Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Arq Gastroenterol ; 60(3): 383-392, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37792769

ABSTRACT

•In this review, we described different murine models of carcinogenesis: classic models, new transgenic and combined models, that reproduce the key points for HCC and CCA genesis allowing a better understanding of its genetic physiopathological, and environmental abnormalities. •Each model has its advantages, disadvantages, similarities, and differences with the corresponding human disease and should be chosen according to the specificity of the study. Ultimately, those models can also be used for testing new anticancer therapeutic approaches. •Cholangiocarcinoma has been highlighted, with an increase in prevalence. This review has an important role in understanding the pathophysiology and the development of new drugs. Background - This manuscript provides an overview of liver carcinogenesis in murine models of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Objective - A review through MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed to assess articles until August 2022.Methods - Search was conducted of the entire electronic databases and the keywords used was HCC, CCA, carcinogenesis, animal models and liver. Articles exclusion was based on the lack of close relation to the subject. Carcinogenesis models of HCC include HCC induced by senescence in transgenic animals, HCC diet-induced, HCC induced by chemotoxicagents, xenograft, oncogenes, and HCC in transgenic animals inoculated with B and C virus. The models of CCA include the use of dimethylnitrosamine (DMN), diethylnitrosamine (DEN), thioacetamide (TAA), and carbon tetrachloride (CCl4). CCA murine models may also be induced by: CCA cells, genetic manipulation, Smad4, PTEN and p53 knockout, xenograft, and DEN-left median bile duct ligation. Results - In this review, we described different murine models of carcinogenesis that reproduce the key points for HCC and CCA genesis allowing a better understanding of its genetic, physiopathological, and environmental abnormalities. Conclusion - Each model has its advantages, disadvantages, similarities, and differences with the corresponding human disease and should be chosen according to the specificity of the study. Ultimately, those models can also be used for testing new anticancer therapeutic approaches.


Subject(s)
Bile Duct Neoplasms , Carcinoma, Hepatocellular , Cholangiocarcinoma , Liver Neoplasms , Animals , Mice , Bile Duct Neoplasms/genetics , Bile Duct Neoplasms/pathology , Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic/pathology , Carcinogenesis , Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/pathology , Cholangiocarcinoma/genetics , Cholangiocarcinoma/chemically induced , Disease Models, Animal , Liver Neoplasms/pathology
2.
Ann Hepatol ; 17(5): 802-809, 2018 Aug 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30145559

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION AND AIM: The carcinogenesis of tubular and papillary cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) differ. The available epidemiologic studies about risk factors for CCA do not differentiate between the tubular and papillary type. The current study investigated the relationship between the number of repeated use of Praziquantel (PZQ) treatments and each type of CCA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a hospital-based, matched, case-control study of patients admitted to Srinagarind Hospital, Khon Kaen University. The patients were 210 pathologically-confirmed cases of CCA, while the controls were 840 subjects diagnosed with other diseases. The 4 controls were individually matched with each case by sex, age, and date of admission. The cases were classified according to location (intrahepatic vs. extrahepatic) and cell type (papillary vs. tubular). Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used for the analysis. RESULTS: After adjusting for confounders, there were statistically significant associations between intrahepatic and papillary CCA and repeated use of PZQ treatment. The respective odds of developing intrahepatic CCA for those who used PZQ once, twice, or more was 1.54 (95%CI:0.92-2.55 ), 2.28 (95%CI:0.91-5.73), and 4.21 (95%CI:1.61-11.05). The respective odds of developing papillary CCA for those who used PZQ once, twice, or more was 1.45 (95%CI:0.80-2.63), 2.96 (95%CI:1.06-8.24), and 3.24 (95%CI:1.09-9.66). There was no association between number of uses of PZQ treatment and developing extrahepatic or tubular CCA. CONCLUSION: The current study found an association between papillary and intrahepatic CCA and repeated use of PZQ treatment. We suggest further study on the risk factors for papillary and tubular CCA should be performed separately.


Subject(s)
Anthelmintics/adverse effects , Bile Duct Neoplasms/chemically induced , Carcinoma, Papillary/chemically induced , Cholangiocarcinoma/chemically induced , Praziquantel/adverse effects , Anthelmintics/administration & dosage , Bile Duct Neoplasms/epidemiology , Bile Duct Neoplasms/pathology , Biopsy , Carcinoma, Papillary/epidemiology , Carcinoma, Papillary/pathology , Case-Control Studies , Cholangiocarcinoma/epidemiology , Cholangiocarcinoma/pathology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Praziquantel/administration & dosage , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Thailand/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL