4.6 Article

Assessment of Hypoxia in the Stroma of Patient-Derived Pancreatic Tumor Xenografts

Journal

CANCERS
Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 459-471

Publisher

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/cancers6010459

Keywords

pancreatic cancer; tumor hypoxia; tumor-associated stroma; patient-derived pancreatic xenograft models; pattern recognition software

Categories

Funding

  1. Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation
  2. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care
  3. OICR pancreatic cancer ICGC project and Cancer Stem Cell program
  4. OICR Translational Research Grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The unusually dense stroma of pancreatic cancers is thought to play an important role in their biological aggression. The presence of hypoxia is also considered an adverse prognostic factor. Although it is usually assumed that this is the result of effects of hypoxia on the epithelial component, it is possible that hypoxia exerts indirect effects via the tumor stroma. We therefore measured hypoxia in the stroma of a series of primary pancreatic cancer xenografts. Nine patient-derived pancreatic xenografts representing a range of oxygenation levels were labeled by immunohistochemistry for EF5 and analyzed using semi-automated pattern recognition software. Hypoxia in the tumor and stroma was correlated with tumor growth and metastatic potential. The extent of hypoxia varied from 1%-39% between the different models. EF5 labeling in the stroma ranged from 0-20% between models, and was correlated with the level of hypoxia in the tumor cell area, but not microvessel density. Tumor hypoxia correlated with spontaneous metastasis formation with the exception of one hypoxic model that showed disproportionately low levels of hypoxia in the stroma and was non-metastatic. Our results demonstrate that hypoxia exists in the stroma of primary pancreatic cancer xenografts and suggest that stromal hypoxia impacts the metastatic potential.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available