4.5 Article

Rapid Extravasation and Establishment of Breast Cancer Micrometastases in the Liver Microenvironment

期刊

MOLECULAR CANCER RESEARCH
卷 8, 期 10, 页码 1319-1327

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-09-0551

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R03DK078711, K08DK70708-01, R01CA084360, P20GM72048, R25CA092043, CA68485, DK20593, DK58404, HD15052, DK59637, EY08126]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To examine the interplay between tumor cells and the microenvironment during early breast cancer metastasis, we developed a technique for ex vivo imaging of murine tissue explants using two-photon microscopy. Cancer cells in the liver and the lung were compared by imaging both organs at specific time points after the injection of the same polyomavirus middle T-initiated murine mammary tumor cell line. Extravasation was greatly reduced in the lung compared with the liver, with 56% of tumor cells in the liver having extravasated by 24 hours, compared with only 22% of tumor cells in the lung that have extravasated. In the liver, imaged cells continually transitioned from an intravascular location to an extravascular site, whereas in the lung, extravasation rates slowed after 6 hours. Within the liver microenvironment, the average size of the imaged micrometastatic lesions increased 4-fold between days 5 and 12. Histologic analysis of these lesions determined that by day 12, the micrometastases were heterogeneous, consisting of both tumor cells and von Willebrand factor-positive endothelial cells. Further analysis with intravenously administered lectin indicated that vessels within the micrometastatic tumor foci were patent by day 12. These data present the use of two-photon microscopy to directly compare extravasation times in metastatic sites using the same tumor cell line and highlight the differences in early events and metastatic patterns between two important secondary sites of breast cancer progression with implications for future therapy. Mol Cancer Res; 8(10); 1319-27. (C) 2010 AACR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据