Next Article in Journal
The Ultimaster Biodegradable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent: An Updated Review of Clinical Evidence
Next Article in Special Issue
PlGF and VEGF-A Regulate Growth of High-Risk MYCN-Single Copy Neuroblastoma Xenografts via Different Mechanisms
Previous Article in Journal
Diabetes and Hypertension Consistently Predict the Presence and Extent of Coronary Artery Calcification in Symptomatic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Antiplatelet Usage Impacts Clot Density in Acute Anterior Circulation Ischemic Stroke
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 17
Issue 9
10.3390/ijms17091489
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Escaping Antiangiogenic Therapy: Strategies Employed by Cancer Cells

by
Mauricio P. Pinto
1,*,
Paula Sotomayor
2,
Gonzalo Carrasco-Avino
3,
Alejandro H. Corvalan
4,5 and
Gareth I. Owen
1,5,6,7,8
1
Department of Physiology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8331150, Chile
2
Center for Integrative Medicine and Innovative Science, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago 8370071, Chile
3
Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Chile, Santiago 8380456, Chile
4
Department of Hematology-Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330032, Chile
5
Center UC Investigation in Oncology (CITO), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8330023, Chile
6
Biomedical Research Consortium of Chile, Santiago 8331150, Chile
7
Millennium Institute on Immunology & Immunotherapy, Santiago 8331150, Chile
8
Advanced Center for Chronic Diseases (ACCDiS), Universidad de Chile, Santiago 8380492, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17(9), 1489; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17091489
Submission received: 10 July 2016 / Revised: 22 August 2016 / Accepted: 30 August 2016 / Published: 6 September 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vascular Biology and Therapeutics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Tumor angiogenesis is widely recognized as one of the “hallmarks of cancer”. Consequently, during the last decades the development and testing of commercial angiogenic inhibitors has been a central focus for both basic and clinical cancer research. While antiangiogenic drugs are now incorporated into standard clinical practice, as with all cancer therapies, tumors can eventually become resistant by employing a variety of strategies to receive nutrients and oxygen in the event of therapeutic assault. Herein, we concentrate and review in detail three of the principal mechanisms of antiangiogenic therapy escape: (1) upregulation of compensatory/alternative pathways for angiogenesis; (2) vasculogenic mimicry; and (3) vessel co-option. We suggest that an understanding of how a cancer cell adapts to antiangiogenic therapy may also parallel the mechanisms employed in the bourgeoning tumor and isolated metastatic cells delivering responsible for residual disease. Finally, we speculate on strategies to adapt antiangiogenic therapy for future clinical uses.

1. Tumor Angiogenesis and Antiangiogenesis

In 1939, Ide et al. [1] made the first observation that tumor growth was accompanied by the formation of new blood vessels, a process known as angiogenesis. They postulated that tumors could produce a “vessel-growth stimulating substance” and consequently these pioneering studies of almost 80 years ago are now considered the first investigations in the field of “tumor angiogenesis”. Over the following three decades, various studies using different models confirmed these observations and, gave rise the report of a “vasoproliferative effect” of transplanted malignancies [2,3,4]. In the 1960s, Folkman et al. published the first studies demonstrating that neovascularization was required for tumor growth. He observed that when cancer cells were injected into isolated perfused organs they remained as small tumors (<1–2 mm in size), however, if these tumors were transplanted into syngeneic mice they rapidly became vascularized and grew beyond a few millimeters [5]. In 1971, Folkman postulated that tumor growth was angiogenesis dependent and therefore the inhibition of this process could be therapeutic [6]. Thus the term “antiangiogenesis” was born, meaning a blockade of the formation of new blood vessels in a growing tumor. The concept developed by Folkman has been extensively confirmed by experimental and clinical studies. Tumor angiogenesis is now considered one of the “hallmarks of cancer” [7] and consequently over the last decades, the development of angiogenic inhibitors with therapeutic potential has been a central focus of cancer research.
The main molecular drivers of angiogenesis are members of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) family and their receptors. This family includes VEGF-A (commonly and hereafter named simply VEGF), VEGF-B, VEGF-C, VEGF-D, and placental growth factor (PIGF)-1 and -2. The VEGF-A gene can be spliced into multiple isoforms [8,9] but the most relevant for tumor angiogenesis are the soluble isoforms VEGF121 [10] and VEGF165 [8]. The main signaling receptor is VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR2; also known as kinase insert domain receptor (KDR) in humans), a tyrosine kinase receptor (TKR) that is expressed in almost all endothelial cells (ECs) and binds VEGF, VEGF-C, VEGF-D, and VEGF-E. Through ligand activation, VEGFR2 has been shown to regulate EC proliferation, migration, and survival. The other two receptors are VEGFR1 (also known as FMS-like Tyrosine kinase 1 (FLT1)) that under activation promotes recruitment of endothelial progenitor cells and VEGFR3 (or FLT3) that is expressed almost exclusively in lymphatic endothelium. VEGFR2 and VEGFR3 can also function as TKRs. VEGF and its cognate receptors play a critical role in EC survival and angiogenesis [11]. One of the first commercially successful angiogenesis inhibitors to be developed was bevacizumab [12], a humanized monoclonal antibody against VEGF-165, the most predominant VEGF-A isoform. In 2004, bevacizumab became the first angiogenesis inhibitor approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States. Today, a variety of compounds with angiostatic activity, including antibodies against VEGF and TKR inhibitors targeting VEGFR, have been approved for clinical use. Some of the FDA approved angiogenic inhibitors available for cancer treatment are listed in Table 1. These drugs can be used either as a single agent or as an adjuvant with chemotherapeutics. Currently, there are >800 active clinical trials evaluating angiogenesis inhibitors (https://clinicaltrials.gov/). Although many antiangiogenic therapies have been incorporated into standard protocol for certain cancer types, in some cases, approval has been withdrawn due to either lack of efficacy or concerns with toxicity [13]. A number of clinical studies that used angiogenesis inhibitors as adjuvants have failed to provide significant benefits to patients: a phase III trial assessed the effects of bevacizumab as an adjuvant in stage II–III colon cancer patients and did not meet its primary endpoint of prolonging the three-year disease-free survival (DFS) [14], another phase III randomized study in colon cancer also used bevacizumab in combination with different chemotherapy regimes and found no significant improvements in DFS and even suggests a detrimental effect in overall survival [15]. Additionally, in metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer patients the combination of bevacizumab with paclitaxel (PTX) improves DFS compared to PTX alone, however patients did not show significant differences in quality of life assessments [16]. Hence, despite the clinical benefits observed with FDA-approved antiangiogenic drugs, the limited outcome in patients has led to the notion that cancer cells can develop strategies to escape angiogenesis inhibition and become resistant.

2. Mechanisms for Escape/Resistance to Antiangiogenic Therapy

Cancer cells are defined by their heterogeneity and genetic instability [17], evolutionary biology teaches us that a selection pressure triggers reactionary dynamics and natural selection will produce a resilient system. Hence, antiangiogenic therapy or namely anti-VEGF therapy works upon cancer cells as a selection pressure and the surviving cells acquire an advantage in the new environment. An example of antiangiogenic compound used in the clinic is sunitinib, a small-molecule multi-targeted TKR inhibitor (TKI). Sunitinib is a FDA approved drug for renal cell carcinoma and for Imatinib (IM)-resistant (another TKI) gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Figure 1 shows a sunitinib treated murine renal cancer (RENCA), where antiangiogenic treatment leads to noticeably less vascularized tumors. The resulting hypoxic tumor microenvironment is composed by normal fibroblasts, immune and ECs among others, which may play a major role in tumor growth and progression. Therefore, another potential mechanism of resistance to antiangiogenic therapies may result from growth signals provided by the microenvironment [18,19,20].
The methods of escape are numerous and may include: vascular heterogeneity, influence of the cancer stroma, stress adaptation, and alternative vascularization methods such glomeruloid angiogenesis, looping angiogenesis and intussusceptive growth [21,22]. In this mini-review, we will focus and discuss in detail recent advances on three main mechanisms of antiangiogenic therapy escape: upregulation of compensatory pathways, the process of vasculogenic mimicry (VM) and the concept of vessel (or vascular) co-option (VCO).

3. Upregulation of Alternative/Compensatory Pathways

Angiogenesis is an exquisitely complex [23] and critical process for both normal and tumor cells; consequently, one of the most common mechanisms employed by cancer cells to escape inhibition/blockade is the upregulation of redundant pathways.
In pancreatic cancer models, a VEGFR2 blocking antibody prevents tumor growth for approximately two weeks, however after this period tumors rapidly regrow and increase their vascularity with a concomitant increase in fibroblasts growth factor-1 (FGF-1), FGF-2, Ephrin-A1 (Eph-A1), Eph-A2 and angiopoietin-1 (Angpt-1) levels [24]. Clinically, colon cancer and glioblastoma patients increase their plasma FGF-2 levels following anti-VEGF therapy using bevacizumab or a VEGFR inhibitor respectively [25]. A number of studies have demonstrated crosstalk between VEGF and FGF-2 [26]; both factors can act synergistically to induce angiogenesis [27] and FGF-2 induced angiogenesis is partly dependent on VEGF activation [28]. Preclinical and clinical studies have evaluated FGF-2 targeting in cancer as an alternative to VEGF using small molecules [29,30,31] and monoclonal antibodies [32,33]. Recently, a small soluble decoy receptor fusion protein that comprises a truncated portion of the extracellular region of FGF Receptor-1 (named FGF-Trap) has demonstrated high affinity for FGF-2 and a potent inhibitory activity on the FGF signaling pathway, suppressing FGF-2 induced cell proliferation and significantly decreasing tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo [34]. A clinical trial that included bevacizumab as an adjuvant in colorectal cancer reported increases in plasma levels of FGF-2, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), placental growth factor (PIGF), stromal-derived factor (SDF)-1, and macrophage chemoattractant protein-3 [35]. In vivo, sunitinib-resistant tumors display increased HGF levels and ECs within these tumors overexpress c-met (the HGF receptor) [36]. In these animals, a combination of sunitinib and a selective c-met inhibitor significantly reduced tumor growth in sunitinib resistant tumors compared to either treatment alone, and a systemic injection of HGF in sensitive tumors conferred sunitinib resistance [36]. Aberrant c-met signaling has been reported in a variety of human cancers and clinical trials that incorporate selective drugs against c-met are ongoing [37].
The placental growth factor (PIGF) was initially discovered and cloned from human placenta where it plays a fundamental role in embryonic development. PIGFs (there are four isoforms) belong to the VEGF family [38], however their role in angiogenesis is somewhat controversial. In animal studies PIGF overexpression correlates with a decrease in tumor growth by stabilization of the tumor vasculature caused by heterodimerization with VEGF, that neutralizes its potency [39,40]. In contrast, PIGF in vitro is chemotactic for ECs and macrophages, mobilizes bone marrow-derived cells and increases VEGF-induced survival, proliferation and migration of ECs [41,42]. Applying a similar strategy to the one described for the FGF-trap, a VEGF-trap protein, called Aflibercept was produced by fusing the VEGF-binding domain of VEGFR1/VEGFR2 with the Fc portion of the human IgG1. Aflibercept (Table 1) acts as a high-affinity binding decoy receptor that neutralizes both VEGF and PIGF [43]. A phase III randomized trial that used Aflibercept plus a combination of fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan (called FOLFIRI) found a significant increase in overall and progression free survival relative to placebo plus FOLFIRI in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients that had been previously treated with oxaliplatin, the effects were also significant in patients that were previously treated with bevacizumab [44]. Currently, at least nine clinical trials that use Aflibercept are recruiting patients [45,46,47].
The platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) pathway is another compensatory pathway usually upregulated in anti-VEGF treated tumors [48], PDGF ligands provide mitogenic signals, critical for pericyte recruitment and maturation. Studies demonstrate that PDGF is produced by endothelial and tumor cells [49], but can also be expressed by other cell types within the tumor microenvironment including carcinoma- or tumor-associated fibroblasts (CAFs or TAFs, respectively). In fact, TAFs derived from anti-VEGF resistant tumors upregulate their PDGF levels, and these TAFs also stimulate the growth of anti-VEGF sensitive cells under VEGF inhibition [50]. Studies also demonstrate that PDGF expressed by stromal fibroblasts is responsible for the increase in proliferation and angiogenesis in breast cancer cells in vitro [51]. As stated above, IM is a Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) drug originally developed as an inhibitor for the BCR-ABL kinase, a fusion protein that causes chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), however IM also targets PDGF Receptors. Studies demonstrate that IM can decrease angiogenesis both in vitro [51] and in vivo [52]; ECs can be activated to increase angiogenesis via a VEGF-independent mechanism through Neuropilin-1 (NRP-1), a non-catalytic receptor for VEGF165 that potentiates signal transduction of activated VEGFR2 [53,54], however NRP-1 is able to promote angiogenesis through a VEGF/VEGFR2 independent pathway by association with the Abelson murine leukemia viral oncogene homolog (ABL) kinase (a non-receptor kinase) and subsequent phosphorylation of Paxillin (PXN) and actin remodeling, a mechanism that can be inhibited by IM [55]. The same authors propose the use of IM to improve antiangiogenic therapies [55]. Accordingly, phase II/III studies evaluating the efficacy of IM as a single agent or as an adjuvant are currently under way [56,57].
Angiopoietins are a family of ligands that bind to the EC membrane receptor tyrosine kinase TIE2 (also known as TEK), Angpt-1 and Angpt-2 can activate TIE2 at different affinities. Alongside VEGF, the Angpt pathway plays a major role in tumor angiogenesis [58] and current late-stage clinical trials are targeting Angpt-1, Angpt-2 and TIE2 as a strategy against tumor growth [59]. Inhibition of this pathway may be applicable together with other treatments and applied to improve the efficacy of anti-VEGF therapy.
Delta-like ligand-4 (Dll-4) is a ligand for Notch expressed on the surface of arterial ECs [60]. Dll-4 and Notch are upregulated by VEGF and under physiological conditions act as a negative feedback mechanism for vessel sprouting and angiogenesis [61]. In cancer, Dll-4-Notch signaling pathway regulates tumor growth by decreasing angiogenesis, despite improving vascular function. Conversely, inhibition of Dll-4-Notch increases non-functional vasculature and reduces tumor growth [62,63,64]. Interestingly, preclinical and clinical findings have highlighted Dll-4-Notch signaling as a pathway involved in antiangiogenic resistance, specifically to anti-VEGF therapy [61,65]. Phase I and II clinical studies using Dll-4 inhibitors are currently ongoing [66].
In addition to the upregulation of proangiogenic factors, antiangiogenic therapy-induced hypoxia is able to trigger the recruitment of bone marrow-derived cells (BMDCs) [18]. Proangiogenic BMDCs are vascular progenitor cells that are recruited in part through increases in Hypoxia-Induced Factor 1α (HIF1α) and its downstream effector stromal-cell derived factor 1α (SDF1α) [67,68]. Therefore SDF1α could be exploited as a biomarker of antiangiogenic-treated relapsing tumors [18].
Another mechanism of antiangiogenic therapy resistance involves an increase in pericyte coverage. Inhibition of VEGF signaling can lead to a substantial reduction in microvascular density (MVD), however, functional vessels that remain after treatment are slim and tightly covered with pericytes [69]. Both in vitro and in vivo studies demonstrate that pericytes regulate EC proliferation and can promote EC survival through autocrine mechanisms [70,71]. Moreover TKI-based therapies that target both ECs via VEGFR inhibition and pericytes via PDGFR inhibition have higher therapeutic benefit compared to VEGF inhibitors alone.

4. Vasculogenic Mimicry (VM)

In many ways, a bourgeoning tumor, which has cells proliferating at a faster rate than the arrival of vasculature, is similar to a tumor undergoing antiangiogenic therapy. In both instances, the tumor needs a non-endothelial means of obtaining nutrients while disposing of cellular waste. One of the mechanisms behind this survival is speculated to be VM [72,73]; the term describes the formation of tubular structures within a tumor that are formed by cancer cells and independent of ECs [73].
These remodeled cancer cells are believed to secrete matrix proteins, such as collagens IV and VI, heparan sulfate proteoglycan and laminin, forming a tubular structure that is the reverse to traditional blood vasculature, where the basal lamina sits behind the ECs. Together with the aforementioned adopted expression of EC markers, polysaccharides are markers of VM and tubular structures are strongly positive for periodic acid-schiff (PAS) stain [74]. Now reported in 15 solid tumor types [75], this process was first described in uveal melanoma, the plasticity of cancer cells allows remodeling and acquisition of EC markers (such as CD31 and vascular endothelial (VE)-cadherin), and the formation of de novo vascular-like networks that may connect the tumor to the endothelial-lined vasculature [73]. These intratumoral structures provide a perfusion pathway transporting fluid from poorly formed/leaky tumor endothelial vasculature to the core of the malignant mass. Some authors have subdivided VM into two distinct forms: firstly, a tubular type that bares uncanny resemblance to blood vessels; and, secondly, a disjointed patterned matrix type that does not morphologically or topologically resembles physiological blood vasculature [74].
As is true for all malignant processes, VM may well be a physiological process hijacked by tumor cells. During pregnancy, the advance of the trophoblast into maternal uterine walls is speculated to involve the formation of non-endothelial vessel-like structures prior to the formation of the placenta [76]. Once adopted by either the bourgeoning tumor or metastatic foci, VM may be a way of controlling glucose and other nutrient supply while providing a drainage system for cellular secretions that eventually merges with endothelial-derived vasculature. Indeed, several authors have speculated on the presence of a “mosaic vasculature”, a fusion of both endothelial and non-endothelial derived vessels [77,78,79].
Currently, there is no consensus on how VM is activated in cancer cells. It is speculated that hypoxia, caused by the decline in blood vessel irrigation, following antiangiogenic treatment could be a trigger for VM [73]. In cancer cells, hypoxia brings about a change in cell phenotype and induces endothelial-to mesenchymal transition (EMT) [80], a phenotype believed to be linked to VM [81]. Although highly plausible, this theory remains controversial as many of the supporting in vitro studies showing HIF1α and hypoxia-related proteins may be involved are performed in cell cultures that may not represent VM [82].
In a meta-analysis of 22 clinical studies, encompassing 3062 patients across 15 cancer types, the five-year overall survival of VM+ and VM− cancer patients was 31% and 56%, respectively. Accordingly, the calculated relative risk of failure to achieve five-year survival in VM+ patients was significantly higher than that of VM− [83]. Interestingly, in all cancer types analyzed to date, the presence of VM is reported in fewer than 50% of cases and may thus be representative of a common aggressive malignant sub-class or phenotype. In osteoblastic-type osteosarcomas, the presence of VM was detected in 22.7% (15 of 66) of tumors. This incidence negatively correlated with both metastasis-free and overall survival, but was independent of patient sex, age, surgical type or tumor size [84]. Two histological analyses demonstrated the same percentage on VM formation in ovarian cancer. One study reported 52 (43%) out of 120 carcinomas analyzed were VM+ [85]. A previous study reported 43% (36 of 84) of analyzed ovarian carcinomas were VM+, within this group VM+ patients displayed significantly elevated levels of pathologic grade, histological type and poor survival [86]. Similarly, VM was detected in 35% of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) as opposed to 17.8% in non-TNBCs. In gastric adenocarcinoma, tubular networks were observed in 40 of 173 (22%) patients, with statistically elevated correlation with poorly differentiated tumors [87]. Figure 2 shows gastric adenocarcinoma samples from a negative (VM−, Figure 2A,C) and a positive (VM+, Figure 2B,D) patient for tubular networks stained with hematoxylin and eosin (HE; Figure 2A,C) and with a dual CD31 (brown)/PAS (violet) stain to identify EC vessels. Red arrow in Figure 2C shows a vessel that contains red blood cells in its lumen. In Figure 2D, red arrow highlights a CD31− vessel within a tumor gland that contains red blood cells, representing VM+ vessels seen in detail in the upper right inset, in contrast upper left inset shows a traditional (CD31+) used as a control. VM has also been identified in rhabdomyosarcomas, prostatic carcinomas, soft tissue sarcomas, glioblastomas, liver carcinomas and osteosarcomas among many other malignancies [88]. Thus, conventional therapeutic regimens that target angiogenesis alone may in the long-term be ineffective against a high percentage of invasive tumors capable of undergoing VM and thus presenting heterogeneous microcirculation.
Currently, there is only a limited understanding of the cellular basis of VM; non-endothelial tubular-structures can be obtained in vitro using aggressive cancer cell lines seeded on matrigel (aqueous constituents of the extracellular matrix proteins, obtained from a mouse sarcoma) or collagen I [89]. Authors report this phenomenon occurs in two forms; as quickly forming tubular structures reminiscing vessels formed within hours in classic EC tubular assays or as thicker multicellular structures that form after several days in culture [82]. While the claim that these former structures are indeed examples of VM is controversial, the accepted confirmation of VM presence is through the movement of injected tracers within tubular structures [73,74].
As may well be anticipated with a process that enables the survival and proliferation of a growing tumor, the process of EMT is speculated to be pivotal in VM [90]. A study showed 14% (28 of 205) of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors were classified as VM+ and statistically related to aggressive clinical course and poor prognosis [91]. In the same study, VM+ NSCLC samples displayed elevated levels of EMT-related proteins including vimentin, Slug, Twist, and stem-like proteins like nestin, CD44, MMP2 and MMP9. Accordingly, the epithelial marker E-cadherin was reduced in these samples, while VE-cadherin and β-catenin were elevated [91]. In breast cancer models the EMT associated transcription factor OCT4 is shown to correlate with VM, while Twist1 expression accelerates this process by increasing a population of CD133+ cells [92]. Ovarian cancers with evidence of VM also correlated with high expression levels of Twist1 and Slug [93]. In another study, ovarian cancer [85] and NSCLC [94] patients with VM+/CD133+ tumors predicted a poor prognosis; VE-cadherin, MMP-2 and MMP-9 were also reported to be increased in CD133+ xenografted tumors [82]. In hepatocellular carcinoma cells, the inhibition of E-cadherin degradation down-regulated VE-cadherin expression levels [95]. Again, in hepatocellular carcinoma cells, inhibition of the Rho-associated coiled coil-containing protein kinase 1 (ROCK1) attenuated an EMT expression profile and the process of VM [96]. Further studies are required to define whether VM is an exclusive property of metastasis initiating cells and if VM-capable circulating tumor cells (if indeed they exist) have a higher potential for metastasis.
Unsurprisingly, given the similarities with angiogenesis, genes implemented in VM are those previously associated with vascular (VE-cadherin, VEGFR 1 and 2, EphA2), embryonic (Nodal, Notch4), and hypoxia-related (hypoxia-inducible factor, Twist1) signaling pathways [97]. As with angiogenesis, an underlying mechanism of induction of VM seems to be hypoxia [73]. However, in vitro experiments show that this process can also occur in normoxia and certain authors have preferred to use the term hypoxia-accelerated tubular structure formation [93]. Further investigation is required to decipher whether hypoxia is an essential driving force behind VM. A further principal proangiogenic stimulus implemented in this process is the VEGF signaling pathway. Both VEGF and VEGFR2 have been implemented in VM [98,99]. However, this process has proven resilient in in vitro treatments with a range of angiogenesis inhibitors, including bevacizumab (Avastin, see Table 1) [100,101]. A subpopulation of melanoma cells that express the vascular cell adhesion molecule PECAM1, but not VEGFR2, have been reported to be capable of undergoing VM [102]. Re-introduction of AP-2α (a transcriptional repressor of PECAM1) in PECAM1+ cancer cells abolishes tube-forming ability, whereas AP-2α knockdown in PECAM1− tumor cells upregulates PECAM1 expression and promotes tube formation [102]. The ανβ5 integrin also correlated with VM and highly aggressive melanoma [102]. Ovarian VM+ tumors have higher expression of β-catenin and VEGF [86]. In hepatocellular carcinoma cells, VEGF-induced VM is also reported to involve myocyte enhancer factor 2C (MEF2C) together with β-catenin via the p38 MAPK and PKC signaling pathways [103]. The use of an inhibitor of PKCα also blocked the effects of Wnt5a enhanced vasculogenic capacity, motility and invasiveness of ovarian cancer cells [90]. Enhanced expression of Wnt5a was also correlated to VM in non-small cell lung cancer models [104]. In addition, in NSCLC tumors samples, the expression of Dickkopf-1, a negative regulator of the Wnt signaling pathway correlates with VM positivity [91]. Conversely, another study in colon cancer Wnt3a-overexpressing cells reports Dickkopf-1 correlates with VM negativity through decreases in VE-cadherin and VEGFR2 [105,106].
Lastly, many other proteins, including aguaporin 1 [107], have been postulated as essential regulators or promoters of VM, suggesting the search for the precise mechanism(s) and the unique pathways involved in this process is still very much in its infancy, mainly due to a lack of standardized, reliable in vitro models [108]. Future investigation and the identification of biomarkers may allow the specific targeting of the process of VM in the clinical practice.

