ArticleClinical and experimental medicine2012
The inhibition of Endostar on the angiogenesis and growth of gastrointestinal stromal tumor xenograft.
Article in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microvessel density in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of methodology · 2023Article
- Contrast-enhanced ultrasound analysis of tissue perfusion in tumor-bearing mice following treatment with endostatin combined with radiotherapy.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate whether Endostar can inhibit the angiogenesis and growth of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) xenografts in nude mice and the feasibility of antiangiogenesis as a treatment modality for GIST. Twenty Balb/c-nu/nu mice burdened with GIST were randomly divided into two groups. Endostar (2 mg/kg) was injected around the tumor once per day for 10 days in the experimental group and with normal saline (NS) (0.1 ml) in the control group. The tumor bulk was measured every 5 days until 5 days after the end of the injections. The inhibition tumor rate (ITR) was calculated. Tumor bulk, microvascular density (MVD), rate of bcl-2-positive expression, and AI were assessed in the two groups. Tumor volumes were compared before and after treatment in the experimental group. The difference in tumor bulk between the two groups was not statistically significant before treatment (P = 0.628), but at the end of test, the difference was significant (P < 0.0001), and in the test group, the tumor bulk was also decreased significantly after treatment (P < 0.0001). The ITR was 86.5%. All xenografts showed CD117-positive staining. MVD and bcl-2-positive rate were lower in the experimental group than in the control group (P = 0.020 and P = 0.023, respectively). AI increased significantly in the experimental group compared with the control group (P = 0.020). Endostar can reduce angiogenesis,promote cell apoptosis, and inhibit the growth of a GIST xenograft. It is possible that Endostar will be used as an effective drug for GIST in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21660447What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.