4.5 Review

VEGF inhibition in urothelial cancer: the past, present and future

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 39, 期 3, 页码 741-749

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03213-z

关键词

Angiogenesis; VEGF; Urothelial cancer; Bevacizumab; Pazopanib; Ramucirumab

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anti-angiogenic agents have shown promise in treating locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, but further research is needed to determine ideal treatment combinations in order to maximize benefits for selected patient populations.
Purpose To describe the role of anti-angiogenic agents that have been used as a treatment approach for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancers and to propose future directions. Methods PubMed/MEDLINE was searched for articles related to VEGF inhibition and locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. Results Angiogenesis is a fundamental process for urothelial cancer initiation and progression. First-line therapy for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer includes cisplatin-based chemotherapy combinations; subsequent systemic therapy includes taxanes, nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel, or pemetrexed. More recently, several anti-PD-L1 and anti-PD-1 antibodies have shown promising activity in the first-line and post-platinum setting; however, immunotherapy remains ineffective in most patients. FGFR inhibitor erdafitinib was recently approved in the third-line setting. Studies on bevacizumab, pazopanib and ramucirumab have shown improved response rates when added to chemotherapy in selected patients, but have not led to overall survival (OS) benefit in randomized controlled studies. Conclusion Anti-angiogenic agents have shown promise in recent studies treating locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. However, further work is needed to elucidate ideal treatment combinations in selected patient populations to maximize benefit, with the ultimate goal of being added to the FDA-approved treatment armamentarium for this disease.

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