IOVS Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2006;47:1264-1268.)
© 2006 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
DOI:  10.1167/iovs.05-1194
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jockovich, M.-E.
Right arrow Articles by Feuer, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jockovich, M.-E.
Right arrow Articles by Feuer, W.

Anecortave Acetate as Single and Adjuvant Therapy in the Treatment of Retinal Tumors of LHBETATAG Mice

Maria-Elena Jockovich, Timothy G. Murray, Erika Escalona-Benz, Eleut Hernandez, and William Feuer

From the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
PURPOSE. To evaluate the tumor control efficacy of the antiangiogenic agent anecortave acetate as single and combined therapy, in retinal tumor reduction using the LHBETATAG mouse model of retinoblastoma.

METHODS. Group A: Ten-week-old, LHBETATAG mice received a single subconjunctival injection of anecortave acetate (1200, 600, 300, and 150 µg) delivered to right eyes only. Group B: Ten-week-old, LHBETATAG mice received a single subconjunctival injection of anecortave acetate (600, 300, and 150 µg) delivered to right eyes only, either during a cycle of carboplatin (six subconjunctival deliveries) or after the completed cycle. Carboplatin was delivered at the subtherapeutic concentration of 62.5 µg. All animals were euthanatized at 16 weeks of age, and the eyes were examined histopathologically.

RESULTS. A statistically significant reduction in tumor burden was detected after a single periocular injection of anecortave acetate. The reduction of tumor burden followed a U-shaped dose–response curve. Tumor burden was significantly decreased when anecortave acetate and carboplatin were combined. However, varying doses and delivery schedule of these agents had significant impact on the effectiveness of the combined treatment. The most effective scheme was delivering a low dose (150–300 µg) of anecortave acetate after a complete cycle of carboplatin. Histopathological evaluation showed no signs of retinal toxicity to anecortave acetate delivery alone or in combination with carboplatin.

CONCLUSIONS. Anecortave acetate, as monotherapy or as adjuvant therapy, significantly controlled tumor burden in a murine model of retinoblastoma. Moreover, adjuvant therapy enabled the use of typically subtherapeutic carboplatin doses without decreasing efficacy of the therapy.

Retinoblastoma represents one of the most common malignant tumors of childhood, with an incidence of 1 in 15,000 live births.1 Over the past century, significant advances in screening and treatment have led to virtually all children being cured of the primary eye cancer. Recently, clinical advances have focused on increasing tumor control and globe conservation with attendant preservation of sight.2 3 4 5 6 Current available treatments include laser therapy, cryotherapy, external beam radiotherapy, charged-particle radiation, and systemic chemotherapy.7 8 Serious concerns exist regarding the significant morbidity and potential mortality associated with current therapies in the treatment of retinoblastoma; therefore, newer therapeutic modalities are being investigated.9 10

Vasculature is critical to the survival of solid tumors, and angiogenesis has been found to be a prerequisite for continued tumor growth.11 12 Angiogenesis involves the formation of new capillary blood vessels from preexisting vessels through a complex cascade of events.12 The inhibition of one or more of these events is of potential therapeutic value for those pathologic conditions in which abnormal angiogenesis is a factor. This finding has led to the development of many antiangiogenic agents for cancer therapy.13 14 15

Retinoblastoma tumors are highly vascularized and depend on vascular supply for viability.16 The capacity of these tumors to promote angiogenesis has been demonstrated.17 18 19 Angiogenic factors, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptors, Flt-1 and KDR, have been localized to areas of novel vasculature in human retinoblastoma tumors.20 21 The angiogenic potential of retinoblastoma correlates with invasive growth and metastasis and is associated with poor prognosis.22 23 24 The increased vascularity and propensity for stimulation of angiogenesis in retinoblastoma may make these tumors sensitive to vasculature targeting agents.

