Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
Publication year range
1.
Eur J Cancer ; 49(9): 2243-52, 2013 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23499430

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Combined antiangiogenic and cytotoxic treatment represents an appealing treatment approach for malignant glioma. In this study we characterised the antitumoural and microvascular consequences of sunitinib (Su) and temozolomide (TMZ) therapy and verified the ideal treatment protocol, with special focus on a potential therapeutic window for combined scheduling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: O(6)-Methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) status was analysed by pyrosequencing. Tumour growth of subcutaneous xenografts was assessed under different treatment protocols (TMZ, SU, SU followed by TMZ, TMZ followed by SU, combined TMZ/SU). Intravital microscopy (dorsal skinfold chamber model) assessed microvascular consequences. Immunohistochemistry included tumour and endothelial cell proliferation, apoptosis and vascular pericyte coverage. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysed the expression of angiogenesis-related pathways in response to therapy. RESULTS: Combined TMZ/SU resulted in significantly reduced tumour growth compared to either monotreatment (TMZ: 106 ± 13 mm(3); SU: 114 ± 53 mm(3); TMZ/SU: 34 ± 7 mm(3)) by additional antiangiogenic effects and synergistic induction of apoptosis versus TMZ monotreatment. Sequential treatment protocols did not show additive antitumour responses. TMZ/SU aggravated vascular resistance mechanisms characterised by significantly higher blood flow rate (TMZ: 74 ± 34 µl/s; SU: 164 ± 36 µl/s; TMZ/SU: 254 ± 95 µl/s), reduced permeability (TMZ: 1.05 ± 0.02; SU: 0.99 ± 0.07; TMZ/SU: 0.89 ± 0.05) and recovery of pericyte-endothelial interactions (TMZ: 89 ± 7%; SU: 67 ± 9%, TMZ/SU:80 ± 10%) versus either monotreatment. Vascular resistance was paralleled by an increase in Ang-1 and Tie-2 and by the downregulation of Dll4. CONCLUSION: Sequential application of TMZ and SU in the angiogenic window does not add antitumour efficacy to monotherapy. Simultaneous application yields beneficial tumour control due to additive antiangiogenic and proapoptotic effects. Combined treatment may aggravate pericyte-mediated vascular resistance mechanisms by altering Ang-1-Tie-2 and Dll4/Notch pathways.


Asunto(s)
Inhibidores de la Angiogénesis/farmacología , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/farmacología , Neoplasias Encefálicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Glioma/tratamiento farmacológico , O(6)-Metilguanina-ADN Metiltransferasa/metabolismo , Resistencia Vascular/efectos de los fármacos , Inhibidores de la Angiogénesis/administración & dosificación , Animales , Neoplasias Encefálicas/enzimología , Neoplasias Encefálicas/patología , Proliferación Celular/efectos de los fármacos , Metilación de ADN/fisiología , ADN de Neoplasias/metabolismo , Dacarbazina/administración & dosificación , Dacarbazina/análogos & derivados , Glioma/enzimología , Glioma/patología , Xenoinjertos , Humanos , Indoles/administración & dosificación , Masculino , Ratones , Ratones Desnudos , Pirroles/administración & dosificación , Sunitinib , Temozolomida , Células Tumorales Cultivadas
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
Detalles de la búsqueda