Cancer Research 09 AM Call for Abstracts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gerber, H.-P.
Right arrow Articles by Ferrara, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gerber, H.-P.
Right arrow Articles by Ferrara, N.
[Cancer Research 60, 6253-6258, November 15, 2000]
© 2000 American Association for Cancer Research

Advances in Brief

Complete Inhibition of Rhabdomyosarcoma Xenograft Growth and Neovascularization Requires Blockade of Both Tumor and Host Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor

Hans-Peter Gerber, Joe Kowalski, Daniel Sherman, David A. Eberhard and Napoleone Ferrara1

Departments of Molecular Oncology [H-P. G., J. K., D. S., N. F.] and Pathology [D. A. E.], Genentech Incorporated, South San Francisco, California 94080


   ABSTRACT
Top
 ABSTRACT
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results and Discussion
 REFERENCES
 
Growth of the human rhabdomyosarcoma A673 cell line in nude mice is substantially reduced but not completely suppressed after systemic administration of the antihuman vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monoclonal antibody (Mab) A.4.6.1. Potentially, such escape might be attributable to incomplete local penetration of the antibody because of a diffusion barrier associated with tumor growth. Alternatively, it might reflect a compensatory up-regulation of murine VEGF, produced by the stroma of the host, or of other angiogenic factor genes. To test these potential mechanisms, systemic administration of Mab A.4.6.1. was performed in conjunction with intratumoral administration of an irrelevant antibody, an antihuman VEGF Fab or mFlt(1-3)-IgG that neutralizes both human and murine VEGF. Tumor growth in the systemic-plus-intratumoral anti-VEGF group was not different from that in the systemic anti-VEGF-plus-intratumoral-control antibody group, arguing against the possibility that bioavailability is the factor that limits the antitumor efficacy of Mab A.4.6.1. However, intratumoral mFlt(1-3)-IgG administration dramatically enhanced the activity of systemic anti-VEGF Mab and resulted in complete suppression of tumor growth, which indicated that host VEGF significantly contributes to tumor growth. Systemic administration of mFlt(1-3)-IgG alone replicated these findings. Histological analysis of residual tumor tissues revealed an almost complete absence of host-derived vasculature and massive tumor-cell necrosis in the mFlt(1-3)-IgG groups. Such extensive necrotic areas were not present in the other groups. Real-time reverse transcription-PCR analysis of total RNA derived from tumor tissues indicated strong up-regulation of both human and murine VEGF as well as other genes regulated by hypoxia. Our findings emphasize the need to completely block VEGF for maximal inhibition of tumor growth.


   Introduction
Top
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results and Discussion
 REFERENCES
 
There is extensive evidence that the development of a neovascular supply is required for a variety of proliferative processes (1) . VEGF2 is a key regulator of physiological and pathological angiogenesis, and even partial inactivation of the VEGF gene results in early embryonic lethality (2 , 3) . Inhibition of VEGF activity by neutralizing antibodies or other inhibitors results in significant tumor suppression in a broad variety of tumor cell lines (4 , 5) . Also, administration of a chimeric murine soluble VEGF receptor protein, mFlt(1-3)-IgG, induces growth arrest and lethality in neonatal mice (6) . However, safety evaluation studies in fully developed rodents or primates have failed to detect any significant toxicity after VEGF blockade, except inhibition of corpus luteum angiogenesis (6, 7, 8) . This favorable safety profile, combined with considerable antitumor efficacy in preclinical models, has made VEGF inhibitors attractive candidates for the treatment of solid tumors. A humanized anti-VEGF Mab has completed Phase I and Phase II trials in cancer patients, and, currently, Phase III studies are under way. Phase II studies have shown initial evidence of clinical efficacy in non-small cell lung and colorectal carcinoma patients (9 , 10) . Small molecules inhibiting VEGF receptor signal transduction are undergoing clinical testing as well (for review, see Ref. 11 ).

Systemic administration of the murine Mab A.4.6.1, directed against human VEGF, causes considerable inhibition of human rhabdomyosarcoma xenografts growth in immunodeficient mice (4) . When the treatment is initiated at the same time or shortly after tumor-cell inoculation, the growth inhibition is dramatic, exceeding 90–95%. However, if tumors are allowed to reach a significant size prior to the beginning of the treatment, the level of inhibition is less complete, and tumors escape from the inhibition. This phenomenon might reflect molecular and cellular alterations resulting from genomic instability and/or increased mutation rates in the tumor cells. This might provide the molecular framework for a compensatory up-regulation of angiogenic molecules other than VEGF, or alternatively, for the down-regulation of antiangiogenic genes under growth-selective conditions. Such escape could also be potentially mediated by increased production of VEGF by the stroma of the host, because Mab A.4.6.1. does not neutralize murine VEGF (4 , 12) . Another factor that may potentially account for tumor escape after systemic administration of Mab A.4.6.1 is the blood/tumor barrier, attributable in part to interstitial hypertension, which may prevent systemically delivered therapeutic agents from achieving optimal concentrations in the extravascular space (13) . The availability of several inhibitors enabled us to study the relative contribution of all these potential mechanisms involved in angiostatic escape. Our findings indicate that neither insufficient bioavailability nor compensatory regulation of antiangiogenic or angiogenic factor, but, rather, the up-regulation of host-derived VEGF is primarily responsible for the angiostatic escape observed with the A673 rhabomyosarcoma.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results and Discussion
 REFERENCES
 
