Jing Yuan1, Kai Li. 1. Department of Thoracic Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Lung Cancer Center of Tianjin, Tianjin 300060, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to observe the changes of MMP-2 and its regulators, and to investigate the mechanism of the two administration sequences of recombinant human endostatin (rh-endostatin) and docetaxel. METHODS: The experiment was performed as 2 stages. Firstly, nude mice with xenograft tumor were randomized into 2 groups as rh-endostatin-treated group with rh-endostatin 400 microg x d(-1), d1-d14 and docetaxel-traeted group with docetaxel 10 mg x kg(-1) x 3d(-1), d1-d14. Secondly, nude mice with xenograft tumor were randomized into 3 groups as concurrent administration group (rh-endostatin 400 microg x d(-1), d1-d35, docetaxel 10 mg x kg(-1) x 3d(-1), d1-d19), endo-first group (rh-endostatin 400 microg x d(-1), d1-d35, docetaxel 10 mg x kg(-1) x 3(d-1), d16-d34) and model group (positive control, mice burdened tumor without treatment). The volume of tumor was measured during treatment. Detection of the expressions of MMP-2, TIMP-2, EMMPRIN and the count of microvessel density (MVD) by immunohistochemistry stain examination were carried out at the end of experiment. RESULTS: Compared with the docetaxel-treated group, more obvious down-regulation of expression of MMP-2, EMMPRIN (P = 0.024, P = 0.081) were observed in rh-endostatin-treated group. No significant difference was found in TIMP-2 expression between the 2 groups. In combined treatment groups, at the endpoint tumor volumes of concurrent administration group and the endo-first group were remarkably smaller than that in model group (P < 0.001, P = 0.003). According to the administration procedure, concurrent administration inhibited tumor growth stronger than endo-first treatment did. Both of the combined groups down-regulated the expression of MMP-2 and decreased microvessel density (P < 0.05). Compared with model group, the expression of TIMP-2 was upregulated (P = 0.001) as well as EMMPRIN down-regulated (P = 0.018) in concurrent adminis- tration group. Oppositely, the same results were not observed in the endo-first group. CONCLUSION: The schedule of the concurrent administration group could inhibit the tumor growth better, and it down-regulated MMP-2 expression through TIMP-2 and EMMPRIN, and thus slow down the tumor growth superiorly to another schedule of treatment.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to observe the changes of MMP-2 and its regulators, and to investigate the mechanism of the two administration sequences of recombinant humanendostatin (rh-endostatin) and docetaxel. METHODS: The experiment was performed as 2 stages. Firstly, nude mice with xenograft tumor were randomized into 2 groups as rh-endostatin-treated group with rh-endostatin 400 microg x d(-1), d1-d14 and docetaxel-traeted group with docetaxel 10 mg x kg(-1) x 3d(-1), d1-d14. Secondly, nude mice with xenograft tumor were randomized into 3 groups as concurrent administration group (rh-endostatin 400 microg x d(-1), d1-d35, docetaxel 10 mg x kg(-1) x 3d(-1), d1-d19), endo-first group (rh-endostatin 400 microg x d(-1), d1-d35, docetaxel 10 mg x kg(-1) x 3(d-1), d16-d34) and model group (positive control, mice burdened tumor without treatment). The volume of tumor was measured during treatment. Detection of the expressions of MMP-2, TIMP-2, EMMPRIN and the count of microvessel density (MVD) by immunohistochemistry stain examination were carried out at the end of experiment. RESULTS: Compared with the docetaxel-treated group, more obvious down-regulation of expression of MMP-2, EMMPRIN (P = 0.024, P = 0.081) were observed in rh-endostatin-treated group. No significant difference was found in TIMP-2 expression between the 2 groups. In combined treatment groups, at the endpoint tumor volumes of concurrent administration group and the endo-first group were remarkably smaller than that in model group (P < 0.001, P = 0.003). According to the administration procedure, concurrent administration inhibited tumor growth stronger than endo-first treatment did. Both of the combined groups down-regulated the expression of MMP-2 and decreased microvessel density (P < 0.05). Compared with model group, the expression of TIMP-2 was upregulated (P = 0.001) as well as EMMPRIN down-regulated (P = 0.018) in concurrent adminis- tration group. Oppositely, the same results were not observed in the endo-first group. CONCLUSION: The schedule of the concurrent administration group could inhibit the tumor growth better, and it down-regulated MMP-2 expression through TIMP-2 and EMMPRIN, and thus slow down the tumor growth superiorly to another schedule of treatment.
