4.5 Article

Tumor Interstitial Fluid Pressure May Regulate Angiogenic Factors in Osteosarcoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 11, 页码 1520-1525

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/jor.20633

关键词

interstitial fluid pressure; osteosarcoma; angiogenesis; lymphangiogenesis

资金

  1. Biomet Oncology Fellowship
  2. Pearlman Limb Preservation Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have previously shown that osteosarcomas (OS) have states of increased interstitial fluid pressure (IFP), which correlate with increased proliferation and chemosensitivity. In this study, we hypothesized that constitutively raised IFP in OS regulates angiogenesis. Sixteen patients with the clinical diagnosis Of OS underwent blood flow and IFP readings by the wick-in-needle method at the time and location of open biopsy. Vascularity was determined by capillary density in the biopsy specimens. We performed digital image analysis of immunohistochemical staining for CD31, VEGF-A, VEGF-C, and TPA on paraffin-embedded tissue blocks of the biopsy samples. Clinical results were validated in a pressurized cell culture system. Interstitial fluid pressures in the tumors (mean 33.5 = SD 17.2 mmHg) were significantly higher (p = 0.00001) than that in normal tissue (2.9 +/- 5.7 mmHg). Pressure readings were significantly higher in low vascularity tumors compared to high vascularity tumors (p < 0.001). In the OS cell lines, growth in a pressurized environment was associated with VEGF-A downregulation, VEGF-C upregulation, and TPA upregulation. The reverse was seen in the OB cell line. Growth in the HUVEC cell line was not significantly inhibited in a pressurized environment. Immunohistochemical assessment for VEGF-A (p = 0.01), VEGF-C (p = 0.008), and TPA (p = 0.0001) translation were consistent with the findings on PCR. Our data suggests that some molecules in angiogenesis are regulated by changes in IFP. (C) 2008 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 26:1520-1525, 2008

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

4.5
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