For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
5
views
164
references
 Top references
cited by
13
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      115
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Recent Advances on Ultrasound Contrast Agents for Blood-Brain Barrier Opening with Focused Ultrasound

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The blood-brain barrier is the primary obstacle to efficient intracerebral drug delivery. Focused ultrasound, in conjunction with microbubbles, is a targeted and non-invasive way to disrupt the blood-brain barrier. Many commercially available ultrasound contrast agents and agents specifically designed for therapeutic purposes have been investigated in ultrasound-mediated blood-brain barrier opening studies. The new generation of sono-sensitive agents, such as liquid-core droplets, can also potentially disrupt the blood-brain barrier after their ultrasound-induced vaporization. In this review, we describe the different compositions of agents used for ultrasound-mediated blood-brain barrier opening in recent studies, and we discuss the challenges of the past five years related to the optimal formulation of agents.

          Related collections

          Most cited references164

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The blood–brain barrier and blood–tumour barrier in brain tumours and metastases

          Costas Arvanitis, Gino Ferraro, Rakesh Jain (2019)
          For a blood-borne cancer therapeutic agent to be effective, it must cross the blood vessel wall to reach cancer cells in adequate quantities, and it must overcome the resistance conferred by the local microenvironment around cancer cells. The brain microenvironment can thwart the effectiveness of drugs against primary brain tumours as well as brain metastases. In this Review, we highlight the cellular and molecular components of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), a specialized neurovascular unit evolved to maintain brain homeostasis. Tumours are known to compromise the integrity of the BBB, resulting in a vasculature known as the blood-tumour barrier (BTB), which is highly heterogeneous and characterized by numerous distinct features, including non-uniform permeability and active efflux of molecules. We discuss the challenges posed by the BBB and BTB for drug delivery, how multiple cell types dictate BBB function and the role of the BTB in disease progression and treatment. Finally, we highlight emerging molecular, cellular and physical strategies to improve drug delivery across the BBB and BTB and discuss their impact on improving conventional as well as emerging treatments, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and engineered T cells. A deeper understanding of the BBB and BTB through the application of single-cell sequencing and imaging techniques, and the development of biomarkers of BBB integrity along with systems biology approaches, should enable new personalized treatment strategies for primary brain malignancies and brain metastases.
          Article 0 comments Cited 317 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical trial of blood-brain barrier disruption by pulsed ultrasound.

            Alexandre Carpentier, Michael Canney, Alexandre Vignot … (2016)
            The blood-brain barrier (BBB) limits the delivery of systemically administered drugs to the brain. Methods to circumvent the BBB have been developed, but none are used in standard clinical practice. The lack of adoption of existing methods is due to procedural invasiveness, serious adverse effects, and the complications associated with performing such techniques coincident with repeated drug administration, which is customary in chemotherapeutic protocols. Pulsed ultrasound, a method for disrupting the BBB, was shown to effectively increase drug concentrations and to slow tumor growth in preclinical studies. We now report the interim results of an ultrasound dose-escalating phase 1/2a clinical trial using an implantable ultrasound device system, SonoCloud, before treatment with carboplatin in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). The BBB of each patient was disrupted monthly using pulsed ultrasound in combination with systemically injected microbubbles. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) indicated that the BBB was disrupted at acoustic pressure levels up to 1.1 megapascals without detectable adverse effects on radiologic (MRI) or clinical examination. Our preliminary findings indicate that repeated opening of the BBB using our pulsed ultrasound system, in combination with systemic microbubble injection, is safe and well tolerated in patients with recurrent GBM and has the potential to optimize chemotherapy delivery in the brain.
            Article 0 comments Cited 204 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Understanding ultrasound induced sonoporation: definitions and underlying mechanisms.

              Chrit Moonen, Colomban de Vargas, Roel Deckers … (2014)
              In the past two decades, research has underlined the potential of ultrasound and microbubbles to enhance drug delivery. However, there is less consensus on the biophysical and biological mechanisms leading to this enhanced delivery. Sonoporation, i.e. the formation of temporary pores in the cell membrane, as well as enhanced endocytosis is reported. Because of the variety of ultrasound settings used and corresponding microbubble behavior, a clear overview is missing. Therefore, in this review, the mechanisms contributing to sonoporation are categorized according to three ultrasound settings: i) low intensity ultrasound leading to stable cavitation of microbubbles, ii) high intensity ultrasound leading to inertial cavitation with microbubble collapse, and iii) ultrasound application in the absence of microbubbles. Using low intensity ultrasound, the endocytotic uptake of several drugs could be stimulated, while short but intense ultrasound pulses can be applied to induce pore formation and the direct cytoplasmic uptake of drugs. Ultrasound intensities may be adapted to create pore sizes correlating with drug size. Small molecules are able to diffuse passively through small pores created by low intensity ultrasound treatment. However, delivery of larger drugs such as nanoparticles and gene complexes, will require higher ultrasound intensities in order to allow direct cytoplasmic entry. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
              Article 0 comments Cited 172 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Pharmaceutics
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Pharmaceutics
                Journal ID (publisher-id): pharmaceutics
                Title: Pharmaceutics
                Publisher: MDPI
                ISSN (Electronic): 1999-4923
                Publication date (Electronic): 21 November 2020
                Publication date Collection: November 2020
                Volume: 12
                Issue: 11
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Université Paris-Saclay, CEA, CNRS, Inserm, BioMaps, Service Hospitalier Frédéric Joliot, 91401 Orsay, France; ambre.dauba@ 123456universite-paris-saclay.fr
                [2 ]Centre de Biophysique Moléculaire and Université d’Orléans, CNRS-UPR 4301, 45071 Orléans, France; anthony.delalande@ 123456cnrs.fr
                [3 ]Department of Biomedical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA; kamimura.hermes@ 123456columbia.edu
                [4 ]Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy; allegra.conti@ 123456uniroma2.it
                [5 ]Université Paris-Saclay, CEA, CNRS, Baobab, NeuroSpin, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France; benoit.larrat@ 123456cea.fr
                [6 ]Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, Institut Galien Paris-Saclay, 92296 Châtenay-Malabry, France; nicolas.tsapis@ 123456universite-paris-saclay.fr
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: anthony.novell@ 123456universite-paris-saclay.fr ; Tel.: +33-169867727
                Article
                Publisher ID: pharmaceutics-12-01125
                DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12111125
                PMC ID: 7700476
                PubMed ID: 33233374
                SO-VID: a93de619-699e-4098-bfeb-2e67aeff3dbc
                Copyright statement: © 2020 by the authors.
                License:

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                Categories
                Subject: Review

                Keywords: blood-brain barrier,bubble,droplet,phase-change contrast agent,ultrasound
                Data availability:
                Keywords: blood-brain barrier, bubble, droplet, phase-change contrast agent, ultrasound

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Similar content115

                See all similar

                Cited by13

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors2,229

                See all reference authors