FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2154202875> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2154202875 endingPage "203" @default.
• W2154202875 startingPage "200" @default.
• W2154202875 abstract "Arterial hypertension is a commonly reported side-effect in all clinical trials testing all inhibitors of angiogenesis and especially inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/VEGFR-2 signaling [1.Sica D.A. Angiogenesis inhibitors and hypertension: an emerging issue.J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 1329-1331Crossref PubMed Scopus (112) Google Scholar]. Whatever their initial level of blood pressure, every patient receiving antiangiogenic treatment evidenced rapid and large increases in blood pressure; in most cases, the blood pressure values did not reach the levels characterizing clinical hypertension [2.Azizi M. Chedid A. Oudard S. Home blood-pressure monitoring in patients receiving sunitinib.N Engl J Med. 2008; 358: 95-97Crossref PubMed Scopus (151) Google Scholar]. In the present issue of the Annals of Oncology, Scartozzi et al. [3.Scartozzi M. Galizia E. Chiorrini S. et al.Arterial hypertension correlates with clinical outcome in colorectal cancer patients treated with first-line bevacizumab.Ann Oncol. 2009; 20: 227-230Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (282) Google Scholar] present a clinical trial suggesting that 20% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving bevacizumab in combination with irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil developed, as expected from previous trials, grades 2–3 hypertension. Most important: partial remission was observed in 75% of these hypertensive patients versus 32% of patients with no hypertension. These authors suggest that bevacizumab-induced hypertension may represent a predictive marker for antiangiogenic treatment efficacy. This important result rise several points to be discussed in the present editorial:1. Does angiogenesis occur in untreated healthy adults?2. How do antiangiogenic drugs affect the normal (nontumor) microcirculatory network?3. How is microcirculation affected in hypertension?4. How to assess and treat hypertension during antiangiogenic therapies? Angiogenesis is a biological process by which new capillaries are formed from preexisting vessels. It is essential in many physiological (embryo development, ovulation, and wound repair) and pathological conditions, such as arthritis, diabetic retinopathy, and tumors. Angiogenesis is controlled by the net balance between molecules that have positive and negative regulatory activity [4.Pepper M.S. Manipulating angiogenesis: from basic science to the bedside.Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1997; 17: 605-619Crossref PubMed Scopus (261) Google Scholar]. Under physiological conditions with a stable microcirculatory network, there is a controlled balance between pro- and antiangiogenic factors. The ‘angiogenic switch,’ depending on an increased production of one or more of the positive regulators of angiogenesis, is likely a key factor initiating tumors and metastasis [5.Hanahan D. Folkman J. Patterns and emerging mechanisms of the angiogenic switch during tumorigenesis.Cell. 1996; 86: 353-364Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5991) Google Scholar]. Proangiogenic molecules can be exported from tumor cells, mobilized form extracellular matrix, or released from inflammatory cells (e.g. macrophages or lymphocytes). The angiogenic switch clearly involves more than simple upregulation of angiogenic activity and is thought to be the result of a net balance of positive and negative regulators. Numerous inducers of angiogenesis have been identified, including members of the fibroblast growth factor family, vascular permeability factor (VPF)/VEGF, angiogenin, transforming growth factor alpha and beta, platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), platelet-derived endothelial cell growth factor, tumor necrosis factor alpha, interleukins, chemokines, and angiopoietins. Proliferation of new blood vessels is necessary for tumors to grow and contributes to the spread of blood-borne metastases. More than 35 years ago, Judah Folkman [6.Folkman J. Tumor angiogenesis: therapeutic implications.N Engl J Med. 1971; 285: 1182-1186Crossref PubMed Scopus (216) Google Scholar] proposed to inhibit angiogenesis in order to limit tumor processes. The identification of the major growth factor, the VEGF, occurred latter and made the Folkman's hypothesis much stronger. In 1989, Ferrara and Henzel [7.Ferrara N. Henzel W.J. Pituitary follicular cells secrete a novel heparin-binding growth factor specific for vascular endothelial cells.Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1989; 161: 851-855Crossref PubMed Scopus (1993) Google Scholar] and Plouet et al. [8.Plouet J. Schilling J. Gospodarowicz D. Isolation and characterization of a newly identified endothelial cell mitogen produced by AtT20 cells.EMBO J. 1989; 8: 3801-3807Crossref PubMed Scopus (418) Google Scholar] independently reported the purification and sequencing of an endothelial cell-specific mitogen, which they, respectively, called VEGF and vasculotropin. The subsequent molecular cloning of VEGF and VPF [9.Leung D.W. Cachianes G. Kuang W.J. et al.Vascular endothelial growth factor is a secreted angiogenic mitogen.Science. 1989; 246: 1306-1313Crossref PubMed Scopus (4396) Google Scholar, 10.Conn G. Bayne M.L. Soderman D.D. et al.Amino acid and cDNA sequences of a vascular endothelial cell mitogen that is homologous to platelet-derived growth factor.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990; 82: 2628-2632Crossref Scopus (346) Google Scholar] unexpectedly revealed that both activities are embodied in the same molecule. VEGF not only drives angiogenesis but also serves as a survival factor for endothelial cells and contributes to promote the abnormal phenotype of blood vessels in tumors [11.Inai T. Mancuso M. Hashizume H. et al.Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling in cancer causes loss of endothelial fenestrations, regression of tumor vessels, and appearance of basement membrane ghosts.Am J Pathol. 2004; 165: 35-52Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (643) Google Scholar]. Unlike tumor vessels that have VEGF as survival factor, the normal adult vasculature is widely regarded as largely independent of VEGF for survival, stability, and normal function [12.Longo R. Sarmiento R. Fanelli M. et al.Anti-angiogenic therapy: rationale, challenges and clinical studies.Angiogenesis. 2004; 5: 237-256Crossref Scopus (127) Google Scholar]. Indeed, the rationale for using VEGF inhibitors on tumors is based on the assumption that tumor vessels can be impacted without harming other vessels. Preclinical studies of VEGF inhibitors helped to elucidate the mechanism of some adverse events found in the clinic and considered as consequences of blocking actions of VEGF in normal physiology. The essential role of VEGF on vessels was thought not to persist into adult life but to be limited to the fetal development. Yet, actions of VEGF have been identified in normal organs of the adult, especially the role of VEGF in function and survival of normal blood vessels and blood pressure regulation [13.Horowitz J.R. Rivard A. van der Zee R. et al.Vascular endothelial growth factor/vascular permeability factor produces nitric oxide-dependent hypotension. Evidence for a maintenance role in quiescent adult endothelium.Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1997; 17: 2793-2800Crossref PubMed Scopus (243) Google Scholar, 14.Kamba T, Tam BY, Hashizume H, et al. VEGF-dependent plasticity of fenestrated capillaries in the normal adult microvasculature. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 290:H560-H576.Google Scholar]. Studies of the effects of VEGF antibody, analogue to bevacizumab, in mice indicate that VEGF participates in blood vessel survival and plasticity in adult life. Examination of the simple vascular network of the mouse trachea, treated with an inhibitor of VEGF signaling, revealed rapid regression of some normal mucosal capillaries [11.Inai T. Mancuso M. Hashizume H. et al.Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling in cancer causes loss of endothelial fenestrations, regression of tumor vessels, and appearance of basement membrane ghosts.Am J Pathol. 2004; 165: 35-52Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (643) Google Scholar, 15.Baffert F. Le T. Sennino B. et al.Cellular changes in normal blood capillaries undergoing regression after inhibition of VEGF signaling.Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2006; 290: H547-H559Crossref PubMed Scopus (309) Google Scholar]. After only 1 day of treatment, fibrin accumulated and patency was lost in some capillaries. By 2 days, endothelial cells underwent apoptosis and regression. The magnitude of capillary loss after 10-day treatment depended on the age of the mice: up to 39% in young animals and 14% in adult mice. After inhibition of VEGF signaling for 1–3 weeks, significant capillary regression occurred in pancreatic islets, thyroid, adrenal cortex, pituitary, villi of small intestine, choroid plexus, adipose tissue, and trachea. The amount of regression was dose dependent and varied from organ to organ, with a maximum of 68% in thyroid. Little or no capillary regression was detected in brain, retina, skeletal muscle, cardiac muscle, or lung under these conditions [16.Kamba T. McDonald D.M. Mechanisms of adverse effects of anti-VEGF therapy for cancer.Br J Cancer. 