Muneeb Ahmed1, Gaurav Kumar1, Svetlana Gourevitch2, Tatyana Levchenko3, Eithan Galun4, Vladimir Torchilin3, S Nahum Goldberg1,2,4. 1. a Laboratory for Minimally Invasive Tumor Therapies, Department of Radiology , Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School , Boston , MA , USA. 2. b Division of Image-guided Therapy and Interventional Oncology, Department of Radiology , Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center , Jerusalem , Israel. 3. c Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Center for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and Nanomedicine , Northeastern University , Boston , MA , USA. 4. d Department of Gene Therapy , Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center , Jerusalem , Israel.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the role of hepatic radiofrequency ablation (RFA) heating parameters and their activation of heat shock proteins (HSPs) in modulating distant tumor growth. METHODS AND MATERIALS: First, to study the effects of RFA dose on distant tumor growth, rats with subcutaneous R3230 adenocarcinoma (10 ± 1 mm) were assigned to 3 different hepatic RF doses (60 °C × 10 min, 70 °C × 5 min or 90 °C × 2 min) that induced identical sized ablation or sham (n = 6/arm). Post-RFA tumor growth rates, cellular proliferation (Ki-67) and microvascular density (MVD) were compared at 7d. Next, the effect of low and high power doses on local HSP70 expression and cellular infiltration (α-SMA + myofibroblasts and CD68 + macrophages), cytokine (IL-6) and growth factor (HGF and VEGF) expression was assessed. Finally, 60 °C × 10 min and 90 °C × 2 min RFA were combined with anti-HSP micellar quercetin (MicQ, 2 mg/ml). A total of 150 animals were used. RESULTS: Lower RF heating (70 °C × 5 min and 60 °C × 10 min) resulted in larger distant tumors at 7d (19.2 ± 0.8 mm for both) while higher RF heating (90 °C × 2) led to less distant tumor growth (16.7 ± 1.5 mm, p < .01 for both), though increased over sham (13.5 ± 0.5 mm, p < .01). Ki-67 and MVD correlated with tumor growth (p < .01 for all). Additionally, lower dose 60 °C × 10 min hepatic RFA had more periablational HSP70 compared to 90 °C × 2 min (rim: 1.106 ± 163 µm vs. 360 ± 18 µm, p < .001), with similar trends for periablational α-SMA, CD68 and CDC47 (p < .01 for all). Anti-HSP70 MicQ blocked distant tumor growth for lower dose (60 °C × 10: RF/MicQ 14.6 ± 0.4 mm vs. RF alone: 18.1 ± 0.4 mm, p < .01) and higher dose RFA (90 °C × 2 min: RF/MicQ 14.6 ± 0.5 mm vs. RF alone: 16.4 ± 0.7 mm, p < .01). CONCLUSION: Hepatic RF heating parameters alter periablational HSP70, which can influence and stimulate distant tumor growth. Modulation of RF heating parameters alone or in combination with adjuvant HSP inhibition can reduce unwanted, off-target systemic tumorigenic effects.
