INTRODUCTION: An expanding understanding of the importance of angiogenesis in oncology and the development of numerous angiogenesis inhibitors are driving the search for biomarkers of angiogenesis. We review currently available candidate biomarkers and surrogate markers of anti-angiogenic agent effect. DISCUSSION: A number of invasive, minimally invasive, and non-invasive tools are described with their potential benefits and limitations. Diverse markers can evaluate tumor tissue or biological fluids, or specialized imaging modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of these markers into clinical trials may provide insight into appropriate dosing for desired biological effects, appropriate timing of additional therapy, prediction of individual response to an agent, insight into the interaction of chemotherapy and radiation following exposure to these agents, and perhaps most importantly, a better understanding of the complex nature of angiogenesis in human tumors. While many markers have potential for clinical use, it is not yet clear which marker or combination of markers will prove most useful.
INTRODUCTION: An expanding understanding of the importance of angiogenesis in oncology and the development of numerous angiogenesis inhibitors are driving the search for biomarkers of angiogenesis. We review currently available candidate biomarkers and surrogate markers of anti-angiogenic agent effect. DISCUSSION: A number of invasive, minimally invasive, and non-invasive tools are described with their potential benefits and limitations. Diverse markers can evaluate tumor tissue or biological fluids, or specialized imaging modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of these markers into clinical trials may provide insight into appropriate dosing for desired biological effects, appropriate timing of additional therapy, prediction of individual response to an agent, insight into the interaction of chemotherapy and radiation following exposure to these agents, and perhaps most importantly, a better understanding of the complex nature of angiogenesis in humantumors. While many markers have potential for clinical use, it is not yet clear which marker or combination of markers will prove most useful.
Authors: D Rischin; L Peters; R Hicks; P Hughes; R Fisher; R Hart; M Sexton; I D'Costa; R von Roemeling Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Herbert Hurwitz; Louis Fehrenbacher; William Novotny; Thomas Cartwright; John Hainsworth; William Heim; Jordan Berlin; Ari Baron; Susan Griffing; Eric Holmgren; Napoleone Ferrara; Gwen Fyfe; Beth Rogers; Robert Ross; Fairooz Kabbinavar Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Amir Abdollahi; Kenneth E Lipson; Axel Sckell; Heike Zieher; Frank Klenke; Daniel Poerschke; Alexandra Roth; Xiaohong Han; Martin Krix; Marc Bischof; Philip Hahnfeldt; Hermann-Josef Grone; Juergen Debus; Lynn Hlatky; Peter E Huber Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Patrick M Winter; Shelton D Caruthers; Andrea Kassner; Thomas D Harris; Lori K Chinen; John S Allen; Elizabeth K Lacy; Huiying Zhang; J David Robertson; Samuel A Wickline; Gregory M Lanza Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2003-09-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Yongjian Liu; Eric D Pressly; Dana R Abendschein; Craig J Hawker; Geoffrey E Woodard; Pamela K Woodard; Michael J Welch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Katherine Warren; Robyn Bent; Pamela L Wolters; Alisa Prager; Ryan Hanson; Roger Packer; Joanna Shih; Kevin Camphausen Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anne H Schmieder; Patrick M Winter; Todd A Williams; John S Allen; Grace Hu; Huiying Zhang; Shelton D Caruthers; Samuel A Wickline; Gregory M Lanza Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 11.105