5. Vessel (or Vascular) Co-Option

In addition to compensatory pathways and VM, cancer cells can overcome angiogenesis blockade through Vessel (or vascular) co-option (VCO). The term VCO is used to describe a process, by which cancer cells “hijack” preexisting blood vessels or capillaries to obtain their nutrient supply. Along with VM, VCO has been proposed to explain the lack of efficacy of antiangiogenic therapies and more recently, studies have also postulated a critical role of VCO in the establishment and survival of metastases. Initial studies in VCO hypothesized that cancer cells could arise or metastasize to highly vascularized tissues and co-opt the preexisting vasculature to enhance angiogenesis through a balance between VEGF and Angpt-2 [109], such studies also observed that VCO was followed by vessel regression, tumor hypoxia and the induction of angiogenesis by Angpt-1 and -2 and also VEGF [109]. Currently, VCO is recognized as a mechanism to generate tumor vasculature in an angiogenesis independent manner and despite being present in many malignancies it is more frequently seen in highly vascularized tissues such as brain [110,111], lungs [112] and liver [113] where cancer cells can co-opt the abundant pre-existing blood vessels and capillaries.
Clinical and experimental studies demonstrate that VCO is a common strategy used by cancer cells to evade antiangiogenic therapies; “normalization” of the vasculature by bevacizumab eliminates immature tumor microvessels, retaining the mature ones, in response to anti-VEGF treatment the remaining blood vessels increase their diameter, a response that also enhances VCO in colorectal cancer cells already metastasized to the liver [114]. In ovarian and esophageal cancer xenografts bevacizumab increases pericyte coverage of vessels [115], as mentioned previously pericytes play a major role in EC maintenance and resistance to VEGFR inhibitors. In a mouse model of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs), long-term treatment with a VEGFR2 blocking antibody generates resistant tumors with co-opted vessels with increased pericyte coverage [116] suggesting strategies that target pericytes (such as PDGFR inhibitors) could also be effective against VCO.
As stated, during the last decade a number of experimental studies have demonstrated VCO in many malignancies, however in most cases they use either murine models or xenografted cell lines. In contrast, studies using human tissues are rather limited [110,117,118]. One of the main obstacles to critically assess the contribution of VCO in patient samples is the identification of “angiogenic” versus non-angiogenic (pre-existing or mature) vessels. Experimental murine studies in the brain are performed by injecting cell lines in the carotid artery to induce infiltrative lesions in the brain parenchyma that exploit preexisting blood vessels, this is demonstrated by comparison with the normal brain vasculature assessing vessel diameter, endothelial activation and pericyte coverage [119]. Indeed, the presence of perivascular pericytes is commonly used as indicative of mature (preexisting) vessels that stain intensely with smooth muscle actin (SMA) compared to less mature (angiogenic) counterparts. LH39 is an antibody directed against an epitope of the basement membrane of normal capillaries and small venules; LH39 is more predominantly expressed in non-angiogenic (pre-existing) compared to angiogenic tumor vessels [120] and therefore might be a useful biomarker to discriminate between the two.
In addition to xenografted cell lines, experimental VCO in vivo studies include a zebrafish model [121] and the chick chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) assay [122]. On the other hand, in vitro studies assessing VCO are more limited; Valiente et al. [111] uses fluorescently labeled breast cancer cell lines co-incubated with fresh mouse brain slices in organotypic cultures, in these conditions cancer cells migrate into the tissue, then seek and co-opt brain microcapillaries. In our laboratory, we have developed a co-culture system to assess VCO in vitro; ECs are grown in three-dimensional (3D) cultures on matrigel to form capillary-like structures and then co-incubated with fluorescently labeled cancer cells. Figure 3 shows that cancer cells (Zsgreen labeled) spread over capillary-like structures formed by ECs (CD31+, in red). Although our model lacks a basement membrane it clearly demonstrates that the direct interaction between capillary-like structures formed by ECs and cancer cells modifies cancer cell morphology. The study of the crosstalk between endothelial and cancer cells plays a crucial role in angiogenesis and metastasis [123]; our model recapitulates this interaction in a physiologically relevant context. Future studies in this interaction may bring new therapeutic targets to prevent VCO and metastasis.
Histologically, VCO can be defined as tumor cells spread along the external (abluminal) surface of vessels in a pericytic location with no intravasation, a biological phenomenon called Angiotropism [124] and a common feature of metastatic cancer cells. As mentioned above, the use of angiostatic drugs such as bevacizumab increases the diameter of preexistent (resistant or non-angiogenic) vessels and enhances VCO in cancer cells. Therefore, as suggested by others [125], it is possible that the suppression of angiogenesis, and the normalization of the vasculature might actually trigger angiotropism (VCO) and a more “metastatic” phenotype in cancer cells, accelerating metastasis. Indeed, the inhibition or suppression of angiogenic factors including VEGF, VEGFR2 [126,127,128,129], HIF1α [126,130] and VE-Cadherin [131] enhances an invasive behavior of tumors and VCO. This is further confirmed by a recent study that analyzed Sorafenib-resistant hepatocellular carcinomas and observed that these tumors were more locally infiltrative and co-opted liver vessel with a concomitant shift of cells to an EMT [132].
VCO is a characteristic feature of infiltrative, metastatic tumors; a study that selected subclones of breast cancer cell lines by their ability to metastasize to the brain demonstrated that these cells survive in the brain tissue by overexpressing Serpins, a class of Plasminogen Activator (PA) inhibitors that promote survival and VCO in brain metastasis [111], linking a metastatic phenotype in cancer cells with a “co-opting” behavior. Despite its key role in the establishment of micro-metastasis, the molecular basis for VCO in cancer is largely unknown. The above-mentioned study by Valiente et al. demonstrates that VCO in metastatic cells is dependent on L1CAM expression [111]. Another study that also analyzed brain metastases by breast cancer cells postulated VCO as crucial requisite for adhesion, proliferation and micro-colony establishment and identified Integrin β1 subunit in tumor cells as a critical mediator of these processes [110]. A third study used the CAM assay [122] and the orthotopic xenograft model of glioma [122,133] to demonstrate that selective inhibition of the inositol-requiring enzyme 1α (IRE1α) RNAse activity enhances the invasiveness and VCO in glioblastoma. Furthermore, IRE1α has a dual kinase/RNAse activity required for adaptive and stress responses (including ischemia) and a double (RNAse/kinase) inhibition generates reprogrammed cancer cells with a mesenchymal phenotype that produce avascular infiltrative glioblastomas with decreased MVD and enhanced VCO [133]. Paradoxically, the survival rates in these animals are increased compared to animals with a functional IRE1 [122]. The molecular pathways involved and the contribution of the above mentioned factors to VCO in other target tissues for metastases such as lungs and the liver remain to be elucidated.
As above-mentioned many studies suggest that angiogenesis and VCO (expressed as invasiveness) are functionally related mechanisms, however they seem mutually exclusive phenomena in cancer cells. The use of angiogenesis inhibitors might cause an adaptive switch into an invasive, more metastatic phenotype of cancer cells resembling EMT; therefore, we speculate that second-line therapies that target VCO might help patients with antiangiogenic resistant tumors.

