Han-Sin Jeong1, Dennis Jones1, Shan Liao1, Daniel A Wattson1, Cheryl H Cui1, Dan G Duda1, Christopher G Willett1, Rakesh K Jain1, Timothy P Padera2. 1. Edwin L. Steele Laboratories, Department of Radiation Oncology, MGH Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (HSJ, DJ, SL, DAW, CC, DGD, RKJ, TPP); Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea (HSJ); Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (CGW).Current affiliation: Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (SL). 2. Edwin L. Steele Laboratories, Department of Radiation Oncology, MGH Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (HSJ, DJ, SL, DAW, CC, DGD, RKJ, TPP); Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea (HSJ); Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (CGW).Current affiliation: Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (SL). tpadera@steele.mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, antiangiogenic therapy has failed to improve overall survival in cancer patients when used in the adjuvant setting (local-regional disease with no detectable systemic metastasis). The presence of lymph node metastases worsens prognosis, however their reliance on angiogenesis for growth has not been reported. METHODS: Here, we introduce a novel chronic lymph node window (CLNW) model to facilitate new discoveries in the growth and spread of lymph node metastases. We use the CLNW in multiple models of spontaneous lymphatic metastases in mice to study the vasculature of metastatic lymph nodes (n = 9-12). We further test our results in patient samples (n = 20 colon cancer patients; n = 20 head and neck cancer patients). Finally, we test the ability of antiangiogenic therapy to inhibit metastatic growth in the CLNW. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Using the CLNW, we reveal the surprising lack of sprouting angiogenesis during metastatic growth, despite the presence of hypoxia in some lesions. Treatment with two different antiangiogenic therapies showed no effect on the growth or vascular density of lymph node metastases (day 10: untreated mean = 1.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.7% to 1.7%; control mean = 0.7%, 95% CI = 0.1% to 1.3%; DC101 mean = 0.4%, 95% CI = 0.0% to 3.3%; sunitinib mean = 0.5%, 95% CI = 0.0% to 1.0%, analysis of variance P = .34). We confirmed these findings in clinical specimens, including the lack of reduction in blood vessel density in lymph node metastases in patients treated with bevacizumab (no bevacizumab group mean = 257 vessels/mm(2), 95% CI = 149 to 365 vessels/mm(2); bevacizumab group mean = 327 vessels/mm(2), 95% CI = 140 to 514 vessels/mm(2), P = .78). CONCLUSION: We provide preclinical and clinical evidence that sprouting angiogenesis does not occur during the growth of lymph node metastases, and thus reveals a new mechanism of treatment resistance to antiangiogenic therapy in adjuvant settings. The targets of clinically approved angiogenesis inhibitors are not active during early cancer progression in the lymph node, suggesting that inhibitors of sprouting angiogenesis as a class will not be effective in treating lymph node metastases.
BACKGROUND: To date, antiangiogenic therapy has failed to improve overall survival in cancerpatients when used in the adjuvant setting (local-regional disease with no detectable systemic metastasis). The presence of lymph node metastases worsens prognosis, however their reliance on angiogenesis for growth has not been reported. METHODS: Here, we introduce a novel chronic lymph node window (CLNW) model to facilitate new discoveries in the growth and spread of lymph node metastases. We use the CLNW in multiple models of spontaneous lymphatic metastases in mice to study the vasculature of metastatic lymph nodes (n = 9-12). We further test our results in patient samples (n = 20 colon cancerpatients; n = 20 head and neck cancerpatients). Finally, we test the ability of antiangiogenic therapy to inhibit metastatic growth in the CLNW. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Using the CLNW, we reveal the surprising lack of sprouting angiogenesis during metastatic growth, despite the presence of hypoxia in some lesions. Treatment with two different antiangiogenic therapies showed no effect on the growth or vascular density of lymph node metastases (day 10: untreated mean = 1.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.7% to 1.7%; control mean = 0.7%, 95% CI = 0.1% to 1.3%; DC101 mean = 0.4%, 95% CI = 0.0% to 3.3%; sunitinib mean = 0.5%, 95% CI = 0.0% to 1.0%, analysis of variance P = .34). We confirmed these findings in clinical specimens, including the lack of reduction in blood vessel density in lymph node metastases in patients treated with bevacizumab (no bevacizumab group mean = 257 vessels/mm(2), 95% CI = 149 to 365 vessels/mm(2); bevacizumab group mean = 327 vessels/mm(2), 95% CI = 140 to 514 vessels/mm(2), P = .78). CONCLUSION: We provide preclinical and clinical evidence that sprouting angiogenesis does not occur during the growth of lymph node metastases, and thus reveals a new mechanism of treatment resistance to antiangiogenic therapy in adjuvant settings. The targets of clinically approved angiogenesis inhibitors are not active during early cancer progression in the lymph node, suggesting that inhibitors of sprouting angiogenesis as a class will not be effective in treating lymph node metastases.
