OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if the heterogeneous distribution of tumor blood supply affects the response to chemotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS: We treated 25 stage III/IV patients with an intraarterial cisplatinum-bleomycin regimen. Prior to treatment, a blue dye was injected directly to tumors through the catheter. Well-stained areas were considered as profusely perfused areas whereas poorly stained areas were considered as poorly perfused areas. Biopsies of both areas of each tumor were taken prior to and after the treatment and the histopathological response was evaluated with the following grading: I, tumor disappearance; II, destruction of some tumor nests; III, no changes. RESULTS: Grade I responses were attained in 13/25 (52%) of profusely perfused areas against 1/25 (4%) of poorly perfused areas (p < 0.001). Moreover, there were significant differences (p < 0.001) in the overall responses: 21/25 (84%) in the profusely perfused areas versus 7/25 (28%) in the poorly perfused areas; and in grade III responses (4/25, 16% vs. 18/25, 72%). To determine a possible correlation between the histopathological responses obtained in profusely perfused and in poorly perfused areas of each tumor, we then calculated the Kendall's tau-b statistics, obtaining a tau value of 0.279 (p = 0.145). This data indicated that histopathological responses to chemotherapy of profusely perfused and poorly perfused areas were independent in each tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in the distribution of tumor blood supply affects the response to chemotherapy by influencing the intratumoral delivery of therapeutic agents. After the administration of effective doses of anticancer drugs to a tumor, cells in profusely perfused areas receive enough to destroy them while cells in the poorly perfused areas are exposed to lower drug concentrations and, therefore, survive. This phenomenon could explain in part the difficulty in the treatment of human solid tumors.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if the heterogeneous distribution of tumor blood supply affects the response to chemotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS: We treated 25 stage III/IV patients with an intraarterial cisplatinum-bleomycin regimen. Prior to treatment, a blue dye was injected directly to tumors through the catheter. Well-stained areas were considered as profusely perfused areas whereas poorly stained areas were considered as poorly perfused areas. Biopsies of both areas of each tumor were taken prior to and after the treatment and the histopathological response was evaluated with the following grading: I, tumor disappearance; II, destruction of some tumor nests; III, no changes. RESULTS: Grade I responses were attained in 13/25 (52%) of profusely perfused areas against 1/25 (4%) of poorly perfused areas (p < 0.001). Moreover, there were significant differences (p < 0.001) in the overall responses: 21/25 (84%) in the profusely perfused areas versus 7/25 (28%) in the poorly perfused areas; and in grade III responses (4/25, 16% vs. 18/25, 72%). To determine a possible correlation between the histopathological responses obtained in profusely perfused and in poorly perfused areas of each tumor, we then calculated the Kendall's tau-b statistics, obtaining a tau value of 0.279 (p = 0.145). This data indicated that histopathological responses to chemotherapy of profusely perfused and poorly perfused areas were independent in each tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in the distribution of tumor blood supply affects the response to chemotherapy by influencing the intratumoral delivery of therapeutic agents. After the administration of effective doses of anticancer drugs to a tumor, cells in profusely perfused areas receive enough to destroy them while cells in the poorly perfused areas are exposed to lower drug concentrations and, therefore, survive. This phenomenon could explain in part the difficulty in the treatment of humansolid tumors.
Authors: Cara F Buchanan; Elizabeth E Voigt; Christopher S Szot; Joseph W Freeman; Pavlos P Vlachos; Marissa Nichole Rylander Journal: Tissue Eng Part C Methods Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 3.056
Authors: Nina A Mayr; Zhibin Huang; Jian Z Wang; Simon S Lo; Joline M Fan; John C Grecula; Steffen Sammet; Christina L Sammet; Guang Jia; Jun Zhang; Michael V Knopp; William T C Yuh Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nina A Mayr; William T C Yuh; David Jajoura; Jian Z Wang; Simon S Lo; Joseph F Montebello; Kyle Porter; Dongqing Zhang; D Scott McMeekin; John M Buatti Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Arup Bhattacharya; Károly Tóth; Farukh A Durrani; Shousong Cao; Harry K Slocum; Sreenivasulu Chintala; Youcef M Rustum Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Zhibin Huang; Kevin A Yuh; Simon S Lo; John C Grecula; Steffen Sammet; Christina L Sammet; Guang Jia; Michael V Knopp; Qiang Wu; Norman J Beauchamp; William T C Yuh; Roy Wang; Nina A Mayr Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Mukund Seshadri; Mihai Merzianu; Haikuo Tang; Nestor R Rigual; Maureen Sullivan; Thom R Loree; Saurin R Popat; Elizabeth A Repasky; Bonnie L Hylander Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2009-12-19 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Margaret Folaron; James Kalmuk; Jaimee Lockwood; Costakis Frangou; Jordan Vokes; Steven G Turowski; Mihai Merzianu; Nestor R Rigual; Maureen Sullivan-Nasca; Moni A Kuriakose; Wesley L Hicks; Anurag K Singh; Mukund Seshadri Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 5.337