In Vivo Experiments.
Human A673 rhabdomyosarcoma cells (HTB 1598) were cultured as described previously (4) . Five x 106 cells in 0.1 ml of Matrigel were injected s.c. in the dorsal flank region of beige nude mice (Harlan Sprague Dawley). Five days after tumor cell inoculation, when the xenografts were clearly established and had reached a volume of 50–100 mm3, i.p. administration of Mab A.4.6.1 (4) was initiated, at a dose of 10 mg/kg. The antibody was then given i.p. at the same dose twice weekly. In addition, animals received direct intratumoral injections of an affinity metered recombinant humanized Fab fragment (14) originally derived from Mab A.4.6.1, murine Flt(1-3)-IgG (8) or a control murine Mab directed against HSV glycoprotein D (Clone 3L8) of the same isotype as Mab A.4.6.1., each at the dose of 25 mg/kg. Injections were made directly into the tumor mass, from the side and underneath, using a 28-gauge needle and a 0.5-ml tuberculin syringe. Volume was 0.1 ml and injected slowly. Injections were done every other day throughout the experimental period. The control group received both systemic and intratumoral administration of the control Mab. Tumor size measurements were performed every second day and tumor volume was calculated using the ellipsoid volume formulas ({pi}/6 x L x W x H, where L = length, W = width, and H = height; Ref. 15 ). In an additional set of experiments, we compared systemic delivery (i.p.) alone of Mab A.4.61 (10 mg/kg twice weekly) versus mFlt(1-3)-IgG (1, 10, 25, or 50 mg/kg daily). Statistical analysis of tumor volumes and gene expression data were performed using ANOVA software (Abacus Concepts, Inc., Berkeley, CA).

Histology and Immunohistochemistry.
Tumors were fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin for 12–16 h prior to paraffin embedding. H&E staining and immunohistochemistry for Flk-1 and CD31 expression were performed as described previously (6) . Briefly, tumor tissue sections either were pretreated with 0.1% trypsin for 10–15 min at 37°C and then incubated with rat antimouse CD31 (mAb MEC13.3, PharMingen, San Diego, CA) at 1:500 dilution overnight at 4°C or were pretreated with Trilogy antigen retrieval solution (Cell Marque, Austin, TX) at 99°C for 1 h and then incubated with rat antimouse Flk-1 (mAb MALK-1; Ref. 6 ) at 3.9 mg/ml overnight at 4°C. Immunoreactivities were visualized by the avidin-biotin complex technique using Vectastain Elite ABC kit (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA) with diaminobenzidine as chromogen. Hematoxylin was used as counterstain.

Real-Time Quantitative RT-PCR Analysis.
RNA was isolated from frozen tumor tissue harvested at necropsy from five specimens of each treatment group using the STAT 60 method (TEL-TEST "B," Friendswood, TX), and purified on RNeasy Quick spin columns (Qiagen, Valencia, CA)., One hundred ng of total RNA per reaction were analyzed using the RT-PCR kit from Perkin-Elmer, following the manufacturer’s instructions (PE Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). Reactions were run in 96-well plates in a Model 7700 Sequence Detector (PE Applied Biosystems), and results were analyzed using Sequence Detection Software (PE Applied Biosystems). RT-PCR conditions were 30 min at 48°, 10 min at 95°C, and 40 cycles of 30 s at 95°C and 90 s at 60°C. Relative RNA equivalents for each sample were obtained by standardizing to GAPDH levels. Each of the five samples per group was run in duplicates to determine sample reproducibility, and the average relative RNA equivalents per sample pair was used for further analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA software (Abacus Concepts, Inc., Berkeley, CA). Species specificity of the probe primer sets was verified by testing total RNA derived from human epithelial cells or mouse kidney RNA (data not shown). Expression levels have been standardized to the probe/primer sets specific for human or murine GAPDH, respectively.


   Results and Discussion
Top
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results and Discussion
REFERENCES
 
