4.8 Article

Antivascular therapy of human follicular thyroid cancer experimental bone metastasis by blockade of epidermal growth factor receptor and vascular growth factor receptor phosphorylation

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 65, 期 11, 页码 4716-4727

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-4196

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P50 CA097007-03, P50 CA97007] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients suffering from bone metastases of follicular thyroid carcinoma (FTC) have a poor prognosis because of the lack of effective treatment strategies. The overexpression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) associated with increased vascularity has been implicated in the pathogenesis of FTC and subsequent bone metastases. We hypothesized that inhibiting the phosphorylation of the EGFR and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) by AEE788, a dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor of EGFR and VEGFR, in combination with paclitaxel would inhibit experimental FTC bone lesions and preserve bone structure. We tested this hypothesis using the human WRO FTC cell line. In culture, AEE788 inhibited the EGF-mediated phosphorylation of EGFR, VEGFR2, mitogen-activated protein kinase, and Akt in culture. AEE788, alone and in combination with paclitaxel, inhibited cell growth and induced apoptosis. When WRO cells were injected into the tibia of nude mice, tumor and endothelial cells within the lesions expressed phosphorylated EGFR, VEGFR, Akt, and mitogen-activated protein kinase that were inhibited by the oral administration of AEE788. Therapy consisting of orally given AEE788 and i.p. injected paclitaxel induced a high level of apoptosis in tumor-associated endothelial cells and tumor cells with the inhibition of tumor growth in the bone and the preservation of bone structure. Collectively, these data show that blocking the phosphorylation of EGFR and VEGFR with AEE788 combined with paclitaxel can significantly inhibit experimental human FTC in the bone of nude mice.

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