4.4 Article

Electrochemotherapy with bleomycin and cisplatin enhances cytotoxicity in primary and metastatic uveal melanoma cell lines in vitro

期刊

NEOPLASMA
卷 65, 期 2, 页码 210-215

出版社

AEPRESS SRO
DOI: 10.4149/neo_2018_170329N227

关键词

bleomycin; cisplatin; electrochemotherapy; uveal melanoma

类别

资金

  1. Gertrud Kusen-Stiftung
  2. Dr. Rolf M. Schwiete-Stiftung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrochemotherapy (ECT) enhances responsiveness to cytotoxic drugs in numerous cell lines in vitro. Clinically ECT is widely applied for skin tumor ablation and has shown efficacy in treating non-resectable colorectal liver metastases. There is limited experience of ECT for ocular tumor therapy. We investigated the cytotoxic effect of bleomycin and cisplatin in combination with electroporation on chemoresistant human uveal melanoma (UM) cell lines in vitro. Four UM cell lines (Mel 270, 92-1, OMM-1, OMM-2.5) were treated with electroporation (pulse amplitude 300-1000 V/cm, 8-80 pulses, 100 mu s, 5 Hz) and increasing concentrations of bleomycin and cisplatin (0-7.5 mu g/ml). Cell survival was analyzed by MTT viability assay aft er 36 hours. UM cell lines were resistant to both bleomycin and cisplatin. In combination with electroporation, the effects of bleomycin and cisplatin were increased 8-70 fold and 3-15 fold, respectively, in all UM cell lines. At the lowest concentration of bleomycin tested (1 mu g/ml), viability was maximally reduced in all UM cell lines by >= 69% with electroporation conditions of 750 V/cm and 20 pulses. All UM cell lines were more resistant to cisplatin; however, electroporation of 1000 V/cm and 8 pulses resulted in similar reductions in cell viability of 92-1, Mel270 with 2.5 mu g/ml cisplatin, OMM2-5 cells with 5 mu g/ml cisplatin and OMM1 cells with 1 mu g/ml cisplatin. In vitro ECT with bleomycin or cisplatin is more effective than the highest concentration of the antineoplastic drug or electroporation alone, opening new perspectives in primary and metastatic UM treatment.

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