Stacey D Finley1, Aleksander S Popel. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. sdfinley@jhu.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is known to be a potent promoter of angiogenesis under both physiological and pathological conditions. Given its role in regulating tumor vascularization, VEGF has been targeted in various cancer treatments, and anti-VEGF therapy has been used clinically for treatment of several types of cancer. Systems biology approaches, particularly computational models, provide insight into the complexity of tumor angiogenesis. These models complement experimental studies and aid in the development of effective therapies targeting angiogenesis. METHODS: We developed an experiment-based, molecular-detailed compartment model of VEGF kinetics and transport to investigate the distribution of two major VEGF isoforms (VEGF121 and VEGF165) in the body. The model is applied to predict the dynamics of tumor VEGF and, importantly, to gain insight into how tumor VEGF responds to an intravenous injection of an anti-VEGF agent. RESULTS: The model predicts that free VEGF in the tumor interstitium is seven to 13 times higher than plasma VEGF and is predominantly in the form of VEGF121 (>70%), predictions that are validated by experimental data. The model also predicts that tumor VEGF can increase or decrease with anti-VEGF treatment depending on tumor microenvironment, pointing to the importance of personalized medicine. CONCLUSIONS: This computational study suggests that the rate of VEGF secretion by tumor cells may serve as a biomarker to predict the patient population that is likely to respond to anti-VEGF treatment. Thus, the model predictions have important clinical relevance and may aid clinicians and clinical researchers seeking interpretation of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic observations and optimization of anti-VEGF therapies.
BACKGROUND:Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is known to be a potent promoter of angiogenesis under both physiological and pathological conditions. Given its role in regulating tumor vascularization, VEGF has been targeted in various cancer treatments, and anti-VEGF therapy has been used clinically for treatment of several types of cancer. Systems biology approaches, particularly computational models, provide insight into the complexity of tumor angiogenesis. These models complement experimental studies and aid in the development of effective therapies targeting angiogenesis. METHODS: We developed an experiment-based, molecular-detailed compartment model of VEGF kinetics and transport to investigate the distribution of two major VEGF isoforms (VEGF121 and VEGF165) in the body. The model is applied to predict the dynamics of tumorVEGF and, importantly, to gain insight into how tumorVEGF responds to an intravenous injection of an anti-VEGF agent. RESULTS: The model predicts that free VEGF in the tumor interstitium is seven to 13 times higher than plasma VEGF and is predominantly in the form of VEGF121 (>70%), predictions that are validated by experimental data. The model also predicts that tumorVEGF can increase or decrease with anti-VEGF treatment depending on tumor microenvironment, pointing to the importance of personalized medicine. CONCLUSIONS: This computational study suggests that the rate of VEGF secretion by tumor cells may serve as a biomarker to predict the patient population that is likely to respond to anti-VEGF treatment. Thus, the model predictions have important clinical relevance and may aid clinicians and clinical researchers seeking interpretation of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic observations and optimization of anti-VEGF therapies.
Authors: Margit Stimpfl; Dan Tong; Barbara Fasching; Eva Schuster; Andreas Obermair; Sepp Leodolter; Robert Zeillinger Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: A Harlozinska; P Sedlaczek; J Kulpa; M Grybos; E Wójcik; A Van Dalen; R Einarsson Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: Ebony R Hoskins; Brian L Hood; Mai Sun; Thomas C Krivak; Robert P Edwards; Thomas P Conrads Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-09-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Katri V Typpo; Hector R Wong; Stacey D Finley; Rodney C Daniels; Andrew J E Seely; Jacques Lacroix Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Stephanie C Casey; Amedeo Amedei; Katia Aquilano; Asfar S Azmi; Fabian Benencia; Dipita Bhakta; Alan E Bilsland; Chandra S Boosani; Sophie Chen; Maria Rosa Ciriolo; Sarah Crawford; Hiromasa Fujii; Alexandros G Georgakilas; Gunjan Guha; Dorota Halicka; William G Helferich; Petr Heneberg; Kanya Honoki; W Nicol Keith; Sid P Kerkar; Sulma I Mohammed; Elena Niccolai; Somaira Nowsheen; H P Vasantha Rupasinghe; Abbas Samadi; Neetu Singh; Wamidh H Talib; Vasundara Venkateswaran; Richard L Whelan; Xujuan Yang; Dean W Felsher Journal: Semin Cancer Biol Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 15.707
Authors: Tenley C Archer; Elana J Fertig; Sara J C Gosline; Marc Hafner; Shannon K Hughes; Brian A Joughin; Aaron S Meyer; Stephen R Piccolo; Ayesha N Shajahan-Haq Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Analia Rodríguez Garzotto; C Vanesa Díaz-García; Alba Agudo-López; Elena Prieto García; Santiago Ponce; José A López-Martín; Luis Paz-Ares; Lara Iglesias; M Teresa Agulló-Ortuño Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 3.064