4.7 Review

Biomarkers of angiogenesis and their role in the development of VEGF inhibitors

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 102, Issue 1, Pages 8-18

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605483

Keywords

VEGF; angiogenesis; biomarkers

Categories

Funding

  1. MRC [G0601746, G0902173] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G0902173, G0601746] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [G0902173, G0601746] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has been confirmed as an important therapeutic target in randomised clinical trials in multiple disease settings. However, the extent to which individual patients benefit from VEGF inhibitors is unclear. If we are to optimise the use of these drugs or develop combination regimens that build on this efficacy, it is critical to identify those patients who are likely to benefit, particularly as these agents can be toxic and are expensive. To this end, biomarkers have been evaluated in tissue, in circulation and by imaging. Consistent drug-induced increases in plasma VEGF-A and blood pressure, as well as reductions in soluble VEGF-R2 and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameters have been reported. In some clinical trials, biomarker changes were statistically significant and associated with clinical end points, but there is considerable heterogeneity between studies that are to some extent attributable to methodological issues. On the basis of observations with these biomarkers, it is now appropriate to conduct detailed prospective studies to define a suite of predictive, pharmacodynamic and surrogate response biomarkers that identify those patients most likely to benefit from and monitor their response to this novel class of drugs. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 102, 8-18. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605483 www.bjcancer.com Published online 15 December 2009 (C) 2010 Cancer Research UK

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available