Combination of interventional adenovirus-p53 introduction and ultrasonic irradiation in the treatment of liver cancer

Qi,Jin‑Song; Wang,Wen‑Hui; Li,Fen‑Qiang

doi:10.3892/ol.2014.2811

Combination of interventional adenovirus-p53 introduction and ultrasonic irradiation in the treatment of liver cancer

Authors:
- Jin‑Song Qi
- Wen‑Hui Wang
- Fen‑Qiang Li
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Interventional Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, Henan 453100, P.R. China, Department of Interventional Medicine, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhouu, Gansu 730000, P.R. China
Published online on: December 18, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2014.2811
Pages: 1297-1302

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

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

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of the combination of interventional adenovirus‑p53 (Ad‑p53) introduction and ultrasonic irradiation (CIAIUI) treatment for liver cancer, including evaluating the Ad‑p53 transfection efficiency and the impact of the p53 gene on vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and matrix metalloprotein 2 (MMP2) protein expression levels. Ad‑p53 was arterially infused into the hepatic carcinoma via the interventional introduction of the hepatic tumor‑bearing artery (IIHTBA) or the CIAIUI. Serum VEGF levels were determined by performing an enzyme‑linked immunosorbent assay; immunohistochemical analysis was used to identify the expression levels of intratumoral p53, MMP2 and VEGF; and western blot analysis was used to determine the impact of different Ad‑p53 administration methods on the expression of wild‑type p53. The wild‑type p53 expression level was significantly higher in the p53‑treated group compared with the control group, and the p53 expression level in the CIAIUI group was significantly higher compared with the non‑irradiation group. The CIAIUI could significantly reduce the serum VEGF levels. The two delivery methods caused a reduction in the intratumoral VEGF and MMP2 expression levels, and the effects of CIAIUI were most obvious. Ad‑p53 infusion via IIHTBA promoted the protein expression levels of p53, however, it inhibited the protein expression levels of MMP2 and VEGF, indirectly indicating that the gene may inhibit the growth of liver cancer. Therefore, CIAIUI therapy exhibited an overall improved therapeutic effect compared with the more simple IIHTBA therapy.

View Figures

View References

1	Jemal A, Center MM, DeSantis C and Ward EM: Global patterns of cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 19:1893–1907. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	El-Serag HB and Rudolph KL: Hepatocellular carcinoma: epidemiology and molecular carcinogenesis. Gastroenterology. 132:2557–2576. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Lencioni R: Chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Oncol. 39:503–509. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Lencioni R and Crocetti L: Local-regional treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology. 262:43–58. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar
5	Liapi E and Geschwind JF: Chemoembolization for primary and metastatic liver cancer. Cancer J. 16:156–162. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Sangro B and Prieto J: Gene therapy for liver cancer: clinical experience and future prospects. Curr Opin Mol Ther. 12:561–569. 2010.PubMed/NCBI
7	Ji X, Ma L, Huang Q, et al: Network effect of Wt-mutant p53 interactions and implications on p53 gene therapy. Curr Pharm Des. 20:1259–1267. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar
8	Nault JC and Zucman-Rossi J: Genetics of hepatobiliary carcinogenesis. Semin Liver Dis. 31:173–187. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Brito AF, Abrantes AM, Pinto-Costa C, et al: Hepatocellular carcinoma and chemotherapy: the role of p53. Chemotherapy. 58:381–386. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Gu T, Li CX, Feng Y, Wang Q, Li CH and Li CF: Trans-arterial gene therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma in a rabbit model. World J Gastroenterol. 13:2113–2117. 2007.PubMed/NCBI
11	Zhang XZ, Lin H, Yang XY, et al: Quality control of clinical-grade recombinant adenovirus used in gene therapy. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 84:849–852. 2004.(In Chinese). PubMed/NCBI
12	Chen YC, Liang HD, Zhang QP, Blomley MJ and Lu QL: Pluronic block copolymers: novel functions in ultrasound-mediated gene transfer and against cell damage. Ultrasound Med Biol. 32:131–137. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar
13	Yu H, Xu L and Chen S: A transfer efficiency model for ultrasound mediated drug/gene transferring into cells. Ultrason Sonochem. 21:113–120. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar
14	Lawrie A, Brisken AF, Francis SE, Cumberland DC, Crossman DC and Newman CM: Microbubble-enhanced ultrasound for vascular gene delivery. Gene Ther. 7:2023–2027. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar
15	He Y, Geng Q, Liu H and Han X: First experience using 4-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with SonoVue for assessing fallopian tube patency. J Ultrasound Med. 32:1233–1243. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Porter TR, Iversen PL, Li S and Xie F: Interaction of diagnostic ultrasound with synthetic oligonucleotide-labeled perfluorocarbon-exposed sonicated dextrose albumin microbubbles. J Ultrasound Med. 15:577–584. 1996.PubMed/NCBI
17	Skyba DM, Price RJ, Linka AZ, Skalak TC and Kaul S: Direct in vivo visualization of intravascular destruction of microbubbles by ultrasound and its local effects on tissue. Circulation. 98:290–293. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Shohet RV, Chen SY, Zhou Y, et al: Echocardiographic destruction of albumin microbubbles directs gene delivery to the myocardium. Circulation. 101:2554–2556. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Yoke-Kqueen C, Ab Mutalib NS, Sidik SM, Learn-Han L and Geok-Chin T: p53 codon 72 polmorphisms and random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis of non-melanoma skin cancer through archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. Oncol Rep. 27:753–763. 2012.
20	Clarke JM and Hurwitz HI: Understanding and targeting resistance to anti-angiogenic therapies. J Gastrointest Oncol. 4:253–263. 2013.PubMed/NCBI
21	Sia D, Alsinet C, Newell P and Villanueva A: VEGF signaling in cancer treatment. Curr Pharm Des. 20:2834–2842. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar
22	Hadler-Olsen E, Winberg JO and Uhlin-Hansen L: Matrix metalloproteinases in cancer: their value as diagnostic and prognostic markers and therapeutic targets. Tumour Biol. 34:2041–2051. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Pytliak M, Vargová V and Mechírová V: Matrix metalloproteinases and their role in oncogenesis: a review. Onkologie. 35:49–53. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Sun H, Xu L, Fan T, et al: Targeted hyperthermia after selective embolization with ferromagnetic nanoparticles in a VX2 rabbit liver tumor model. Int J Nanomedicine. 8:3795–3804. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Lee EW, Wong D, Tafti BA, et al: Irreversible electroporation in eradication of rabbit VX2 liver tumor. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 23:833–840. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI