PURPOSE: To characterize tumor growth of N1S1 cells implanted into the liver of Sprague-Dawley rats to determine if this model could be used for survival studies. These results were compared with tumor growth after implantation with McA-RH7777 cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: N1S1 or McA-RH7777 cells were implanted into the liver of Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 20 and n = 12, respectively) using ultrasound (US) guidance, and tumor growth was followed by using US. Serum profiles of 19 cytokines were compared in naive versus tumor-bearing rats. RESULTS: Both types of tumors were visible on US 1 week after tumor implantation, but the mean tumor volume of N1S1 tumors was larger compared to McA-RH7777 tumors (231 mm(3) vs 82.3 mm(3), respectively). Tumor volumes in both groups continued to increase, reaching means of 289 mm(3) and 160 mm(3) in N1S1 and McA-RH7777 groups, respectively, 2 weeks after tumor implantation. By week 3, tumor volumes had decreased considerably, and six tumors (50%) in the McA-RH7777 had spontaneously regressed, versus two (10%) in the N1S1 group. Tumor volumes continued to decrease over the following 3 weeks, and complete tumor regression of all tumors was seen 5 weeks and 6 weeks after tumor implantation in the McA-RH7777 and N1S1 groups, respectively. In an N1S1-implanted rat, multiple cytokines that have been shown to correlate with the ability of the tumor to survive in a hostile environment were increased by as much as 50%, whereas the average increase in cytokine levels was 90%. These findings suggest that the net cytokine environment favors an antitumor immune response. A similar trend was observed in a rat with a McA-RH7777 tumor, and the increase in cytokine levels was considerably more pronounced, with an average increase of 320%. CONCLUSIONS: The model of N1S1 cell implantation in the liver of Sprague-Dawley rats is not ideal for survival studies and should only be used with great caution in short-term studies that involve cancer therapies.
PURPOSE: To characterize tumor growth of N1S1 cells implanted into the liver of Sprague-Dawley rats to determine if this model could be used for survival studies. These results were compared with tumor growth after implantation with McA-RH7777 cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: N1S1 or McA-RH7777 cells were implanted into the liver of Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 20 and n = 12, respectively) using ultrasound (US) guidance, and tumor growth was followed by using US. Serum profiles of 19 cytokines were compared in naive versus tumor-bearing rats. RESULTS: Both types of tumors were visible on US 1 week after tumor implantation, but the mean tumor volume of N1S1 tumors was larger compared to McA-RH7777 tumors (231 mm(3) vs 82.3 mm(3), respectively). Tumor volumes in both groups continued to increase, reaching means of 289 mm(3) and 160 mm(3) in N1S1 and McA-RH7777 groups, respectively, 2 weeks after tumor implantation. By week 3, tumor volumes had decreased considerably, and six tumors (50%) in the McA-RH7777 had spontaneously regressed, versus two (10%) in the N1S1 group. Tumor volumes continued to decrease over the following 3 weeks, and complete tumor regression of all tumors was seen 5 weeks and 6 weeks after tumor implantation in the McA-RH7777 and N1S1 groups, respectively. In an N1S1-implanted rat, multiple cytokines that have been shown to correlate with the ability of the tumor to survive in a hostile environment were increased by as much as 50%, whereas the average increase in cytokine levels was 90%. These findings suggest that the net cytokine environment favors an antitumor immune response. A similar trend was observed in a rat with a McA-RH7777 tumor, and the increase in cytokine levels was considerably more pronounced, with an average increase of 320%. CONCLUSIONS: The model of N1S1 cell implantation in the liver of Sprague-Dawley rats is not ideal for survival studies and should only be used with great caution in short-term studies that involve cancer therapies.
Authors: Scott M Thompson; Matthew R Callstrom; Bruce Knudsen; Jill L Anderson; Rickey E Carter; Joseph P Grande; Lewis R Roberts; David A Woodrum Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: E Garin; B Denizot; J Roux; N Noiret; N Lepareur; M Moreau; H Mesba; J F Laurent; J Y Herry; P Bourguet; J P Benoit; J J Lejeune Journal: Lab Anim Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.471
Authors: S Bar-Yehuda; S M Stemmer; L Madi; D Castel; A Ochaion; S Cohen; F Barer; A Zabutti; G Perez-Liz; L Del Valle; P Fishman Journal: Int J Oncol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 5.650
Authors: Joseph L McDevitt; Samdeep K Mouli; Patrick D Tyler; Weiguo Li; Jodi Nicolai; Daniele Procissi; Ann B Ragin; Y Andrew Wang; Robert J Lewandowski; Riad Salem; Andrew C Larson; Reed A Omary Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Terence P F Gade; Stephen J Hunt; Neil Harrison; Gregory J Nadolski; Charles Weber; Stephen Pickup; Emma E Furth; Mitchell D Schnall; Michael C Soulen; M Celeste Simon Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: J Scott Goodwin; Leo L Tsai; David Mwin; Patricia Coutinho de Souza; Svayam Dialani; John T Moon; Zheng Zhang; Aaron K Grant; Muneeb Ahmed Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2021-04-24 Impact factor: 3.130
Authors: Tejaswi Worlikar; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Eli Vlaisavljevich; Ryan Hubbard; Jiaqi Shi; Timothy L Hall; Clifford S Cho; Fred T Lee; Joan Greve; Zhen Xu Journal: BME Front Date: 2020-11-25