ArticleJournal of Cancer2014
Metastatic hepatocarcinoma he/de tumor model in rat.
Article in Journal of Cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- NGR-Based Radiopharmaceuticals for Angiogenesis Imaging: A Preclinical Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Apoptotic Janus-faced mycotoxins against thoracal and breast metastases.Apoptosis : an international journal on programmed cell death · 2023Review
- Subrenal Capsule Assay - SRCA: The Promising Re-Emergence of a Long-Forgotten Method in Preclinical Nuclear Medical Cancer Diagnostics.Journal of Cancer · 2023Review
- Metastatic Spread from Abdominal Tumor Cells to Parathymic Lymph Nodes.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2019Article
- Nanodiamond-enhanced MRI via in situ hyperpolarization.Nature communications · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledThe aim of this study is to select among potential tumor models that could be suitable to follow the metastatic spead of tumor cells. (18)FDG-PET tumor diagnostic test has been adapted to investigate tumor growth in vivo in local and metastatic rat models. Materials and Methods. The expression of glucose transporters was traced by immunohistological analysis, followed by the uptake of (18)FDG and visualized by MiniPET scanner. After s.c. administration of hepatocarcinoma (He/De) cells intensive local tumor growth and (18)FDG uptake were measured.
resultsWhole body (18)FDG-PET imaging supported by histological analysis have shown that subcutaneously growing tumors did not project metastases to other sites from the injected area. To avoid local tumor formation i.v. injection was chosen, but did not improve the safety of tumor cell administration. Tumor formation after i.v. injection took a longer time than after s.c. administration. Tumors upon i.v. generation were smaller and detectable in liver and lung, but not in other organs or tissues. iii) Subrenally implanted He/De cells spread from the retroperitoneal primary tumor of the kidney to thoracal paratymic lymph nodes (PTNs). The spread from primary site to metastatic tumors in PTNs was confirmed by post mortem surgery and histological examinations.
conclusionAmong the three methods applied: a) Local s.c. administration of tumor cells generated local tumors unsuitable to study metastasis. b) Intravenous administration causing unpredicatable location of tumor formation is not regarded a reliable metastatic tumor model. c) Subreanal implantation model proved to be a suitable model to follow the metastatic process in rats.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.