Open Access

Angiogenesis in primary colorectal cancer and matched metastatic tissues: Biological and clinical implications for anti‑angiogenic therapies

  • Authors:
    • Lei Yin
    • Jianning Li
    • Dejian Ma
    • Donghua Li
    • Yanlai Sun
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: March 6, 2020     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2020.11450
  • Pages: 3558-3566
  • Copyright: © Yin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Metastasis remains a notable issue in patients with newly diagnosed colorectal carcinomas (CRC). Although anti‑angiogenic therapies target metastatic diseases, hypoxia‑inducible factor‑1 α (HIF‑1α) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) status are routinely evaluated in primary tumors as metastatic sites are infrequently biopsied. The present study aimed to investigate the expression and significance of HIF‑1α, VEGF and microvascular density (MVD) in primary tumors and corresponding metastatic CRC tissues. HIF‑1α, VEGF and CD34 status were analyzed via immunohistochemistry analysis in 46 patients who underwent surgical resection of primary CRC (35 colon and 11 rectum) and matched metastases (lymph node and liver metastases) in Shandong Cancer Hospital. The association between selected biomarker status and clinicopathological characteristics was analyzed, and expression levels in primary tumors and corresponding metastases were compared. A total of 46 paired colorectal primary tumor and synchronous metastases samples were acquired for analysis using a standardized HIF‑1α, VEGF and CD34 immunohistochemical procedure. The results demonstrated that the positive rates of HIF‑1α and VEGF in primary CRC were 70 and 73.9%, respectively. HIF‑1α (60.9%) and VEGF (58.7%) expression decreased in the lymph metastatic samples compared with primary CRC. Conversely, the level of MVD in primary tumors was significantly higher compared with metastatic tumors. No significant differences were demonstrated between HIF‑1α and VEGF expression and the different clinicopathological features in primary CRC and corresponding metastases. Primary carcinomas and matched metastatic tissues demonstrated a moderate level of consistent immunoreactivity for HIF‑1α and VEGF. HIF‑1α, VEGF and CD34 were expressed in both primary tumors and corresponding metastases of CRC, suggesting that they may be involved in the development of metastasis. HIF‑1α and VEGF expression in primary sites was consistent with that observed in metastases; however, it varied from that exhibited in MVD. The current analysis will improve the current understanding of the metastasis models and provide further evidence for evaluating the response to HIF‑1α and VEGF inhibitors.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

May-2020
Volume 19 Issue 5

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Yin L, Li J, Ma D, Li D and Sun Y: Angiogenesis in primary colorectal cancer and matched metastatic tissues: Biological and clinical implications for anti‑angiogenic therapies. Oncol Lett 19: 3558-3566, 2020.
APA
Yin, L., Li, J., Ma, D., Li, D., & Sun, Y. (2020). Angiogenesis in primary colorectal cancer and matched metastatic tissues: Biological and clinical implications for anti‑angiogenic therapies. Oncology Letters, 19, 3558-3566. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2020.11450
MLA
Yin, L., Li, J., Ma, D., Li, D., Sun, Y."Angiogenesis in primary colorectal cancer and matched metastatic tissues: Biological and clinical implications for anti‑angiogenic therapies". Oncology Letters 19.5 (2020): 3558-3566.
Chicago
Yin, L., Li, J., Ma, D., Li, D., Sun, Y."Angiogenesis in primary colorectal cancer and matched metastatic tissues: Biological and clinical implications for anti‑angiogenic therapies". Oncology Letters 19, no. 5 (2020): 3558-3566. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2020.11450