Back

Multimodal PET Defines a Goldilocks Thermal Window for Focused Ultrasound Ablation and Immunotherapy Combinations

Demir, Z. E. F.; Sherlock, T.; DeWitt, M. R.; Talebibarmi, P.; Palacios-Gomez, C.; Klibanov, A. L.; Neumann, K. D.; Peirce, S. M.; Lazzara, M. J.; Lindner, J. R.; He, J.; Kundu, B.; Sheybani, N. D.

2026-06-11 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.06.10.731490 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThermally ablative focused ultrasound (T-FUS) offers a noninvasive, spatially precise strategy for local tumor destruction, with the added potential to remodel tumor architecture and immune dynamics in ways that influence downstream therapeutic delivery and efficacy. Despite promising preclinical and clinical findings, the T-FUS parameters that best balance tumor debulking with preservation of local biologic, e.g. immunotherapy, penetrance remain unclear. Thermal dose, defined by the relationship between tissue heating, exposure duration, and biological effect, is likely a critical determinant of this balance. Excessive thermal dose may eliminate the vascular and stromal features needed to support immunotherapy access, whereas insufficient thermal dose may fail to achieve meaningful cytoreduction. Here, we deploy multimodal PET, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, and tissue profiling to define a "Goldilocks Zone" for T-FUS that balances bulk tumor destruction with immunotherapy delivery. MethodSubtotal T-FUS was applied to 4T1 tumors using three thermal dose regimens resolved by in silico modeling. Ablation was quantified by H&E and TTC staining. Post-ablative perfusion and microvascular coverage were assessed by contrast-enhanced ultrasound and immunofluorescence, respectively. Tumor oxygenation was measured by intravenous hypoxyprobe labeling. After T-FUS, mice underwent dynamic [18F]-FDG PET and immunoPET with a model tumor-targeted antibody, [89Zr]-CD47, to relate cytoreduction to antibody penetrance. ImmunoPET findings were further evaluated by ex vivo biodistribution analysis. ResultsIn silico modeling established three T-FUS regimens that generated distinct thermal dose profiles and were deployed in vivo in a solid breast tumor model. Histopathology, perfusion imaging, and hypoxia analysis revealed dose-dependent and dose-divergent biological effects that informed a candidate Goldilocks thermal window. Low thermal dose produced measurable but limited tumor debulking, whereas high thermal dose caused disproportionate functional perfusion collapse. An intermediate thermal dose achieved robust partial ablation, broad hypoxia relief, and preservation of residual tumor physiology sufficient to support antibody access. Dynamic [18F]-FDG PET confirmed a marked reduction in metabolically active tumor burden after Goldilocks T-FUS. Serial [89Zr]-CD47 immunoPET showed that bulk antibody signal was maintained after ablation, and integration of immunoPET with matched [18F]-FDG PET revealed approximately 3-fold enrichment of antibody exposure within the residual viable tumor compartment of ablated tumors. These findings demonstrate that appropriately tuned thermal ablation can debulk tumor while preserving, and potentially concentrating, immunotherapy access within the remaining targetable tumor niche. ConclusionThis study identifies thermal dose as a critical consideration for T-FUS immunotherapy combinations and establishes a PET-informed framework for balancing cytoreduction with therapeutic delivery. Rather than functioning solely as a local debulking modality, we demonstrate that T-FUS can be tuned to yield a post-ablation tumor state that remains accessible to large biologics. These findings provide timely, translationally relevant guidance for tailoring T-FUS regimens to achieve local tumor destruction while preserving an immunotherapy-permissive niche for combination treatment.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Advanced Science
286 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
8.7%
2
Journal of Controlled Release
44 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.1%
3
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.1%
4
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 5%
5.3%
5
Theranostics
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.3%
6
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 28%
5.3%
7
Cell Reports Medicine
153 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.2%
8
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.9%
9
Cancer Research
130 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.9%
10
Neuro-Oncology Advances
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
50% of probability mass above
11
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
12
Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
13
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
75 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.1%
14
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 49%
2.1%
15
Advanced Healthcare Materials
85 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.1%
16
Science Translational Medicine
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
17
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
40 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
18
Photoacoustics
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
19
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
20
Nature Biomedical Engineering
47 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
21
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 31%
1.5%
22
Molecular Therapy
81 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
23
Biomaterials
84 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
24
Advanced Functional Materials
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
25
ACS Nano
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
26
Advanced Therapeutics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
27
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.8%
28
JCI Insight
277 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
29
Cell Reports
1498 papers in training set
Top 30%
0.6%
30
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%