4.4 Article

Study of non-uniform nanoparticle liposome extravasation in tumour

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYPERTHERMIA
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 259-270

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02656730500068643

Keywords

hyperthermia; nanoparticle; extravasation; tumour angiogenesis; heterogeneity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effect of hyperthermia on the nanoparticle extravasation in different tumour regions was investigated in real time using confocal laser scanning microscopy. Murine mammary carcinoma 4T1 was implanted in the nude mice dorsal skin-fold window chamber. Tumour angiogenesis was observed through the window chamber on days 4, 7, 8 and 10 after the implantation. In 10 days, the tumour became 1 - 2 mm in diameter and 150 mm thick. Most vessels were found to be < 15 mu m in diameter. Histological examination showed that there were fewer vessels in a more ordered branching pattern inside the tumour than in the tumour periphery. After hyperthermia at 42 degrees C for 1 h, numerous erythrocytes were found in the peripheral region. Extravasation of rhodamine-labelled 100 nm nanoparticles in different tumour regions under both normal and hyperthermic conditions ( 34 and 42 degrees C) was quantified using confocal fluorescence microscopy. The relative fluorescence intensity hardly changed in tissue at 34 degrees C, but increased by the local hyperthermia at 42 degrees C. In particular, the relative intensity in the tumour periphery was more than 120 as compared to 40 in the tumour centre, after 1 h hyperthermia. Results showed that the thermally induced liposome nanoparticle extravasation was heterogeneous in tumour, owing to the non-uniform distribution of tumour vasculature. Further, the degree of vascular damage was found to be more severe in the tumour periphery, which is likely due to the high thermal sensitivity of newly formed tumour vessels in this region.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available