4.4 Article

Placental growth factor is a predictive biomarker for ramucirumab treatment in advanced gastric cancer

期刊

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 83, 期 6, 页码 1037-1046

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-019-03817-2

关键词

Angiogenesis; Biomarker; Gastric cancer; PlGF; Ramucirumab; VEGF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeRamucirumab (RAM) has been used as the second-line standard chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) either alone or combination with paclitaxel (PTX). However, no predictive biomarkers have been identified for RAM treatment in AGC.MethodsWe retrospectively identified 26 patients who received either RAM monotherapy or RAM+PTX therapy for AGC refractory to fluoropyrimidine and platinum agents from 2015 to 2018at Nagoya City University Hospital. First, we extracted RNA using gastric cancer (GC) tissues from two responders and two non-responders, and then analyzed 24 VEGFR-related angiogenic genes. Subsequently, we examined the relationship between the expression of each angiogenic gene and RAM clinical activity in the entire cohort. Finally, we validated using in vitro angiogenesis assays using GC cells and microvascular endothelial cells.ResultsWe identified five angiogenic genes with aberrant expression between RAM responders and non-responders and placental growth factor (PlGF) was the most significant gene among them. Overall survival (P=0.046) and progression-free survival (P=0.016) were significantly shorter in the PlGF-high group than in the PlGF-low group. Overall response rates were 50% in the PlGF-low group and 0% in the PlGF-high group. In GC cells co-cultured with endothelial cells, PlGF gene silencing from GC cells significantly reinforced the inhibitory effect of RAM in the in vitro angiogenesis assay (tube formation assay and endothelial migration) through the inactivation of ERK, in comparison to the control GC cells.ConclusionsPlGF gene expression in gastric cancer tissues could be a predictive indicator of AGC treatment by RAM.

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

4.4
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