| [Objective]The animal models in this experiment are Lewis lung cancer mice.Immunohistochemical method is adopted to detect the expression condition of CD44 and Ezrin protein in the tumor tissue of Lewis lung cancer mice. Study the anti-cancer principle of lung cancer 1, so as to provide a reliable scientific basis for the clinical application and promotion of this drug.[Methods]Lewis lung cancer model was copied and 40 successfully copied Lewis Lung cancer SPF level C57 mice were randomly divided into 4 groups:tumor-bearing control group, Lung 1 group, DDP group, Lung 1 + DDP group. Mice in the tumor-bearing control group were given normal saline lavage once a day, celiac injection of saline solution every three days; mice in the Lung 1 group were given Lung 1 liquid lavage once a day, celiac injection of saline solution every three days;mice in the DDP group were given saline lavage once a day, celiac injection of cis-platinum every three days; mice in the Lung 1 + DDP group were given Lung 1liquid lavage once a day, celiac injection of cis-platinum every three days. Mice of all experimental groups were killed by breaking the neck at the 13 th day. Tumor specimens were taken out to weigh the tumor weight and to calculate the anti-tumor rate; after the tumor specimens were fixed, section staining was adopted to conduct histopathologic examination and Immunohistochemical Sp method was adopted to test positive expression of CD44 and Ezrin. SPSS 22 software was adopted to conduct data statistical analysis.[Results]1. Tumor weight and anti-tumor rate determination:1.1 Tumor weight: comparing the mean tumor weight( 7.36 ± 1.24g) of tumor-bearing control group, the mean tumor weight of Lung 1 group( 6.16 ± 1.30g)was lower than that of this group and the difference had statistical significance( P<0.05); the mean tumor weight of DDP group( 5.12 ± 0.98g) was lower than that of this group and the difference had statistical significance( P<0.01); the mean tumor weight of Lung 1 + DDP group( 4.16 ± 0.65g) was alo lower than that of this group and the difference had statistical significance( P< 0.01). Taking Lung cancer 1group as the comparison object, the mean tumor weight of DDP group was lower than that of this group and the difference had statistical significance( P<0.05); the mean tumor weight of Lung 1 + DDP group was lower than that of this group and the difference had statistical significance( P < 0.01). Taking DDP group as the comparison object, the mean tumor weight of Lung 1 + DDP group was lower than that of this group and the difference had statistical significance( P<0.05).1.2 Anti-tumor rate determination: the anti-tumor rate of Lung 1 + DDP group was 43.4%, which was the best; the anti-tumor rate of DDP group was second,30.0%; the anti-tumor rate of lung cancer 1 group was 16.3%, which was the lowest.2. CD44 expression examination: the area percent(%) mean value of CD44:tumor-bearing control group( 8.61 ± 2.35), Lung 1 group( 5.74 ± 2.19), DDP group( 5.40 ± 2.28), and Lung 1 + DDP group( 3.48 ± 1.41). The CD44 expression mean value of Lung 1 group was lower than that of tumor-bearing group and the difference had statistical significance( P<0.01); CD44 expression mean value of DDP group was lower than that of tumor-bearing group and the difference had statistical significance( P<0.01); CD44 expression mean value of Lung 1 +DDP group was lower than that of tumor-bearing group and the difference had statistical significance( P<0.01); CD44 positive expression mean value of Lung 1group was higher than that of DDP group but the difference had no statistical significance( P>0.05); CD44 positive expression mean value of Lung 1 group was higher than that of Lung 1 + DDP group and the difference had statistical significance( P<0.05);CD44 positive expression mean value of Lung 1 + DDP group was lower than that of DDP group and the difference had statistical significance( P<0.05).3. Ezrin expression examination: the area percent(%) mean value of Ezrin protein positive expression: tumor-bearing control group( 11.44 ± 1.69), Lung 1group( 6.54 ± 2.64), DDP group( 5.31 ± 1.58), and Lung 1 + DDP group( 2.62 ±1.35). Ezrin expression mean value of Lung 1 group was lower than that of tumor-bearing group and the difference had statistical significance( P<0.01); Ezrin expression mean value of DDP group was lower than that of tumor-bearing group and the difference had statistical significance( P<0.01); Ezrin expression mean value of Lung 1 + DDP group was lower than that of tumor-bearing group and the difference had statistical significance( P<0.01); Ezrin positive expression mean value of Lung1 group was higher than that of DDP group but the difference had no statistical significance( P>0.05); Ezrin positive expression mean value of Lung 1 group was higher than that of Lung 1 + DDP group and the difference had statistical significance( P<0.01);Ezrin positive expression mean value of Lung 1 + DDP group was lower than that of DDP group and the difference had statistical significance( P<0.01).4. Microscopic observation of tumor pathology: comparing three treatment groups and tumor-bearing control group, the necrosis area of tumor cells increased and enlarged, presenting spot or flake type, the cell edema increased, the cell density decreased relatively, the atypia of cells decreased and the pathologic mitosis decreased; comparing treatment groups, Lung 1 + DDP group had the most evident effect while DDP group had more evident effect than Lung 1 group.[Conclusions]1. Lung cancer 1 can reduce Lewis lung cancer CD44 and Ezrin expression,indicating that the anti-cancer mechanism of Lung cancer 1 may be related to tumor metastasis inhibition.2. Comparing single use of Lung cancer 1 or cis-platinum and combination of Lung cancer 1 and cis-platinum, combination of Lung cancer 1 and cis-platinum is superior to single use of Lung cancer 1 or cis-platinum in reducing Lewis lung cancer CD44 and Ezrin expression of mice, indicating that combination of Lung cancer 1 and cis-platinum has a higher anti-cancer effect. |
PDF Full Text Request