ArticleJournal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine2016
Comparing Quantitative Immunohistochemical Markers of Angiogenesis to Contrast-Enhanced Subharmonic Imaging.
Article in Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDifferent methods for obtaining tumor neovascularity parameters based on immunohistochemical markers were compared to contrast-enhanced subharmonic imaging (SHI).
methodsEighty-five athymic nude female rats were implanted with 5 × 10(6) breast cancer cells (MDA-MB-231) in the mammary fat pad. The contrast agent Definity (Lantheus Medical Imaging, North Billerica, MA) was injected, and SHI was performed using a modified Sonix RP scanner (Analogic Ultrasound, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada) with a L9-4 linear array (transmitting/receiving frequencies, 8/4 MHz). Afterward, specimens were stained for endothelial cells (CD31), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2). Tumor neovascularity was assessed in 4 different ways using a histomorphometry system (×100 magnification: (1) over the entire tumor; (2) in small sub-regions of interest (ROIs); (3) in the tumor periphery and centrally; and (4) in 3 regions of maximum marker expression (so-called hot spots). Results from specimens and from SHI were compared by linear regression.
resultsFifty-four rats (64%) showed tumor growth, and 38 were successfully imaged. Subharmonic imaging depicted the tortuous morphologic characteristics of tumor neovessels and delineated small areas of necrosis. The immunohistochemical markers did not correlate with SHI measures over the entire tumor area or over small sub-ROIs (P > .18). However, when the specimens were subdivided into central and peripheral regions, COX-2 and VEGF correlated with SHI in the periphery (r = -0.42; P = .005; and r = -0.32; P = .049, respectively).
conclusionsWhen comparing quantitative contrast measures of tumor neovascularity to immunohistochemical markers of angiogenesis in xenograft models, ROIs corresponding to the biologically active region should be used to account for tumor heterogeneity.
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.