4.7 Article

Identification of TNF-α and MMP-9 as potential baseline predictive serum markers of sunitinib activity in patients with renal cell carcinoma using a human cytokine array

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 101, 期 11, 页码 1876-1883

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605409

关键词

sunitinib; renal cell carcinoma; TNF-alpha; MMP-9; selection of extreme phenotypes

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Several drugs are available to treat metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (MRCC), and predictive markers to identify the most adequate treatment for each patient are needed. Our objective was to identify potential predictive markers of sunitinib activity in MRCC. METHODS: We collected sequential serum samples from 31 patients treated with sunitinib. Sera of six patients with extreme phenotypes of either marked responses or clear progressions were analysed with a Human Cytokine Array which evaluates 174 cytokines before and after treatment. Variations in cytokine signal intensity were compared between both groups and the most relevant cytokines were assessed by ELISA in all the patients. RESULTS: Twenty-seven of the 174 cytokines varied significantly between both groups. Five of them (TNF-alpha, MMP-9, ICAM-1, BDNF and SDF-1) were assessed by ELISA in 21 evaluable patients. TNF-a and MMP-9 baseline levels were significantly increased in non-responders and significantly associated with reduced overall survival and time-to-progression, respectively. The area under the ROC curves for TNF-a and MMP-9 as predictive markers of sunitinib activity were 0.83 and 0.77. CONCLUSION: Baseline levels of TNF-a and MMP-9 warrant further study as predictive markers of sunitinib activity in MRCC. Selection of patients with extreme phenotypes seems a valid method to identify potential predictive factors of response. British Journal of Cancer (2009) 101, 1876-1883. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605409 www.bjcancer.com Published online 10 November 2009 (C) 2009 Cancer Research UK

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