PURPOSE: To determine the role of hepatic radiofrequency ablation (RFA) heating parameters and their activation of heat shock proteins (HSPs) in modulating distant tumor growth. METHODS AND MATERIALS: First, to study the effects of RFA dose on distant tumor growth, rats with subcutaneous R3230 adenocarcinoma (10 ± 1 mm) were assigned to 3 different hepatic RF doses (60 °C × 10 min, 70 °C × 5 min or 90 °C × 2 min) that induced identical sized ablation or sham (n = 6/arm). Post-RFA tumor growth rates, cellular proliferation (Ki-67) and microvascular density (MVD) were compared at 7d. Next, the effect of low and high power doses on local HSP70 expression and cellular infiltration (α-SMA + myofibroblasts and CD68 + macrophages), cytokine (IL-6) and growth factor (HGF and VEGF) expression was assessed. Finally, 60 °C × 10 min and 90 °C × 2 min RFA were combined with anti-HSP micellar quercetin (MicQ, 2 mg/ml). A total of 150 animals were used. RESULTS: Lower RF heating (70 °C × 5 min and 60 °C × 10 min) resulted in larger distant tumors at 7d (19.2 ± 0.8 mm for both) while higher RF heating (90 °C × 2) led to less distant tumor growth (16.7 ± 1.5 mm, p < .01 for both), though increased over sham (13.5 ± 0.5 mm, p < .01). Ki-67 and MVD correlated with tumor growth (p < .01 for all). Additionally, lower dose 60 °C × 10 min hepatic RFA had more periablational HSP70 compared to 90 °C × 2 min (rim: 1.106 ± 163 µm vs. 360 ± 18 µm, p < .001), with similar trends for periablational α-SMA, CD68 and CDC47 (p < .01 for all). Anti-HSP70MicQ blocked distant tumor growth for lower dose (60 °C × 10: RF/MicQ 14.6 ± 0.4 mm vs. RF alone: 18.1 ± 0.4 mm, p < .01) and higher dose RFA (90 °C × 2 min: RF/MicQ 14.6 ± 0.5 mm vs. RF alone: 16.4 ± 0.7 mm, p < .01). CONCLUSION: Hepatic RF heating parameters alter periablational HSP70, which can influence and stimulate distant tumor growth. Modulation of RF heating parameters alone or in combination with adjuvant HSP inhibition can reduce unwanted, off-target systemic tumorigenic effects.
Authors: Rupa R Sawant; Shravan Kumar Sriraman; Gemma Navarro; Swati Biswas; Riddhi A Dalvi; Vladimir P Torchilin Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2012-02-25 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Wei Yang; Muneeb Ahmed; Beenish Tasawwar; Tatyana Levchenko; Rupa R Sawant; Michael Collins; Sabina Signoretti; Vladimir Torchilin; S Nahum Goldberg Journal: Int J Hyperthermia Date: 2011 Impact factor: 3.914
Authors: Muneeb Ahmed; Wayne E Monsky; Geoffrey Girnun; Anatoly Lukyanov; Giuseppe D'Ippolito; Jonathan B Kruskal; Keith E Stuart; Vladimir P Torchilin; S Nahum Goldberg Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2003-10-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Maarten W Nijkamp; Jarmila D W van der Bilt; Menno T de Bruijn; I Quintus Molenaar; Emile E Voest; Paul J van Diest; Onno Kranenburg; Inne H M Borel Rinkes Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Giuseppe D'Ippolito; Muneeb Ahmed; Geoffrey D Girnun; Keith E Stuart; Jonathan B Kruskal; Elkan F Halpern; S Nahum Goldberg Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-06-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Lynn Jeanette Savic; Luzie A Doemel; Isabel Theresa Schobert; Ruth Rebecca Montgomery; Nikhil Joshi; John James Walsh; Jessica Santana; Vasily Pekurovsky; Xuchen Zhang; MingDe Lin; Lucas Adam; Annemarie Boustani; James Duncan; Lin Leng; Richard John Bucala; S Nahum Goldberg; Fahmeed Hyder; Daniel Coman; Julius Chapiro Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Danielle E Jondal; Scott M Thompson; Kim A Butters; Bruce E Knudsen; Jill L Anderson; Lewis R Roberts; Matthew R Callstrom; David A Woodrum Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Song Wang; Jingtao Liu; Hao Wu; Anna Jiang; Kun Zhao; Kun Yan; Wei Wu; Haibo Han; Yanhua Zhang; Wei Yang Journal: Chin J Cancer Res Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Josep M Llovet; Thierry De Baere; Laura Kulik; Philipp K Haber; Tim F Greten; Tim Meyer; Riccardo Lencioni Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Federico Collettini; Carolin Reimann; Julia Brangsch; Julius Chapiro; Lynn Jeanette Savic; David C Onthank; Simon P Robinson; Uwe Karst; Rebecca Buchholz; Sarah Keller; Bernd Hamm; S Nahum Goldberg; Marcus R Makowski Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 4.379