Authors: Bin Li; Emerson E Sharpe; Amanda B Maupin; Amylynn A Teleron; Amy L Pyle; Peter Carmeliet; Pampee P Young Journal: FASEB J Date: 2006-06-05 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Peter J Campbell; Shinichi Yachida; Laura J Mudie; Philip J Stephens; Erin D Pleasance; Lucy A Stebbings; Laura A Morsberger; Calli Latimer; Stuart McLaren; Meng-Lay Lin; David J McBride; Ignacio Varela; Serena A Nik-Zainal; Catherine Leroy; Mingming Jia; Andrew Menzies; Adam P Butler; Jon W Teague; Constance A Griffin; John Burton; Harold Swerdlow; Michael A Quail; Michael R Stratton; Christine Iacobuzio-Donahue; P Andrew Futreal Journal: Nature Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: J Rodrigo Mora; Maria Rosa Bono; N Manjunath; Wolfgang Weninger; Lois L Cavanagh; Mario Rosemblatt; Ulrich H Von Andrian Journal: Nature Date: 2003-07-03 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Christopher G Willett; Yves Boucher; Emmanuelle di Tomaso; Dan G Duda; Lance L Munn; Ricky T Tong; Daniel C Chung; Dushyant V Sahani; Sanjeeva P Kalva; Sergey V Kozin; Mari Mino; Kenneth S Cohen; David T Scadden; Alan C Hartford; Alan J Fischman; Jeffrey W Clark; David P Ryan; Andrew X Zhu; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Helen X Chen; Paul C Shellito; Gregory Y Lauwers; Rakesh K Jain Journal: Nat Med Date: 2004-01-25 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Patrycja Nowak-Sliwinska; Kari Alitalo; Elizabeth Allen; Andrey Anisimov; Alfred C Aplin; Robert Auerbach; Hellmut G Augustin; David O Bates; Judy R van Beijnum; R Hugh F Bender; Gabriele Bergers; Andreas Bikfalvi; Joyce Bischoff; Barbara C Böck; Peter C Brooks; Federico Bussolino; Bertan Cakir; Peter Carmeliet; Daniel Castranova; Anca M Cimpean; Ondine Cleaver; George Coukos; George E Davis; Michele De Palma; Anna Dimberg; Ruud P M Dings; Valentin Djonov; Andrew C Dudley; Neil P Dufton; Sarah-Maria Fendt; Napoleone Ferrara; Marcus Fruttiger; Dai Fukumura; Bart Ghesquière; Yan Gong; Robert J Griffin; Adrian L Harris; Christopher C W Hughes; Nan W Hultgren; M Luisa Iruela-Arispe; Melita Irving; Rakesh K Jain; Raghu Kalluri; Joanna Kalucka; Robert S Kerbel; Jan Kitajewski; Ingeborg Klaassen; Hynda K Kleinmann; Pieter Koolwijk; Elisabeth Kuczynski; Brenda R Kwak; Koen Marien; Juan M Melero-Martin; Lance L Munn; Roberto F Nicosia; Agnes Noel; Jussi Nurro; Anna-Karin Olsson; Tatiana V Petrova; Kristian Pietras; Roberto Pili; Jeffrey W Pollard; Mark J Post; Paul H A Quax; Gabriel A Rabinovich; Marius Raica; Anna M Randi; Domenico Ribatti; Curzio Ruegg; Reinier O Schlingemann; Stefan Schulte-Merker; Lois E H Smith; Jonathan W Song; Steven A Stacker; Jimmy Stalin; Amber N Stratman; Maureen Van de Velde; Victor W M van Hinsbergh; Peter B Vermeulen; Johannes Waltenberger; Brant M Weinstein; Hong Xin; Bahar Yetkin-Arik; Seppo Yla-Herttuala; Mervin C Yoder; Arjan W Griffioen Journal: Angiogenesis Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 9.596
Authors: Eelco F J Meijer; Cedric Blatter; Ivy X Chen; Echoe Bouta; Dennis Jones; Ethel R Pereira; Keehoon Jung; Benjamin J Vakoc; James W Baish; Timothy P Padera Journal: Microcirculation Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: John D Martin; Dai Fukumura; Dan G Duda; Yves Boucher; Rakesh K Jain Journal: Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 6.915
Authors: Sara M Tolaney; Yves Boucher; Dan G Duda; John D Martin; Giorgio Seano; Marek Ancukiewicz; William T Barry; Shom Goel; Johanna Lahdenrata; Steven J Isakoff; Eren D Yeh; Saloni R Jain; Mehra Golshan; Jane Brock; Matija Snuderl; Eric P Winer; Ian E Krop; Rakesh K Jain Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 11.205