4.7 Article

Antiangiogenic Gene Therapy With Soluble VEGFR-1,-2, and-3 Reduces the Growth of Solid Human Ovarian Carcinoma in Mice

期刊

MOLECULAR THERAPY
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 278-284

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1038/mt.2008.258

关键词

-

资金

  1. Finnish Academy
  2. Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research
  3. EU Lymphangiogenomics network [LSHG-CT-2004-503573]
  4. Kuopio University Hospital [5185]
  5. Finnish Medical Foundation
  6. Foundation of Finnish Cancer Institute
  7. Finnish Cultural Foundation of Northern Savo
  8. Research Foundation of Orion Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We studied antiangiogenic and antilymphangiogenic effects of sVEGFR-1 (sFlt-1), sVEGFR-2 (sFlk-1/KDR), and sVEGFR-3 (sFlt-4) gene transfers and their combinations in intraperitoneal ovarian cancer xenograft mice (Balb/c-Anu, n = 55). Gene therapy was initiated when the presence of sizable tumors was confirmed in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Adenovirus-mediated gene transfer was performed intravenously via tail vein as follows: AdLacZ as a control (group I), AdsFlt-1 (group II), AdsKDR (group III), AdsFlt-4 (group IV) and two combination groups of AdsFlt-1 and AdsFlt-4 (group V) and AdsFlt-1, AdsKDR, and AdsFlt-4 (group VI). Antitumor effectiveness was assessed by sequential MRI, immunohistochemistry, microvessel density, overall tumor growth, and survival time. In combination group VI, intraperitoneal tumors were significantly smaller than in the control group at the end of the follow-up (P < 0.001). Furthermore, in group VI the microvessel density (microvessels/mm(2)) in tumor tissue and the total area of tumors covered by microvessels were significantly smaller than in the controls. One mouse in group V was cured. The combined antiangiogenic gene therapy with soluble VEGFRs reduced tumor growth, tumor vascularity, and ascites formation in ovarian cancer xenografts. The results suggest that the combined antiangiogenic gene therapy is a potential approach for the treatment of ovarian cancer patients.

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

4.7
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