Anecortave acetate is an antiangiogenic agent that inhibits blood vessel growth in several preclinical models of angiogenesis, including rat mammary carcinoma, rabbit cornea, rat cornea, rat model of retinopathy of prematurity, and murine intraocular tumors.25 26 27 28 29 30 Anecortave acetate is a cortisol derivative devoid of conventional glucocorticoid receptor–mediated activity (Clark AF et al., IOVS 1994;35:ARVO E-Abstract 1483).31 As a result, it also does not demonstrate the significant deleterious ocular side effects associated with ocular glucocorticoid therapy (cataracts and elevation of intraocular pressure). Anecortave acetate has been shown to inhibit pathologic retinal angiogenesis, while not significantly affecting physiologic retinal microvasculature.25 Furthermore, it has been shown to be safe in human clinical studies.32 33 34 35 This drug may therefore hold therapeutic potential for several ocular conditions in which angiogenesis appears to play a critical pathophysiological role, including intraocular tumors.

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of anecortave acetate as a monotherapy and as an adjuvant therapy in controlling retinal tumor growth, using the LHBETATAG mouse model of retinoblastoma.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The study protocol was approved by the School of Medicine Animal Care and Use Review Board, University of Miami. All experiments in the study were conducted in accordance with the ARVO Statement for the Use of Animals in Ophthalmic and Vision Research.

The LHBETATAG transgenic mouse model used in the study has been characterized previously.36 37 38 Briefly, a highly expressed transgene drives retinal tumor development by overexpression of the SV40 large T antigen. In transgenic animals bilateral, retinal tumors develop that resemble human retinoblastoma. At 10 weeks of age, tumors in this animal model are typically moderate in size (occupying approximately 20%–25% of the retinal area and 10%–25% of the ocular volume). At 16 weeks of age retinal tumors in these mice usually fill the orbit.

LHBETATAG mice, six animals per treatment group, were treated at 10 weeks of age. This number was determined with a power study performed on computer (Solo Power Analysis program; BMDP Statistical Software, Los Angeles, CA) based on pilot studies from our laboratory.

Subconjunctival Injections in Transgenic Mice
Only right eyes received subconjunctival injections, left eyes remained untreated and are used as the internal control.

LHBETATAG mice received a single subconjunctival injection of anecortave acetate (Alcon Pharmaceuticals, Fort Worth, TX) to the right eyes at doses of 1200, 600, 300, or 150 µg in a 20-µL volume. Anecortave acetate dilutions were performed in vehicle (provided by the manufacturer). Injections were delivered with a 33-gauge needle inserted into the superotemporal subconjunctival space.

For the combined treatment study anecortave acetate (600, 300, or 150 µg) was delivered after two (during the cycle) or six (completed cycle) carboplatin injections. Carboplatin was delivered at the subtherapeutic dose of 62.5 µg per injection,39 delivered every 72 hours. Anecortave acetate was delivered 24 hours after the second or sixth carboplatin treatment.

Histopathological Study of Transgenic Mice
At 16 weeks of age, all animals were euthanatized with CO2 fumes. Both eyes were enucleated and immediately immersion fixed in 10% formalin. The eyes were embedded in paraffin, sectioned serially in 5-µm sections, and processed for standard hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) analysis. Light microscopic examination was performed on all histopathologic sections in a masked fashion. Microscopic images of all hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)–stained sections (sixty 5.0-µm sections per eye) were obtained with a digital camera at a magnification of 40x. Tumor boundaries were traced and areas analyzed (Image Pro Express Software; Media Cybernetics, Silver Spring, MD) to determine the section with the largest tumor. The maximum tumor area was used in subsequent analyses.