Growth curves of transplanted tumor of Rh-endostatin group and docetaxel group
1
重组人血管内皮抑素组与多西紫杉醇组的瘤体积、MVD比较
The comparison of tumor volume and MVD between the endostar group and the docetaxel group (Mean±SD, M)
Group
Tumor volume (mm3)
Difference (mm3)
P
MVD (count)
P
Pre-therapy
Post-therapy
Rh-endostatin group
7.67 (M)
33.58±13.79
24.88±14.22
0.087
11.97±3.95
0.435
Docetaxel group
8.98±3.84
22.94±9.11
13.96±9.59
14.71±8.06
重组人血管内皮抑素组与多西紫杉醇组移植瘤生长曲线Growth curves of transplanted tumor of Rh-endostatin group and docetaxel group重组人血管内皮抑素组与多西紫杉醇组的瘤体积、MVD比较The comparison of tumor volume and MVD between the endostar group and the docetaxel group (Mean±SD, M)
The expressions of MMP-2, TIMP-2, EMMPRIN in the endostar group and docetaxel group (IHC, ×400). A, B, C: MMP-2, TIMP-2, EMMPRIN expression of the Rh-endostatin group in turns; D, E, F: MMP-2, TIMP-2, EMMPRIN expression of the docetaxel group in turns.
2
两单药组MMP-2、TIMP-2、EMMPRIN表达情况比较
The comparison of the expression of MMP-2, TIMP-2, EMMPRIN between single-drug groups
Group
MMP-2
TIMP-2
EMMPRIN
IOD
P
IOD
P
IOD (M)
P
Rh-endostatin group
10 879.51±6 083.19
0.024
12 256.07±8 451.20
0.654
6 632.83
0.081
Docetaxel group
19 177.96±6 416.97
14 177.06±7 566.65
1 2111.8
重组人血管内皮抑素组与多西紫杉醇组MMP-2、TIMP-2、EMMPRIN表达(IHC, ×400)The expressions of MMP-2, TIMP-2, EMMPRIN in the endostar group and docetaxel group (IHC, ×400). A, B, C: MMP-2, TIMP-2, EMMPRIN expression of the Rh-endostatin group in turns; D, E, F: MMP-2, TIMP-2, EMMPRIN expression of the docetaxel group in turns.两单药组MMP-2、TIMP-2、EMMPRIN表达情况比较The comparison of the expression of MMP-2, TIMP-2, EMMPRIN between single-drug groups
Growth curves of transplanted lung tumor of the concurrent administration group, endo-first group and model group
3
同时用药组、先重组人血管内皮抑素组与模型组治疗前、后瘤体积变化比较
Comparison of the changes of tumor volume during therapy among the concurrent administration group, endo-first group and model group (Mean±SD, n=8)
Group
Tumor volume (mm3)
Difference (mm3)
P
Inhibitory rate of tumor volume (%)
Pre-therapy
Post-therapy
Concurrent administration
7.14±2.58
66.55±41.25
59.40±41.52
0.175a
73.71
Endo-first
7.30±2.51
116.99±77.40
109.46±76.87
0.003b
51.55
Model
7.74±2.57
233.67±87.80
225.93±86.97
0.000c
0
同时用药组、先重组人血管内皮抑素组、模型组的移植瘤生长曲线Growth curves of transplanted lung tumor of the concurrent administration group, endo-first group and model group同时用药组、先重组人血管内皮抑素组与模型组治疗前、后瘤体积变化比较Comparison of the changes of tumor volume during therapy among the concurrent administration group, endo-first group and model group (Mean±SD, n=8)
Comparison of the dyeing result among concurrent administration group, endo-first group, and model group (Mean±SD, n=8)
Group
MMP-2
TIMP-2
EMMPRIN
MVD
IOD
P
IOD
P
IOD
P
Count
P
a: P value between the concurrent administration group and the endo-first group; b: P value between the endo-first group and model group; c: P value between the concurrent administration group and model group.
The comparison of the expression of each staining index among concurrent administration group, endo-first group, and model group (IHC, × 400). 1-4 were the expression of MMP-2, TIMP-2, EMMPRIN and MVD in turns; A: Concurrent administration group; B: Endo-first group; C: Model group.
同时用药组、先重组人血管内皮抑素组、模型组移植瘤的各组化指标染色结果比较Comparison of the dyeing result among concurrent administration group, endo-first group, and model group (Mean±SD, n=8)同时用药组、先重组人血管内皮抑素组和模型组各染色指标表达情况比较(IHC, ×400)。1-4依次为MMP-2、TIMP-2、EMMPRIN及MVD表达情况;A:同时用药组;B:先重组人血管内皮抑素组;C:模型组。The comparison of the expression of each staining index among concurrent administration group, endo-first group, and model group (IHC, × 400). 1-4 were the expression of MMP-2, TIMP-2, EMMPRIN and MVD in turns; A: Concurrent administration group; B: Endo-first group; C: Model group.
Authors: Yi Tang; Marian T Nakada; Prabakaran Kesavan; Francis McCabe; Hillary Millar; Patricia Rafferty; Peter Bugelski; Li Yan Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-04-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: S Zucker; M Hymowitz; E E Rollo; R Mann; C E Conner; J Cao; H D Foda; D C Tompkins; B P Toole Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: S Zucker; M Hymowitz; C Conner; H M Zarrabi; A N Hurewitz; L Matrisian; D Boyd; G Nicolson; S Montana Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 1999-06-30 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Suresh S Ramalingam; Suzanne E Dahlberg; Corey J Langer; Robert Gray; Chandra P Belani; Julie R Brahmer; Alan B Sandler; Joan H Schiller; David H Johnson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544