4.7 Article

Targeting Tumor-Associated Endothelial Cells: Anti-VEGFR2 Immunoliposomes Mediate Tumor Vessel Disruption and Inhibit Tumor Growth

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 454-464

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1102

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. SAKK-Amgen grant
  2. Gebert-Ruf Foundation
  3. Cancer League of Basel
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation
  5. Desiree and Niels Yde Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Angiogenesis is a key process in tumor progression. By binding VEGF, VEGF receptor-2 (VEGFR2) is a main signaling transducer in tumor-associated angiogenesis. Accordingly, therapeutic approaches against the VEGF/VEGFR2 signaling axis have been designed. However, an efficient and specific chemotherapeutic targeting of tumor-associated endothelial cells has not yet been achieved. Experimental Design: We have employed anti-VEGFR2 antibodies covalently linked to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) to specifically ablate tumor-associated endothelial cells in the Rip1Tag2 mouse model of insulinoma, in the MMTV-PyMT mouse model of breast cancer, and in the HT-29 human colon cancer xenograft transplantation model. Results: In each model, anti-VEGFR2-targeted immunoliposomes (ILs) loaded with doxorubicin (anti-VEGFR2-ILs-dox) were superior in therapeutic efficacy to empty liposomes, empty anti-VEGFR2-ILs, antibodies alone, and PLD. Efficacy was similar to that of the oral VEGFR1, -2, and -3 inhibitor PTK787. Detailed histopathologic and molecular analysis revealed a strong antiangiogenic effect of anti-VEGFR2ILs-dox, and the observed antiangiogenic therapy was significantly more efficient in reducing tumor burden in well-vascularized transgenic mouse models as compared with the less-vascularized xenograft model. Conclusions: Anti-VEGFR2 ILs provide a highly efficient approach to selectively deplete VEGFR2-expressing tumor vasculature. They offer a novel and promising anticancer strategy. Clin Cancer Res; 18(2); 454-64. (C) 2011 AACR.

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