4.8 Article

Anti-VEGF therapy induces ECM remodeling and mechanical barriers to therapy in colorectal cancer liver metastases

期刊

Science Translational Medicine
卷 8, 期 360, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5219

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [CA080124, T32DK007191, CA126642, CA197743, CA096915, CA139168, CA159258, CA098706, CA173518]
  2. American Cancer Society [120733-RSG-11-073-01-TBG]
  3. German Research Foundation (DFG)
  4. Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, Portugal)
  5. Portuguese Human Potential Operational Program/European Social Fund (POPH/FSE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The survival benefit of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients is limited to a few months because of acquired resistance. We show that anti-VEGF therapy induced remodeling of the extracellular matrix with subsequent alteration of the physical properties of colorectal liver metastases. Preoperative treatment with bevacizumab in patients with colorectal liver metastases increased hyaluronic acid (HA) deposition within the tumors. Moreover, in two syngeneic mouse models of CRC metastasis in the liver, we show that anti-VEGF therapy markedly increased the expression of HA and sulfated glycosaminoglycans (sGAGs), without significantly changing collagen deposition. The density of these matrix components correlated with increased tumor stiffness after anti-VEGF therapy. Treatment-induced tumor hypoxia appeared to be the driving force for the remodeling of the extracellular matrix. In preclinical models, we show that enzymatic depletion of HA partially rescued the compromised perfusion in liver mCRCs after anti-VEGF therapy and prolonged survival in combination with anti-VEGF therapy and chemotherapy. These findings suggest that extracellular matrix components such as HA could be a potential therapeutic target for reducing physical barriers to systemic treatments in patients with mCRC who receive anti-VEGF therapy.

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

4.8
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