4.5 Article

Cytokines associated with toxicity in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma with aflibercept

期刊

TARGETED ONCOLOGY
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 117-125

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11523-013-0254-0

关键词

Glioblastoma; Aflibercept; VEGF; Cytokines; Toxicity

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [U01-CA62399, 1R21A126127]
  2. ASCO

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plasma profiling of patients treated with antiangiogenic agents may identify markers that correlate with toxicity. Objectives were to correlate changes in cytokine and angiogenic factors as potential markers of toxicity to aflibercept. Circulating cytokine and angiogenic factors were measured in 28 patients with recurrent glioblastoma in a single-arm phase II study of aflibercept. Plasma samples were analyzed at baseline, 24 h, and 28 days using multiplex assays or ELISA. We evaluated log-transformed baseline biomarker expressions with Cox proportional hazard regression models to assess the effect of markers on any grade II-IV (Gr II-IV) toxicity, on-target toxicity (hypertension, proteinuria, thromboembolism), and fatigue. All tests were two sided with a statistical significance level of p = 0.05. Among 28 pts, there were 116 Gr II-IV events. Changes in IL-13 from baseline to 24 h predicted on-target toxicities. Increases in IL-1b, IL-6, and IL-10 at 24 h were significantly associated with fatigue. Progression-free survival was 14.9 months for patients in the all-toxicity group and 9.0 months for patients in the on-target toxicity group compared to 4.3 months for those who did not develop any Gr II-IV toxicity (p = 0.002 and p = 0.045, respectively). Toxicity from antiangiogenic therapy remains an important cause of antiangiogenic treatment discontinuation and patient morbidity. Changes in IL6, IL10, and IL13 were repeatedly correlated with toxicity. Profiling of IL-13 as a surrogate for endothelial dysfunction could individualize patients at risk during antiangiogenic therapy, as could identifying those at higher risk for fatigue using IL-6 and IL-10.

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

4.5
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