BACKGROUND: Although tumor hypoxia has been associated with a more aggressive phenotype and lower cure rate, there is no consensus as to the method best suited for routine measurement. Binding of the chemical hypoxia marker, pimonidazole, and expression of the endogenous hypoxia markers HIF-1alpha and CAIX were compared for their ability to detect hypoxia in tumor biopsies from 67 patients with advanced carcinoma of the cervix. METHODS: Two biopsies were taken one day after administration of pimonidazole and were analyzed for pimonidazole binding using flow cytometry or immunohistochemistry. CAIX and HIF-1alpha expression and degree of colocalization were measured in sequential antibody-stained sections. Patient subsets were examined for tumor oxygen tension using an Eppendorf electrode, S phase DNA content, or change in HIF-1alpha expression over the course of treatment. RESULTS: Approximately 6% of the tumor area stained positive for pimonidazole, HIF-1alpha, or CAIX. The CAIX positive fraction correlated with the pimonidazole positive fraction (r = 0.60). Weaker but significant correlations were observed between pimonidazole and HIF-1alpha (r = 0.31) and CAIX and HIF-1alpha (r = 0.41). Taking the extent of marker colocalization into consideration increased the confidence that all markers were identifying hypoxic regions. Over 65% of stained areas showed a high degree of colocalization with the other markers. Oxygen microelectrode measurements and S phase fraction were not correlated with the hypoxic fraction measured using the three hypoxia markers. HIF-1alpha levels tended to decrease with time after the start of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Endogenous hypoxia marker binding shows reasonable agreement, in extent and location, with binding of pimonidazole. CAIX staining pattern is a better match to the pimonidazole staining pattern than is HIF-1alpha, and high CAIX expression in the absence (or low levels) of HIF-1alpha may indicate a different biology. Copyright 2005 International Society for Analytical Cytology.
BACKGROUND: Although tumor hypoxia has been associated with a more aggressive phenotype and lower cure rate, there is no consensus as to the method best suited for routine measurement. Binding of the chemical hypoxia marker, pimonidazole, and expression of the endogenous hypoxia markers HIF-1alpha and CAIX were compared for their ability to detect hypoxia in tumor biopsies from 67 patients with advanced carcinoma of the cervix. METHODS: Two biopsies were taken one day after administration of pimonidazole and were analyzed for pimonidazole binding using flow cytometry or immunohistochemistry. CAIX and HIF-1alpha expression and degree of colocalization were measured in sequential antibody-stained sections. Patient subsets were examined for tumoroxygen tension using an Eppendorf electrode, S phase DNA content, or change in HIF-1alpha expression over the course of treatment. RESULTS: Approximately 6% of the tumor area stained positive for pimonidazole, HIF-1alpha, or CAIX. The CAIX positive fraction correlated with the pimonidazole positive fraction (r = 0.60). Weaker but significant correlations were observed between pimonidazole and HIF-1alpha (r = 0.31) and CAIX and HIF-1alpha (r = 0.41). Taking the extent of marker colocalization into consideration increased the confidence that all markers were identifying hypoxic regions. Over 65% of stained areas showed a high degree of colocalization with the other markers. Oxygen microelectrode measurements and S phase fraction were not correlated with the hypoxic fraction measured using the three hypoxia markers. HIF-1alpha levels tended to decrease with time after the start of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Endogenous hypoxia marker binding shows reasonable agreement, in extent and location, with binding of pimonidazole. CAIX staining pattern is a better match to the pimonidazole staining pattern than is HIF-1alpha, and high CAIX expression in the absence (or low levels) of HIF-1alpha may indicate a different biology. Copyright 2005 International Society for Analytical Cytology.
Authors: Twan van den Beucken; Marianne Koritzinsky; Hanneke Niessen; Ludwig Dubois; Kim Savelkouls; Hilda Mujcic; Barry Jutten; Juraj Kopacek; Sylvia Pastorekova; Albert J van der Kogel; Philippe Lambin; Willem Voncken; Kasper M A Rouschop; Bradly G Wouters Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2009-06-29 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Robert J Griffin; Nathan A Koonce; Ruud P M Dings; Eric Siegel; Eduardo G Moros; Elke Bräuer-Krisch; Peter M Corry Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2012-05-18 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Casper Hempel; Valery Combes; Nicholas Henry Hunt; Jørgen Anders Lindholm Kurtzhals; Georges Emile Raymond Grau Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Sydney M Evans; Kevin W Jenkins; W Timothy Jenkins; Thomas Dilling; Kevin D Judy; Amy Schrlau; Alexander Judkins; Stephen M Hahn; Cameron J Koch Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 2.841