Systemic administration of the murine antihuman VEGF Mab A.4.6.1, initiated when the tumors are already established and vascularized, causes a significant growth delay but not complete suppression of A673 rhabdomyosarcoma xenografts (4 , 16) . Because tumor growth is accompanied by a blood/tumor barrier which may limit the ability of therapeutics to diffuse into the tumor (13) , it is possible that incomplete inhibition of tumor growth might result from insufficient penetration of the circulating antibody in the extravascular space. We, therefore, examined whether the activity of systemic A.4.6.1 can be enhanced by intratumoral administration of an affinity-matured humanized anti-VEGF Fab (14) that neutralizes human (but not murine) VEGF with 50–100-fold higher potency than the parental Fab (17) and is also substantially more potent in inhibiting VEGF-induced mitogenesis than full-length Mab A.4.6.1. (data not shown). A Fab has a 3-fold lower size than a full-length IgG and is more diffusible in several biological systems (18) . However, intratumoral Fab did not cause any additional inhibition of tumor growth in Mab A.4.6.1-treated mice. As a second reagent, we tested mFlt(1-3)-IgG, which is able to inhibit both human and murine VEGF. Intratumoral injection of mFlt(1-3)-IgG, in conjunction with systemic administration of Mab A.4.6.1, resulted in essentially complete inhibition of A673 tumor growth (Fig. 1A)Citation even over a prolonged treatment period lasting 4 weeks (Fig. 1B)Citation . These findings indicate that, in this experimental system, lack of bioavailability is not the factor mediating resistance to Mab A.4.6.1. A likely explanation is that an inhibitor of angiogenesis such as anti-VEGF Mab has a more limited need to diffuse in the extravascular space relative to conventional anticancer agents. Instead, complete suppression of tumor growth required neutralization of host-derived as well as tumor-derived VEGF. To further verify these findings, we compared systemic delivery alone of Mab A.4.6.1 versus several doses of mFlt(1-3)-IgG. As illustrated in Fig. 1CCitation , mFlt(1-3)-IgG administration resulted in a dose-dependent suppression of tumor growth. At the higher doses, the inhibition as assessed by tumor weight was approximately 97%. The inhibition afforded by Mab A.4.6.1. was approximately 90%.



View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Fig. 1. Xenograft experiments in nude mice. Animals (n = 5 per group) were treated with different anti-VEGF compounds or a control antibody. In A, 5 x 106 human A673 rhabdomyosarcoma cells were injected s.c. in the dorsal area. Treatment was started after day 5 by i.p. administration of Mab A.4.6.1 or control Mab at 10 mg/kg, twice weekly. Intratumoral injection of mFlt(1-3)-IgG, Fab, or control Mab was at 25 mg/kg, every other day. In B, mice were treated as indicated. Mice receiving Mab A.4.6.1 plus mFlt(1-3)-IgG were treated until day 33. C, systemic administration of VEGF inhibitors. A673 cells were injected as described above. Animals were injected i.p. with Mab A.4.6.1 at 10 mg/kg twice weekly or with mFlt(1-3)-IgG daily at the doses indicated. Control Mab was administered at the dose of 25 mg/kg. After 2 weeks, the animals were killed, and the tumor weight was determined.

 
Histopathological examination revealed that neovascularization of the xenografts still occurred in mice treated with A.4.6.1 alone and in combination with intratumoral Fab but was nearly completely abolished in mice treated with Mab A.4.6.1 together with mFlt(1-3)-IgG (Fig. 2)Citation . Although the Mab A.4.6.1-treated tumors plus Fab or control antibody were markedly smaller than controls, they displayed qualitatively similar histological appearances, with scattered regions of geographic necrosis in various stages of evolution. In later stages, the tumors recruited the ingrowth of highly vascular granulation tissue-like stroma, which appeared to replace necrotic areas and allow tumor regrowth. However, tumors treated with Mab A.4.6.1 together with mFlt(1-3)-IgG showed large areas of confluent necrosis, with only a thin peripheral rim of viable cells remaining in much of the tumors. Strikingly, there was a complete lack of recruitment of new vessels into the necrotic areas. These findings indicate that in the A673 xenograft model, VEGF is a key regulator of tumor angiogenesis. The inability of Mab A.4.6.1 alone to completely suppress tumor neovascularization and growth seemed to result primarily from the production of murine VEGF by host cells associated with the tumor. The A673 xenografts grew with the invasion of adjacent tissues, which resulted in the frequent entrapment of host skeletal muscle fibers and adipocytes within the tumor mass (Fig. 2)Citation . Thus, these cells as well as vessel-associated pericytes and infiltrating macrophages (19) may represent sources that contribute to increased levels of host VEGF in the tumors. The histological picture of tumors from animals treated with systemically delivered mFlt(1-3)-IgG at the doses of 25 or 50 mg/kg was indistinguishable from that of the groups that received intratumoral mFlt(1-3)-IgG, with extensive area of necrosis. However, such extensive necrotic areas were not present in the Mab-alone groups (data not shown).



