Local Treatment of Murine Tumors by Electric Direct Current

Low-level direct current (0.2-1.8 mA) was demonstrated to be an antitumor agent on two different murine tumor models (fibrosarcoma Sa-1 and melanoma B-16), and has been suggested for regional cancer treatment. Its antitumor effect was achieved by introduction of single or multiple-array needle elect...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Electro- and magnetobiology 1992, Vol.11 (2), p.109-125
Hauptverfasser: Miklav i, Damijan, Vodovnik, Lojze, Bobanovic, Fedja, Reber ek, Stanislav, Ser a, Gregor, Novakovi, Srdjan, Golouh, Rastko
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 125
container_issue 2
container_start_page 109
container_title Electro- and magnetobiology
container_volume 11
creator Miklav i, Damijan
Vodovnik, Lojze
Bobanovic, Fedja
Reber ek, Stanislav
Ser a, Gregor
Novakovi, Srdjan
Golouh, Rastko
description Low-level direct current (0.2-1.8 mA) was demonstrated to be an antitumor agent on two different murine tumor models (fibrosarcoma Sa-1 and melanoma B-16), and has been suggested for regional cancer treatment. Its antitumor effect was achieved by introduction of single or multiple-array needle electrodes (Pt-Ir alloy) in the tumor and (an)other electrode(s) subcutaneously in its vicinity. The electrode inserted in the tumor was made anodic (anodic electrotherapy, ET) or cathodic (cathodic ET). In control groups, animals were subjected to exactly the same procedures with needle electrodes inserted at usual sites without current. In single-stimulus ET performed after the tumors have reached approximately 50 mm3 in volume with 0.2, 0.6, and 1.O mA for 30, 60, and 90 min, cathodic ET exhibited better antitumor effect than anodic ET. In both cases and at all ET durations, the antitumor effect depended proportionally on the current level applied. The antitumor effect was evaluated by following tumor growth and by microscopic estimation of the necrotization of the tumor area immediately after ET, and 24, 48, and 72 h posttreatment. Necrotization produced by cathodic ET was observed to be immediate and extensive whereas anodic ET resulted in increased necrotization only at 24 h posttreatment. In both cases the extent of necrosis was significantly higher than in control and was centrally located (site of electrode), whereas in controls it was sporadic, distributed randomly over the whole tumor area. When current was delivered via multiple-array electrode ET, the antitumor effect was slightly better in cathodic ET compared to single-electrode ET. Employing cathodic multiple-array electrode ET and using higher currents, i.e., 1.0, 1.4, and 1.8 mA in melanoma B-16, 20% and 40% cures were achieved by 1.4 and 1.8 mA single-shot ET of 1 h duration, respectively, whereas in fibrosarcoma Sa-1 no cures were accomplished. In general, different susceptibility of the two tumor models to ET was noticeable. Comparing tumor growth and necrotization after the application of direct current (0.6 mA) and alternating current (0.0 mA mean, 0.6 mA RMS), it appeared that alternating current had no impact either on necrotization of tumor tissue or on tumor growth. ET was performed on normal tissues as well. In subcutaneous tissue, thigh muscle, and liver of healthy mice immediately after 1 h of treatment using 0.6 mA in both cathodic and anodic modes, local necrotization at the site of el
doi_str_mv 10.3109/15368379209009821
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>informahealthcare_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_3109_15368379209009821</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_3109_15368379209009821</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-ba4760ae930efe231bb848765e517e34cf75fd300241f59f2cf0ef88b806c7b13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9j8FKw0AQhhdRsFYfwNu-QHQ2m2R3qReprQoVL_UcNttZmpJkZTZB-vamVAQRPc3P8H8zfIxdC7iRAsytyGWhpTIpGACjU3HCJoddoqUuTr-z0ufsIsYdgDAK5ITNVsHZhq8Jbd9i1_Pg-ctAdYd8PbSBIq_2fNGg66l2_KGmMfH5QDR2L9mZt03Eq685ZW_LxXr-lKxeH5_n96vEyRz6pLKZKsCikYAeUymqSmdaFTnmQqHMnFe530iANBM-Nz51fixqXWkonKqEnDJxvOsoxEjoy3eqW0v7UkB5sC9_2Y_M3ZGpOx-otR-Bmk3Z230TyJPtXB0P6N_47Ae-Rdv0W2cJy10YqBt1_3n-CdXEcXw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Local Treatment of Murine Tumors by Electric Direct Current</title><source>Taylor &amp; Francis</source><source>Taylor &amp; Francis Medical Library - CRKN</source><creator>Miklav i, Damijan ; Vodovnik, Lojze ; Bobanovic, Fedja ; Reber ek, Stanislav ; Ser a, Gregor ; Novakovi, Srdjan ; Golouh, Rastko</creator><creatorcontrib>Miklav i, Damijan ; Vodovnik, Lojze ; Bobanovic, Fedja ; Reber ek, Stanislav ; Ser a, Gregor ; Novakovi, Srdjan ; Golouh, Rastko</creatorcontrib><description>Low-level direct current (0.2-1.8 mA) was demonstrated to be an antitumor agent on two different murine tumor models (fibrosarcoma Sa-1 and melanoma B-16), and has been suggested for regional cancer treatment. Its antitumor effect was achieved by introduction of single or multiple-array needle electrodes (Pt-Ir alloy) in the tumor and (an)other electrode(s) subcutaneously in its vicinity. The electrode inserted in the tumor was made anodic (anodic electrotherapy, ET) or cathodic (cathodic ET). In control groups, animals were subjected to exactly the same procedures with needle electrodes inserted at usual sites without current. In single-stimulus ET performed after the tumors have reached approximately 50 mm3 in volume with 0.2, 0.6, and 1.O mA for 30, 60, and 90 min, cathodic ET exhibited better antitumor effect than anodic ET. In both cases and at all ET durations, the antitumor effect depended proportionally on the current level applied. The antitumor effect was evaluated by following tumor growth and by microscopic estimation of the necrotization of the tumor area immediately after ET, and 24, 48, and 72 h posttreatment. Necrotization produced by cathodic ET was observed to be immediate and extensive whereas anodic ET resulted in increased necrotization only at 24 h posttreatment. In both cases the extent of necrosis was significantly higher than in control and was centrally located (site of electrode), whereas in controls it was sporadic, distributed randomly over the whole tumor area. When current was delivered via multiple-array electrode ET, the antitumor effect was slightly better in cathodic ET compared to single-electrode ET. Employing cathodic multiple-array electrode ET and using higher currents, i.e., 1.0, 1.4, and 1.8 mA in melanoma B-16, 20% and 40% cures were achieved by 1.4 and 1.8 mA single-shot ET of 1 h duration, respectively, whereas in fibrosarcoma Sa-1 no cures were accomplished. In general, different susceptibility of the two tumor models to ET was noticeable. Comparing tumor growth and necrotization after the application of direct current (0.6 mA) and alternating current (0.0 mA mean, 0.6 mA RMS), it appeared that alternating current had no impact either on necrotization of tumor tissue or on tumor growth. ET was performed on normal tissues as well. In subcutaneous tissue, thigh muscle, and liver of healthy mice immediately after 1 h of treatment using 0.6 mA in both cathodic and anodic modes, local necrotization at the site of electrode insertion was evident, with signs of acute inflammation in the vicinity. In anodic ET, vacuolization around the electrode was noticed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1536-8378</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1061-9526</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1536-8386</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3109/15368379209009821</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Informa UK Ltd</publisher><ispartof>Electro- and magnetobiology, 1992, Vol.11 (2), p.109-125</ispartof><rights>1992 Informa UK Ltd All rights reserved: reproduction in whole or part not permitted 1992</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-ba4760ae930efe231bb848765e517e34cf75fd300241f59f2cf0ef88b806c7b13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-ba4760ae930efe231bb848765e517e34cf75fd300241f59f2cf0ef88b806c7b13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/15368379209009821$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformahealthcare$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/15368379209009821$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformahealthcare$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,4010,27900,27901,27902,59620,59726,60409,60515,61194,61229,61375,61410</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Miklav i, Damijan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vodovnik, Lojze</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bobanovic, Fedja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reber ek, Stanislav</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ser a, Gregor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novakovi, Srdjan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golouh, Rastko</creatorcontrib><title>Local Treatment of Murine Tumors by Electric Direct Current</title><title>Electro- and magnetobiology</title><description>Low-level direct current (0.2-1.8 mA) was demonstrated to be an antitumor agent on two different murine tumor models (fibrosarcoma Sa-1 and melanoma B-16), and has been suggested for regional cancer treatment. Its antitumor effect was achieved by introduction of single or multiple-array needle electrodes (Pt-Ir alloy) in the tumor and (an)other electrode(s) subcutaneously in its vicinity. The electrode inserted in the tumor was made anodic (anodic electrotherapy, ET) or cathodic (cathodic ET). In control groups, animals were subjected to exactly the same procedures with needle electrodes inserted at usual sites without current. In single-stimulus ET performed after the tumors have reached approximately 50 mm3 in volume with 0.2, 0.6, and 1.O mA for 30, 60, and 90 min, cathodic ET exhibited better antitumor effect than anodic ET. In both cases and at all ET durations, the antitumor effect depended proportionally on the current level applied. The antitumor effect was evaluated by following tumor growth and by microscopic estimation of the necrotization of the tumor area immediately after ET, and 24, 48, and 72 h posttreatment. Necrotization produced by cathodic ET was observed to be immediate and extensive whereas anodic ET resulted in increased necrotization only at 24 h posttreatment. In both cases the extent of necrosis was significantly higher than in control and was centrally located (site of electrode), whereas in controls it was sporadic, distributed randomly over the whole tumor area. When current was delivered via multiple-array electrode ET, the antitumor effect was slightly better in cathodic ET compared to single-electrode ET. Employing cathodic multiple-array electrode ET and using higher currents, i.e., 1.0, 1.4, and 1.8 mA in melanoma B-16, 20% and 40% cures were achieved by 1.4 and 1.8 mA single-shot ET of 1 h duration, respectively, whereas in fibrosarcoma Sa-1 no cures were accomplished. In general, different susceptibility of the two tumor models to ET was noticeable. Comparing tumor growth and necrotization after the application of direct current (0.6 mA) and alternating current (0.0 mA mean, 0.6 mA RMS), it appeared that alternating current had no impact either on necrotization of tumor tissue or on tumor growth. ET was performed on normal tissues as well. In subcutaneous tissue, thigh muscle, and liver of healthy mice immediately after 1 h of treatment using 0.6 mA in both cathodic and anodic modes, local necrotization at the site of electrode insertion was evident, with signs of acute inflammation in the vicinity. In anodic ET, vacuolization around the electrode was noticed.</description><issn>1536-8378</issn><issn>1061-9526</issn><issn>1536-8386</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1992</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9j8FKw0AQhhdRsFYfwNu-QHQ2m2R3qReprQoVL_UcNttZmpJkZTZB-vamVAQRPc3P8H8zfIxdC7iRAsytyGWhpTIpGACjU3HCJoddoqUuTr-z0ufsIsYdgDAK5ITNVsHZhq8Jbd9i1_Pg-ctAdYd8PbSBIq_2fNGg66l2_KGmMfH5QDR2L9mZt03Eq685ZW_LxXr-lKxeH5_n96vEyRz6pLKZKsCikYAeUymqSmdaFTnmQqHMnFe530iANBM-Nz51fixqXWkonKqEnDJxvOsoxEjoy3eqW0v7UkB5sC9_2Y_M3ZGpOx-otR-Bmk3Z230TyJPtXB0P6N_47Ae-Rdv0W2cJy10YqBt1_3n-CdXEcXw</recordid><startdate>1992</startdate><enddate>1992</enddate><creator>Miklav i, Damijan</creator><creator>Vodovnik, Lojze</creator><creator>Bobanovic, Fedja</creator><creator>Reber ek, Stanislav</creator><creator>Ser a, Gregor</creator><creator>Novakovi, Srdjan</creator><creator>Golouh, Rastko</creator><general>Informa UK Ltd</general><general>Taylor &amp; Francis</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>1992</creationdate><title>Local Treatment of Murine Tumors by Electric Direct Current</title><author>Miklav i, Damijan ; Vodovnik, Lojze ; Bobanovic, Fedja ; Reber ek, Stanislav ; Ser a, Gregor ; Novakovi, Srdjan ; Golouh, Rastko</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-ba4760ae930efe231bb848765e517e34cf75fd300241f59f2cf0ef88b806c7b13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1992</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Miklav i, Damijan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vodovnik, Lojze</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bobanovic, Fedja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reber ek, Stanislav</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ser a, Gregor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novakovi, Srdjan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golouh, Rastko</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Electro- and magnetobiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Miklav i, Damijan</au><au>Vodovnik, Lojze</au><au>Bobanovic, Fedja</au><au>Reber ek, Stanislav</au><au>Ser a, Gregor</au><au>Novakovi, Srdjan</au><au>Golouh, Rastko</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Local Treatment of Murine Tumors by Electric Direct Current</atitle><jtitle>Electro- and magnetobiology</jtitle><date>1992</date><risdate>1992</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>109</spage><epage>125</epage><pages>109-125</pages><issn>1536-8378</issn><issn>1061-9526</issn><eissn>1536-8386</eissn><abstract>Low-level direct current (0.2-1.8 mA) was demonstrated to be an antitumor agent on two different murine tumor models (fibrosarcoma Sa-1 and melanoma B-16), and has been suggested for regional cancer treatment. Its antitumor effect was achieved by introduction of single or multiple-array needle electrodes (Pt-Ir alloy) in the tumor and (an)other electrode(s) subcutaneously in its vicinity. The electrode inserted in the tumor was made anodic (anodic electrotherapy, ET) or cathodic (cathodic ET). In control groups, animals were subjected to exactly the same procedures with needle electrodes inserted at usual sites without current. In single-stimulus ET performed after the tumors have reached approximately 50 mm3 in volume with 0.2, 0.6, and 1.O mA for 30, 60, and 90 min, cathodic ET exhibited better antitumor effect than anodic ET. In both cases and at all ET durations, the antitumor effect depended proportionally on the current level applied. The antitumor effect was evaluated by following tumor growth and by microscopic estimation of the necrotization of the tumor area immediately after ET, and 24, 48, and 72 h posttreatment. Necrotization produced by cathodic ET was observed to be immediate and extensive whereas anodic ET resulted in increased necrotization only at 24 h posttreatment. In both cases the extent of necrosis was significantly higher than in control and was centrally located (site of electrode), whereas in controls it was sporadic, distributed randomly over the whole tumor area. When current was delivered via multiple-array electrode ET, the antitumor effect was slightly better in cathodic ET compared to single-electrode ET. Employing cathodic multiple-array electrode ET and using higher currents, i.e., 1.0, 1.4, and 1.8 mA in melanoma B-16, 20% and 40% cures were achieved by 1.4 and 1.8 mA single-shot ET of 1 h duration, respectively, whereas in fibrosarcoma Sa-1 no cures were accomplished. In general, different susceptibility of the two tumor models to ET was noticeable. Comparing tumor growth and necrotization after the application of direct current (0.6 mA) and alternating current (0.0 mA mean, 0.6 mA RMS), it appeared that alternating current had no impact either on necrotization of tumor tissue or on tumor growth. ET was performed on normal tissues as well. In subcutaneous tissue, thigh muscle, and liver of healthy mice immediately after 1 h of treatment using 0.6 mA in both cathodic and anodic modes, local necrotization at the site of electrode insertion was evident, with signs of acute inflammation in the vicinity. In anodic ET, vacuolization around the electrode was noticed.</abstract><pub>Informa UK Ltd</pub><doi>10.3109/15368379209009821</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1536-8378
ispartof Electro- and magnetobiology, 1992, Vol.11 (2), p.109-125
issn 1536-8378
1061-9526
1536-8386
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_3109_15368379209009821
source Taylor & Francis; Taylor & Francis Medical Library - CRKN
title Local Treatment of Murine Tumors by Electric Direct Current
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T05%3A48%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-informahealthcare_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Local%20Treatment%20of%20Murine%20Tumors%20by%20Electric%20Direct%20Current&rft.jtitle=Electro-%20and%20magnetobiology&rft.au=Miklav%20i,%20Damijan&rft.date=1992&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=109&rft.epage=125&rft.pages=109-125&rft.issn=1536-8378&rft.eissn=1536-8386&rft_id=info:doi/10.3109/15368379209009821&rft_dat=%3Cinformahealthcare_cross%3E10_3109_15368379209009821%3C/informahealthcare_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true