International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2018
Clarifying the Relative Impacts of Vascular and Nerve Injury That Culminate in Erectile Dysfunction in a Pilot Study Using a Rat Model of Prostate Irradiation and a Thrombopoietin Mimetic.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ashcraft Kathleen A, Hannan Johanna L, Eichenbaum Gary, Zhang Xiaojie, Pak Elena S, Faught Austin M, Patel Pranalee, Dewhirst Mark W, Koontz Bridget F
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Radiation therapy (RT) offers an important and curative approach to treating prostate cancer, but it is associated with a high incidence of erectile dysfunction (ED). It is not clear whether the etiology of radiation-induced ED (RI-ED) is driven by RT-mediated injury to the vasculature, the nerves, or both. This pilot study sought to distinguish the effects of vascular and nerve injury in RI-ED by applying a vascular radioprotectant in a rat model of prostate RT.
METHODS: A single dose of the thrombopoietin mimetic (TPOm; RWJ-800088), previously shown to mitigate radiation-induced vascular injury, was administered 10 minutes after single-fraction conformal prostate RT. Nine weeks after RT, rats were assessed for erectile and arterial function. Nerve markers were quantified with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Immunofluorescent microscopy further characterized vascular effects of RT and TPOm.
RESULTS: Sham animals and animals that received RT and TPOm showed significant arterial vasodilation in response to systemic hydralazine (24.1% ± 7.3% increase; P = .03 in paired t test). However, animals that received RT and vehicle were unable to mount a vasodilatory response (-7.4% ± 9.9% increase; P = .44 in paired t test). TPOm prevented RT-induced change in the penile artery cross-sectional area (P = .036), but it did not ameliorate cavernous nerve injury as evaluated by gene expression of neuronal injury markers. Despite significant structural and functional vascular protective effects and some trends for differences in nerve injury/recovery markers, TPOm did not prevent RI-ED at 9 weeks, as assessed by intracavernous pressure monitoring after cavernous nerve stimulation.
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that vascular protection alone is not sufficient to prevent RI-ED and that cavernous nerve injury plays a key role in RI-ED. Further research is required to delineate the multifactorial nature of RI-ED and to determine if TPOm with modified dosing regimens can mitigate against nerve injury either through direct or vascular protective effects.
METHODS: A single dose of the thrombopoietin mimetic (TPOm; RWJ-800088), previously shown to mitigate radiation-induced vascular injury, was administered 10 minutes after single-fraction conformal prostate RT. Nine weeks after RT, rats were assessed for erectile and arterial function. Nerve markers were quantified with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Immunofluorescent microscopy further characterized vascular effects of RT and TPOm.
RESULTS: Sham animals and animals that received RT and TPOm showed significant arterial vasodilation in response to systemic hydralazine (24.1% ± 7.3% increase; P = .03 in paired t test). However, animals that received RT and vehicle were unable to mount a vasodilatory response (-7.4% ± 9.9% increase; P = .44 in paired t test). TPOm prevented RT-induced change in the penile artery cross-sectional area (P = .036), but it did not ameliorate cavernous nerve injury as evaluated by gene expression of neuronal injury markers. Despite significant structural and functional vascular protective effects and some trends for differences in nerve injury/recovery markers, TPOm did not prevent RI-ED at 9 weeks, as assessed by intracavernous pressure monitoring after cavernous nerve stimulation.
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that vascular protection alone is not sufficient to prevent RI-ED and that cavernous nerve injury plays a key role in RI-ED. Further research is required to delineate the multifactorial nature of RI-ED and to determine if TPOm with modified dosing regimens can mitigate against nerve injury either through direct or vascular protective effects.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AnimalsArteriesDisease Models, AnimalErectile DysfunctionHydralazineIntercellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsMaleManometryPenile ErectionPenisPeptidesPilot ProjectsProstateRadiation-Protective AgentsRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionTime FactorsUltrasonographyVasodilationVasodilator Agents