6. Future Directions for Antiangiogenic Therapies

In recent years, the widespread use of therapeutic drugs targeting angiogenesis has had a major impact in cancer patients. However, in many cases despite a favorable initial response, the patients relapse and an increase in overall patient survival is either minimal or not significant [134]. Today most antiangiogenic regimes used in the clinic target the VEGF pathway (either ligands or receptors, Figure 4). As any biological system that adapts to a selective pressure, cancer cells display a variety of strategies to overcome the blockade of angiogenesis and obtain access to nutrients and oxygen. Independent inhibition of the VEGF and angiopoietin pathways has demonstrated clinically meaningful prolongation in progression-free survival in front line settings [59]. A future strategy may be simultaneous dual targeting of angiogenesis and alternative/compensatory angiogenic escape route. If the obvious problems of enhanced toxicity in the presence of dual agents can be overcome, this method may reduce the changes of angiogenic escape and possible move antiangiogenic therapies into the front line of cancer treatments, apposed to their current use in the adjuvant setting. In this context, optimized or even targeted drug delivery with reduced doses (lowering toxicity) using nano-encapsulated drugs may offer a viable choice; in fact, a recent study used IM-loaded nanoparticles and demonstrated lower cardiotoxicity in rats and improved anticancer activity in breast cancer cells [135]. In addition, the use of combined drugs with synergistic effects in angiogenesis blockade should be explored within this context.
Recurrent metastatic disease with prolonged latency periods is speculated to result from reactivation of “dormant” cancer cells [136]. Here, cancer cells or a small group of metastatic cancer cells may also experience angiogenic dormancy and thus survive by receiving their nutrients and oxygen from VCO. Therefore, the clinical observation where residual disease is present but remains asymptomatic, may involve dormant cancer cells incorporating many characteristics that are present in antiangiogenic therapy resistant tumors. This gives rise to the possibility that therapeutic targeting of antiangiogenic resistant tumors could also allow selective targeting of residual disease.
Regarding VM several treatments have been proposed: Liposomes containing epirubicin plus celecoxib and liposomes containing a peptide motif (that targets aminopeptidase) have been suggested to reduce VM in brain gliomas. While these constructs may have activity over tumor growth, the evidence is still unconvincing that VM is a target of these therapeutic constructs [137,138]. Growing evidence suggest targeting of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway, this might be a viable treatment modality against VM having both antiangiogenic and antitumorigenic effects. As is now the standard in modern oncology, any potential new treatment will require a biomarker or companion for diagnostic in order to recommend their use. As stated, the mechanism(s) behind VM are still poorly understood, however when these specific pathways are elucidated the use of precision medicine directed against overexpressed and/or mutated oncogenes will have a double effect in reducing tumor size and its ability to undergo VM. The ability of only a certain percentage of tumors to undergo VM raises important clinical questions as we enter the circulating tumor cell (CTC) detection era. Is there an intrinsic ability of a CTC to undergo VM once a metastatic niche has been found or established? Does this ability determine the location of the eventual metastasis? Moreover, can VM potential be screened for using current CTC technology? While most of these questions remain open, a recent paper suggests a correlation between VM and the metastatic niche [139]. In prostate cancer dual CD31/PAS staining shows 35% (28/80) of cases were VM+ and exhibit poor patient prognosis. The incidence of bone metastasis in VM+ and VM− patients was 68% (19/28) and 39% (20/52), respectively, suggesting VM+ prostate cancers are more prone to develop bone metastasis. This may be a key finding for the future of CTC characterization and design of anti-vascular drugs.
VCO is not only an antiangiogenic therapy resistance mechanism but also a key factor in the establishment of micrometastases [111]. The majority of cancers metastasize to highly vascularized organs (brain, liver and lungs), a process that requires, at least initially co-opting the pre-existing vasculature to obtain a blood supply, therefore the same factors that mediate metastatic spread to these organs could also be important determinants for VCO. Surprisingly, the molecular bases of VCO in cancer cells are largely unknown; as occurs with VM+ cells, cancer cells that exhibit an enhanced VCO behavior are also characterized by an EMT phenotype. Among potential therapeutic targets all the above mentioned factors have already been explored; bioinformatics demonstrate L1CAM gene is a miR503 (microRNA) target, miR503 overexpression reduces cell proliferation and invasion of glioma cells, suggesting it could be used as a L1CAM negative regulator/suppressor [140]. Similarly, integrin β1 subunit, another potential therapeutic target against VCO, can be downregulated by miR-223 in prostate cancer cells [141].
In summary, cancer cells display a wide variety of mechanisms to overcome angiogenic blockade, and these are not exclusively limited to those reviewed herein (summarized in Figure 4). A recent study points to other areas of angiogenesis that could be exploited for therapeutic use, namely: EC migration, structural abnormalities of tumor vessels, hypoxia, lymphangiogenesis, elevated interstitial fluid pressure, poor perfusion, disrupted circadian rhythms, tumor promoting inflammation, tumor promoting fibroblasts and tumor cell metabolism/acidosis [142]. If toxicity issues permit, future therapies should be combined to target key aspects that are specific for tumor angiogenesis. Finally, the arrival of personalized (or precision) medicine may shed some light on the angiogenic mechanisms employed by the tumor mass, such as information on the presence of VM, VCO and tumor metabolism (among many other possible variables) needed to complement the levels of proangiogenic factors such as angiopoietin or VEGF. Thus, along with de novo drug discovery, there is a clinical demand in order to reveal effective biomarkers that will identify pathways and predict patient outcomes in response to antiangiogenic compounds.

Acknowledgments

Funding support by BMRC 13CTI-21526-P6, CORFO 13IDL2-18608, CONICYT-FONDAP 15130011, IMII P09/016-F, FONDECYT grants #1140970 (GIO), #11140255 (PS) and #1151411 (AC).

Author Contributions

Mauricio P. Pinto, Paula Sotomayor and Gareth I. Owen designed, drafted and wrote the manuscript. Gonzalo Carrasco-Avino and Alejandro H. Corvalan performed experiments and provided critical input for Vasculogenic Mimicry section of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ferrara, N. VEGF and intraocular neovascularization: From discovery to therapy. Trans. Vis. Sci. Technol. 2016, 5, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Greenblatt, M.; Shubi, P. Tumor angiogenesis: Transfilter diffusion studies in the hamster by the transparent chamber technique. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1968, 41, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Ehrmann, R.L.; Knoth, M. Choriocarcinoma. Transfilter stimulation of vasoproliferation in the hamster cheek pouch. Studied by light and electron microscopy. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1968, 41, 1329–1341. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Ribatti, D.; Vacca, A.; Dammacco, F. The role of the vascular phase in solid tumor growth: A historical review. Neoplasia 1999, 1, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Folkman, J.; Long, D.M., Jr.; Becker, F.F. Growth and metastasis of tumor in organ culture. Cancer 1963, 16, 453–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Folkman, J. Tumor angiogenesis: Therapeutic implications. N. Engl. J. Med. 1971, 285, 1182–1186. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  7. Hanahan, D.; Weinberg, R.A. Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell 2011, 144, 646–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Finley, S.D.; Popel, A.S. Predicting the effects of antiangiogenic agents targeting specific VEGF isoforms. AAPS J. 2012, 14, 500–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. McFee, R.M.; Rozell, T.G.; Cupp, A.S. The balance of proangiogenic and antiangiogenic VEGF-A isoforms regulate follicle development. Cell Tissue Res. 2012, 349, 635–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Mohamedali, K.A.; Li, Z.G.; Starbuck, M.W.; Wan, X.; Yang, J.; Kim, S.; Zhang, W.; Rosenblum, M.G.; Navone, N.M. Inhibition of prostate cancer osteoblastic progression with VEGF121/RGEL, a single agent targeting osteoblasts, osteoclasts, and tumor neovasculature. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 2011, 17, 2328–2338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Hu, D.E.; Fan, T.P. Suppression of VEGF-induced angiogenesis by the protein tyrosine kinase inhibitor, lavendustin a. Br. J. Pharmacol. 1995, 114, 262–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Rosen, L.S. Clinical experience with angiogenesis signaling inhibitors: Focus on vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) blockers. Cancer Control J. Moffitt Cancer Center 2002, 9, 36–44. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jackson, D.B.; Sood, A.K. Personalized cancer medicine-advances and socio-economic challenges. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 8, 735–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Allegra, C.J.; Yothers, G.; O’Connell, M.J.; Sharif, S.; Petrelli, N.J.; Colangelo, L.H.; Atkins, J.N.; Seay, T.E.; Fehrenbacher, L.; Goldberg, R.M.; et al. Phase III trial assessing bevacizumab in stages II and III carcinoma of the colon: Results of NSABP protocol C-08. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. De Gramont, A.; van Cutsem, E.; Schmoll, H.J.; Tabernero, J.; Clarke, S.; Moore, M.J.; Cunningham, D.; Cartwright, T.H.; Hecht, J.R.; Rivera, F.; et al. Bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer (AVANT): A phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012, 13, 1225–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Miller, K.; Wang, M.; Gralow, J.; Dickler, M.; Cobleigh, M.; Perez, E.A.; Shenkier, T.; Cella, D.; Davidson, N.E. Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007, 357, 2666–2676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Weinberg, R.A. The Biology of Cancer; Garland Science: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bergers, G.; Hanahan, D. Modes of resistance to antiangiogenic therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2008, 8, 592–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Orimo, A.; Gupta, P.B.; Sgroi, D.C.; Arenzana-Seisdedos, F.; Delaunay, T.; Naeem, R.; Carey, V.J.; Richardson, A.L.; Weinberg, R.A. Stromal fibroblasts present in invasive human breast carcinomas promote tumor growth and angiogenesis through elevated SDF-1/CXCL12 secretion. Cell 2005, 121, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Pinto, M.P.; Badtke, M.M.; Dudevoir, M.L.; Harrell, J.C.; Jacobsen, B.M.; Horwitz, K.B. Vascular endothelial growth factor secreted by activated stroma enhances angiogenesis and hormone-independent growth of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2010, 70, 2655–2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Van Beijnum, J.R.; Nowak-Sliwinska, P.; Huijbers, E.J.; Thijssen, V.L.; Griffioen, A.W. The great escape; the hallmarks of resistance to antiangiogenic therapy. Pharmacol. Rev. 2015, 67, 441–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Vasudev, N.S.; Reynolds, A.R. Antiangiogenic therapy for cancer: Current progress, unresolved questions and future directions. Angiogenesis 2014, 17, 471–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Bridges, E.M.; Harris, A.L. The angiogenic process as a therapeutic target in cancer. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2011, 81, 1183–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Casanovas, O.; Hicklin, D.J.; Bergers, G.; Hanahan, D. Drug resistance by evasion of antiangiogenic targeting of VEGF signaling in late-stage pancreatic islet tumors. Cancer Cell 2005, 8, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Lieu, C.; Heymach, J.; Overman, M.; Tran, H.; Kopetz, S. Beyond VEGF: Inhibition of the fibroblast growth factor pathway and antiangiogenesis. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 2011, 17, 6130–6139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Presta, M.; Dell'Era, P.; Mitola, S.; Moroni, E.; Ronca, R.; Rusnati, M. Fibroblast growth factor/fibroblast growth factor receptor system in angiogenesis. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2005, 16, 159–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Pepper, M.S.; Ferrara, N.; Orci, L.; Montesano, R. Potent synergism between vascular endothelial growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor in the induction of angiogenesis in vitro. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1992, 189, 824–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tille, J.C.; Wood, J.; Mandriota, S.J.; Schnell, C.; Ferrari, S.; Mestan, J.; Zhu, Z.; Witte, L.; Pepper, M.S. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor-2 antagonists inhibit VEGF- and basic fibroblast growth factor-induced angiogenesis in vivo and in vitro. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2001, 299, 1073–1085. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  29. Alessi, P.; Leali, D.; Camozzi, M.; Cantelmo, A.; Albini, A.; Presta, M. Anti-FGF2 approaches as a strategy to compensate resistance to anti-VEGF therapy: Long-pentraxin 3 as a novel antiangiogenic FGF2-antagonist. Eur. Cytokine Netw. 2009, 20, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  30. Andre, F.; Bachelot, T.; Campone, M.; Dalenc, F.; Perez-Garcia, J.M.; Hurvitz, S.A.; Turner, N.; Rugo, H.; Smith, J.W.; Deudon, S.; et al. Targeting FGFR with dovitinib (TKI258): Preclinical and clinical data in breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 2013, 19, 3693–3702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Hilberg, F.; Roth, G.J.; Krssak, M.; Kautschitsch, S.; Sommergruber, W.; Tontsch-Grunt, U.; Garin-Chesa, P.; Bader, G.; Zoephel, A.; Quant, J.; et al. BIBF 1120: Triple angiokinase inhibitor with sustained receptor blockade and good antitumor efficacy. Cancer Res. 2008, 68, 4774–4782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Tao, J.; Xiang, J.J.; Li, D.; Deng, N.; Wang, H.; Gong, Y.P. Selection and characterization of a human neutralizing antibody to human fibroblast growth factor-2. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2010, 394, 767–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wang, L.; Park, H.; Chhim, S.; Ding, Y.; Jiang, W.; Queen, C.; Kim, K.J. A novel monoclonal antibody to fibroblast growth factor 2 effectively inhibits growth of hepatocellular carcinoma xenografts. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2012, 11, 864–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Li, D.; Wei, X.; Xie, K.; Chen, K.; Li, J.; Fang, J. A novel decoy receptor fusion protein for FGF-2 potently inhibits tumour growth. Br. J. Cancer 2014, 111, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kopetz, S.; Hoff, P.M.; Morris, J.S.; Wolff, R.A.; Eng, C.; Glover, K.Y.; Adinin, R.; Overman, M.J.; Valero, V.; Wen, S.; et al. Phase II trial of infusional fluorouracil, irinotecan, and bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: Efficacy and circulating angiogenic biomarkers associated with therapeutic resistance. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Shojaei, F.; Lee, J.H.; Simmons, B.H.; Wong, A.; Esparza, C.O.; Plumlee, P.A.; Feng, J.; Stewart, A.E.; Hu-Lowe, D.D.; Christensen, J.G. HGF/c-met acts as an alternative angiogenic pathway in sunitinib-resistant tumors. Cancer Res. 2010, 70, 10090–10100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Sharma, N.; Adjei, A.A. In the clinic: Ongoing clinical trials evaluating c-met-inhibiting drugs. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 2011, 3, S37–S50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. De Falco, S. The discovery of placenta growth factor and its biological activity. Exp. Mol. Med. 2012, 44, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Fischer, C.; Mazzone, M.; Jonckx, B.; Carmeliet, P. FLT1 and its ligands VEGFB and PLGF: Drug targets for antiangiogenic therapy? Nat. Rev. Cancer 2008, 8, 942–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Hedlund, E.M.; Hosaka, K.; Zhong, Z.; Cao, R.; Cao, Y. Malignant cell-derived PLGF promotes normalization and remodeling of the tumor vasculature. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 17505–17510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Carmeliet, P.; Moons, L.; Luttun, A.; Vincenti, V.; Compernolle, V.; de Mol, M.; Wu, Y.; Bono, F.; Devy, L.; Beck, H.; et al. Synergism between vascular endothelial growth factor and placental growth factor contributes to angiogenesis and plasma extravasation in pathological conditions. Nat. Med. 2001, 7, 575–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Mac Gabhann, F.; Popel, A.S. Model of competitive binding of vascular endothelial growth factor and placental growth factor to VEGF receptors on endothelial cells. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 2004, 286, H153–H164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Holash, J.; Davis, S.; Papadopoulos, N.; Croll, S.D.; Ho, L.; Russell, M.; Boland, P.; Leidich, R.; Hylton, D.; Burova, E.; et al. VEGF-trap: A VEGF blocker with potent antitumor effects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 11393–11398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Van Cutsem, E.; Tabernero, J.; Lakomy, R.; Prenen, H.; Prausova, J.; Macarulla, T.; Ruff, P.; van Hazel, G.A.; Moiseyenko, V.; Ferry, D.; et al. Addition of aflibercept to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan improves survival in a phase III randomized trial in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with an oxaliplatin-based regimen. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 3499–3506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Folprecht, G.; Pericay, C.; Saunders, M.P.; Thomas, A.; Lopez Lopez, R.; Roh, J.K.; Chistyakov, V.; Hohler, T.; Kim, J.S.; Hofheinz, R.D.; et al. Oxaliplatin and 5-FU/folinic acid (modified FOLFOX6) with or without aflibercept in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: The affirm study. Ann. Oncol. 2016, 27, 1273–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Scartozzi, M.; Vincent, L.; Chiron, M.; Cascinu, S. Aflibercept, a new way to target angiogenesis in the second line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). Target. Oncol. 