4.6 Article

Hypoxia-inducible factor and vascular endothelial growth factor are expressed more frequently in embolized than in nonembolized cerebral arteriovenous malformations

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 663-669

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000134556.20116.30

关键词

arteriovenous malformation; endothelium; growth; hypoxia; neoangiogenesis; proliferation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: In previous studies, we documented a marked neoangiogenesis and endothelial proliferation in cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) that were embolized I before surgery compared with those that were not embolized. We hypothesized that embolization caused a local hypoxia that promotes neoangiogenesis as a possible pathomechanism. To support this hypothesis, we now examined the angiogenesis-related proteins in a larger cohort of patients. In addition, we investigated hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha as a possible protein operative during neoangiogenesis of cerebral AVMs. METHODS: Paraffin-embedded specimens of 56 AVMs obtained from surgical resection and 14 brain tissue controls were immunohistochemically stained with antibodies to proliferating cell nuclear antigen, MIB-1, vascular endothelial growth factor, Flk1, and hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha by standard protocols. RESULTS: In AVMs treated with embolization before surgery (n = 35, 63%), the expression of hypoxia-inducible factor-la (P = 0.0101) and vascular endothelial growth factor (P = 0.0007) was significantly higher (Fisher's exact test) than in patients who did not have previous endovascular treatment. Differences in the expression of Flk-1 (P = 0.0798) and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (P = 0.0423) were in the same direction but were not significant when corrected for multiple testing. CONCLUSION: Our results provide circumstantial evidence that a partial occlusion of cerebral AVMs might induce local hypoxia-related neoangiogenesis. To support these data, future animal studies should be performed.

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

4.6
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