4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Isolated limb perfusion for local gene delivery - Efficient and targeted adenovirus-mediated gene transfer into soft tissue sarcomas

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 232, 期 6, 页码 814-820

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00000658-200012000-00010

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate the potential of isolated limb perfusion (ILP) for efficient and tumor-specific adenovirus-mediated gene transfer in sarcoma-bearing rats. Summary Background Data A major concern in adenovirus-mediated gene therapy in cancer is the transfer of genes to organs other than the tumor, especially organs with a rapid cell turnover. Adjustment of the vector delivery route might be an option creating tumor specificity in therapeutic gene expression. Methods Rat hind limb sarcomas (5-10 mm) were transfected with recombinant adenoviruses. Intratumoral luciferase expression after ILP was compared with systemic administration, regional infusion, or intratumoral injection using a similar dose of adenoviruses carrying the luciferase marker gene. Localization studies using lacZ as a marker gene were performed to evaluate the intratumoral distribution of transfected cells after both ILP and intratumoral injection. Results Intratumoral luciferase activity after ILP or intratumoral administration was significantly higher compared with regional infusion or systemic administration. After ILP, luciferase gene expression was minimal in extratumoral organs, whether outside or inside the isolated circuit. Localization studies demonstrated that transfection was confined to tumor cells lying along the needle track after intratumoral injection, whereas after ILP, lacZ expression was found in viable tumor cells and in the tumor-associated vasculature. Conclusions Using ILP, efficient and tumor-specific gene transfection can be achieved. The ILP technique might be useful for the delivery of recombinant adenoviruses carrying therapeutic gene constructs to enhance tumor control.

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