Statistical Analyses
Tumor size response to anecortave acetate dose was investigated with analysis of variance. Orthogonal polynomial decomposition was used to test for linear and quadratic trend effects of dose. The influence of delivery of anecortave acetate relative to carboplatin delivery was assessed by fitting tumor size as the dependent variable in a regression model with three independent variables: anecortave acetate dose, anecortave acetate delivery time relative to carboplatin delivery, and dose delivery time interaction. Similar results were obtained when models were constructed in which globe size was included as an independent variable and in which the ratio of tumor size to globe size was the dependent variable. The influence of combining both therapeutic agents, relative to untreated control subjects or to the single anecortave acetate treatment, was performed by using a least-significant-difference post hoc comparison after one-way ANOVA on tumor size square root transformed to effect homogeneity of variance.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
A significant (P = 0.012, quadratic dose–response) reduction in tumor size was seen at the lower doses (150–600 µg) of anecortave acetate tested (Fig. 1) . Whereas the highest dose (1200 µg) did not significantly reduce tumor size. Variability in tumor size was not significantly related to anecortave acetate dose (P = 0.12, Levine test). The dose–response curve followed a U-shaped, biphasic trend. Although, tumor size in treated eyes was markedly reduced compared with that in fellow eyes and untreated control eyes, complete control of tumor burden did not occur at the tested doses. All eyes harbored tumors in fellow, untreated eyes.


Figure 1
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1. Anecortave acetate, single therapy. A statistically significant reduction in tumor burden (P = 0.012) was measured after a single treatment of anecortave acetate. Tumor areas were normalized to the mean of the untreated controls. Error bars, SD.

 
We evaluated the hypothesis that adjuvant therapy with anecortave acetate could reduce the necessary dose of the toxic chemotherapeutic drug carboplatin needed to treat retinoblastoma successfully. In this study, various doses of anecortave acetate were combined with a constant subtherapeutic dose of carboplatin. Previous studies have established the tumor control dose (TCD)50 of carboplatin at six of 138.5 µg injections.39 Thus, a dose known to provide minimal tumor control (62.5 µg) was tested. To asses the effect of delivery schedule in the combined treatment, two delivery schemes were tested. Anecortave acetate was delivered during the six injection carboplatin treatment (after two carboplatin deliveries) or after the carboplatin series was completed.

Complete tumor control was observed in two of the six eyes that received 150 µg anecortave acetate after six carboplatin deliveries. Statistical analysis found tumor size to be significantly related to anecortave acetate dose (P = 0.043; Figs. 1 2 ) and time of anecortave acetate delivery relative to carboplatin (P = 0.027; Fig. 2 ). A statistical interaction between these two variables was found (P = 0.063). Further analyses of tumor size were performed, including control animals receiving no treatment and animals treated with anecortave acetate at doses of 150 and 300 µg alone or after the complete carboplatin cycle. This analysis demonstrated that anecortave acetate reduced tumor sizes compared with control tumors (P = 0.039) and that anecortave acetate delivery after a complete carboplatin cycle further reduced tumor sizes compared with anecortave acetate treatment alone (P = 0.008).


Figure 2
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2. Anecortave acetate and carboplatin combined therapy. Tumor response after combined therapy with anecortave acetate delivered after two (blk12) or six ({square}) carboplatin injections. Untreated, carboplatin only (62.5 µg), and the anecortave acetate control ({blacksquare}) are shown for comparison. Tumor size was significantly related to anecortave acetate dose (P = 0.043) and time of anecortave acetate delivery relative to carboplatin (P = 0.027). A statistical interaction between these two variables was found (P = 0.063). Tumor areas were normalized to the mean of the untreated control. Error bars, SD.

 
Histopathology showed no evidence of corneal, lenticular, choroidal, or retinal toxicity after anecortave acetate delivery as monotherapy, or combined with subtherapeutic carboplatin (Fig. 3) . The uninvolved retina in the treated eyes showed normal morphology in all experimental eyes. No evidence of systemic toxicity was observed.


Figure 3
View larger version (92K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3. Histopathology sections of enucleated globes. Representative globe sections of 16-week-old LHBETATAG mice: (A) untreated; (B) 150 µg anecortave acetate; (C) 150 µg anecortave acetate after two carboplatin injections; (D) 150 µg anecortave acetate after six carboplatin injections. H&E; magnification, x40.

