4.7 Article

Pharmacodynamic and pharmacogenetic angiogenesis-related markers of first-line FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab schedule in metastatic colorectal cancer

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 104, 期 8, 页码 1262-1269

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.85

关键词

bevacizumab; VEGF; colorectal cancer; biomarkers

类别

资金

  1. Associazione Ricerca e Cure in Oncologia
  2. Gruppo Oncologico Nord-Ovest
  3. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The identification of molecular and genetic markers to predict or monitor the efficacy of bevacizumab (BV) represents a key issue in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Plasma levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), placental growth factor (PlGF), soluble VEGF receptor 2 (sVEGFR-2) and thrombospondin-1 (TSP-1) were assessed by ELISA assay at different time points in a cohort of 25 patients enroled in a phase II trial of GONO-FOLFOXIRI plus BV as first-line treatment of mCRC. VEGF: -2578A/C, -1498C/T, -1154A/G, -634C/G and 936C/T; and VEGFR-2: -604A/G, +1192C/T and +1719A/T, polymorphisms were assessed in a total of 54 patients. RESULTS: Treatment with GONO-FOLFOXIRI plus BV determined a prolonged and significant reduction in plasma free, biologically active VEGF concentration. Interestingly, VEGF concentrations remained lower than at baseline also at the time of PD. Conversely, PlGF levels increased during the treatment if compared with baseline, suggesting a possible role in tumour resistance; moreover, sVEGFR-2 increased at the time of PD, as well as TSP-1. No association of assessed polymorphisms with outcome was found. CONCLUSION: Our study suggested the possible mechanisms of resistance to combined therapy in those patients with a progressive disease to be tested in ongoing phase III randomised studies. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 104, 1262-1269. doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.85 www.bjcancer.com Published online 15 March 2011 (C) 2011 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