View larger version (185K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Fig. 2. Effects of anti-VEGF treatments on the histopathology of A673 xenografts. Serial sections of tumors harvested from mice treated with control antibody (A–D), systemic Mab 4.6.1 and intratumoral FAb (E–H), or systemic Mab 4.6.1 and intratumoral mFlt(1-3)-IgG (I–L) were stained with H&E (A, B, E, F, I, J) or by immunoperoxidase for the endothelial cell markers Flk-1 (C, G, K) and CD31 (D, H, L). In A, control tumors showed regions of geographic necrosis that were often most pronounced in deeper areas (bottom). In B, entrapped host-derived elements such as skeletal muscle fibers (arrows) were frequently seen in the invasive tumors. In C and D, tumor microvessels were often present in increased numbers near host elements such as entrapped muscle fibers (arrows). In E, Mab A.4.6.1-treated tumors also showed geographic necrosis. In some areas, the tumor-necrosis interface stained more deeply than the viable tumor (arrows); this is attributable to nuclear pyknosis, an early necrotic change (see J also ). In other areas, the tumor-necrosis interface lacked pyknotic changes (arrowheads and box). The interface region within the box (E) is shown at higher magnification in F, G, and H. In F, areas of previous necrosis began to resolve with ingrowth of granulation tissue stroma (upper right). The adjacent tumor (lower left) appeared to be viable and proliferative, without nuclear pyknosis and karyorrhexis in the border zone. In G and H, immunostains for endothelial cell markers demonstrated the high vascularity of the stromal ingrowth. In I, mFlt(1-3)IgG/Mab A4.6.1-treated tumors were largely necrotic. A thin peripheral zone of viable tumor remains adjacent to the border of the tumor mass and surrounding host tissues. In J, the tumor-necrosis interface in mFlt-1 (1-3)IgG-treated tumors showed progression from viable tumor through pyknosis and karyorrhexis, indicating continuing cell death. In K and L, immunostains for endothelial cell markers revealed a complete lack of neovascularization at the tumor-necrosis interface. Nonspecific staining of the necrotic regions as shown here was also seen in nonspecific isotype-matched primary antibody controls. A single vessel is present within the viable tumor (arrow). It is notable that in control tumors, immunoreactivity for Flk-1 (C) was more intense than for CD31 (D), whereas in the anti-VEGF-treated tumors, this relationship was reversed (G and K versus H and L). Scale bars: 1 mm (A, E, and I); 100 µm (B–D, F–H, and J–L).

 
To identify candidate angiogenic factors that might be compensatorily up-regulated under complete VEGF block conditions, we analyzed a panel of known genes, involved in the regulation of angiogenesis. Peripheral tumor tissues from all of the treatment groups were harvested at necropsy, and total RNA was isolated and analyzed for gene expression by real-time RT-PCR. To determine whether such genes are expressed by the tumor or the host cells, we used primer sets (Table 1)Citation to differentially amplify human and murine counterparts. Because all three of the anti-VEGF treatment groups displayed similar changes in their gene expression profile relative to controls, data are shown for the Mab A.4.6.1/mFlt(1-3)-IgG versus irrelevant control Mab tumors. From a panel of 21 human genes analyzed, VEGF itself (1.8-fold) and angiopoietin 1 (1.6-fold) were found to be significantly up-regulated. There was a moderate induction of other members of the human angiopoietin family such as Ang2 (1.3-fold), Ang4 (1.4-fold), which, however, did not reach statistical significance (Fig. 3A)Citation . Among the VEGF-related genes, VEGF-B and VEGF-C were down-regulated. In contrast, the PlGF gene was significantly induced. Interestingly, the Flt-1 receptor (VEGFR-1) is known to bind PlGF and VEGF-B in addition to VEGF (for review, see Ref. 20 ). Therefore, the possibility exists that neutralization of at least PlGF contributes to the effects of mFlt(1-3)-IgG reported here. However, available data indicate that both VEGF-B and PlGF have little or no direct mitogenic effect on endothelial cells, and their action depends largely on the formation of heterodimers with VEGF (21 , 22) or by rendering the vascular endothelium more sensitive to the action of VEGF (23) . Both models imply that VEGF is required for much of the biological activity of these molecules. It is noteworthy that not only mFlt(1-3)-IgG but also Mab A.4.6.1 is able to inhibit the mitogenic activity of PlGF/VEGF heterodimers. Mab A.4.6.1, at the concentration of 5 µg/ml was able to completely inhibit the endothelial cell-mitogenic activity of 200 ng/ml PlGF/VEGF heterodimers. Therefore, the greater tumor-suppressing activity of mFlt(1-3)-IgG is not likely to be attributable to inhibition of PlGF signaling. However, it is possible that PlGF/VEGF heterodimers contribute to the overall process of tumor angiogenesis. Additional studies with truly specific inhibitors are required to fully assess the contribution of the other members of the VEGF family. Among the 24 murine genes examined, VEGF displays the strongest up-regulation (2.9-fold). This finding supports the hypothesis that host-derived VEGF is a significant contributor to the overall process of tumor angiogenesis. Interestingly, other murine angiogenic genes, including PlGF, were found to be repressed in the presence of such complete VEGF-blockade (Fig. 3B)Citation . There was also a striking correlation between tumor size and expression levels of endothelial cell marker genes such as PECAM, Tie1, and Tie2 as well as the VEGF receptors. Also, a set of human and mouse genes belonging to the family of hypoxia-inducible genes such as Glut-1 LDH-A were found to be induced under VEGF blockade conditions (Fig. 3, A and B)Citation , which indicated that anti-VEGF-treated tumors are hypoxic when compared with control tumors, which could contribute to the up-regulation of VEGF.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Sequences of primers and probes used for real-time RT-PCR analysis of tumor RNA

 


View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Fig. 3. RT-PCR gene expression analysis of control tumors and tumors treated with Mab A4.6.1/Flt-IgG. A, comparison of relative RNA levels of human genes between total RNA isolated from tumors harvested from mice treated with Mab A.4.6.1/Flt(1-3)-IgG or control/control during a 12-day treatment period. Black bars, relative changes in percentage to control-treated tumors. Statistically significant changes: *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.005 (n = 5). Expression levels have been standardized to the probe/primer sets specific for human or murine GAPDH, respectively. B, comparison of RNA levels of mouse genes with total RNA isolated from tumors as defined in A. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.005 (n = 5).

