↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of intraarterial and intravenous cisplatin chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic osteosarcoma using an orthotopic xenograft mouse model

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of intraarterial and intravenous cisplatin chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic osteosarcoma using an orthotopic xenograft mouse model
Published in
Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13046-016-0392-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernhard Robl, Sander Martijn Botter, Giovanni Pellegrini, Olga Neklyudova, Bruno Fuchs

Abstract

Osteosarcoma is the most common primary malignancy of bone. Its treatment relies on the administration of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy combined with surgery. Alternative to common intravenous (i.v.) administration of chemotherapeutic drugs, clinical studies also evaluated the benefit of intraarterial (i.a.) administrations. However, conflicting results were obtained when both routes of administration of cisplatin (CDDP), a gold standard drug in osteosarcoma treatment, were compared. In order to overcome clinical confounding factors, we evaluated both routes of drug administration in a mouse model of experimental osteosarcoma. We directly compared i.v. versus i.a. drug infusions of cisplatin (CDDP), in an orthotopic xenograft mouse model of metastatic osteosarcoma. We performed tumor monitoring using caliper and micro computed tomography and measured tumor perfusion using laser speckle contrast imaging. Histopathological changes were evaluated using hematoxylin and eosin staining as well as immunohistochemistry (cleaved PARP-1, CD31, HIF-1α). First, an effective concentration of 4 mg/kg i.a. CDDP was determined that significantly reduced primary tumor volume. We used this concentration of i.a. CDDP and compared it to infusions of i.v. CDDP. Systemic (i.v.) CDDP only showed minor suppression of tumor growth whereas local (i.a.) CDDP strongly inhibited tumor growth and destruction of cortical bone in the tumor-bearing hind limb. Inhibition of tumor growth was linked to a reduced blood perfusion and resulted in increased amounts of tumor necrosis after i.a. CDDP. After treatment with i.a. CDDP, remaining viable tumor tissue responded by increasing expression of HIF-1α. Side effects due to administration of CDDP were minor, showing no differences in kidney damage between i.v. and i.a. CDDP. However, increased epidermal apoptosis in the foot was an indirect marker for locally increased concentrations of CDDP. Our findings demonstrate the great potential of local administration of cytotoxic chemotherapeutics, such as CDDP. Consequently, we provide a preclinical basis for a renewed interest in the clinical use of i.a. chemotherapy in osteosarcoma therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 12%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 6 24%
Unknown 9 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 July 2016.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research
#1,967
of 2,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,157
of 372,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research
#17
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,378 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.