ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2016
Do Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Influence Microscopic Residual or Metastatic Osteosarcoma in a Murine Model?
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mouse Models of Osteosarcoma: Unraveling Disease Mechanisms and Accelerating Drug Discovery and Development.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Review
- Systemic Cisplatin Does Not Affect the Bone Regeneration Process in a Critical Size Defect Murine Model.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2024Article
- Mesenchymal Stem/Stromal Cells: Immunomodulatory and Bone Regeneration Potential after Tumor Excision in Osteosarcoma Patients.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Signal Pathways and microRNAs in Osteosarcoma Growth and the Dual Role of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Oncogenesis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- The interaction between osteosarcoma and other cells in the bone microenvironment: From mechanism to clinical applications.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Review
- Immune Microenvironment in Osteosarcoma: Components, Therapeutic Strategies and Clinical Applications.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Extracellular Vesicles in Osteosarcoma Pathogenesis and Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- New perspective into mesenchymal stem cells: Molecular mechanisms regulating osteosarcoma.Journal of bone oncology · 2021Review
- Dog breeds and body conformations with predisposition to osteosarcoma in the UK: a case-control study.Canine medicine and genetics · 2021Article
- Review
- Is Use of BMP-2 Associated with Tumor Growth and Osteoblastic Differentiation in Murine Models of Osteosarcoma?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
- Mesenchymal stromal cells for bone sarcoma treatment: Roadmap to clinical practice.Journal of bone oncology · 2019Review
- Isolation of circulating tumor cells in a preclinical model of osteosarcoma: Effect of chemotherapy.Journal of bone oncology · 2018Article
- Mesenchymal stem cells in the osteosarcoma microenvironment: their biological properties, influence on tumor growth, and therapeutic implications.Stem cell research & therapy · 2018Review
- Mesenchymal stem cells increase proliferation but do not change quiescent state of osteosarcoma cells: Potential implications according to the tumor resection status.Journal of bone oncology · 2016Article
- In Vivo Tracking of Systemically Administered Allogeneic Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Normal Rats through Bioluminescence Imaging.Stem cells international · 2016Article
- Osteogenesis in the presence of chemotherapy: A biomimetic approach.Journal of tissue engineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have been shown in rodent models to promote primary and pulmonary metastatic sarcoma growth when injected in the presence of gross tumor. In theory, this would limit their use in a clinical setting after limb salvage treatment for osteosarcoma. Although concerning, these models do not translate to the clinical setting wherein MSCs could be used after primary tumor resection to aid in bone healing and incorporation of tumor endoprostheses. If we can determine whether the use of MSCs in this setting is safe, it might improve our ability to augment bone healing in patients undergoing limb salvage. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to determine (1) whether MSCs promote pulmonary metastatic disease progression in a murine osteosarcoma model; and/or (2) whether they affect local disease recurrence in the presence of microscopic residual osteosarcoma.
methodsAn orthotopic model of luciferase-expressing osteosarcoma was developed. At 10 days, resection of the primary tumor was performed. One hundred fourteen female C3H mice were inoculated with DLM8-luc osteosarcoma in the proximal tibia. Ninety-four mice developed orthotopic osteosarcoma with luciferase expression. Mice with bioluminescent evidence of a primary tumor received either a microscopically "clean" amputation at a time when residual microscopic metastatic disease was present in the lungs (pulmonary metastasis group; n = 65) or a "dirty" amputation (local recurrence group; n = 29). Mice were randomized to receive intravenous MSCs, MSCs at the surgical site, or no MSCs. Mice were monitored for development and progression of pulmonary metastasis and local recurrence by bioluminescence imaging and daily measurements at the surgical site. The number of pulmonary nodules, time to first evidence of metastasis, and size of recurrent tumor were compared using Kruskal-Wallis, analysis of variance, Welch's, t-tests, or Mann-Whitney tests as appropriate for the specific data sets with p < 0.05 considered significant.
resultsMice receiving intravenous MSCs had a faster time to first detection of pulmonary metastasis (2.93 ± 1.90 days) compared with mice with local injection of MSCs (6.94 ± 6.78 days) or no MSCs (5.93 ± 4.55 days) (p = 0.022). MSC treatment did not influence whether mice developed local recurrence (p = 0.749) or size of recurrent tumors (p = 0.221).
conclusionsMSCs delivered to the surgical site did not promote local recurrence or size of recurrent tumors, but intravenous injection of MSCs did hasten onset of detection of pulmonary metastatic disease. Although local administration of MSCs into a surgical site does not appear to promote either pulmonary metastatic disease or local recurrence, large variation within groups and small numbers diminished statistical power such that a Type II error cannot be ruled out. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: If MSCs are to be used to augment bone healing in the postlimb salvage setting in patients with osteosarcoma, it will be important to understand their influence, if any, on pulmonary micrometastsis or residual microscopic local disease. Although murine models do not completely recapitulate the clinical scenario, these results suggest that intravenous delivery of MSCs may promote micrometastatic pulmonary disease. Local administration into a surgical wound, even in the presence of residual microscopic disease, may be safe, at least in this murine model, but further investigation is warranted before considering the use of MSCs for clinical use in patients with osteosarcoma.
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.