Cited by 612Angiogenesis and VEGF in CancerMathematical Biology Tumor GrowthLymphatic System and Diseases

Effect of Vascular Normalization by Antiangiogenic Therapy on Interstitial Hypertension, Peritumor Edema, and Lymphatic Metastasis: Insights from a Mathematical Model

Open access
Jain, Rakesh K., Tong, Ricky T., Munn, Lance L.·2007·Cancer Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Preclinical and clinical evidence shows that antiangiogenic agents can decrease tumor vessel permeability and interstitial fluid pressure (IFP) in a process of vessel “normalization.” The resulting normalized vasculature has more efficient perfusion, but little is known about how tumor IFP and interstitial fluid velocity (IFV) are affected by changes in transport properties of the vessels and interstitium that are associated with antiangiogenic therapy. By using a mathematical model to simulate IFP and IFV profiles in tumors, we show here that antiangiogenic therapy can decrease IFP by decreasing the tumor size, vascular hydraulic permeability, and/or the surface area per unit tissue volume of tumor vessels. Within a certain window of antiangiogenic effects, interstitial convection within the tumor can increase dramatically, whereas fluid convection out of the tumor margin decreases. This would result in increased drug convection within the tumor and decreased convection of drugs, growth factors, or metastatic cancer cells from the tumor margin into the peritumor fluid or tissue. Decreased convection of growth factors, such as vascular endothelial growth factor-C (VEGF-C), would limit peritumor hyperplasia, and decreased VEGF-A would limit angiogenesis in sentinel lymph nodes. Both of these effects would reduce the probability of lymphatic metastasis. Finally, decreased fluid convection into the peritumor tissue would decrease peritumor edema associated with brain tumors and ascites accumulation in the peritoneal or pleural cavity, a major complication with a number of malignancies. [Cancer Res 2007;67(6):2729–35]

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/0008-5472.can-06-4102

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Steep pressure gradients at the tumor periphery favor tumor growth and metastasis.

    “The uniformly elevated IFP in tumor center is responsible for inhibiting drug delivery [172, 178, 186] while the steep pressure gradients at the periphery favors tumor growth and metastasis[154,[187][188][189][190].”

    From Microfluidic modelling of the tumor microenvironment for anti-cancer drug development (2019) · cites this paper as [187]

    The Introduction says pressure falls sharply at the tumor margin, creating fluid flow that transports molecules and cells facilitating angiogenesis and metastasis. The Mathematical model section says less steep gradients could potentially reduce lymphatic metastasis. The paper does not explicitly link the peripheral gradient to tumor growth, and presents its effect on metastasis as a proposed mechanism rather than an established outcome. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jain, R. K., Tong, R. T., & Munn, L. L.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
Cancer Research
Published
2007-03-15
Volume
67
Issue
6
Pages
2729-2735
ISSN
  • 0008-5472 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-7445
OpenAlex
W2055009621
Cited by
612
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 46
FWCI
14.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01 CA 85140, R01CA085140, P01CA080124)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Angiogenesis and VEGF in Cancer
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › Mathematical Biology Tumor Growth
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Lymphatic System and Diseases
Keywords
tumor vasculature normalization, anti-angiogenic therapy, interstitial fluid pressure, interstitial fluid velocity, lymph node metastasis, VEGF-C, VEGF-A, sentinel lymph node metastasis, brain tumors, ascites
MeSH terms
Animals, Capillary Permeability, Edema, Humans, Lymphatic Metastasis, Mathematical Computing, Models, Biological, Neoplasms, Neovascularization, Pathologic, Angiogenesis Inhibitors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-2, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor C, Extracellular Fluid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review