Prognostic Factors for Overall Survival in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma Treated With Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-Targeting Agents

Çetin, Bülent; Kaplan, Mehmet; Berk, Velı; Öztürk, Selçuk; Benekli, Mustafa; Işıkdoğan, Abdurrahman; Özkan, Metin; Coşkun, Uğur; Büyükberber, Süleyman

doi:10.7314/apjcp.2012.13.3.1059

Cited by 25 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, findings from the vatalanib study suggested that there was a trend towards better clinical outcomes in the subgroup of patients with high LDH (Van Cutsem et al , 2011b) and, together with our findings, indicate that high baseline LDH levels may be associated with improved patient outcomes. However, such findings have not been demonstrated in previous studies with bevacizumab (Suenaga et al , 2011; Scartozzi et al , 2012; Cetin et al , 2012). These inconsistencies may indicate that, rather than overall LDH expression, levels of specific isoforms of LDH may have a predictive influence on clinical outcomes.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 71%

Cediranib with mFOLFOX6 vs bevacizumab with mFOLFOX6 in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Cediranib is a highly potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signalling with activity against all three VEGF receptors. Bevacizumab is an anti-VEGF-A monoclonal antibody with clinical benefit in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).Methods:Patients with mCRC who had progressed following first-line therapy were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to modified (m)FOLFOX6 plus cediranib (20 or 30 mg day−1) or bevacizumab (10 mg kg−1 every 2 weeks). The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival (PFS) between treatment arms.Results:A total of 210 patients were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis (cediranib 20 mg, n=71; cediranib 30 mg, n=73; bevacizumab, n=66). Median PFS in the cediranib 20 mg, cediranib 30 mg and bevacizumab groups was 5.8, 7.2 and 7.8 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms for PFS (cediranib 20 mg vs bevacizumab: HR=1.28 (95% CI, 0.85–1.95; P=0.29); cediranib 30 mg vs bevacizumab: HR=1.17 (95% CI, 0.77–1.76; P=0.79)) or overall survival (OS). Grade ⩾3 adverse events were more common with cediranib 30 mg (91.8%) vs cediranib 20 mg (81.4%) or bevacizumab (84.8%).Conclusion:There were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms for PFS or OS. When combined with mFOLFOX6, the 20 mg day−1 dose of cediranib was better tolerated than the 30 mg day−1 dose.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 71%

Cediranib with mFOLFOX6 vs bevacizumab with mFOLFOX6 in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The analysis of several studies have emphasized the importance of several clinical parameters such as age (Aslam et al, 2010), white blood cell, liver transaminases (Kemeny et al, 1983), haemoglobin (Graf et al, 1994), mean platelet volume (Tuncel et al, 2014), neutrophil/ lymphocyte ratio (Dirican et al, 2014;Wen-Zhuo et al, 2014), serum alkaline phosphatase (Chibaudel et al, 2003), serum γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (Wen-Zhuo et al, 2014), serum lactate dehydrogenase (Cetin et al, 2012), serum albumin (Tebbutt et al, 2003), tumor markers like CEA (Wen-Zhuo et al, 2014) and CA 19-9 (Katoh et al, 2008), ECOG PS (Galizia et al, 2008), primary tumor site (Bajwa et al, 2009), adjuvant chemotherapy (Katoh et al, 2008), pathological grade, number of metastatic sites (Yun et al, 2007), volume of liver metastases (Kleespies et al, 2009), metastasectomy (Settmacher et al, 2011) and state of KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutation and PTEN loss (Tejpar et al, 2012;Yokota, 2012;Atreya et al, 2013) in the metastatic setting. Among these factors, patients with a V600E BRAF mutation have a poor prognosis which only settled in the guidelines (Bokemeyer et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analyses of Multiple Factors for Determination of "Selected Patients" Who Should Receive Rechallenge Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: a Retrospective Study from Turkey

Özaslan

Ao²,

Bozkurt³

et al. 2015

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In Lebanon among 36 patients with CRC, no significant difference was noticed between for VEGF level between normal and patients group and also between different age groups and both genders (Greene, 2002). Also in another study, it was shown that Serum LDH and neutrophil levels were the main prognostic factors in predicting survival, followed by progression free survival and VEGF (Cetin et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Clinical Significance of Serum Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Complement 3a Levels in Patients with Colorectal Cancer in Southern Iran

Mehrabani

Shamsdin²,

Dehghan³

et al. 2014

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Colon cancer (CRC) is perhaps the second most common cause of cancer mortality. This study determined the clinical significance of serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and serum complement 3a (C3a) levels in patients with CRC in Fars province, southern Iran. Materials and Methods: Between June 2010 and June 2012, 110 patients with CRC of both genders and different age groups were divided into 3 groups. Group A included patients who had just undergone surgery; Group B had undergone chemotherapy after surgery; and Group C had undergone chemotherapy and radiotherapy after surgery. Twenty one healthy subjects with normal colonoscopy were considered as a control group. ELISA was undertaken to determine VEGF and C3a levels before and after treatment measures. Results: The mean age of patients was 53.9±14.1 years. Considering VEGF level, a significant decrease was visible after treatment measures in groups A and B, but not Group C. For VEGF level, the difference was not statistically significant between two genders and various age groups before and after treatment. No significant difference was found for VEGF level between patients and normal group before any treatment. Regarding C3a levels in 101 subjects, they significantly decreased after treatment measures. Before and after treatment, the difference was statistically significant between two genders, but was not statistically significant among various age groups. Conclusions: As VEGF and C3a levels were significantly lower in patients after treatment, these may be beneficial markers in assessment of CRC therapy especially in early stages.

show abstract

Prognostic Factors for Overall Survival in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma Treated With Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-Targeting Agents

Cited by 25 publications

References 23 publications

Cediranib with mFOLFOX6 vs bevacizumab with mFOLFOX6 in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer

Cediranib with mFOLFOX6 vs bevacizumab with mFOLFOX6 in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer

Analyses of Multiple Factors for Determination of "Selected Patients" Who Should Receive Rechallenge Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: a Retrospective Study from Turkey

Clinical Significance of Serum Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Complement 3a Levels in Patients with Colorectal Cancer in Southern Iran

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About