BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hypoxia is a characteristic of tumors, is known to increase aggressiveness, and causes treatment resistance. Traditional classification suggests two types of hypoxia: chronic and acute. Acute hypoxia is mostly caused by transient disruptions in perfusion, while chronic hypoxia is caused by diffusion limitations. This classification may be insufficient in terms of pathogenetic and pathophysiological mechanisms. Therefore, we quantified hypoxia subtypes in tumors based on (immuno-)fluorescent marker distribution patterns in microcirculatory supply units (MCSUs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cryosections from hSCC lines (SAS, FaDu, UT-SCC-5, UT-SCC-14, UT-SCC-15) were analyzed. Hypoxia was identified by pimonidazole, perfusion by Hoechst 33342, and endothelial cells by CD31. The following patterns were identified in vital tumor tissue: (1) normoxia: Hoechst 33342 fluorescence around microvessels, no pimonidazole, (2) chronic hypoxia: Hoechst 33342 fluorescence around microvessels, pimonidazole distant from microvessels, (3) acute hypoxia: no Hoechst 33342 fluorescence around microvessels, pimonidazole in immediate vicinity of microvessels, and (4) hypoxemic hypoxia: Hoechst 33342 fluorescence and pimonidazole directly around microvessels. RESULTS: Quantitative assessment of MCSUs show predominance for normoxia in 4 out of 5 tumor lines (50.1-72.8%). Total hypoxia slightly prevails in UT-SCC-15 (56.9%). Chronic hypoxia is the dominant subtype (65.4-85.9% of total hypoxia). Acute hypoxia only accounts for 12.9-29.8% and hypoxemic hypoxia for 1.2-6.4% of total hypoxia. The fraction of perfused microvessels ranged from 82.5-96.6%. CONCLUSION: Chronic hypoxia is the prevailing subtype in MCSUs. Acute hypoxia and hypoxemic hypoxia account for only a small fraction. This approach enables assessment and recognition of different hypoxia subtypes including hypoxemic hypoxia and may facilitate methods to (clinically) identify and eliminate hypoxia.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Hypoxia is a characteristic of tumors, is known to increase aggressiveness, and causes treatment resistance. Traditional classification suggests two types of hypoxia: chronic and acute. Acute hypoxia is mostly caused by transient disruptions in perfusion, while chronic hypoxia is caused by diffusion limitations. This classification may be insufficient in terms of pathogenetic and pathophysiological mechanisms. Therefore, we quantified hypoxia subtypes in tumors based on (immuno-)fluorescent marker distribution patterns in microcirculatory supply units (MCSUs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cryosections from hSCC lines (SAS, FaDu, UT-SCC-5, UT-SCC-14, UT-SCC-15) were analyzed. Hypoxia was identified by pimonidazole, perfusion by Hoechst 33342, and endothelial cells by CD31. The following patterns were identified in vital tumor tissue: (1) normoxia: Hoechst 33342 fluorescence around microvessels, no pimonidazole, (2) chronic hypoxia: Hoechst 33342 fluorescence around microvessels, pimonidazole distant from microvessels, (3) acute hypoxia: no Hoechst 33342 fluorescence around microvessels, pimonidazole in immediate vicinity of microvessels, and (4) hypoxemic hypoxia: Hoechst 33342 fluorescence and pimonidazole directly around microvessels. RESULTS: Quantitative assessment of MCSUs show predominance for normoxia in 4 out of 5 tumor lines (50.1-72.8%). Total hypoxia slightly prevails in UT-SCC-15 (56.9%). Chronic hypoxia is the dominant subtype (65.4-85.9% of total hypoxia). Acute hypoxia only accounts for 12.9-29.8% and hypoxemic hypoxia for 1.2-6.4% of total hypoxia. The fraction of perfused microvessels ranged from 82.5-96.6%. CONCLUSION:Chronic hypoxia is the prevailing subtype in MCSUs. Acute hypoxia and hypoxemic hypoxia account for only a small fraction. This approach enables assessment and recognition of different hypoxia subtypes including hypoxemic hypoxia and may facilitate methods to (clinically) identify and eliminate hypoxia.
Authors: Ala Yaromina; Theresa Kroeber; Andreas Meinzer; Simon Boeke; Howard Thames; Michael Baumann; Daniel Zips Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: H Kimura; R D Braun; E T Ong; R Hsu; T W Secomb; D Papahadjopoulos; K Hong; M W Dewhirst Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1996-12-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Laurence Goethals; Annelies Debucquoy; Christiaan Perneel; Karel Geboes; Nadine Ectors; Harlinde De Schutter; Freddy Penninckx; William H McBride; Adrian C Begg; Karin M Haustermans Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Einar K Rofstad; Jon-Vidar Gaustad; Tormod A M Egeland; Berit Mathiesen; Kanthi Galappathi Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Anna S E Ljungkvist; Johan Bussink; Paulus F J W Rijken; Johannes H A M Kaanders; Albert J van der Kogel; Juliana Denekamp Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A Yaromina; S Meyer; C Fabian; K Zaleska; U G A Sattler; L A Kunz-Schughart; W Mueller-Klieser; D Zips; M Baumann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: P C Lara; M Lloret; A Valenciano; B Clavo; B Pinar; A Rey; L A Henríquez-Hernández Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Nathan A Koonce; Joseph Levy; Matthew E Hardee; Azemat Jamshidi-Parsian; Kieng B Vang; Sunil Sharma; James A Raleigh; Ruud P M Dings; Robert J Griffin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 3.240