 
The hypothesis that stromal-derived VEGF is implicated in tumor angiogenesis has been also tested in a transgenic mouse model, using a VEGF promoter fragment to drive the expression of green fluorescent protein (GFP; Ref. 24 ). Inoculation of tumor cells strongly induced expression of the VEGF promoter in the stroma of the host (24) . However, subsequent studies using a similar transgenic model but with a different VEGF promoter fragment have yielded a lower GFP expression in the stroma and a greater expression in the epithelium (25) . Thus, the extent to which stromal-derived VEGF contributes to the process of tumor angiogenesis so far has been unclear.

It is noteworthy that our findings argue against the possibility that a partial blockade might be sufficient for optimal inhibition of VEGF-dependent tumor angiogenesis. This is in apparent contrast to the findings in gene knock out experiments in mice, in which even partial inactivation of the VEGF gene results in embryonic lethality (2 , 3) . In conclusion, we demonstrate that in the A673 xenograft model, systemic Mab A.4.6.1 antibody exerted a maximal efficacy, which could not be improved by local administration of an antihuman VEGF Fab. However, a reagent that blocked host VEGF completely suppressed residual tumor growth. Such complete inhibition was accompanied by a striking morphological change relative to partial inhibition: the presence of extensive necrosis. It remains to be seen whether other tumor cell types can induce an adaptive response to antiVEGF treatment and, hence, escape in the presence of a total VEGF blockade.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank B. Wright and the Pathology Laboratory for histology and immunohistochemistry, L. Yu for cell growth experiments and the hybridoma group, and D. Khan and P. Lester for recombinant proteins and antibodies.


   FOOTNOTES
 
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1 To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Genentech Incorporated, Department of Molecular Oncology, 1 DNA Way, South San Francisco, CA 94080. Phone: (650) 225-2968; Fax: (650) 225-6327; E-mail: nf{at}gene.com Back

2 The abbreviations used are: VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; Mab, monoclonal antibody; RT-PCR, reverse transcription-PCR; GAPDH, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase. Back

Received 6/ 5/00. Accepted 10/ 5/00.