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Inhibition of angiogenesis has been proposed as a therapeutic strategy for solid tumors13 14 15 including pediatric malignancies.40 Antiangiogenic therapy is emerging as a possible treatment option for retinoblastoma, given the tumor’s dependence on vascular supply and its potential to promote angiogenesis, particularly in cases of advanced disease.

In the LHBETATAG model of retinoblastoma, two different vessel-targeting agents were effective treatments for this malignancy. Previously, we have reported that the first vessel-targeting agent, combretastatin A4, a tubulin-binding agent that disrupts blood flow through immature vasculature, effectively reduced retinal tumor burden in LHBETATAG mice.41 In this study, we present data on the second vasculature targeting agent, the antiangiogenic anecortave acetate, that suggest that inhibition of novel blood vessel formation is also effective in retinal tumor reduction in this model. Although a statistically significant reduction in tumor size was measured after a single treatment with either vessel-targeting agent, complete control of tumor burden is not achieved. These data suggest that the most effective clinical application of vessel-targeting agents in the treatment of solid tumors is obtained in combination with existing anticancer treatment modalities, including chemotherapy.

A challenge of using antiangiogenic agents as therapeutics is dose optimization. Many antiangiogenic agents display a nonconventional (U-shaped, biphasic) dose response.42 43 44 This dose–response curve was also seen when anecortave acetate is used in the treatment of retinal tumor burden within LHBETATAG mice (this study) and in the treatment of subfoveal lesions in age-related macular degeneration.34 35 This atypical dose–response was also evident in the combined treatment, where optimal delivery schedule was dose specific. Explanations of this atypical dose–response have included receptor desensitization,45 problems with drug penetration at higher doses or dose-dependent differences in biological response.46 However, the mechanism leading to this dose–response curve is still to be elucidated. This fact must be considered in the design of human anticancer trials.

Antiangiogenic and cytotoxic chemotherapy potentially yield maximum effects when combined, because different compartments of the tumor are targeted: cancer cells and endothelial cells.47 Targeting vasculature, however, may compromise delivery of chemotherapy to the tumor and antagonize the effect of the combined therapy.48 The efficacy of the combined treatment modality thus depends on appropriate vasculature targeting relative to chemotherapy. As seen in the present study, delivery of the lowest dose of anecortave acetate during carboplatin treatment led to antagonism between the two therapies. Conversely, an additive effect was detected when vessels were targeted after the complete cycle of chemotherapy. These results can be interpreted to mean that vessel targeting during chemotherapy compromises further delivery of carboplatin. Vessel targeting after chemotherapy may trap carboplatin within tumors yielding better tumor control.

Focally delivered carboplatin has been advocated due to existing concerns regarding significant morbidity and potential mortality caused by drug-related toxicity. Focal delivery has the benefits associated with chemoreductive treatment and conceivably spares children the associated toxicities and mutagenic potential of systemic delivery of chemotherapy.10 We have recently shown that focal delivery of carboplatin effectively distributes more drug to the ocular tissues than does systemic delivery.49 However, clinical trials to assess the efficacy of subconjunctival carboplatin suggest that although efficacious, toxicities such as optic atrophy50 and ocular motility changes due to soft tissue alterations51 are observed. Results from the present study suggest that carboplatin doses can be markedly reduced when combined with vessel-targeting adjuvant therapy, without compromising the efficacy of the drug. This combined treatment modality may provide an excellent therapeutic option for children with advanced disease.

In summary, therapy using vasculature targeting agents in combination with subconjunctival chemotherapy may represent a novel option in the treatment of pediatric retinoblastoma. The potential of combination treatment incorporating anecortave acetate or other vessel-targeting agents may allow enhanced tumor reduction enabling a decrease in standard treatment doses for chemotherapy. However, dosage regimens must be optimized to prevent antagonizing effects.


   Footnotes
 
Supported by Alcon Laboratories, Inc., National Eye Institute Grant R01 EY013629 and Center Grant P30 EY014801; and an unrestricted grant to the University of Miami from Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc.

