4.7 Article

Relationship between survival and edema in malignant gliomas: Role of vascular endothelial growth factor and neuronal pentraxin 2

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 2592-2598

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2772

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a potent mediator of vascular permeability. VEGF inhibition reduces edema and tumor burden in some patients with malignant glioma, whereas others show no response. The role of VEGF expression in edema production and the relationship to survival is not well understood. Experimental Design: Using DNA microarray analysis, we examined VEGF and related gene expression in 71 newly diagnosed malignant gliomas and analyzed the relationship to edema and survival. Results and Conclusions: VEGF expression was predictive of survival in tumors with little or no edema [Cox proportional hazard model, 6.88; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 2.61-18.1; P < 0.0001], but not in tumors with extensive edema. The expression of several proangiogenic genes, including adrenomedullin (correlation coefficient, 0.80), hypoxia-inducible factor-1A (0.51), and angiopoietin-2 (0.44), was correlated with VEGF expression (all with P < 0.0001), whereas that of several antiangiogenic genes was inversely correlated. The expression of six genes was increased greater than 3-fold in edematous versus nonedematous tumors in the absence of increased VEGF expression. The most increased, neuronal pentraxin 2 (NPTX2, 7-fold change), was predictive of survival in tumors with the highest levels of edema, in contrast to VEGF (hazard ratio, 2.73; 95% Cl, 1.49-5.02; P = 0.049). NPTX2 was tightly correlated with expression of the water channel aquaporin-3 (0.74, P < 0.0001). These results suggest that there are both VEGF-dependent and VEGF-independent pathways of edema production in gliomas and may explain why edema is not reduced in some patients following anti-VEGF treatment.

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

4.7
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