Evidence Hub

Endoglin/CD105-Based Imaging of Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review

Sier VQ, van der Vorst JR, Quax PHA, de Vries MR, Zonoobi E, Vahrmeijer AL, Dekkers IA, de Geus-Oei LF et al.

International journal of molecular sciences, 2021

18 citations

Abstract

Molecular imaging of pathologic lesions can improve efficient detection of cancer and cardiovascular diseases. A shared pathophysiological feature is angiogenesis, the formation of new blood vessels. Endoglin (CD105) is a coreceptor for ligands of the Transforming Growth Factor-β (TGF-β) family and is highly expressed on angiogenic endothelial cells. Therefore, endoglin-based imaging has been explored to visualize lesions of the aforementioned diseases. This systematic review highlights the progress in endoglin-based imaging of cancer, atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, and aortic aneurysm, focusing on positron emission tomography (PET), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) imaging, and ultrasound imaging. PubMed was searched combining the following subjects and their respective synonyms or relevant subterms: "Endoglin", "Imaging/Image-guided surgery". In total, 59 papers were found eligible to be included: 58 reporting about preclinical animal or in vitro models and one ex vivo study in human organs. In addition to exact data extraction of imaging modality type, tumor or cardiovascular disease model, and tracer (class), outcomes were described via a narrative synthesis. Collectively, the data identify endoglin as a suitable target for intraoperative and diagnostic imaging of the neovasculature in tumors, whereas for cardiovascular diseases, the evidence remains scarce but promising.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in cell cultures (in vitro), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free