4.8 Article

Dietary administration of the proapoptotic vitamin E analogue α-tocopheryloxyacetic acid inhibits metastatic murine breast cancer

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 66, 期 19, 页码 9374-9378

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-2403

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA94111-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability of the vitamin E (RRR-alpha-tocopherol) derivatives a-tocopheryl succinate (alpha-TOS) and alpha-tocopheryloxyacetic acid (alpha-TEA) to suppress tumor growth in preclinical animal models has recently led to increased interest in their potential use for treating human cancer. To make the use of these vitamin E analogues more clinically relevant, we compared the antitumor efficacy of orally and i.p. delivered forms of alpha-TEA and alpha-TOS against a murine mammary cancer (4T1) that bears resemblance to human breast cancer because of its poor immunogenicity and high metastatic potential. In cell culture studies, we showed that both compounds inhibited tumor colony formation and induced apoptotic death of tumor cells. To avoid solubility concerns associated with the hydrophobicity of alpha-TEA and alpha-TOS, we used the vesiculated forms of alpha-TEA (V alpha-TEA) and alpha-TOS (V alpha-TOS) for the in vivo tumor studies. Both compounds inhibited the growth of preestablished 4T1 tumors when given i.p. However, when given by oral gavage, only the esterase-resistant V alpha-TEA was able to suppress primary tumor growth and reduce lung metastasis. To make this approach more translatable to the clinic, a-TEA was incorporated into the diet and fed to tumor-bearing mice. We report here for the first time that dietary alpha-TEA delivery significantly inhibited primary tumor growth and dramatically reduced spontaneous metastatic spread to the lung in prophylactic and therapeutic settings. This study suggests that dietary alpha-TEA could prove useful as a relatively easy and effective modality for treating metastatic breast cancer.

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