4.7 Article

Hypoxia in human colorectal adenocarcinoma: Comparison between extrinsic and potential intrinsic hypoxia markers

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.01.007

关键词

hypoxia; colorectal tumors; pimonidazole; IdUrd; endogenous markers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To detect and quantify hypoxia in colorectal adenocarcinomas by use of pimonidazole and iododeoxyuridine (IdUrd) as extrinsic markers and carbonic anhydrase IX (CA IX), microvessel density (MVD), epidermal growth-factor receptor (EGFR), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as intrinsic markers of hypoxia. Methods and Material: Twenty patients with an adenocarcinoma of the left colon and rectum treated by primary surgery were injected with pimonidazole and IdUrd. Serial sections of tumor biopsies were single stained for VEGF, EGFR, Ki67, and double stained for blood vessels in combination with either pimonidazole, IdUrd, or CA IX. Percentage of expression was scored as well as colocalization of pimonidazole with CA IX. Results: The median percentage of hypoxia, as judged by pimonidazole staining, was 16.7% (range, 0-52.4%). The expression of pimonidazole correlated inversely with the total MVD and endothelial cord MVD (R = -0.55, p = 0.01; R = -0.47, p = 0.04). Good colocalization was found between pimonidazole and CA IX in only 30% of tumors, with no correlation overall between pimonidazole and CA IX, VEGF, or EGFR or between the different intrinsic markers. Cells around some vessels (0.08 - 11%) were negative for IdUrd but positive for Ki67, which indicated their lack of perfusion at the time of injection. Conclusion: Chronic and acute hypoxic regions are present in colorectal tumors, as shown by pimonidazole and IdUrd staining. Only in a minority of tumors did an association exist between the areas stained by pimonidazole and those positive for CA IX. Pimonidazole also did not correlate with expression of other putative intrinsic hypoxia markers (VEGF, EGFR). (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc.

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