4.5 Article

Novel insights into vascularization patterns and angiogenic factors in glioblastoma subclasses

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 131, Issue 1, Pages 11-20

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-016-2269-8

Keywords

Angiogenesis; Glioblastoma; Subclasses; Subtypes

Funding

  1. Graduate School of Medical Sciences, BCN-BRAIN, UMCG
  2. Dutch Cancer Society [RUG-2014-7471]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly vascularized and aggressive type of primary brain tumor in adults with dismal survival. Molecular subtypes of GBM have been identified that are related to clinical outcome and response to therapy. Although the mesenchymal type has been ascribed higher angiogenic activity, extensive characterization of the vascular component in GBM subtypes has not been performed. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the differential vascular status and angiogenic signaling levels in molecular subtypes. GBM tissue samples representing proneural IDH1 mutant, classical-like and mesenchymal-like subtypes were analyzed by morphometry for the number of vessels, vessel size and vessel maturity. Also the expression levels of factors from multiple angiogenic signaling pathways were determined. We found that necrotic and hypoxic areas were relatively larger in mesenchymal-like tumors and these tumors also had larger vessels. However, the number of vessels, basement membrane deposition and pericyte coverage did not vary between the subtypes. Regarding signaling patterns the majority of factors were expressed at similar levels in the subtypes, and only ANGPT2, MMP2, TIMP1, VEGFA and MMP9/TIMP2 were higher expressed in GBMs of the classical-like subtype. In conclusion, although morphological differences were observed between the subtypes, the angiogenic signaling status of GBM subtypes seemed to be rather similar. These results challenge the concept of mesenchymal GBMs being more angiogenic than other subclasses.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available