4.1 Article

Peritoneal sarcomatosis: site of origin for the establishment of an in vitro and in vivo cell line model to study therapeutic resistance in dedifferentiated liposarcoma

期刊

TUMOR BIOLOGY
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 2341-2351

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s13277-015-4050-6

关键词

Liposarcoma; Peritoneal sarcomatosis; WDLPS; DDLPS; Cell culture model

类别

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [KR 3496/2-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Approximately 50-70 % of patients with retroperitoneal or intraabdominal sarcoma develop a relapse after surgical therapy, including peritoneal sarcomatosis, an extremely rare site of metastatic disease which is associated with an extremely poor prognosis. Accordingly, the establishment of a permanent cell line derived from peritoneal sarcomatosis might provide a helpful tool to understand the biological behavior and to develop new therapeutic strategies. Thus, we established and characterized a liposarcoma cell line (Lipo-DUE1) from a peritoneal sarcomatosis that was permanently cultured without showing any morphological changes. Lipo-DUE1 cells exhibited a spindle-shaped morphology and positive staining for S100. Tumorigenicity was demonstrated in vitro by invasion and migration assays and in vivo by using a subcutaneous xenograft mouse model. In addition, aCGH analysis revealed concordant copy number variations on chromosome 12q in the primary tumor, peritoneal sarcomatosis, and Lipo-DUE1 cells that are commonly observed in liposarcoma. Chemotherapeutic sensitivity assays revealed a pronounced drug-resistant phenotype of Lipo-DUE1 cells to conventionally used chemotherapeutic agents. In conclusion, we describe for the first time the establishment and characterization of a liposarcoma cell line derived from a peritoneal sarcomatosis. Hence, in the future, the newly established cell line Lipo-DUE1 might serve as a useful in vitro and in vivo model to investigate the biological behavior of liposarcoma and to assess novel targeted therapies.

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

4.1
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