| Literature DB >> 32494202 |
Fu Xiong1,2, Yanyan Cao1,2, Xiaopeng Guo1,2, Hongsen Zhang1,2, Jihua Wang1,2, Bin Xiong1,2, Bin Liang1,2, Chuansheng Zheng1,2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the adriamycin (ADM) pervasion distance within tumor stroma after relaxin (RLX) infusion through tumor feeding artery and further investigate the therapeutic effects of RLX infusion combined with transcatheter chemoembolization (TACE) on the rabbit VX2 liver cancer, since the chemotherapy impaired due to limited drug distribution hindered by stiffened tumor stroma.Entities:
Keywords: MMP-9; liver cancer; penetration distance; relaxin; transcatheter chemoembolization
Year: 2020 PMID: 32494202 PMCID: PMC7231763 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S223993
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Figure 1(A–D) Gelatin substrate zymography was employed to analyze the expression of MMP-2 and MMP-9 after RLX infusion in the first part of this study. Densitometry (each zymogram in the figure) was used to quantify band size as an indicator of relative MMP-9 activity. ** P <0.01.
Abbreviations: MMP, matrix metalloproteinase; RLX, relaxin.
Figure 2Immunofluorescence was performed for image analysis to evaluate the pervasion distance of ADM within the tumor stroma in group 1 to group 6.
Abbreviations: ADM, adriamycin.
Figure 3Image analysis of immunofluorescence of ADM pervasion distance was performed to evaluate the pervasion distance of ADM within the tumor stroma in the first part of this study. ** P <0.01; *** P <0.001.
Abbreviation: ADM, adriamycin.
MVD in Three Groups
| Groups | MVD |
|---|---|
| Mean±SD | |
| RLX+TACE | 83.57±6.814 |
| TACE | 97.46±9.045 |
| NS | 80.33±7.652 |
| F value | 2.564 |
| P value | 0.118 |
Figure 4TUNEL and Ki67 staining were performed to evaluate the apoptosis and the proliferation of the harvested tumor tissues in groups 7, 8 and 9, respectively. *P<0.05; **P<0.01.
Figure 5HE staining were performed to apoptosis of the harvested tumor tissues in groups 7, 8 and 9, respectively.
The Tumor Growth Rate of Three Groups
| Groups | Tumor Volume (cm3) | Growth Rate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 (Preoperation) | V2 (Postoperation) | V2/V1×100% | ||
| RLX+TACE | 1.7±1.1 | 2.1±1.4 | 124.2±21.5 | |
| TACE | 1.8±0.7 | 2.8±1.1 | 174.3±15.9 | |
| NS | 1.8±0.2 | 3.4±0.5 | 233.3±67.3 | |
| F value | 13.463 | |||
| P value | 0.000 | |||
The Tumor Necrosis Rate of Three Groups
| Groups | Tumor Necrosis Areas (cm2) | Necrosis Rate | |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | S2 | S2/S1×100% | |
| RLX+TACE | 3.3±2.0 | 2.7±1.4 | 85.2±7.5 |
| TACE | 5.2±1.0 | 3.6±0.6 | 68.8±10.4 |
| NS | 5.3±1.4 | 1.9±0.7 | 37.4±13.2 |
| F value | 26.168 | ||
| P value | 0.001 | ||
Number of the Intrahepatic Metastasis
| Groups | Num. of Metastasis |
|---|---|
| Mean | |
| RLX+TACE | 1.8 |
| TACE | 2.0 |
| NS | 2.8 |
| F value | 1.448 |
| P value | 0.273 |