Submitted for publication September 7, 2005; revised October 19 and November 29, 2005; accepted January 19, 2006.

Disclosure: M.-E. Jockovich, Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (F); T.G. Murray, Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (F); E. Escalona-Benz, Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (F); E. Hernandez, Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (F); W. Feuer, Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (F)

The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. This article must therefore be marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Corresponding author: Timothy G. Murray, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, P.O. Box 016880, Miami, FL 33101; tmurray{at}med.miami.edu.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Tamboli A, Podgor MJ, Horm JW. The incidence of retinoblastoma in the United States: 1974 through 1985. Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108:128–132.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Abramson DH. Retinoblastoma: diagnosis and management. Cancer J Clin. 1982;32:130–140.
  3. Char D. Clinical Ocular Oncology. 1989;207–224. Churchill Livingstone Inc New York.
  4. Sheilds JS, Shields CL. Intraocular Tumors: A Text and Atlas. 1992;377–392. WB Saunders Co Philadelphia.
  5. Shields JA, Shields CL. Current management of retinoblastoma. Mayo Clin Proc. 1994;69:50–56.[Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Scott IU, Murray TG, Feuer WJ, et al. External beam radiotherapy in retinoblastoma: a comparison of two techniques. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:766–770.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Scott IU, O’Brien JM, Murray TG. Retinoblastoma: a review emphasizing genetics and management strategies. Semin Ophthalmol. 1997;12:59–71.[CrossRef]
  8. O’Brien JM, Smith BJ. Chemotherapy in the treatment of retinoblastoma. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 1996;36:11–24.[Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Mohney BG, Robertson DM, Schomberg PJ, et al. Second nonocular tumors in survivors of heritable retinoblastoma and prior radiation therapy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126:269–277.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Benz MS, Scott IU, Murray TG, et al. Complications of systemic chemotherapy as treatment of retinoblastoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:577–578.[Free Full Text]
  11. Folkman J, Cotran R. Relation of vascular proliferation to tumor growth. Int Rev Exp Pathol. 1976;16:207–248.[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Hanahan D, Folkman J. Patterns and emerging mechanisms of the angiogenic switch during tumorigenesis. Cell. 1996;86:353–634.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Liekens S, De Clercq E, Neyts J. Angiogenesis: regulators and clinical applications. Biochem Pharmacol. 2001;61:253–270.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Rosen L. Antiangiogenic strategies and agents in clinical trials. The Oncologist. 2000;5:20–27.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Nihei Y, Suzuki M, Okano A, et al. Evaluation of antivascular and antimitotic effects of tubulin binding agents in solid tumor therapy. Jpn J Can Res. 1999;90:1387–1395.[CrossRef]
  16. Burnier MN, McLean IW, Zimmerman LE, Rosenberg SH. retinoblastoma: the relationship of proliferating cells to blood vessels. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1990;31:2037–2040.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Albert DM, Tapper D, Robinson NL, Felman R. Retinoblastoma and angiogenesis activity. Retina. 1984;4:189–194.[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Tapper D, Langer R, Bellows AR, Folkman J. Angiogenesis capacity as a diagnostic marker for human eye tumors. Surgery. 1979;86:36–40.[Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Walton DS, Grant WM. Retinoblastoma and iris neovascularization. Am J Ophthalmol. 1968;65:598–599.[Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Stitt AW, Simpson DA, Boocock C, et al. Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptors is regulated in eyes with intra-ocular tumours. J Pathol. 1998;186:306–312.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Kvanta A, Steen B, Seregard S. Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in retinoblastoma but not in posterior uveal melanoma. Exp Eye Res. 1996;63:511–518.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Marback EF, Arias VE, Paranhos A, Jr, et al. Tumour angiogenesis as a prognostic factor for disease dissemination in retinoblastoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:1224–1228.