Table 1.
Comparison of non-invasive imaging modalities for in vivo cell tracking
| Imaging technique | Resolution* | Tissue penetration depth* | Sensitivity of cell detection* | Possibility of longitudinal studies* | Used generally in the clinic? | Used in clinical cell tracking? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MRI | +++ | +++ | +++ | ++ | Yes | Yes |
| SPECT | + | +++ | ++ | + | Yes | Yes |
| PET | + | +++ | ++ | +++ | Yes | Yes |
| CT or X-ray | +++ | +++ | + | + | Yes | No |
| Ultrasound imaging | ++ | ++ | ++ | + | Yes | No |
| BLI | + | + | ++ | +++ | No | No |
| Fluorescence imaging or NIR | + | + | ++ | ++ | No | No |
| 2PLSM | +++ | + | +++ | ++ | No | No |
| MPI84 | + | +++ | ++ | ++ | No | No |
2PLSM, two-photon laser scanning microscopy; BLI, bioluminescence imaging; CT, computed tomography; MPI, magnetic particle imaging; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NIR, near-infrared imaging; PET, positron emission tomography; SPECT, single-photon emission computed tomography.
*
Strengths and weaknesses are given using a relative scale in which + = poor, ++ = moderate and +++ = excellent.