OBJECTIVE: Differently located tumors of the same origin may exhibit diverse responses to the same therapeutics. To test this hypothesis, we compared the responses of rodent hepatic and subcutaneous engrafts of rhabdomyosarcoma-1 (R1) to a vascular disrupting agent Combretastatin A4 phosphate (CA4P). METHODS: Twelve WAG/Rij rats, each bearing three R1 implanted in the right and left hepatic lobes and subcutaneously in the thoracic region, received CA4P intravenously at 5 mg/kg (n = 6) or solvent (n = 6). Therapeutic responses were compared interindividually and intraindividually among tumors of different sites till 48 hours after injection using in vivo MRI, postmortem digital microangiography, and histopathology. RESULTS: MRI revealed that the subcutaneous tumors (STs) significantly increased in volume than hepatic tumors (HTs) 48 hours after CA4P (P < .05). Relative to vehicle controls and treated group at baseline, necrosis ratio, apparent diffusion coefficient, and enhancement ratio changed slightly with the STs but significantly with HTs (P < .05) after CA4P treatment. Vessel density derived from microangiography was significantly lower in STs compared to HTs without CA4P treatment. CA4P treatment resulted in decreased vessel density in HTs, while it did not affect vessel density in STs. MRI and microangiography outcomes were supported by histopathologic findings. CONCLUSIONS: MRI and microangiography allowed quantitative comparison of therapeutic responses to CA4P in rats with multifocal tumors. The discovered diverse effects of the same drug on tumors of the same origin but different locations emphasize the presence of cancer heterogeneity and the importance of individualization of drug delivery.
OBJECTIVE: Differently located tumors of the same origin may exhibit diverse responses to the same therapeutics. To test this hypothesis, we compared the responses of rodent hepatic and subcutaneous engrafts of rhabdomyosarcoma-1 (R1) to a vascular disrupting agent Combretastatin A4 phosphate (CA4P). METHODS: Twelve WAG/Rij rats, each bearing three R1 implanted in the right and left hepatic lobes and subcutaneously in the thoracic region, received CA4P intravenously at 5 mg/kg (n = 6) or solvent (n = 6). Therapeutic responses were compared interindividually and intraindividually among tumors of different sites till 48 hours after injection using in vivo MRI, postmortem digital microangiography, and histopathology. RESULTS: MRI revealed that the subcutaneous tumors (STs) significantly increased in volume than hepatic tumors (HTs) 48 hours after CA4P (P < .05). Relative to vehicle controls and treated group at baseline, necrosis ratio, apparent diffusion coefficient, and enhancement ratio changed slightly with the STs but significantly with HTs (P < .05) after CA4P treatment. Vessel density derived from microangiography was significantly lower in STs compared to HTs without CA4P treatment. CA4P treatment resulted in decreased vessel density in HTs, while it did not affect vessel density in STs. MRI and microangiography outcomes were supported by histopathologic findings. CONCLUSIONS: MRI and microangiography allowed quantitative comparison of therapeutic responses to CA4P in rats with multifocal tumors. The discovered diverse effects of the same drug on tumors of the same origin but different locations emphasize the presence of cancer heterogeneity and the importance of individualization of drug delivery.
Authors: M Zweifel; G C Jayson; N S Reed; R Osborne; B Hassan; J Ledermann; G Shreeves; L Poupard; S-P Lu; J Balkissoon; D J Chaplin; G J S Rustin Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-01-27 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Harriet C Thoeny; Frederik De Keyzer; Vincent Vandecaveye; Feng Chen; Xihe Sun; Hilde Bosmans; Robert Hermans; Eric K Verbeken; Chris Boesch; Guy Marchal; Willy Landuyt; Yicheng Ni Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-09-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mukund Seshadri; Joseph A Spernyak; Patricia G Maiery; Richard T Cheney; Richard Mazurchuk; David A Bellnier Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Daniel C Colvin; Jerome Jourquin; Junzhong Xu; Mark D Does; Lourdes Estrada; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-11-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: G J Rustin; G Shreeves; P D Nathan; A Gaya; T S Ganesan; D Wang; J Boxall; L Poupard; D J Chaplin; M R L Stratford; J Balkissoon; M Zweifel Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Gillian M Tozer; Vivien E Prise; Gemma Lewis; Shaoping Xie; Ian Wilson; Sally A Hill Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Feng Chen; Yingmei Feng; Kaier Zheng; Frederik De Keyzer; Junjie Li; Yuanbo Feng; Marlein Miranda Cona; Huaijun Wang; Yansheng Jiang; Jie Yu; Guy Marchal; Catherine Verfaillie; Bart De Geest; Raymond Oyen; Yicheng Ni Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Qian Xia; Yuanbo Feng; Ting Yin; Yewei Liu; Guozhi Zhang; Jianjun Liu; Linjun Tong; Robin Willemyns; Jie Yu; Raymond Oyen; Gang Huang; Yicheng Ni Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Ye-Wei Liu; Frederik De Keyzer; Yuan-Bo Feng; Feng Chen; Shao-Li Song; Johan Swinnen; Guy Bormans; Raymond Oyen; Gang Huang; Yi-Cheng Ni Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-07-07 Impact factor: 5.742