MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2919391629

Interstitial fluid pressure (IFP) and metastasis in a panel of tumor models

2006· article· en· W2919391629 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Jane Lunt, Tuula Kalliomäki, Mike Milosevic, Rićhard P. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervixMedicineMetastasisPathologyCancerCancer researchMammary carcinomaRadiation therapyFibrosarcomaMammary tumorCarcinomaInternal medicineBreast cancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1036 Introduction: High tumor IFP has been linked to poor drug uptake in patients, and there is strong evidence that high IFP is associated with spread of disease in cervix cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. To date, studies of IFP have focused on genetically identical tumor models, often grown sub-cutaneously, although evidence suggests that orthotopic models may be more clinically relevant. In this study we compared IFP in an array of murine and xenograft models, spontaneously arising or grown both intramuscularly (i/m) and orthotopically. Methods: KHT-C murine fibrosarcoma, or CaSki, Me180 and SiHa human cervix carcinoma cells were injected i/m into the hind legs of C3H or SCID mice. In addition, i/m tumors were used as donors to establish orthotopic cervix tumors from the CaSki, Me180 or SiHa models. Polyoma middle-T (PyMT) transgenic mice generated spontaneous mammary tumors, which were transplanted orthotopically into the 4th mammary gland of wild-type or SCID mice. IFP was measured at multiple points in all tumors using the wick-in-needle method. Spontaneous metastasis formation in the lungs or lymph nodes was assessed in all models. Results: All models showed intertumor heterogeneity in IFP values; KHT-C i/m: 2-42 mmHg, CaSki: i/m 6-63, cervix -2-17 mmHg, Me180: i/m 17-38, cervix 5-9 mmHg, SiHa: i/m 20-56, cervix 2-26 mmHg, PyMT: spontaneous 2-20 and transplanted 2-22 mmHg. The PyMT mice develop multiple tumors and there was significant variation between tumors in the same mouse (5-20 mmHg). Similarly, there was variation in IFP between two tumors transplanted into the same recipient and there was no correlation between donor and recipient IFP in the cervix carcinoma models or the PyMT model. No significant correlation was apparent between IFP values and metastatic burden in any of the tumor models. Furthermore, exposure of KHT-C and CaSki tumor cells to simulated high pressure in vitro prior to i/v injection in vivo did not significantly enhance experimental metastases presentation. Conclusions: The data show consistent intertumor heterogeneity in IFP in all models, irrespective of site, although median IFP values varied for the different tumors and different sites of growth. In particular, orthotopic transplantation of the cervix carcinoma cell lines gave tumors with lower IFP values than for tumors grown i/m. In addition, there was a lack of correlation in IFP values between recipient and donor tumors, indicative of individual tumor development irrespective of previous molecular interactions. Consistent with this, IFP measurement of different tumors in the same mouse using the PyMT spontaneous tumor model showed a high degree of variation. Whether this reflects differences in vascular density and permeability in the tumors is under investigation. Despite a broad range of IFP values in an assortment of different tumors, no correlation was observed between IFP and metastatic dissemination.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→