ArticleBMC cancer2017
Antiangiogenic agents targeting different angiogenic pathways have opposite effects on tumor hypoxia in R-18 human melanoma xenografts.
Article in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thromboelastography-Based Risk-Stratified Transfusion Strategy in Acute Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection: A Predictive Model and Prospective Validation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Vascular regional analysis unveils differential responses to anti-angiogenic therapy in pancreatic xenografts through macroscopic photoacoustic imaging.Theranostics · 2025Article
- Gut microbiota depletion and FXR inhibition exacerbates zonal hepatotoxicity of sunitinib.Theranostics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies comparing the effect of antiangiogenic agents targeting different angiogenic pathways are sparse. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of properdistatin and sunitinib treatment in a preclinical model of malignant melanoma. Properdistatin is a small peptide derived from the thrombospondin-1 domain of the plasma protein properdin, and sunitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting several receptors including the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors.
methodsR-18 human melanoma xenografts growing in dorsal window chambers were treated with properdistatin, sunitinib, or vehicle. Parameters describing the morphology of tumor vasculature were assessed from high-resolution transillumination images, and BST (blood supply time; the time needed for arterial blood to flow from the main supplying artery to downstream microvessels) was assessed from first-pass imaging movies recorded after a bolus of fluorescence-labeled dextran had been administered intravenously. Tumor hypoxia was assessed from immunohistochemical preparations of the imaged tissue by using pimonidazole as a hypoxia marker.
resultsProperdistatin treatment selectively removed small-diameter vessels and reduced BST, whereas sunitinib treatment reduced the density of small- and large-diameter vessel similarly and did not change BST. These observations imply that properdistatin treatment reduced geometric resistance to blood flow and improved vascular function, whereas sunitinib treatment did not affect vascular function. Accordingly, sunitinib-treated tumors showed higher hypoxic fractions than properdistatin-treated tumors.
conclusionsProperdistatin and sunitinib both inhibited angiogenesis, but had distinctly different effects on vascular morphology, vascular function, and extent of hypoxia in R-18 human melanoma xenografts.
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.