2007; 96: 1788-1795Crossref PubMed Scopus (744) Google Scholar]. We recently reported capillary rarefaction in the finger skin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving bevacizumab treatment; the reduction in capillary density was correlated with the total dose of bevacizumab received by the patients and was closely associated with the rise in blood pressure observed in all patients [17.Mourad J.J. des Guetz G. Debbabi H. Levy B.I. Blood pressure rise following angiogenesis inhibition by bevacizumab. A crucial role for microcirculation.Ann Oncol. 2008; 19: 927-934Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (243) Google Scholar]. Similar results were recently obtained in the mucosal surface of the inner lip of patients with advanced solid tumors receiving telatinib, a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGF receptors 2 and 3, PDGF receptor, and c-KIT [18.Steeghs N. Gelderblom H. Roodt J.O. et al.Hypertension and rarefaction during treatment with telatinib, a small molecule angiogenesis inhibitor.Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14: 3470-3476Crossref PubMed Scopus (157) Google Scholar]. The mechanisms leading to this increase in blood pressure during antiangiogenic therapy have not fully been elucidated. Proposed mechanisms include reduced formation of nitric oxide (NO) by endothelial cells, a reduced responsiveness of vascular smooth muscle cells to NO, an increased production of or reaction to vasoconstricting stimuli, and microvascular rarefaction. Both clinical studies suggested a physiopathological link between the microvascular rarefaction and the appearance and the severity of arterial hypertension. It remains unclear whether the key problem is impaired NO synthesis leading to microvascular rarefaction or an imbalance between angiogenesis and endothelial cell apoptosis leading to capillary rarefaction or a combination of both. A relatively constant finding in both experimental and clinical hypertension has been that of microvascular rarefaction, defined as a reduced spatial density of microvascular networks [19.Levy B.I. Ambrosio G. Pries A.R. Struijker-Boudier H.A.J. Microcirculation in hypertension—a new target for treatment?.Circulation. 2001; 104: 735-740Crossref PubMed Scopus (522) Google Scholar, 20.Feihl F. Liaudet L. Waeber B. Levy B.I. Hypertension: a disease of the microcirculation?.Hypertension. 2006; 48: 1012-1017Crossref PubMed Scopus (188) Google Scholar]. Because microvessels (arterioles and capillaries) are a major contributor (>90%) to total peripheral vascular resistance, functional rarefaction (a decrease in perfused microvessels) or anatomic rarefaction (a reduction in capillary density) may play an important role in the development of hypertension. Under physiological resting conditions, a substantial part of microvascular networks of most organs remains closed, constituting a flow reserve for adaptation to increased metabolic needs. It was first noted that hypertensive patients had an abnormally low number of small conjunctival vessel [21.Ruedemann A.D. Conjunctival vessels.J Am Med Assoc. 1933; 101: 1477-1481Crossref Scopus (24) Google Scholar, 22.Sullivan J.M. Prewitt R.L. Josephs J.A. Attenuation of the microcirculation in young patients with high-output borderline hypertension.Hypertension. 1983; 5: 844-851Crossref PubMed Scopus (131) Google Scholar]. Using venous occlusion capillaroscopy, the nailfold capillary density was also reported to be significantly lower (by 10%) in nondiabetic patients with never-treated essential hypertension than in healthy normotensive control subjects matched for age, sex, and lipid profile [23.Serne E.H. Gans R.O.B. ter Maaten J.C. et al.Impaired skin capillary recruitment in essential hypertension is caused by both functional and structural capillary rarefaction.Hypertension. 2001; 38: 238-242Crossref PubMed Scopus (217) Google Scholar]. Analogous results (20% difference) were obtained on the dorsal finger skin [24.Antonios T.F.T. Singer D.R.J. Markandu N.D. et al.Structural skin capillary rarefaction in essential hypertension.Hypertension. 1999; 33: 998-1001Crossref PubMed Scopus (189) Google Scholar] and on the forearm skin [25.Prasad A. Dunnill G.S. Mortimer P.S. MacGregor G.A. Capillary rarefaction in the forearm skin in essential hypertension.J Hypertens. 