Literature DB >> 1516068

Microvascular pressure is the principal driving force for interstitial hypertension in solid tumors: implications for vascular collapse.

Y Boucher1, R K Jain.   

Abstract

The interstitial fluid pressure (IFP) has been found to be as high as 20 to 50 mm Hg in both experimental and human solid tumors. While the IFP is an important determinant of the delivery of therapeutic agents to neoplastic cells in vivo, the mechanisms responsible for interstitial hypertension are not completely understood. The high vascular permeability of tumor blood vessels and the absence of a functional lymphatic circulation suggest that the hydrostatic microvascular pressure (MVP) is the main force governing IFP in tumors. To test this hypothesis, we simultaneously measured IFP and MVP in 13 tissue-isolated R3230AC mammary adenocarcinomas transplanted in rats. The MVP in superficial postcapillary venules of diameters between 25 and 250 microns was measured with the micropuncture technique. MVP was compared to the IFP in the periphery (measured with micropuncture technique) and in the center (measured with wick-in-needle technique). Similar to our previous study, IFP rose rapidly and reached maximum values at a depth of 0.2 to 1.0 mm from the tumor surface. These maximum IFP values [16.5 +/- 7.1 mm Hg (SD)] were equal to IFP in the tumor center [18.4 +/- 9.3 mm Hg] [R2 = 0.86, P greater than 0.8]. Superficial MVP (17.3 +/- 6.1 mm Hg) was equal to both central (P greater than 0.9) and superficial IFP (P greater than 0.7). These results demonstrate that the main driving force for IFP in tumors is the MVP. Furthermore, the concept that blood vessel collapse is induced by higher hydrostatic pressures in the tumor interstitium compared to that in the vascular lumen is not supported by the present finding that elevated IFP is accompanied by equally elevated MVP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1516068

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Res        ISSN: 0008-5472            Impact factor:   12.701


  155 in total

1.  Interstitial fluid pressure correlates with intravoxel incoherent motion imaging metrics in a mouse mammary carcinoma model.

Authors:  Sungheon Kim; Lindsey Decarlo; Gene Y Cho; Jens H Jensen; Daniel K Sodickson; Linda Moy; Silvia Formenti; Robert J Schneider; Judith D Goldberg; Eric E Sigmund
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 4.044

2.  Tumor vessel compression hinders perfusion of ultrasonographic contrast agents.

Authors:  Mirco Galiè; Mirko D'Onofrio; Maura Montani; Augusto Amici; Laura Calderan; Pasquina Marzola; Donatella Benati; Flavia Merigo; Cristina Marchini; Andrea Sbarbati
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.715

3.  Sensitivity analysis of an image-based solid tumor computational model with heterogeneous vasculature and porosity.

Authors:  Gregory L Pishko; Garrett W Astary; Thomas H Mareci; Malisa Sarntinoranont
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 3.934

4.  Angiopoietin-4 inhibits angiogenesis and reduces interstitial fluid pressure.

Authors:  Minna W B Olsen; Carsten D Ley; Nanna Junker; Anker J Hansen; Eva L Lund; Paul E G Kristjansen
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 5.715

5.  Is the "blooming sign" a promising additional tool to determine malignancy in MR mammography?

Authors:  D R Fischer; P Baltzer; A Malich; S Wurdinger; M G Freesmeyer; C Marx; W A Kaiser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-09-27       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Mechanotransduction of fluid stresses governs 3D cell migration.

Authors:  William J Polacheck; Alexandra E German; Akiko Mammoto; Donald E Ingber; Roger D Kamm
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  A 2D mechanistic model of breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) morphology and progression.

Authors:  Kerri-Ann Norton; Michael Wininger; Gyan Bhanot; Shridar Ganesan; Nicola Barnard; Troy Shinbrot
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 2.691

Review 8.  Reengineering the Tumor Microenvironment to Alleviate Hypoxia and Overcome Cancer Heterogeneity.

Authors:  John D Martin; Dai Fukumura; Dan G Duda; Yves Boucher; Rakesh K Jain
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 6.915

9.  Biomechanical modelling of spinal tumour anisotropic growth.

Authors:  Ioanna Katsamba; Pavlos Evangelidis; Chrysovalantis Voutouri; Alkiviadis Tsamis; Vasileios Vavourakis; Triantafyllos Stylianopoulos
Journal:  Proc Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 2.704

10.  Odyssey of a cancer nanoparticle: from injection site to site of action.

Authors:  Joseph W Nichols; You Han Bae
Journal:  Nano Today       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 20.722

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.