4.4 Article

Modeling Brain Metastasis by Internal Carotid Artery Injection of Cancer Cells

期刊

出版社

JOURNAL OF VISUALIZED EXPERIMENTS
DOI: 10.3791/64216

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [APP1162560]
  2. UQ postgraduate research scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brain metastasis is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients, and animal models play a critical role in studying therapeutic interventions. Existing brain tumor xenografting methods lack consistency, and intracardiac injection can result in unintended extracranial growth. This study presents a mouse model of brain metastasis generated by internal carotid artery injection, which produces consistent intracranial tumors.
Brain metastasis is a cause of severe morbidity and mortality in cancer patients. Critical aspects of metastatic diseases, such as the complex neural microenvironment and stromal cell interaction, cannot be entirely replicated with in vitro assays; thus, animal models are critical for investigating and understanding the effects of therapeutic intervention. However, most brain tumor xenografting methods do not produce brain metastases consistently in terms of the time frame and tumor burden. Brain metastasis models generated by intracardiac injection of cancer cells can result in unintended extracranial tumor burden and lead to non-brain metastatic morbidity and mortality. Although intracranial injection of cancer cells can limit extracranial tumor formation, it has several caveats, such as the injected cells frequently form a singular tumor mass at the injection site, high leptomeningeal involvement, and damage to brain vasculature during needle penetration. This protocol describes a mouse model of brain metastasis generated by internal carotid artery injection. This method produces intracranial tumors consistently without the involvement of other organs, enabling the evaluation of therapeutic agents for brain metastasis.

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

4.4
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