   REFERENCES
Top
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results and Discussion
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Folkman J. Angiogenesis in cancer, vascular, rheumatoid and other disease. Nat. Med., 1: 27-31, 1995.[Medline]
  2. Ferrara N., Carver Moore K., Chen H., Dowd M., Lu L., O’Shea K. S., Powell Braxton L., Hillan K. J., Moore M. W. Heterozygous embryonic lethality induced by targeted inactivation of the VEGF gene. Nature (Lond.), 380: 439-442, 1996.[Medline]
  3. Carmeliet P., Ferreira V., Breier G., Pollefeyt S., Kieckens L., Gertsenstein M., Fahrig M., Vandenhoeck A., Harpal K., Eberhardt C., Declercq C., Pawling J., Moons L., Collen D., Risau W., Nagy A. Abnormal blood vessel development and lethality in embryos lacking a single VEGF allele. Nature (Lond.), 380: 435-439, 1996.[Medline]
  4. Kim K. J., Li B., Winer J., Armanini M., Gillett N., Phillips H. S., Ferrara N. Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor-induced angiogenesis suppresses tumor growth in vivo. Nature (Lond.), 362: 841-844, 1993.[Medline]
  5. Millauer B., Shawver L. K., Plate K. H., Risau W., Ullrich A. Glioblastoma growth inhibited in vivo by a dominant-negative Flk-1 mutant. Nature (Lond.), 367: 576-579, 1994.[Medline]
  6. Gerber H. P., Hillan K. J., Ryan A. M., Kowalski J., Keller G-A., Rangell L., Wright B. D., Radtke F., Aguet M., Ferrara N. VEGF is required for growth and survival in neonatal mice. Development (Camb.), 126: 1149-1159, 1999.[Abstract]
  7. Ryan A. M., Eppler D. B., Hagler K. E., Bruner R. H., Thomford P. J., Hall R. L., Shopp G. M., O’Neill C. A. Preclinical safety evaluation of rhuMAbVEGF, an antiangiogenic humanized monoclonal antibody. Toxicol. Pathol., 27: 78-86, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Ferrara N., Chen H., Davis-Smyth T., Gerber H-P., Nguyen T-N., Peers D., Chisholm V., Hillan K. J., Schwall R. H. Vascular endothelial growth factor is essential for corpus luteum angiogenesis. Nat. Med., 4: 336-340, 1998.[Medline]
  9. DeVore R., Herbst R. S., Langer C. J., Kelly K., Gaudreault J., Holmgren E., Novotny W. F., Kabbinavar F. A. Randomized Phase II trial comparing rhumab VEGF (recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial cell growth factor) plus carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) to CP alone in patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. Proc. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol., 19: 1896 2000.
  10. Bergsland, E., Fehrenbacher, L., Meropol, N. J., Novotny, W. F., Gaudreault, J., Lieberman, G., and F., K. A Randomized Phase II trial comparing rhuMAb VEGF (recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial cell growth factor) plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (FU/LV) to FU/LV alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Proc. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol., 19: 939, 2000.
  11. McMahon G. VEGF receptor signaling in tumor angiogenesis. Oncologist, 5: 3-10, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Muller Y. A., Chen Y., Christinger H. W., Li B., Cunningham B. C., Lowman H. B., de Vos A. M. VEGF and the Fab fragment of a humanized neutralizing antibody: crystal structure of the complex at 2.4 A resolution and mutational analysis of the interface. Structure (Lond.), 6: 1153-1167, 1998.[Medline]
  13. Jain R. K. Delivery of molecular medicine to solid tumors. Science (Washington DC), 271: 1079-1080, 1996.[Medline]
  14. Chen Y., Wiesmann C., Fuh G., Li B., Christinger H. W., McKay P., de Vos A. M., Lowman H. B. Selection and analysis of an optimized anti-VEGF antibody: crystal structure of an affinity-matured Fab in complex with antigen. J. Mol. Biol., 293: 865-881, 1999.[Medline]
  15. Tomayko M. M., Reynolds C. P. Determination of subcutaneous tumor size in athymic (nude) mice. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol., 24: 148-154, 1989.[Medline]
  16. Mordenti J., Thomsen K., Licko V., Chen H., Meng Y. G., Ferrara N. Efficacy and concentration-response of murine anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody in tumor-bearing mice and extrapolation to humans. Toxicol. Pathol., 27: 14-21, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Presta L. G., Chen H., O’Connor S. J., Chisholm V., Meng Y. G., Krummen L., Winkler M., Ferrara N. Humanization of an anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody for the therapy of solid tumors and other disorders. Cancer Res., 57: 4593-4599, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Mordenti J., Cuthbertson R. A., Ferrara N., Thomsen K., Berleau L., Licko V., Allen P. C., Valverde C. R., Meng Y. G., Fei D. T., Fourre K. M., Ryan A. M. Comparisons of the intraocular tissue distribution, pharmacokinetics, and safety of 125I-labeled full-length and Fab antibodies in rhesus monkeys following intravitreal administration. Toxicol. Pathol., 27: 536-544, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Nomura M., Yamagishi S., Harada S., Hayashi Y., Yamashima T., Yamashita J., Yamamoto H. Possible participation of autocrine and paracrine vascular endothelial growth factors in hypoxia-induced proliferation of endothelial cells and pericytes. J. Biol. Chem., 270: 28316-28324, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Ferrara N., Davis-Smyth T. The biology of vascular endothelial growth factor. Endocr. Rev., 18: 4-25, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Cao Y., Chen H., Zhou L., Chiang M. K., Anand Apte B., Weatherbee J. A., Wang Y., Fang F., Flanagan J. G., Tsang M. L. Heterodimers of placenta growth factor/vascular endothelial growth factor. Endothelial activity, tumor cell expression, and high affinity binding to Flk-1/KDR.. J. Biol. Chem., 271: 3154-3162, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Olofsson B., Pajusola K., Kaipainen A., von Euler G., Joukov V., Saksela O., Orpana A., Pettersson R. F., Alitalo K., Eriksson U. Vascular endothelial growth factor B, a novel growth factor for endothelial cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93: 2576-2581, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Park J. E., Chen H. H., Winer J., Houck K. A., Ferrara N. Placenta growth factor. Potentiation of vascular endothelial growth factor bioactivity, in vitro and in vivo, and high affinity binding to Flt-1 but not to Flk-1/KDR. J. Biol. Chem., 269: 25646-25654, 1994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Fukumura D., Xavier R., Sugiura T., Chen Y., Park E. C., Lu N., Selig M., Nielsen G., Taksir T., Jain R. K., Seed B. Tumor induction of VEGF promoter activity in stromal cells. Cell, 94: 715-725, 1998.[Medline]
  25. Kishimoto J., Ehama R., Ge Y., Kobayashi T., Nishiyama T., Detmar M., Burgeson R. E. In vivo detection of human vascular endothelial growth factor promoter activity in transgenic mouse skin. Am. J. Pathol., 157: 1-3, 2000.[Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JCOHome page
J. L. G. Bender, P. C. Adamson, J. M. Reid, L. Xu, S. Baruchel, Y. Shaked, R. S. Kerbel, E. M. Cooney-Qualter, D. Stempak, H. X. Chen, et al.
Phase I Trial and Pharmacokinetic Study of Bevacizumab in Pediatric Patients With Refractory Solid Tumors: A Children's Oncology Group Study
J. Clin. Oncol., January 20, 2008; 26(3): 399 - 405.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol Cancer ResHome page
A. Kadenhe-Chiweshe, J. Papa, K. W. McCrudden, J. Frischer, J.-O Bae, J. Huang, J. Fisher, J. H. Lefkowitch, N. Feirt, J. Rudge, et al.
Sustained VEGF Blockade Results in Microenvironmental Sequestration of VEGF by Tumors and Persistent VEGF Receptor-2 Activation
Mol. Cancer Res., January 1, 2008; 6(1): 1 - 9.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
N. Korsisaari, J. Ross, X. Wu, M. Kowanetz, N. Pal, L. Hall, J. Eastham-Anderson, W. F. Forrest, N. Van Bruggen, F. V. Peale, et al.
Blocking Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-A Inhibits the Growth of Pituitary Adenomas and Lowers Serum Prolactin Level in a Mouse Model of Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1
Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2008; 14(1): 249 - 258.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
J. M. L. Ebos, C. R. Lee, J. G. Christensen, A. J. Mutsaers, and R. S. Kerbel
Multiple circulating proangiogenic factors induced by sunitinib malate are tumor-independent and correlate with antitumor efficacy
PNAS, October 23, 2007; 104(43): 17069 - 17074.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
N. Korsisaari, I. M. Kasman, W. F. Forrest, N. Pal, W. Bai, G. Fuh, F. V. Peale, R. Smits, and N. Ferrara
From the Cover: Inhibition of VEGF-A prevents the angiogenic switch and results in increased survival of Apc+/min mice
PNAS, June 19, 2007; 104(25): 10625 - 10630.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol Cancer ResHome page
J. Tabernero
The Role of VEGF and EGFR Inhibition: Implications for Combining Anti-VEGF and Anti-EGFR Agents
Mol. Cancer Res., March 1, 2007; 5(3): 203 - 220.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
H.-P. Gerber, X. Wu, L. Yu, C. Wiesmann, X. H. Liang, C. V. Lee, G. Fuh, C. Olsson, L. Damico, D. Xie, et al.
Mice expressing a humanized form of VEGF-A may provide insights into the safety and efficacy of anti-VEGF antibodies
PNAS, February 27, 2007; 104(9): 3478 - 3483.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
H. Ishizaki, T. Tsunoda, S. Wada, M. Yamauchi, M. Shibuya, and H. Tahara
Inhibition of tumor growth with antiangiogenic cancer vaccine using epitope peptides derived from human vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1.
Clin. Cancer Res., October 1, 2006; 12(19): 5841 - 5849.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
B. Su, Q. Zheng, M. M. Vaughan, Y. Bu, and I. H. Gelman
SSeCKS Metastasis-Suppressing Activity in MatLyLu Prostate Cancer Cells Correlates with Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Inhibition
Cancer Res., June 1, 2006; 66(11): 5599 - 5607.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
M. L. Tejada, L. Yu, J. Dong, K. Jung, G. Meng, F. V. Peale, G. D. Frantz, L. Hall, X. Liang, H.-P. Gerber, et al.
Tumor-Driven Paracrine Platelet-Derived Growth Factor Receptor {alpha} Signaling Is a Key Determinant of Stromal Cell Recruitment in a Model of Human Lung Carcinoma.
Clin. Cancer Res., May 1, 2006; 12(9): 2676 - 2688.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
I. V. Subramanian, T. M. Bui Nguyen, A. M. Truskinovsky, J. Tolar, B. R. Blazar, and S. Ramakrishnan
Adeno-Associated Virus-Mediated Delivery of a Mutant Endostatin in Combination with Carboplatin Treatment Inhibits Orthotopic Growth of Ovarian Cancer and Improves Long-term Survival.
Cancer Res., April 15, 2006; 66(8): 4319 - 4328.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
G. Fuh, P. Wu, W.-C. Liang, M. Ultsch, C. V. Lee, B. Moffat, and C. Wiesmann
Structure-Function Studies of Two Synthetic Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Fabs and Comparison with the AvastinTM Fab
J. Biol. Chem., March 10, 2006; 281(10): 6625 - 6631.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
B. A. Moffat, M. Chen, M. S.T. Kariaapper, D. A. Hamstra, D. E. Hall, J. Stojanovska, T. D. Johnson, M. Blaivas, M. Kumar, T. L. Chenevert, et al.
Inhibition of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF)-A Causes a Paradoxical Increase in Tumor Blood Flow and Up-Regulation of VEGF-D
Clin. Cancer Res., March 1, 2006; 12(5): 1525 - 1532.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
J. M. du Manoir, G. Francia, S. Man, M. Mossoba, J. A. Medin, A. Viloria-Petit, D. J. Hicklin, U. Emmenegger, and R. S. Kerbel
Strategies for Delaying or Treating In vivo Acquired Resistance to Trastuzumab in Human Breast Cancer Xenografts
Clin. Cancer Res., February 1, 2006; 12(3): 904 - 916.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BloodHome page
A. K. Malik, M. E. Baldwin, F. Peale, G. Fuh, W.-C. Liang, H. Lowman, G. Meng, N. Ferrara, and H.-P. Gerber
Redundant roles of VEGF-B and PlGF during selective VEGF-A blockade in mice
Blood, January 15, 2006; 107(2): 550 - 557.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
W.-C. Liang, X. Wu, F. V. Peale, C. V. Lee, Y. G. Meng, J. Gutierrez, L. Fu, A. K. Malik, H.-P. Gerber, N. Ferrara, et al.
Cross-species Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF)-blocking Antibodies Completely Inhibit the Growth of Human Tumor Xenografts and Measure the Contribution of Stromal VEGF
J. Biol. Chem., January 13, 2006; 281(2): 951 - 961.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
A. M. Jubb, H. I. Hurwitz, W. Bai, E. B. Holmgren, P. Tobin, A. S. Guerrero, F. Kabbinavar, S. N. Holden, W. F. Novotny, G. D. Frantz, et al.
Impact of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-A Expression, Thrombospondin-2 Expression, and Microvessel Density on the Treatment Effect of Bevacizumab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2006; 24(2): 217 - 227.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Integr Cancer TherHome page
C. R. Pradeep, E. S. Sunila, and G. Kuttan
Expression of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) and VEGF Receptors in Tumor Angiogenesis and Malignancies
Integr Cancer Ther, December 1, 2005; 4(4): 315 - 321.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 BloodHome page
K. Kirito, N. Fox, N. Komatsu, and K. Kaushansky
Thrombopoietin enhances expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in primitive hematopoietic cells through induction of HIF-1{alpha}
Blood, June 1, 2005; 105(11): 4258 - 4263.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Molecular Cancer TherapeuticsHome page
L. Manenti, E. Riccardi, S. Marchini, E. Naumova, I. Floriani, A. Garofalo, R. Dossi, E. Marrazzo, D. Ribatti, E. Scanziani, et al.
Circulating plasma vascular endothelial growth factor in mice bearing human ovarian carcinoma xenograft correlates with tumor progression and response to therapy
Mol. Cancer Ther., May 1, 2005; 4(5): 715 - 725.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
S. Dalal, A. M. Berry, C. J. Cullinane, D. C. Mangham, R. Grimer, I. J. Lewis, C. Johnston, V. Laurence, and S. A. Burchill
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor: A Therapeutic Target for Tumors of the Ewing's Sarcoma Family
Clin. Cancer Res., March 15, 2005; 11(6): 2364 - 2378.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BloodHome page
K. Podar and K. C. Anderson
The pathophysiologic role of VEGF in hematologic malignancies: therapeutic implications
Blood, February 15, 2005; 105(4): 1383 - 1395.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
D. J. Hicklin and L. M. Ellis
Role of the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Pathway in Tumor Growth and Angiogenesis
J. Clin. Oncol., February 10, 2005; 23(5): 1011 - 1027.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
H.-P. Gerber and N. Ferrara
Pharmacology and Pharmacodynamics of Bevacizumab as Monotherapy or in Combination with Cytotoxic Therapy in Preclinical Studies
Cancer Res., February 1, 2005; 65(3): 671 - 680.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant BiolHome page
J.S. RUDGE, G. THURSTON, S. DAVIS, N. PAPADOPOULOS, N. GALE, S.J. WIEGAND, and G.D. YANCOPOULOS
VEGF Trap as a Novel Antiangiogenic Treatment Currently in Clinical Trials for Cancer and Eye Diseases, and VelociGene(R)- based Discovery of the Next Generation of Angiogenesis Targets
Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol, January 1, 2005; 70(0): 411 - 418.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Endocr. Rev.Home page
N. Ferrara
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor: Basic Science and Clinical Progress
Endocr. Rev., August 1, 2004; 25(4): 581 - 611.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BloodHome page
B. A. Hesser, X. H. Liang, G. Camenisch, S. Yang, D. A. Lewin, R. Scheller, N. Ferrara, and H.-P. Gerber
Down syndrome critical region protein 1 (DSCR1), a novel VEGF target gene that regulates expression of inflammatory markers on activated endothelial cells
Blood, July 1, 2004; 104(1): 149 - 158.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BloodHome page
H. S. Chand, X. Du, D. Ma, H. D. Inzunza, S. Kamei, D. Foster, S. Brodie, and W. Kisiel
The effect of human tissue factor pathway inhibitor-2 on the growth and metastasis of fibrosarcoma tumors in athymic mice
Blood, February 1, 2004; 103(3): 1069 - 1077.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol Cancer ResHome page
J. Huang, S. Z. Soffer, E. S. Kim, K. W. McCrudden, J. Huang, T. New, C. A. Manley, W. Middlesworth, K. O'Toole, D. J. Yamashiro, et al.
Vascular Remodeling Marks Tumors That Recur During Chronic Suppression of Angiogenesis
Mol. Cancer Res., January 1, 2004; 2(1): 36 - 42.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
M. Bockhorn, Y. Tsuzuki, L. Xu, A. Frilling, C. E. Broelsch, and D. Fukumura
Differential Vascular and Transcriptional Responses to Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Antibody in Orthotopic Human Pancreatic Cancer Xenografts
Clin. Cancer Res., September 15, 2003; 9(11): 4221 - 4226.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
J. Huang, J. S. Frischer, A. Serur, A. Kadenhe, A. Yokoi, K. W. McCrudden, T. New, K. O'Toole, S. Zabski, J. S. Rudge, et al.
Regression of established tumors and metastases by potent vascular endothelial growth factor blockade
PNAS, June 24, 2003; 100(13): 7785 - 7790.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
F. Kabbinavar, H. I. Hurwitz, L. Fehrenbacher, N. J. Mero