4.7 Article

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a surrogate marker of tumor response to anti-angiogenic therapy in a xenograft model of glioblastoma multiforme

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 233-240

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.10072

关键词

glioblastoma multiforme; MRI, contrast enhanced; microvascular permeability; angiogenesis inhibition; tumor treatment monitoring

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA64602] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P01CA064602] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of a neutralizing antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) antibody on tumor microvascular permeability, a proposed indicator of angiogenesis, and tumor growth in a rodent malignant glioma model. Materials and Methods: A dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique, permitting noninvasive in vivo and in situ assessment of potential therapeutic effects, was used to measure tumor microvascular characteristics and volumes. U-87, a cell line derived from a human glioblastoma multiforme, was implanted orthotopically into brains of athymic homozygous nude rats. Results: Treatment with the monoclonal antibody A4.6.1, specific for VEGF, significantly inhibited tumor microvascular permeability (6.1 +/- 3,6 mL min(-1)100 cc(-1)), compared to the control, saline-treated tumors (28.6 +/- 8.6 mL min(-1)100cc(-1)), and significantly suppressed tumor growth (P < .05). Conclusion: Findings demonstrate that tumor vascular permeability and tumor growth can be inhibited by neutralization of endogenous VEGF and suggest that angiogenesis with the maintenance of endothelial hyperpermeability requires the presence of VEGF within the tissue microenvironment. Changes in tumor vessel permeability and tumor volumes as measured by contrast-enhanced MRI provide an assay that could prove useful for clinical monitoring of anti-angiogenic therapies in brain tumors.

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