tumor cell equivalents, TCEs). Tumor cell burden could be quantitatively described by power functions of time or primary tumor light‐producing capacity. The ratio of metastatic TCEs to primary tumor TCEs clustered around organ characteristic values: 10−3 for femur and lumbar lymph nodes, 10−6 for the spleen, and 10−3 for the added set of organs. CONCLUSIONS Dispersal of PC‐3 tumor cells from IM experimental tumors started early before the third week postinoculation and when primary tumors had 2 × 104 TCEs. Tumor cells were found widely spread in all the organs tested. The possibility of easily quantifying tumor cell burden should make this approach useful for the study of metastasis and the development of antimetastatic therapies. Prostate 44:133–143, 2000. © 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

No abstract

Purpose: Primary tumor growth is usually assesed by measuring tumor mass or volume, under the assumption that such variables correlate with the contents of tumor cells. However, tumors are complex interacting mixtures of tumor cells and host components. The different sensitivity of such components to cytostatic agents should be taken into consideration when evaluating the effectiveness of antineoplastic agents. We evaluate the effect of the antineoplastic agent paclitaxel on primary tumors expressing luciferase and their metastases using a sensitive luminescence-based procedure to directly asses the number tumor cells, in comparison with traditionally used tumor mass measurement. Experimental Design: Nude mice bearing human prostate tumors expressing the luciferase gene, LNCaP.Sluc, DU 145.Sluc, and PC-3.Sluc, i.m. inoculated, and PC-3M.Sluc, orthotopically inoculated, were subjected to a 10-day treatment with either 10 mg/kg/d paclitaxel or saline solution. At the end of the treatment period, primary tumors as well as metastasis target organs were harvested, weighed, and homogenized. The presence of tumor cells in the tissue homogenates was evaluated using a luminometer, following the addition of luciferin. Tumor cell equivalent is defined as the amount of light produced by a single tumor cell in culture. Results: Paclitaxel had a different effect on the primary tumor mass and the contents of tumor cells for each tumor type. Whereas LNCaP.Sluc, PC-3.Sluc, and PC-3M.Sluc primary tumor masses were significantly reduced by the action of paclitaxel, their contents in tumor cell equivalents were not significantly affected. In contrast, paclitaxel only reduced significantly the number of tumor cell equivalents in DU 145 primary tumors. In the lymph nodes, paclitaxel reduced the number of DU 145.Sluc metastases significantly, by a factor of 103, but had no significant effect on the rest of tumor cells. However, in lungs and muscle, paclitaxel treatment reduced significantly the number of metastatic PC-3.Sluc and PC-3M.Sluc tumor cell equivalents. In the bones, no tumor cell type was significantly affected by paclitaxel. Conclusions: Some components of tumor stroma seem to be more sensitive to antineoplastic agents than the tumor cells themselves and may also contribute to modulate the response to therapy. Our results caution against the use of a single general variable, such as tumor mass, to evaluate the effectiveness of antineoplastic agents and emphasize the effect of the tumor cell environment in their sensitivity to treatment.