1995; 13: 265-268Crossref PubMed Scopus (83) Google Scholar] of hypertensive versus normotensive subjects. Finally, in hypertensive patients, whether treated or not, the Framingham score for cardiovascular risk was negatively correlated to capillary density, evaluated in the dorsal skin of the second phalanx of finger [26.Debbabi H. Uzan L. Mourad J.J. et al.Increased skin capillary density in treated essential hypertensive patients.Am J Hypertens. 2006; 19: 477-483Crossref PubMed Scopus (116) Google Scholar]. It is increasingly speculated that diffuse systemic rarefaction might be a primary defect in essential hypertension. However, the cause and effect relationships of rarefaction and hypertension are still debated. Interestingly, microvascular rarefaction exists in normotensive humans with a familial predisposition to the disease, suggesting a developmental defect, that is, an inability of vascular growth to keep pace with organ growth [27.Noon J.P. Walker B.R. Webb D.J. et al.Impaired microvascular dilatation and capillary rarefaction in young adults with a predisposition to high blood pressure.J Clin Invest. 1997; 99: 1873-1879Crossref PubMed Scopus (299) Google Scholar]. Another powerful reason to link abnormalities in the long-term control of angiogenesis and blood pressure is the crucial role played by NO and the renin–angiotensin system in both processes. NO, the bioactivity of which seems deficient in hypertension, as we have seen, is not only a vasorelaxant, but is also required for appropriate vascular budding in wound healing [28.Lee P.C. Salyapongse A.N. Bragdon G.A. et al.Impaired wound healing and angiogenesis in eNOS-deficient mice.Am J Physiol. 1999; 277: H1600-H1608PubMed Google Scholar] and stimulates the expression of vascular growth factors, notably vascular VEGF [29.Dulak J. Jozkowicz A. Dembinska-Kiec A. et al.Nitric oxide induces the synthesis of vascular endothelial growth factor by rat vascular smooth muscle cells.Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2000; 20: 659-666Crossref PubMed Scopus (286) Google Scholar]. Impaired angiogenesis has been directly demonstrated in experimental hypertension induced by chronic pharmacological inhibition of NO synthesis [30.Kiefer F.N. Misteli H. Kalak N. et al.Inhibition of NO biosynthesis, but not elevated blood pressure, reduces angiogenesis in rat models of secondary hypertension.Blood Press. 2002; 11: 116-124Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar]. Can rarefaction contribute to the increase of peripheral vascular resistance in hypertension? This is a difficult and, in fact, unresolved question. There is uncertainty on the size and anatomic location of resistance vessels because of wild variations of observations made in different organs, species, and experimental conditions and essential issues include the impact of anesthesia and surgically induced disruption of microvascular physiology [31.DeLano F.A. Schmid-Schonbein G.W. Skalak T.C. Zweifach B.W. Penetration of the systemic blood pressure into the microvasculature of rat skeletal muscle.Microvasc Res. 1991; 41: 92-110Crossref PubMed Scopus (66) Google Scholar]. Computer simulation of systemic resistances suggested that rarefaction of smaller arterioles can, indeed, augment the global resistance and thus the mean blood pressure by >20% [32.Greene A.S. Tonellato P.J. Lui J. et al.Microvascular rarefaction and tissue vascular resistance in hypertension.Am J Physiol. 1989; 256: H126-H131PubMed Google Scholar]. Other than affecting resistance, rarefaction has the potential to disturb the cellular delivery of nutrients and oxygen, thus contributing to hypertensive end-organ damage. Cardiovascular effects, including hypertension, have emerged as an important toxic effect of antiangiogenic drugs. Wu et al. [33.Wu S. Chen J.J. Kudelka A. et al.Incidence and risk if hypertension with sorafenib in patients with cancer: a systemic review and metaanalysis.Lancet Oncol. 