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Kerimogglu H, Kiratli H, Dincturk AA, Soylemezoglu F, Bilgic S. Quantitative analysis of proliferation, apoptosis, and angiogenesis in retinoblastoma and their association with the clinicopathologic parameters. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2003;47:565–571.[CrossRef][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Rossler J, Dietrich T, Pavlakovic H, et al. Higher vessel densities in retinoblastoma with local invasive growth and metastasis. Am J Pathol. 2004;164:391–394.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Penn JS, Rajaratnam VS, Collier RJ, Clark AF. The effect of an angiostatic steroid on neovascularization in a rat model of retinopathy of prematurity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:283–290.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Oikawa T, Hiragun A, Yoshida Y, et al. Angiogenic activity of rat mammary carcinomas induced by 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene and its inhibitions by medroxyprogesterone acetate: possible involvement of antiangiogenic action of medroxyprogesterone acetate in its tumor growth inhibition. Cancer Lett. 1988;43:85–92.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. McNatt LG, Li WW, Casey R, Gonzalez EM, Folkman J. Angiostatic steroids potentiated by sulfated cyclodextrins inhibit corneal neovascularization. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991;32:2898–2905.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. BenEzra D, Griffin BW, Maftzir G, et al. Topical formulations of novel angiostatic steroids inhibit rabbit corneal neovascularization. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:1954–1962.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Proia AD, Hirakata A, McInnes JS, et al. The effect of angiostatic steroids and b-cyclodextrin tetradecasulfate on corneal neovascularization in the rat. Exp Eye Res. 1993;57:693–698.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Clark AF, Mellon J, Li XY, et al. Inhibition of intraocular tumor growth by topical application of the angiostatic steroid anecortave acetate. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:2158–2162.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Clark AF. AL-3789: a novel ophthalmic angiostatic steroid. Exp Opin Invest Drugs. 1997;6:1867–1877.[CrossRef]
  32. Schmidt-Erfurth U, Michels S, Michels R, Aue A. Anecortave acetate for the treatment of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2005;15:482–485.[Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Augustin AJ, D’Amico DJ, Mieler WF, Schneebaum C, Beasley C. Safety of posterior juxtascleral depot administration of the angiostatic cortisene anecortave acetate for treatment of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243:9–12.[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. D’Amico DJ, Goldberg MF, Hudson H, Anecortave Acetate Clinical Study Groupet al. Anecortave acetate as monotherapy for treatment of subfoveal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: twelve-month clinical outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2372–2333.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. D’Amico DJ, Goldberg MF, Hudson H, et al. Anecortave Acetate Clinical Study Group. Anecortave acetate as monotherapy for the treatment of subfoveal lesions in patients with exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD): interim (month 6) analysis of clinical safety and efficacy. Retina. 2003;23:14–23.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Windle JJ, Albert DM, O’Brien JM, et al. Retinoblastoma in transgenic mice. Nature. 1990;343:665–669.[CrossRef][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Mills MD, Windle JJ, Albert DM. Retinoblastoma in transgenic mice: models of hereditary retinoblastoma. Surv Ophthalmol. 1999;43:508–518.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Albert DM, Griep AE, Lambert PF, et al. Transgenic models of retinoblastoma: what they tell us about its cause and treatment. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1994;92:385–401.[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  39. Hayden BC, Murray TG, Scott IU, et al. Subconjunctival carboplatin in retinoblastoma: impact of tumor burden and dose schedule. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1549–1554.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Schweigerer L. Antiangiogenesis as a novel therapeutic concept in pediatric oncology. J Mol Med. 1995;73:497–508.[Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Escalona-Benz E, Jockovich ME, Murray TG, et al. Combretastatin A-4 prodrug in the treatment of a murine model of retinoblastoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:8–11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Pepper MS, Vassalli JD, Orci L, Montesano R. Biphasic effect of transforming growth factor-beta 1 on in vitro angiogenesis. Exp Cell Res. 1993;204:356–363.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Weis M, Heeschen C, Glassford AJ, Cooke JP. Statins have biphasic effects on angiogenesis. Circulation. 2002;105:739–745.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Nyberg P, Heikkila P, Sorsa T, et al. Endostatin inhibits human tongue carcinoma cell invasion and intravasation and blocks the activation of matrix metalloprotease-2, -9, and -13. J Biol Chem. 2003;278:22404–22411.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Clarke MS. Anecortave acetate (Letter). Ophthalmology. 2004;111:2316.author reply 2316–2317.[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  46. Miller JW, Lane AM, Anecortave Acetate Clinical Study Group. Anecortave acetate as monotherapy for treatment of subfoveal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: twelve-month clinical outcomes (Discussion). Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2384–2385.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  47. Teicher BA. A systems approach to cancer therapy: antioncogenics + standard cytotoxics->mechanism(s) of interaction. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 1996;15:247–272.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  48. Ma J, Pulfer S, Li S, Chu J, Reed K, Gallo JM. Pharmacodynamic-mediated reduction of temozolomide tumor concentrations by the angiogenesis inhibitor TNP-470. Cancer Res. 2001;61:5491–5498.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Hayden BC, Jockovich ME, Murray TG, et al. Pharmacokinetics of systemic versus focal carboplatin chemotherapy in the rabbit eye: possible implication in the treatment of retinoblastoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:3644–3649.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Abramson DH, Frank CM, Dunkel IJ. A phase I/II study of subconjunctival carboplatin for intraocular retinoblastoma. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:1947–1950.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  51. Mulvihill A, Budning A, Jay V, et al. Ocular motility changes after subtenon carboplatin chemotherapy for retinoblastoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:1120–1124.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 IOVSHome page
Y. Pina, H. Boutrid, A. Schefler, S. Dubovy, W. Feuer, M.-E. Jockovich, and T. G. Murray
Blood Vessel Maturation in Retinoblastoma Tumors: Spatial Distribution of Neovessels and Mature Vessels and Its Impact on Ocular Treatment
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., March 1, 2009; 50(3): 1020 - 1024.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
H. Boutrid, M.-E. Jockovich, T. G. Murray, Y. Pina, W. J. Feuer, T. J. Lampidis, and C. M. Cebulla
Targeting Hypoxia, a Novel Treatment for Advanced Retinoblastoma
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 2008; 49(7): 2799 - 2805.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch OphthalmolHome page
S. Y. Lee, D.-K. Kim, J. H. Cho, J.-Y. Koh, and Y. H. Yoon
Inhibitory Effect of Bevacizumab on the Angiogenesis and Growth of Retinoblastoma
Arch Ophthalmol, July 1, 2008; 126(7): 953 - 958.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
M.-E. Jockovich, F. Suarez, A. Alegret, Y. Pina, B. Hayden, C. Cebulla, W. Feuer, and T. G. Murray
Mechanism of Retinoblastoma Tumor Cell Death after Focal Chemotherapy, Radiation, and Vascular Targeting Therapy in a Mouse Model
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., December 1, 2007; 48(12): 5371 - 5376.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
F. Suarez, M.-E. Jockovich, E. Hernandez, W. Feuer, J.-M. Parel, and T. G. Murray
Paclitaxel in the Treatment of Retinal Tumors of LH beta-Tag Murine Transgenic Model of Retinoblastoma
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., August 1, 2007; 48(8): 3437 - 3440.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
M.-E. Jockovich, M. L. Bajenaru, Y. Pina, F. Suarez, W. Feuer, M. E. Fini, and T. G. Murray
Retinoblastoma Tumor Vessel Maturation Impacts Efficacy of Vessel Targeting in the LHBETATAG Mouse Model
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., June 1, 2007; 48(6): 2476 - 2482.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 International Journal of ToxicologyHome page
S. C. Gad, C. D. Cassidy, N. Aubert, B. Spainhour, and H. Robbe
Nonclinical Vehicle Use in Studies by Multiple Routes in Multiple Species
International Journal of Toxicology, November 1, 2006; 25(6): 499 - 521.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jockovich, M.-E.
Right arrow Articles by Feuer, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jockovich, M.-E.
Right arrow Articles by Feuer, W.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS