2010
DOI: 10.1179/016164110x12556180205997
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Subclinical myopathy in patients affected with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer at clinical onset of disease: evidence from skeletal muscle biopsies

Abstract: Factors and mechanisms of this cancer-associated myopathy are yet unknown. The facts that the great majority of the abnormally nucleated myofibers are of the fast type and that regenerating myofibers are present, suggest a myogenic response to the colorectal cancer and not to the laparoscopic modalities of the biopsy harvesting. Follow-up of the patients will elucidate the clinical relevance of our observation, and further studies investigating the molecular mechanism underlying this early cancer-associated my… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
18
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Attention to cancer patients' muscular profile has traditionally been confined to the wasting syndrome of cancer cachexia [12], with several reports showing molecular changes associated with tumor-induced subclinical myopathy in muscle biopsies sampled during cancer surgery [13,14]. However, present knowledge of the molecular effects of chemotherapy on skeletal muscle in cancer patients without cachexic features is very limited [15].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Attention to cancer patients' muscular profile has traditionally been confined to the wasting syndrome of cancer cachexia [12], with several reports showing molecular changes associated with tumor-induced subclinical myopathy in muscle biopsies sampled during cancer surgery [13,14]. However, present knowledge of the molecular effects of chemotherapy on skeletal muscle in cancer patients without cachexic features is very limited [15].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Muscle sections were incubated either for 1 h at room temperature (RT) or overnight at 4°C, with anti-neural adhesion molecule (N-CAM) rabbit polyclonal antibody (Chemicon, Italy), anti-Pax7 mouse monoclonal antibody (DSHB, Iowa), or anti-laminin rabbit polyclonal antibody (Sigma, Italy) 1:100 diluted in PBS, respectively, as described (Zampieri et al, 2010; Mosole et al, 2014). Sections were then incubated for 1 h at RT with Cy3 or Alexa Fluor ® 488 dye conjugated antibodies against rabbit (Chemicon, Italy) or mouse IgG (Life technologies, Italy).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More recently, users of the “central nuclei” option include renowned researchers in the muscle field in several continents, including North America, Australia, and Europe (McGeachie and Grounds, 1999; McClung et al, 2006; Zampieri et al, 2010a; Pichavant and Pavlath, 2014). Anecdotally speaking, it seems that “centrally located nuclei” is favored by non-English speaker groups, mostly scattered through Europe or East Asia, even though “central nuclei” remains prevalent (Musarò et al, 2007; Coletti et al, 2013; Ikutomo et al, 2014).…”
Section: Temporal and Geographical Distributionmentioning
confidence: 99%