2008; 9: 117-123Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (331) Google Scholar] recently reviewed the incidence of hypertension with sorafenib treatment. An incidence of ∼23% for all-grade hypertension and 6% for high-grade hypertension was noted with sorafenib, with a six times greater relative risk for the development of all-grade hypertension compared with controls. This meta-analysis reports incidence and severity of hypertension as a toxic effect of sorafenib very close to those reported with other antiangiogenic molecules. Actually, ‘serious side hypertensive effect’ does not have the same meaning for oncologists and for cardiologists. The National Cancer Institute—Common Toxicity Criteria definitions of hypertension, as a toxic effect of oncologic treatment, are:grade 1, asymptomatic, transient (<24 h) increase by >20 mmHg (diastolic) or to >150/100 mmHg if previously within normal limits (intervention not indicated);grade 2, recurrent or persistent (624 h) or symptomatic increase by >20 mmHg (diastolic) or to >150/100 mmHg if previously within normal limits (monotherapy may be indicated);grade 3, requiring more than one drug or more intensive therapy than previously;grade 4, life-threatening consequences (e.g. hypertensive crisis). The definition and grade of hypertension are very different for cardiologists; blood pressure has a unimodal distribution in the population as well as a continuous relationship with cardiovascular risk down to systolic and diastolic levels of 115–110 and 75–70 mmHg, respectively [34.MacMahon S. Peto R. Cutler J. et al.Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 1, prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias.Lancet. 1990; 335: 765-774Abstract PubMed Scopus (3843) Google Scholar, 35.Prospective Studies Collaboration Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies.Lancet. 2002; 360: 1903-1913Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (7449) Google Scholar]. According to the last guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension, the classification of hypertension is the following [36.2007 Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).J Hypertens. 2007; 25: 1105-1187Crossref PubMed Scopus (4810) Google Scholar]:Grade 1: systolic blood pressure 140–159 and/or diastolic blood pressure 90–99 mmHg.Grade 2: systolic blood pressure 160–179 and/or diastolic blood pressure 100–109 mmHg.Grade 3: systolic blood pressure >180 and/or diastolic blood pressure >110 mmHg. The Framingham risk score is a tool used by cardiologists to predict the absolute risk of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity (at 5 and 10 years) in populations free of cardiovascular disease. This score is available in different application formats (e.g. point scoring systems, risk charts, or Web-based calculators) and requires only information from patient history and easily available tests [37.Sheridan S. Pignone M. Mulrow C. Framingham-based tools to calculate the global risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review of tools for clinicians.J Gen Intern Med. 2003; 18: 1039-1052Crossref PubMed Scopus (146) Google Scholar]. According to international guidelines, a Framingham risk score >20% is considered to be extremely high and must conduct to specific and strong intervention. The risk level and the scale of time are obviously very different for oncologists. Thus, when oncologists and cardiologists assess and treat antiangiogenic-induced hypertension, they do not have the same definitions, language, and risk perception. It is clear that early detection and effective management of hypertension might allow for safer use of the antiangiogenic drugs. The hypertensive and cardiovascular side-effects of antiangiogenic treatments need thorough surveillance and reporting, and future studies will be needed to identify the mechanism and appropriate treatment of treatment-induced hypertension. It is obviously reasonable to recommend to carefully monitor blood pressure and to undertake early and efficient management of hypertension to avoid further toxic complications. Professor Olivier Rixe (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda) is already using the increase in blood pressure as a marker for antiangiogenic treatment efficacy and efficient dosage (personal communication). When hypertension must be treated, the best therapeutic class of antihypertensive agents has not been yet determined for these patients; however, it appears that, alone or in combination, blockers of the renin angiotensin system, calcium antagonists, diuretics, and/or centrally active antihypertensives allow, in the large majority of patients, to properly control antiangiogenic-induced hypertension [38.Halimi J.M. Azizi M. Bobrie G. et al.Vascular and renal effects of anti-angiogenic therapy.Nephrol Ther. 2008; 4: 602-615Crossref PubMed Scopus (50) Google Scholar]. Thus, the decision of stopping antiangiogenic treatment responsible for hypertension must be taken, if necessary, only after trying several antihypertensive drugs and careful and very informed thinking in relation with the benefit to risk ratio for each patient." @default.
