4.7 Article

Preclinical in vivo study of new insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor -: Specific inhibitor in Ewing's sarcoma

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 1322-1330

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1518

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Small-molecule insulin-like growth factor-I receptor (IGF-IR)-specific tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been recently proposed as clinically viable approaches to impair IGF-IR functions. NVP-AEW541 seems one of the most promising agents. In this article, we point out its effects against migration, metastasis, vasculogenicity, and angiogenesis of Ewing's sarcoma cells. Experimental Design: In vivo NVP-AEW541 effectiveness was analyzed against TC-71 Ewing's sarcoma growth and bone metastasis after cell inoculation in athymic mice. Activity of the compound against angiogenesis as well as vasculogenesis properties was also considered both in vitro and in xenografts. Serum glucose, urea, transaminase levels, as well as other signs of distress were checked in mice treated with the IGF-IR inhibitor. Results: Significant inhibition of migration, metastasis, vasculogenicity, and angiogenesis was recorded after treatment of Ewing's sarcoma cells with NVP-AEW541. In view of its application and the similarity of insulin receptor and IGF-IR, diabetogenic side effects were considered. We observed a significant decrease of glucose blood serum due to increased glucose uptake at cellular level and an increase in urea concentration. Moreover, an initial weight loss was observed in mice bearing tumors. All these side effects were similarly detected in mice treated with vincristine. After the first days of treatment, all the animals started to grow again. Conclusions: Our results globally reinforce the idea that IGF-IR inhibitor NVP-AEW541 could have a role in future combined therapies and suggest to pursue a thorough molecular analysis of the metabolic activity of IGF-IR to avoid possible side effects of these inhibitors.

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