4.7 Article

Specific inhibition of carbonic anhydrase IX activity enhances the in vivo therapeutic effect of tumor irradiation

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 99, 期 3, 页码 424-431

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.05.045

关键词

Carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX); CAIX inhibition; Sulfonamide; Fluorescent sulfamate; Radiotherapy

资金

  1. EU [2003-502932, 2008-222741]
  2. KWF
  3. Oxford Research UK, Oxford Cancer Imaging Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: Carbonic anhydrase (CA) IX expression is increased upon hypoxia and has been proposed as a therapeutic target since it has been associated with poor prognosis, tumor progression and pH regulation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the antitumor activity of a high CAIX-affinity indanesulfonamide (11c) combined with irradiation, compared with the general CA inhibitor acetazolamide (AZA). Material and methods: HT-29 carcinoma cells with or without (genetic knockdown, KD) CAIX expression were incubated with 11c/AZA under different oxygen levels and proliferation, apoptosis and radiosensitivity were evaluated. 11c/AZA was administered intravenously (1x/day; 5 days) to tumor-bearing mice and tumor irradiation (10 Gy) was performed at day 3 of the injection period. Tumor growth and potential treatment toxicity were monitored (3x/week). Results: Treatment with 11c/AZA alone resulted in tumor regression, which was further increased in CAIX expressing cells by combining 11c with irradiation. AZA demonstrated also an additional effect in the KD tumors when combined with irradiation. CAIX inhibition in vitro significantly reduced proliferation and increased apoptosis upon hypoxia exposure without affecting intrinsic radiosensitivity. Conclusions: Specific inhibition of CAIX activity enhanced the effect of tumor irradiation and might, therefore, be an attractive strategy to improve overall cancer treatment. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 99 (2011) 424-431

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