• W2154202875 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2154202875 creator A5026377797 @default.
• W2154202875 date "2009-02-01" @default.
• W2154202875 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2154202875 title "Blood pressure as a potential biomarker of the efficacy angiogenesis inhibitor" @default.
• W2154202875 cites W1548557309 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W1807482481 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W1974696102 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W1978139448 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W1983763042 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W1985804036 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2000702318 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2028719819 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2038827789 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2042397185 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2049827480 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2055633986 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2056802932 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2060233663 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2070966641 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2072446438 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2073212944 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2083910569 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2097645944 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2101554918 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2110564525 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2122074158 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2123598120 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2126970264 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2132272301 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2141659719 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2142108077 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2153726078 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2157027198 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2164363535 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2164409122 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2167738527 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2171085327 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W2303651371 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W4235482130 @default.
• W2154202875 cites W75245760 @default.
• W2154202875 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp018" @default.
• W2154202875 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19211499" @default.
• W2154202875 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2154202875 type Work @default.
• W2154202875 sameAs 2154202875 @default.
• W2154202875 citedByCount "27" @default.
• W2154202875 countsByYear W21542028752012 @default.
• W2154202875 countsByYear W21542028752013 @default.
• W2154202875 countsByYear W21542028752014 @default.
• W2154202875 countsByYear W21542028752015 @default.
• W2154202875 countsByYear W21542028752016 @default.
• W2154202875 countsByYear W21542028752017 @default.
• W2154202875 countsByYear W21542028752022 @default.
• W2154202875 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2154202875 hasAuthorship W2154202875A5026377797 @default.
• W2154202875 hasBestOaLocation W21542028751 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConcept C2776056115 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConcept C2780394083 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConcept C2781197716 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConcept C502942594 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConcept C98274493 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConceptScore W2154202875C143998085 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConceptScore W2154202875C185592680 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConceptScore W2154202875C2776056115 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConceptScore W2154202875C2780394083 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConceptScore W2154202875C2781197716 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConceptScore W2154202875C502942594 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConceptScore W2154202875C55493867 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConceptScore W2154202875C71924100 @default.
• W2154202875 hasConceptScore W2154202875C98274493 @default.
• W2154202875 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2154202875 hasLocation W21542028751 @default.
• W2154202875 hasLocation W21542028752 @default.
• W2154202875 hasOpenAccess W2154202875 @default.
• W2154202875 hasPrimaryLocation W21542028751 @default.
• W2154202875 hasRelatedWork W1964842478 @default.
• W2154202875 hasRelatedWork W1971898819 @default.
• W2154202875 hasRelatedWork W2003559866 @default.
• W2154202875 hasRelatedWork W2054500256 @default.
• W2154202875 hasRelatedWork W2094856604 @default.
• W2154202875 hasRelatedWork W2123707479 @default.
• W2154202875 hasRelatedWork W2142736035 @default.
• W2154202875 hasRelatedWork W2304095413 @default.
• W2154202875 hasRelatedWork W2388520405 @default.
• W2154202875 hasRelatedWork W2182540735 @default.
• W2154202875 hasVolume "20" @default.
• W2154202875 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2154202875 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2154202875 magId "2154202875" @default.
• W2154202875 workType "article" @default.