2016, 11, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Van Cutsem, E.; Joulain, F.; Hoff, P.M.; Mitchell, E.; Ruff, P.; Lakomy, R.; Prausova, J.; Moiseyenko, V.M.; van Hazel, G.; Cunningham, D.; et al. Aflibercept plus folfiri vs. Placebo plus folfiri in second-line metastatic colorectal cancer: A post hoc analysis of survival from the phase III velour study subsequent to exclusion of patients who had recurrence during or within 6 months of completing adjuvant oxaliplatin-based therapy. Target. Oncol. 2016, 11, 383–400. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  48. Hamdan, R.; Zhou, Z.; Kleinerman, E.S. SDF-1α induces PDGF-b expression and the differentiation of bone marrow cells into pericytes. Mol. Cancer Res. MCR 2011, 9, 1462–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Lu, C.; Thaker, P.H.; Lin, Y.G.; Spannuth, W.; Landen, C.N.; Merritt, W.M.; Jennings, N.B.; Langley, R.R.; Gershenson, D.M.; Yancopoulos, G.D.; et al. Impact of vessel maturation on antiangiogenic therapy in ovarian cancer. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008, 198, 477 e1–477 e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Crawford, Y.; Kasman, I.; Yu, L.; Zhong, C.; Wu, X.; Modrusan, Z.; Kaminker, J.; Ferrara, N. PDGF-c mediates the angiogenic and tumorigenic properties of fibroblasts associated with tumors refractory to anti-VEGF treatment. Cancer Cell 2009, 15, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Pinto, M.P.; Dye, W.W.; Jacobsen, B.M.; Horwitz, K.B. Malignant stroma increases luminal breast cancer cell proliferation and angiogenesis through platelet-derived growth factor signaling. BMC Cancer 2014, 14, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Ruan, J.; Luo, M.; Wang, C.; Fan, L.; Yang, S.N.; Cardenas, M.; Geng, H.; Leonard, J.P.; Melnick, A.; Cerchietti, L.; et al. Imatinib disrupts lymphoma angiogenesis by targeting vascular pericytes. Blood 2013, 121, 5192–5202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Koch, S.; Tugues, S.; Li, X.; Gualandi, L.; Claesson-Welsh, L. Signal transduction by vascular endothelial growth factor receptors. Biochem. J. 2011, 437, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Mamluk, R.; Gechtman, Z.; Kutcher, M.E.; Gasiunas, N.; Gallagher, J.; Klagsbrun, M. Neuropilin-1 binds vascular endothelial growth factor 165, placenta growth factor-2, and heparin via its b1b2 domain. J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 24818–24825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Raimondi, C.; Fantin, A.; Lampropoulou, A.; Denti, L.; Chikh, A.; Ruhrberg, C. Imatinib inhibits VEGF-independent angiogenesis by targeting neuropilin 1-dependent ABL1 activation in endothelial cells. J. Exp. Med. 2014, 211, 1167–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Blanke, C.D.; Rankin, C.; Corless, C.; Eary, J.F.; Mulder, K.; Okuno, S.H.; George, S.; Heinrich, M. S0502: A SWOG phase III randomized study of imatinib, with or without bevacizumab, in patients with untreated metastatic or unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Oncologist 2015, 20, 1353–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Flaherty, K.T.; Hamilton, B.K.; Rosen, M.A.; Amaravadi, R.K.; Schuchter, L.M.; Gallagher, M.; Chen, H.; Sehgal, C.; O’Dwyer, P.J. Phase I/II trial of imatinib and bevacizumab in patients with advanced melanoma and other advanced cancers. Oncologist 2015, 20, 952–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Shim, W.S.; Ho, I.A.; Wong, P.E. Angiopoietin: A TIE(d) balance in tumor angiogenesis. Mol. Cancer Res. MCR 2007, 5, 655–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Monk, B.J.; Poveda, A.; Vergote, I.; Raspagliesi, F.; Fujiwara, K.; Bae, D.S.; Oaknin, A.; Ray-Coquard, I.; Provencher, D.M.; Karlan, B.Y.; et al. Anti-angiopoietin therapy with trebananib for recurrent ovarian cancer (TRINOVA-1): A randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 799–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Clarke, J.M.; Hurwitz, H.I. Understanding and targeting resistance to antiangiogenic therapies. J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2013, 4, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  61. Thurston, G.; Noguera-Troise, I.; Yancopoulos, G.D. The delta paradox: Dll-4 blockade leads to more tumour vessels but less tumour growth. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2007, 7, 327–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Li, J.L.; Sainson, R.C.; Shi, W.; Leek, R.; Harrington, L.S.; Preusser, M.; Biswas, S.; Turley, H.; Heikamp, E.; Hainfellner, J.A.; et al. Delta-like 4 Notch ligand regulates tumor angiogenesis, improves tumor vascular function, and promotes tumor growth in vivo. Cancer Res. 2007, 67, 11244–11253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Noguera-Troise, I.; Daly, C.; Papadopoulos, N.J.; Coetzee, S.; Boland, P.; Gale, N.W.; Lin, H.C.; Yancopoulos, G.D.; Thurston, G. Blockade of Dll-4 inhibits tumour growth by promoting non-productive angiogenesis. Nature 2006, 444, 1032–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Ridgway, J.; Zhang, G.; Wu, Y.; Stawicki, S.; Liang, W.C.; Chanthery, Y.; Kowalski, J.; Watts, R.J.; Callahan, C.; Kasman, I.; et al. Inhibition of Dll-4 signalling inhibits tumour growth by deregulating angiogenesis. Nature 2006, 444, 1083–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Brzozowa, M.; Wojnicz, R.; Kowalczyk-Ziomek, G.; Helewski, K. The Notch ligand delta-like 4 (Dll-4) as a target in angiogenesis-based cancer therapy? Contemp. Oncol. 2013, 17, 234–237. [Google Scholar]
  66. Andersson, E.R.; Lendahl, U. Therapeutic modulation of notch signalling—Are we there yet? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2014, 13, 357–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Ceradini, D.J.; Kulkarni, A.R.; Callaghan, M.J.; Tepper, O.M.; Bastidas, N.; Kleinman, M.E.; Capla, J.M.; Galiano, R.D.; Levine, J.P.; Gurtner, G.C. Progenitor cell trafficking is regulated by hypoxic gradients through HIF-1 induction of SDF-1. Nat. Med. 2004, 10, 858–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. De Falco, E.; Porcelli, D.; Torella, A.R.; Straino, S.; Iachininoto, M.G.; Orlandi, A.; Truffa, S.; Biglioli, P.; Napolitano, M.; Capogrossi, M.C.; et al. SDF-1 involvement in endothelial phenotype and ischemia-induced recruitment of bone marrow progenitor cells. Blood 2004, 104, 3472–3482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Bergers, G.; Song, S.; Meyer-Morse, N.; Bergsland, E.; Hanahan, D. Benefits of targeting both pericytes and endothelial cells in the tumor vasculature with kinase inhibitors. J. Clin. Investig. 2003, 111, 1287–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Antonelli-Orlidge, A.; Saunders, K.B.; Smith, S.R.; D’Amore, P.A. An activated form of transforming growth factor β is produced by cocultures of endothelial cells and pericytes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1989, 86, 4544–4548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Franco, M.; Roswall, P.; Cortez, E.; Hanahan, D.; Pietras, K. Pericytes promote endothelial cell survival through induction of autocrine VEGF-A signaling and BCL-W expression. Blood 2011, 118, 2906–2917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Folberg, R.; Hendrix, M.J.; Maniotis, A.J. Vasculogenic mimicry and tumor angiogenesis. Am. J. Pathol. 2000, 156, 361–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Maniotis, A.J.; Folberg, R.; Hess, A.; Seftor, E.A.; Gardner, L.M.; Pe’er, J.; Trent, J.M.; Meltzer, P.S.; Hendrix, M.J. Vascular channel formation by human melanoma cells in vivo and in vitro: Vasculogenic mimicry. Am. J. Pathol. 1999, 155, 739–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Folberg, R.; Maniotis, A.J. Vasculogenic mimicry. APMIS 2004, 112, 508–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Sun, B.; Zhang, D.; Zhao, N.; Zhao, X. Epithelial-to-endothelial transition and cancer stem cells: Two cornerstones of vasculogenic mimicry in malignant tumors. Oncotarget 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Zhou, Y.; Fisher, S.J.; Janatpour, M.; Genbacev, O.; Dejana, E.; Wheelock, M.; Damsky, C.H. Human cytotrophoblasts adopt a vascular phenotype as they differentiate. A strategy for successful endovascular invasion? J. Clin. Investig. 1997, 99, 2139–2151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Auguste, P.; Lemiere, S.; Larrieu-Lahargue, F.; Bikfalvi, A. Molecular mechanisms of tumor vascularization. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2005, 54, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Liu, J.; Huang, J.; Yao, W.Y.; Ben, Q.W.; Chen, D.F.; He, X.Y.; Li, L.; Yuan, Y.Z. The origins of vacularization in tumors. Front. Biosci. (Landmark Ed) 2012, 17, 2559–2565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Zhang, S.; Zhang, D.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, W.; Guo, H.; Zhao, X.; Sun, B. Morphologic research of microcirculation patterns in human and animal melanoma. Med. Oncol. 2006, 23, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Salnikov, A.V.; Liu, L.; Platen, M.; Gladkich, J.; Salnikova, O.; Ryschich, E.; Mattern, J.; Moldenhauer, G.; Werner, J.; Schemmer, P.; et al. Hypoxia induces EMT in low and highly aggressive pancreatic tumor cells but only cells with cancer stem cell characteristics acquire pronounced migratory potential. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e46391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Sun, D.; Sun, B.; Liu, T.; Zhao, X.; Che, N.; Gu, Q.; Dong, X.; Yao, Z.; Li, R.; Li, J.; et al. Slug promoted vasculogenic mimicry in hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2013, 17, 1038–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Wang, S.S.; Gao, X.L.; Liu, X.; Gao, S.Y.; Fan, Y.L.; Jiang, Y.P.; Ma, X.R.; Jiang, J.; Feng, H.; Chen, Q.M.; et al. CD133+ cancer stem-like cells promote migration and invasion of salivary adenoid cystic carcinoma by inducing vasculogenic mimicry formation. Oncotarget 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Cao, Z.; Bao, M.; Miele, L.; Sarkar, F.H.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, Q. Tumour vasculogenic mimicry is associated with poor prognosis of human cancer patients: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Cancer 2013, 49, 3914–3923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Ren, K.; Yao, N.; Wang, G.; Tian, L.; Ma, J.; Shi, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, X.; Zhou, G.; et al. Vasculogenic mimicry: A new prognostic sign of human osteosarcoma. Hum. Pathol. 2014, 45, 2120–2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Liang, J.; Yang, B.; Cao, Q.; Wu, X. Association of vasculogenic mimicry formation and CD133 expression with poor prognosis in ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Obstet. Investig. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Gao, Y.; Zhao, X.L.; Gu, Q.; Wang, J.Y.; Zhang, S.W.; Zhang, D.F.; Wang, X.H.; Zhao, N.; Gao, Y.T.; Sun, B.C. Correlation of vasculogenic mimicry with clinicopathologic features and prognosis of ovarian carcinoma. Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi 2009, 38, 585–589. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  87. Li, M.; Gu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, D.; Saleem, A.F.; Zhao, X.; Sun, B. Vasculogenic mimicry: A new prognostic sign of gastric adenocarcinoma. Pathol. Oncol. Res. POR 2010, 16, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Seftor, R.E.; Hess, A.R.; Seftor, E.A.; Kirschmann, D.A.; Hardy, K.M.; Margaryan, N.V.; Hendrix, M.J. Tumor cell vasculogenic mimicry: From controversy to therapeutic promise. Am. J. Pathol. 2012, 181, 1115–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Kleinman, H.K.; Martin, G.R. Matrigel: Basement membrane matrix with biological activity. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2005, 15, 378–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Qi, H.; Sun, B.; Zhao, X.; Du, J.; Gu, Q.; Liu, Y.; Cheng, R.; Dong, X. Wnt5a promotes vasculogenic mimicry and epithelial-mesenchymal transition via protein kinase Cα in epithelial ovarian cancer. Oncol. Rep. 2014, 32, 771–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Yao, L.; Zhang, D.; Zhao, X.; Sun, B.; Liu, Y.; Gu, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, X.; Che, N.; Zheng, Y.; et al. Dickkopf-1-promoted vasculogenic mimicry in non-small cell lung cancer is associated with EMT and development of a cancer stem-like cell phenotype. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Zhang, D.; Sun, B.; Zhao, X.; Ma, Y.; Ji, R.; Gu, Q.; Dong, X.; Li, J.; Liu, F.; Jia, X.; et al. Twist1 expression induced by sunitinib accelerates tumor cell vasculogenic mimicry by increasing the population of CD133+ cells in triple-negative breast cancer. Mol. Cancer 2014, 13, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Du, J.; Sun, B.; Zhao, X.; Gu, Q.; Dong, X.; Mo, J.; Sun, T.; Wang, J.; Sun, R.; Liu, Y. Hypoxia promotes vasculogenic mimicry formation by inducing epithelial-mesenchymal transition in ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 2014, 133, 575–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Wu, S.; Yu, L.; Wang, D.; Zhou, L.; Cheng, Z.; Chai, D.; Ma, L.; Tao, Y. Aberrant expression of CD133 in non-small cell lung cancer and its relationship to vasculogenic mimicry. BMC Cancer 2012, 12, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Meng, J.; Sun, B.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, D.; Zhao, X.; Gu, Q.; Dong, X.; Zhao, N.; Liu, P.; Liu, Y. Doxycycline as an inhibitor of the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and vasculogenic mimicry in hepatocellular carcinoma. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2014, 13, 3107–3122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Zhang, J.G.; Li, X.Y.; Wang, Y.Z.; Zhang, Q.D.; Gu, S.Y.; Wu, X.; Zhu, G.H.; Li, Q.; Liu, G.L. Rock is involved in vasculogenic mimicry formation in hepatocellular carcinoma cell line. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e107661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Kirschmann, D.A.; Seftor, E.A.; Hardy, K.M.; Seftor, R.E.; Hendrix, M.J. Molecular pathways: Vasculogenic mimicry in tumor cells: Diagnostic and therapeutic implications. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 2012, 18, 2726–2732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Francescone, R.; Scully, S.; Bentley, B.; Yan, W.; Taylor, S.L.; Oh, D.; Moral, L.; Shao, R. Glioblastoma-derived tumor cells induce vasculogenic mimicry through FLK-1 protein activation. J. Biol. Chem. 2012, 287, 24821–24831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Yao, X.; Ping, Y.; Liu, Y.; Chen, K.; Yoshimura, T.; Liu, M.; Gong, W.; Chen, C.; Niu, Q.; Guo, D.; et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) plays a key role in vasculogenic mimicry formation, neovascularization and tumor initiation by glioma stem-like cells. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e57188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Van der Schaft, D.W.; Seftor, R.E.; Seftor, E.A.; Hess, A.R.; Gruman, L.M.; Kirschmann, D.A.; Yokoyama, Y.; Griffioen, A.W.; Hendrix, M.J. Effects of angiogenesis inhibitors on vascular network formation by human endothelial and melanoma cells. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2004, 96, 1473–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Xu, Y.; Li, Q.; Li, X.Y.; Yang, Q.Y.; Xu, W.W.; Liu, G.L. Short-term anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment elicits vasculogenic mimicry formation of tumors to accelerate metastasis. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. CR 2012, 31, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Dunleavey, J.M.; Xiao, L.; Thompson, J.; Kim, M.M.; Shields, J.M.; Shelton, S.E.; Irvin, D.M.; Brings, V.E.; Ollila, D.W.; Brekken, R.A.; et al. Vascular channels formed by subpopulations of PECAM1+ melanoma cells. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 5200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Bai, X.L.; Zhang, Q.; Ye, L.Y.; Liang, F.; Sun, X.; Chen, Y.; Hu, Q.D.; Fu, Q.H.; Su, W.; Chen, Z.; et al. Myocyte enhancer factor 2c regulation of hepatocellular carcinoma via vascular endothelial growth factor and Wnt/β-catenin signaling. Oncogene 2015, 34, 4089–4097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Yao, L.; Sun, B.; Zhao, X.; Zhao, X.; Gu, Q.; Dong, X.; Zheng, Y.; Sun, J.; Cheng, R.; Qi, H.; et al. Overexpression of wnt5a promotes angiogenesis in nsclc. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 832562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Qi, L.; Song, W.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, X.; Cao, W.; Sun, B. Wnt3a promotes the vasculogenic mimicry formation of colon cancer via Wnt/β-catenin signaling. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 18564–18579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Qi, L.; Sun, B.; Liu, Z.; Li, H.; Gao, J.; Leng, X. Dickkopf-1 inhibits epithelial-mesenchymal transition of colon cancer cells and contributes to colon cancer suppression. Cancer Sci. 2012, 103, 828–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. La Porta, C. AQP1 is not only a water channel: It contributes to cell migration through Lin7/β-catenin. Cell Adhes. Migr. 2010, 4, 204–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Clapp, C.; Martinez de la Escalera, G. Aquaporin-1: A novel promoter of tumor angiogenesis. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2006, 17, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Holash, J.; Maisonpierre, P.C.; Compton, D.; Boland, P.; Alexander, C.R.; Zagzag, D.; Yancopoulos, G.D.; Wiegand, S.J. Vessel cooption, regression, and growth in tumors mediated by angiopoietins and VEGF. Science 1999, 284, 1994–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Carbonell, W.S.; Ansorge, O.; Sibson, N.; Muschel, R. The vascular basement membrane as “soil” in brain metastasis. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e5857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Valiente, M.; Obenauf, A.C.; Jin, X.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, X.H.; Lee, D.J.; Chaft, J.E.; Kris, M.G.; Huse, J.T.; Brogi, E.; et al. Serpins promote cancer cell survival and vascular co-option in brain metastasis. Cell 2014, 156, 1002–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Sardari Nia, P.; Hendriks, J.; Friedel, G.; van Schil, P.; van Marck, E. Distinct angiogenic and non-angiogenic growth patterns of lung metastases from renal cell carcinoma. Histopathology 2007, 51, 354–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Stessels, F.; van den Eynden, G.; van der Auwera, I.; Salgado, R.; van den Heuvel, E.; Harris, A.L.; Jackson, D.G.; Colpaert, C.G.; van Marck, E.A.; Dirix, L.Y.; et al. Breast adenocarcinoma liver metastases, in contrast to colorectal cancer liver metastases, display a non-angiogenic growth pattern that preserves the stroma and lacks hypoxia. Br. J. Cancer 2004, 90, 1429–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Weisshardt, P.; Trarbach, T.; Durig, J.; Paul, A.; Reis, H.; Tilki, D.; Miroschnik, I.; Ergun, S.; Klein, D. Tumor vessel stabilization and remodeling by antiangiogenic therapy with bevacizumab. Histochem. Cell Biol. 2012, 137, 391–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Arjaans, M.; Oude Munnink, T.H.; Oosting, S.F.; Terwisscha van Scheltinga, A.G.; Gietema, J.A.; Garbacik, E.T.; Timmer-Bosscha, H.; Lub-de Hooge, M.N.; Schroder, C.P.; de Vries, E.G. Bevacizumab-induced normalization of blood vessels in tumors hampers antibody uptake. Cancer Res. 2013, 73, 3347–3355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Franco, M.; Paez-Ribes, M.; Cortez, E.; Casanovas, O.; Pietras, K. Use of a mouse model of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors to find pericyte biomarkers of resistance to antiangiogenic therapy. Horm. Metab. Res. 2011, 43, 884–889. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  117. Di Tomaso, E.; Snuderl, M.; Kamoun, W.S.; Duda, D.G.; Auluck, P.K.; Fazlollahi, L.; Andronesi, O.C.; Frosch, M.P.; Wen, P.Y.; Plotkin, S.R.; et al. Glioblastoma recurrence after cediranib therapy in patients: Lack of “rebound” revascularization as mode of escape. Cancer Res. 2011, 71, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Van den Eynden, G.G.; Bird, N.C.; Majeed, A.W.; Van Laere, S.; Dirix, L.Y.; Vermeulen, P.B. The histological growth pattern of colorectal cancer liver metastases has prognostic value. Clin. Exp. Metastasis 2012, 29, 541–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Kusters, B.; Leenders, W.P.; Wesseling, P.; Smits, D.; Verrijp, K.; Ruiter, D.J.; Peters, J.P.; van Der Kogel, A.J.; de Waal, R.M. Vascular endothelial growth factor-a(165) induces progression of melanoma brain metastases without induction of sprouting angiogenesis. Cancer Res. 2002, 62, 341–345. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  120. Passalidou, E.; Trivella, M.; Singh, N.; Ferguson, M.; Hu, J.; Cesario, A.; Granone, P.; Nicholson, A.G.; Goldstraw, P.; Ratcliffe, C.; et al. Vascular phenotype in angiogenic and non-angiogenic lung non-small cell carcinomas. Br. J. Cancer 2002, 86, 244–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Zhao, C.; Yang, H.; Shi, H.; Wang, X.; Chen, X.; Yuan, Y.; Lin, S.; Wei, Y. Distinct contributions of angiogenesis and vascular co-option during the initiation of primary microtumors and micrometastases. Carcinogenesis 2011, 32, 1143–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Auf, G.; Jabouille, A.; Guerit, S.; Pineau, R.; Delugin, M.; Bouchecareilh, M.; Magnin, N.; Favereaux, A.; Maitre, M.; Gaiser, T.; et al. Inositol-requiring enzyme 1α is a key regulator of angiogenesis and invasion in malignant glioma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 15553–15558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Connor, Y.; Tekleab, S.; Nandakumar, S.; Walls, C.; Tekleab, Y.; Husain, A.; Gadish, O.; Sabbisetti, V.; Kaushik, S.; Sehrawat, S.; et al. Physical nanoscale conduit-mediated communication between tumour cells and the endothelium modulates endothelial phenotype. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 8671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Barnhill, R.L.; Lugassy, C. Angiotropic malignant melanoma and extravascular migratory metastasis: Description of 36 cases with emphasis on a new mechanism of tumour spread. Pathology 2004, 36, 485–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Loges, S.; Mazzone, M.; Hohensinner, P.; Carmeliet, P. Silencing or fueling metastasis with VEGF inhibitors: Antiangiogenesis revisited. Cancer Cell 2009, 15, 167–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Du, R.; Lu, K.V.; Petritsch, C.; Liu, P.; Ganss, R.; Passegue, E.; Song, H.; Vandenberg, S.; Johnson, R.S.; Werb, Z.; et al. HIF1α induces the recruitment of bone marrow-derived vascular modulatory cells to regulate tumor angiogenesis and invasion. Cancer Cell 2008, 13, 206–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Paez-Ribes, M.; Allen, E.; Hudock, J.; Takeda, T.; Okuyama, H.; Vinals, F.; Inoue, M.; Bergers, G.; Hanahan, D.; Casanovas, O. Antiangiogenic therapy elicits malignant progression of tumors to increased local invasion and distant metastasis. Cancer Cell 2009, 15, 220–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Rubenstein, J.L.; Kim, J.; Ozawa, T.; Zhang, M.; Westphal, M.; Deen, D.F.; Shuman, M.A. Anti-VEGF antibody treatment of glioblastoma prolongs survival but results in increased vascular cooption. Neoplasia 2000, 2, 306–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Saidi, A.; Hagedorn, M.; Allain, N.; Verpelli, C.; Sala, C.; Bello, L.; Bikfalvi, A.; Javerzat, S. Combined targeting of interleukin-6 and vascular endothelial growth factor potently inhibits glioma growth and invasiveness. Int. J. Cancer 2009, 125, 1054–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Blouw, B.; Song, H.; Tihan, T.; Bosze, J.; Ferrara, N.; Gerber, H.P.; Johnson, R.S.; Bergers, G. The hypoxic response of tumors is dependent on their microenvironment. Cancer Cell 2003, 4, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Lamszus, K.; Brockmann, M.A.; Eckerich, C.; Bohlen, P.; May, C.; Mangold, U.; Fillbrandt, R.; Westphal, M. Inhibition of glioblastoma angiogenesis and invasion by combined treatments directed against vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, epidermal growth factor receptor, and vascular endothelial-cadherin. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 2005, 11, 4934–4940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Kuczynski, E.A.; Yin, M.; Bar-Zion, A.; Lee, C.R.; Butz, H.; Man, S.; Daley, F.; Vermeulen, P.B.; Yousef, G.M.; Foster, F.S.; et al. Co-option of liver vessels and not sprouting angiogenesis drives acquired sorafenib resistance in hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2016, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Jabouille, A.; Delugin, M.; Pineau, R.; Dubrac, A.; Soulet, F.; Lhomond, S.; Pallares-Lupon, N.; Prats, H.; Bikfalvi, A.; Chevet, E.; et al. Glioblastoma invasion and cooption depend on IRE1Α endoribonuclease activity. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 24922–24934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Saltz, L.B.; Lenz, H.J.; Kindler, H.L.; Hochster, H.S.; Wadler, S.; Hoff, P.M.; Kemeny, N.E.; Hollywood, E.M.; Gonen, M.; Quinones, M.; et al. Randomized phase II trial of cetuximab, bevacizumab, and irinotecan compared with cetuximab and bevacizumab alone in irinotecan-refractory colorectal cancer: The bond-2 study. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 25, 4557–4561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Marslin, G.; Revina, A.M.; Khandelwal, V.K.; Balakumar, K.; Prakash, J.; Franklin, G.; Sheeba, C.J. Delivery as nanoparticles reduces imatinib mesylate-induced cardiotoxicity and improves anticancer activity. Int. J. Nanomed. 2015, 10, 3163–3170. [Google Scholar]
