TIMP-1 and VEGF-165 serum concentration during first-line therapy of ovarian cancer patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Angiogenesis appears to play an important role in ovarian cancer. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has recently been implicated as a therapeutic target in ovarian cancer. The tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 (TIMP-1) is involved in tissue invasion and angiogenesis. The application of serum TIMP-1 and VEGF to monitor primary therapy and predict clinical outcome of patients with ovarian cancer is unclear.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients with epithelial ovarian cancer who presented for primary surgery were included in this study. A total of 148 serum samples from 37 patients were analyzed. Samples were prospectively collected at 4 predefined time points: 1. before radical debulking surgery, 2. after surgery and before platinum/taxane based chemotherapy, 3. during chemotherapy, 4. after chemotherapy. Serum VEGF-165 and TIMP-1 as well as CA-125 were quantified by ELISA or ECLIA and correlation with response and long-term clinical outcome was analyzed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Serum levels of all markers changed substantially during first-line therapy. High CA-125 (p = 0.002), TIMP-1 (p = 0.007) and VEGF-165 (p = 0.02) after chemotherapy were associated with reduced overall survival. In addition, elevated CA-125 (p < 0.001) and VEGF-165 (p = 0.006) at this time point predicted poor progression-free survival. TIMP-1 and VEGF-165 were closely correlated at all time-points during therapy.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>TIMP-1 and VEGF serum levels changed significantly during first-line therapy of ovarian cancer patients and predicted prognosis. These findings support the role of angiogenesis in ovarian cancer progression and the use of antiangiogenic therapy.</p

Concerns about anti-angiogenic treatment in patients with glioblastoma multiforme

BACKGROUND: The relevance of angiogenesis inhibition in the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) should be considered in the unique context of malignant brain tumours. Although patients benefit greatly from reduced cerebral oedema and intracranial pressure, this important clinical improvement on its own may not be considered as an anti-tumour effect. DISCUSSION: GBM can be roughly separated into an angiogenic component, and an invasive or migratory component. Although this latter component seems inert to anti-angiogenic therapy, it is of major importance for disease progression and survival. We reviewed all relevant literature. Published data support that clinical symptoms are tempered by anti-angiogenic treatment, but that tumour invasion continues. Unfortunately, current imaging modalities are affected by anti-angiogenic treatment too, making it even harder to define tumour margins. To illustrate this we present MRI, biopsy and autopsy specimens from bevacizumab-treated patients. Moreover, while treatment of other tumour types may be improved by combining chemotherapy with anti-angiogenic drugs, inhibiting angiogenesis in GBM may antagonise the efficacy of chemotherapeutic drugs by normalising the blood-brain barrier function. SUMMARY: Although angiogenesis inhibition is of considerable value for symptom reduction in GBM patients, lack of proof of a true anti-tumour effect raises concerns about the place of this type of therapy in the treatment of GBM