4.6 Review

Biomarkers of response and resistance to antiangiogenic therapy

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 6, 期 6, 页码 327-338

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.63

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [P01-CA80124, P41-RR14075, R01-CA115767, R01-CA85140, R01CA126642, R21-CA99237, R21-CA117079, R01-CA129371, R01CA57683, K24-CA125440]
  2. Federal Share/NCI Proton Beam Program Income [M01-RR-01066]
  3. Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (CTSC)
  4. National Foundation for Cancer Research
  5. Nancy Simches Endowment for Brain Tumor Research
  6. Montesi Family Fund
  7. MIND Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

No validated biological markers (or biomarkers) currently exist for appropriately selecting patients with cancer for antiangiogenic therapy. Nor are there biomarkers identifying escape pathways that should be targeted after tumors develop resistance to a given antiangiogenic agent. A number of potential systemic, circulating, tissue and imaging biomarkers have emerged from recently completed phase I-III studies. some of these are measured at baseline (for example VEGF polymorphisms), others are measured during treatment (such as hypertension, MRI-measured K-trans, circulating angiogenic molecules or collagen IV), and all are mechanistically based. some of these biomarkers might be pharmacodynamic (for example, increase in circulating VEGF, placental growth factor) while others have potential for predicting clinical benefit or identifying the escape pathways (for example, stromal-cell-derived factor 1 alpha, interleukin-6). Most biomarkers are disease and/or agent specific and all of them need to be validated prospectively. we discuss the current challenges in establishing biomarkers of antiangiogenic therapy, define systemic, circulating, tissue and imaging biomarkers and their advantages and disadvantages, and comment on the future opportunities for validating biomarkers of antiangiogenic therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据