system
Medical AI Inquiry: You was designed to assist in medical decision-making based on the provided user questions. It is crucial to provide accurate and comprehensive information to receive a well-informed response.  Labels: BACKGROUND, METHODS, RESULTS. Meshes: Angiography, Animals, Antineoplastic Agents, Bone Neoplasms, Cell Line, Tumor, Cell Proliferation, Cell Survival, Disease Models, Animal, ErbB Receptors, Female, Gefitinib, Humans, In Vitro Techniques, Mice, Mice, Nude, Neovascularization, Pathologic, Quinazolines, Sarcoma, Ewing, Transplantation, Heterologous, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A.
user
Does eGFR inhibition fail to suppress vascular proliferation and tumor growth in a Ewing 's sarcoma model? Context: Expression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), a potent regulator of cellular homeostasis, is associated with aggressive tumor behavior. The mechanism by which EGFR inhibition functions is unclear, with controversial results demonstrating an effect on the tumor cells, endothelial cells, or pericytes. EGFR activation has been linked to the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a known mitogen of angiogenesis, but the relationship between these factors and their effect on tumor vessel development is vague. We hypothesized that using an EGFR inhibitor on a human Ewing's sarcoma model would inhibit tumor growth by suppressing vessel proliferation. A cell proliferation assay was performed on the Ewing's sarcoma (SK-NEP-1) cell line. Tumor cells were implanted intrarenally in athymic mice. Animals received daily gavage with vehicle or gefitinib 1 wk following implantation. Mice (n = 12/cohort) were euthanized 6 wk following implantation. Remaining mice were maintained without treatment for 2 wk. Vascular changes were assessed by angiography and immunohistochemically. EGFR and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression were quantified using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Gefitinib suppressed in vitro cell growth with an IC(50) = 1.36 μM. Minimal tumor growth suppression was noted at 6 wk (6.01 ± 1.2 g in control versus 4.61 ± 0.9 g treated, P = 0.36). After cessation of gefitinib, tumor growth was increased in both groups (7.37 ± 1.62 g versus 6.77 ± 1.53 g, P = 0.79). Microvessel density was unchanged despite EGFR inhibition (161,000 ± 16,000 pixels versus 135,000 ± 18,000 pixels, P = 0.31). At 6 wk, the vascular maturity index was similar in both groups (3.63 ± 1.12 versus 4.09 ± 1.71, P = 0.83). A downward trend in EGFR expression (49% of control) and an upward trend in VEGF levels (50% of control) occurred in the treated group.
assistant
EGFR expression was suppressed in cultured cells and xenograft tumors. Despite a cytotoxic effect on cell lines, gefitinib had little effect on tumor growth. No effects on the tumor vasculature were noted in the setting of EGFR suppression, suggesting that angiogenesis induced by SK-NEP-1 cells is refractory to EGFR inhibition. Interestingly, the resulting increase in VEGF expression following EGFR blockade, provides an alternative pro-angiogenic pathway promoting tumor survival. Final Decision: yes