4.6 Review

Mechanisms of Glioma-Associated Neovascularization

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
Volume 181, Issue 4, Pages 1126-1141

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2012.06.030

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [R01-CA100426-0141, 1R21-NS074055-01A1]
  2. Musella Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Glioblastomas (GBMs), the most common primary brain tumor in adults, are characterized by resistance to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. One of the defining characteristics of GBM is an abundant and aberrant vasculature. The processes of vascular co-option, angiogenesis, and vasculogenesis in gliomas have been extensively described. Recently, however, it has become clear that these three processes are not the only mechanisms by which neovascularization occurs in gliomas. Furthermore, it seems that these processes interact extensively, with potential overlap among them. At least five mechanisms by which gliomas achieve neovascularization have been described: vascular co-option, angiogenesis, vasculogenesis, vascular mimicry, and (the most recently described) glibblastoma-endothelial cell transdifferentiation. We review these mechanisms in glioma neovascularization, with a particular emphasis on the roles of hypoxia and glioma stem cells in each process. Although some of these processes are well established, others have been identified only recently and will need to be further investigated for complete validation. We also review strategies to target glioma neovascularization and the development of resistance to these therapeutic strategies. Finally, we describe how these complex processes interlink and overlap. A thorough understanding of the contributing molecular processes that control the five modalities reviewed here should help resolve the treatment resistance that characterizes GBMs. (Am J Pathol 2012, 181:1126-1141; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2012.06.030)

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