  136. Aguirre-Ghiso, J.A. Models, mechanisms and clinical evidence for cancer dormancy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2007, 7, 834–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Huang, D.; Zhang, S.; Zhong, T.; Ren, W.; Yao, X.; Guo, Y.; Duan, X.C.; Yin, Y.F.; Zhang, S.S.; Zhang, X. Multi-targeting NGR-modified liposomes recognizing glioma tumor cells and vasculogenic mimicry for improving anti-glioma therapy. Oncotarget 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Ju, R.J.; Zeng, F.; Liu, L.; Mu, L.M.; Xie, H.J.; Zhao, Y.; Yan, Y.; Wu, J.S.; Hu, Y.J.; Lu, W.L. Destruction of vasculogenic mimicry channels by targeting epirubicin plus celecoxib liposomes in treatment of brain glioma. Int. J. Nanomed. 2016, 11, 1131–1146. [Google Scholar]
  139. Luo, F.; Yang, K.; Liu, R.L.; Meng, C.; Dang, R.F.; Xu, Y. Formation of vasculogenic mimicry in bone metastasis of prostate cancer: Correlation with cell apoptosis and senescence regulation pathways. Pathol. Res. Pract. 2014, 210, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Liu, H.; Song, Z.; Liao, D.; Zhang, T.; Liu, F.; Zheng, W.; Luo, K.; Yang, L. Mir-503 inhibits cell proliferation and invasion in glioma by targeting L1CAM. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2015, 8, 18441–18447. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  141. Kurozumi, A.; Goto, Y.; Matsushita, R.; Fukumoto, I.; Kato, M.; Nishikawa, R.; Sakamoto, S.; Enokida, H.; Nakagawa, M.; Ichikawa, T.; et al. Tumor-suppressive microRNA-223 inhibits cancer cell migration and invasion by targeting ITGA3/ITGB1 signaling in prostate cancer. Cancer Sci. 2016, 107, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Wang, Z.; Dabrosin, C.; Yin, X.; Fuster, M.M.; Arreola, A.; Rathmell, W.K.; Generali, D.; Nagaraju, G.P.; El-Rayes, B.; Ribatti, D.; et al. Broad targeting of angiogenesis for cancer prevention and therapy. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2015, 35 (Suppl. S224–S243). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijms 17 01489 g001 1024
Figure 1. Antiangiogenic resistant tumors. Murine renal cancer tumors were generated by orthotopic injection of RENCA cells in Balb/C mice. Displayed tumors were obtained from mice treated with vehicle (distilled water with 1.8% NaCl, 0.5% carboxymethylcellulose, 0.4% tween 80 and 0.9% benzylalcohol, pH: 6.0) or Sunitinib (40 mg/kg, five days a week) for 17 days. Tumors were established for 10 days before treatment. All animal protocols were approved by the institutional bioethics committee at Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago, Chile. Approval #024/2014 (26 December 2014).
Figure 1. Antiangiogenic resistant tumors. Murine renal cancer tumors were generated by orthotopic injection of RENCA cells in Balb/C mice. Displayed tumors were obtained from mice treated with vehicle (distilled water with 1.8% NaCl, 0.5% carboxymethylcellulose, 0.4% tween 80 and 0.9% benzylalcohol, pH: 6.0) or Sunitinib (40 mg/kg, five days a week) for 17 days. Tumors were established for 10 days before treatment. All animal protocols were approved by the institutional bioethics committee at Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago, Chile. Approval #024/2014 (26 December 2014).
Ijms 17 01489 g001
Ijms 17 01489 g002 1024
Figure 2. Vasculogenic mimicry in gastric adenocarcinomas: (A,B) Gastric adenocarcinoma sample negative for vasculogenic mimicry (VM), stained with hematoxylin and eosin (HE; Panel A, magnification 200×) or with a dual stain for the endothelial cell marker CD31/PAS (600×); Inset in Panel B (upper left) shows a CD31+ (brown) vessel between two glands; (C,D) VM+ adenocarcinoma sample. Panel C (600×) shows an HE stain, red arrow shows a vessel that contains red blood cells in its lumen; Panel D, CD31/PAS stain (600×) demonstrates two types of vessels. Upper left inset shows a CD31+ (brown, EC marker) vessel. Red arrows highlight a tumor gland CD31− (no brown) PAS+ that contains red blood cells in its lumen. Upper right inset shows a magnification of PAS+/CD31− vessel (VM+). Red frames in panels B and D indicate the area magnified in the respective insets.
Figure 2. Vasculogenic mimicry in gastric adenocarcinomas: (A,B) Gastric adenocarcinoma sample negative for vasculogenic mimicry (VM), stained with hematoxylin and eosin (HE; Panel A, magnification 200×) or with a dual stain for the endothelial cell marker CD31/PAS (600×); Inset in Panel B (upper left) shows a CD31+ (brown) vessel between two glands; (C,D) VM+ adenocarcinoma sample. Panel C (600×) shows an HE stain, red arrow shows a vessel that contains red blood cells in its lumen; Panel D, CD31/PAS stain (600×) demonstrates two types of vessels. Upper left inset shows a CD31+ (brown, EC marker) vessel. Red arrows highlight a tumor gland CD31− (no brown) PAS+ that contains red blood cells in its lumen. Upper right inset shows a magnification of PAS+/CD31− vessel (VM+). Red frames in panels B and D indicate the area magnified in the respective insets.
Ijms 17 01489 g002
Ijms 17 01489 g003 1024
Figure 3. Vascular co-option in vitro model: (A) Merged brightfield-green fluorescent filter image of ECs (unlabeled) co-incubated on day 0 with a cancer sphere (marked with an arrow) composed of cells from the Ishikawa endometrial cancer cell line labeled with the green fluorescent protein ZsGreen; (B) merged image of cancer cells and EC tube formation at Day 5; (C) green filter image at Day 5 showing co-option (fluorescent cancer cells growing exclusively upon the tubular structures formed by the ECs in matrigel); and (D) zoom immunocytochemistry of EC (CD31+, stained red)-cancer cell (ZsGreen fluorescent) co-cultures. (Scale bars for A, B, C: 100 μm.)
Figure 3. Vascular co-option in vitro model: (A) Merged brightfield-green fluorescent filter image of ECs (unlabeled) co-incubated on day 0 with a cancer sphere (marked with an arrow) composed of cells from the Ishikawa endometrial cancer cell line labeled with the green fluorescent protein ZsGreen; (B) merged image of cancer cells and EC tube formation at Day 5; (C) green filter image at Day 5 showing co-option (fluorescent cancer cells growing exclusively upon the tubular structures formed by the ECs in matrigel); and (D) zoom immunocytochemistry of EC (CD31+, stained red)-cancer cell (ZsGreen fluorescent) co-cultures. (Scale bars for A, B, C: 100 μm.)
Ijms 17 01489 g003
Ijms 17 01489 g004 1024
Figure 4. Strategies employed by cancer cells to escape antiangiogenesis. Summary of the strategies reviewed in this article. Growing tumors require a blood supply, which is obtained by the production of VEGF that stimulates angiogenesis. Most antiangiogenic compounds target the VEGF pathway (Angiogenesis Blockade). However, tumors can overcome angiogenesis blockade by upregulation of alternative pathways such as angiopoietins or growth factors. In addition, a subset of cells within the tumor can switch to an epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) phenotype establishing a tumor perfusion system within a tumor; independent of endothelial cells a process known as vasculogenic mimicry. Lastly, tumor cells can obtain their blood supply by “hijacking” pre-existent blood vessel through vessel co-option.
Figure 4. Strategies employed by cancer cells to escape antiangiogenesis. Summary of the strategies reviewed in this article. Growing tumors require a blood supply, which is obtained by the production of VEGF that stimulates angiogenesis. Most antiangiogenic compounds target the VEGF pathway (Angiogenesis Blockade). However, tumors can overcome angiogenesis blockade by upregulation of alternative pathways such as angiopoietins or growth factors. In addition, a subset of cells within the tumor can switch to an epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) phenotype establishing a tumor perfusion system within a tumor; independent of endothelial cells a process known as vasculogenic mimicry. Lastly, tumor cells can obtain their blood supply by “hijacking” pre-existent blood vessel through vessel co-option.
Ijms 17 01489 g004
Table
Table 1. Antiangiogenic compounds currently approved by the USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Table 1. Antiangiogenic compounds currently approved by the USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Drug Name (Commercial)Cancer Type (Recommended Use)Main Mechanism of Action
Bevacizumab (Avastin)Metastatic colorectalVEGF antibody
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC)
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Ovarian
Ramucirumab (Cyramza)Advanced stomachVEGFR2 antibody
Gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma
NSCLC
Metastatic colorectal
Cetuximab (Erbitux)CRCEGFR antibody
Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
NSCLC
Panitumumab (Vectibix)CRCEGFR antibody
Trastuzumab (Herceptin)HER2+ breast cancerEGFR antibody
Aflibercept (Zaltrap or Eylea)Colorectal cancer (CRC)VEGF-trap *
Sunitinib (Sotent)RCCTKI
Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs)
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs)
Axitinib (Inlyta)RCCTKI
Vandetanib (Caprelsa)Medullary carcinoma of thyroidTKI
Lenvatinib (Lenvima)ThyroidTKI
Pazopanib (Votrient)RCCTKI
Soft tissue sarcoma
Cabozantinib (Cometriq)Medullary thyroid cancerTKI
Erlotinib (Tarceva)Pancreatic cancerTKI
Gefitinib (Iressa)Lung cancerTKI
Breast cancer
Imatinib (Glivec)Chronic myeloid leukemiaTKI
Acute lymphoid leukemia
GISTs
Lapatinib (Tyverb)HER2+ breast cancerTKI
Sorafenib (Nexavar)Hepatocellular carcinomaTKI
RCC
Thyroid
Regorafenib (Stivarga)Refractory metastatic colorectalTKI
Advanced GISTs
Thalidomide (Thalomid)Multiple myelomaImmunomodulator
Lenalidomide (Revlimid)Multiple myelomaImmunomodulator
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
Rapamycin (Sirolimus)RCCmTOR inhibitor
Temsirolimus (Torisel)RCCmTOR inhibitor
Everolimus (Afinitor)RCCmTOR inhibitor
Advanced breast
PNETs
Abbreviations: TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor; mTOR, mammalian target of rapamycin. * For a full description of VEGF-trap see text.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pinto, M.P.; Sotomayor, P.; Carrasco-Avino, G.; Corvalan, A.H.; Owen, G.I. Escaping Antiangiogenic Therapy: Strategies Employed by Cancer Cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 1489. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17091489

AMA Style

Pinto MP, Sotomayor P, Carrasco-Avino G, Corvalan AH, Owen GI. Escaping Antiangiogenic Therapy: Strategies Employed by Cancer Cells. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2016; 17(9):1489. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17091489

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pinto, Mauricio P., Paula Sotomayor, Gonzalo Carrasco-Avino, Alejandro H. Corvalan, and Gareth I. Owen. 2016. "Escaping Antiangiogenic Therapy: Strategies Employed by Cancer Cells" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 17, no. 9: 1489. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17091489

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop