2012
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i35.4866
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Indomethacin but not a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor inhibits esophageal adenocarcinogenesis in rats

Abstract: In this rat model of gastrointestinal reflux, indomethacin was associated with a decrease in the severity of esophagitis and reduced development of esophageal intestinal metaplasia and adenocarcinoma.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[31] Supporting this hypothesis, animal models of reflux suggest that anti-inflammatory medications can both decrease the risk of esophagitis resulting from reflux-induced damage and the risk of Barrett’s-like changes. [32,33] The mechanisms of action for aspirin and other NSAIDS are different, however, and our results and those of other recent studies suggest that they may have different effects on prevention of BE. [8,16] The exact biologic mechanism of chemoprevention for each agent is not known, though it may be related to differing inhibition of cyclooxygenase 1 vs. cyclooxygenase 2, or differences in modification of other pathways that modify cell growth, apoptosis or angiogenesis;[34,35] such differences have resulted in biologic differences between these classes of agents for other conditions, such as cardiovascular disease.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…[31] Supporting this hypothesis, animal models of reflux suggest that anti-inflammatory medications can both decrease the risk of esophagitis resulting from reflux-induced damage and the risk of Barrett’s-like changes. [32,33] The mechanisms of action for aspirin and other NSAIDS are different, however, and our results and those of other recent studies suggest that they may have different effects on prevention of BE. [8,16] The exact biologic mechanism of chemoprevention for each agent is not known, though it may be related to differing inhibition of cyclooxygenase 1 vs. cyclooxygenase 2, or differences in modification of other pathways that modify cell growth, apoptosis or angiogenesis;[34,35] such differences have resulted in biologic differences between these classes of agents for other conditions, such as cardiovascular disease.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…Interestingly, a possible involvement of COX-1 in the disease pathophysiology had already been suggested by the co-expression of both COX isoforms and angiogenic (VEGF-A) and lymphangiogenic (VEGF-C) growth factors in primary human tumor samples [62]. More recently, a possible cooperation of COX-1 and COX-2 isoforms has been suggested in an investigation of the PGE 2 pathway in a rat model of esophageal adenocarcinoma induced by gastroduodenal reflux resulting from esophagojejunostomy [63], as well as by the finding that in the same experimental model indomethacin (a dual COX-1/COX-2 inhibitor) reduced the inflammatory lesions and tumor development, whereas a selective COX-2 inhibitor (MF-tricyclic) was ineffective [64]. Interestingly, a recent meta-analysis of nine observational studies has shown that both low-dose aspirin and non-aspirin COX inhibitor use is associated with a reduced risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett’s esophagus [65].…”
Section: Cox-1 Involvement In Neoplastic Diseasesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding the COX pathway, COX2, prostaglandin E synthase, prostaglandin receptors E 2 and E 4 overexpression and PGE 2 overproduction have been observed during rat esophageal adenocarcinogenesis (20,21), mimicking the expression profiles of these markers in both human Barrett's and esophageal adenocarcinoma (22,23). Administration of different COX inhibitors has been shown to provoke a significant reduction in PGE 2 production as well as to prevent the development of adenocarcinoma in this experimental model (24)(25)(26)(27).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%