Lymph‐node metastases after intratibial transplantation of tumors

Franchi, G; Innocenti, I. Reyers-Degli; Rosso, R.; Garattini, S.

doi:10.1002/ijc.2910030610

Cited by 19 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other examples are intratibial (15) and intratesticular (55) implantation. Whereas the latter rarely show parenchymatous secondaries, implantation in the footpad often produces a tumor which metastasizes early and with high frequency to the lungs.…”

Section: Implantation Sites That Promote Lymphatic Disseminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of implantation site on formation of metastases

Meyvisch

1983

Cancer Metast Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been suggested that local factors at the site of growth of a primary tumor might influence the outcome of the metastatic process. Compilation of the data from the literature revealed that growth of tumor cells in the selective medium of the intraperitoneal cavity, of the lymph node and/or of the spleen leads to progression towards a population of cells with a higher metastatic capacity. In search for an experimental model with transplantable rodent tumors that could be used to study the influence of the anatomic site of an implant on the formation of spontaneous metastases, we have considered heterogeneity of microenvironmental conditions in the subcutaneous milieu. For the MO4 mouse fibrosarcoma, a primary tumor growing subcutaneously in the tail was highly metastatic to lymph nodes and lungs while it failed to produce metastases when growing in the pinna. Implantation of a spheroidal aggregate of MO4 tumor cells, alternatively in the tail and in the pinna of syngeneic C3H/He mice, might be an appropriate model, which is discussed in this review.

show abstract

Section: Implantation Sites That Promote Lymphatic Disseminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of implantation site on formation of metastases

Meyvisch

1983

Cancer Metast Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the few animal tumor systems in which lymphatic metastasis has been studied in any detail (Table 6), tumor cells are injected into tissues with a well-developed lymphatic drainage. The footpad is used most commonly for this purpose, but lymphatic metastasis has also been reported following injection of tumor cells into the tail (165), testis (166), and bone marrow (167). In other studies tumor cells have been injected directly into lymphatic channels (168,169).…”

Section: Models Of Lymphatic Metastasismentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental systems for analysis of the malignant phenotype

Poste

1982

Cancer Metast Rev

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identification of the cellular and subcellular alterations responsible for the metastatic behavior of malignant tumor cells and development of reliable screening programs for detecting new therapeutic agents for improved treatment of metastatic disease both depend crucially on the availability of experimental systems that can serve as relevant models of human cancer. Recent advances in our understanding of the pathogenesis of cancer metastasis have raised serious doubts about the usefulness of many of the experimental approaches that have long been used in the study of metastasis. Recent findings showing that metastases are caused by specific subpopulations of metastatic tumor cells, and that not all cells in a malignant primary tumor possess metastatic properties, are of profound importance for experimental efforts to understand the mechanism of metastatic phenotype among cells from the same tumor means that the traditional, and widely used, approach of analyzing primary tumors and cultured cell lines containing multiple, phenotypically heterogeneous, subpopulations of cells may provide little or no insight into the properties of the metastatic subpopulations, particularly if they represent only a minor fraction of the entire population. Similarly, the practice of screening potential therapeutic modalities for their ability to reduce the mass and/or growth rate of a primary tumor may be inadequate in predicting the responsiveness of metastatic lesions. Solution of these problems requires that new methods must be devised to isolate and characterize the specific subpopulations of tumor cells endowed with metastatic potential. In addition, knowledge of how the extraordinary phenotypic diversity found in tumor cell subpopulations from the same tumor is generated and how subpopulation diversity is regulated during progressive growth of both the primary tumor and its metastases are of fundamental importance if we are to design meaningful experimental systems for studying the metastatic process. This article reviews our current understanding of these complex issues and their implications for the experimental analysis of the malignant phenotype. The merits and shortcomings of different experimental systems are discussed in detail together with the identification of areas in which new experimental strategies and models are now needed.'

show abstract

“…This obstruction is somewhat reduced by irradiation of the node or cortisone treatment (Kallum and Saldeen, 1967;Stoker, 1969a and b). Fisher and Fisher (1 967b) however demonstrated rapid recovery of tumour cells from the efferent vessel of a lymph node after cannulation of the afferent vessel and introduction of tumour cells into it, and Franchi et al (1968) demonstrated consistent lymph node metastasis after intratibial implantation of two mouse tumours. Many of these experiments did not involve true metastasis in that tumour cells were injected into cannulated lymphatics.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%