| Literature DB >> 27351218 |
Cong Zhou1, Andrew Clamp1,2, Alison Backen1,3, Carlo Berzuini4, Andrew Renehan1, Rosamonde E Banks5, Richard Kaplan6, Stefan J Scherer7, Gunnar B Kristensen8, Eric Pujade-Lauraine9, Caroline Dive3, Gordon C Jayson1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a critical need for predictive/resistance biomarkers for VEGF inhibitors to optimise their use.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27351218 PMCID: PMC4947705 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2016.194
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Patients' characteristics
| Median (range) | 60 (38–75) | 53 (31–71) | 57 (18–81) | 57 (24–82) |
| White | 41 (93) | 43 (90) | 737 (96) | 730 (96) |
| Asian/Black/Other | 3 (7) | 5 (10) | 27 (4) | 34 (4) |
| 0 | 16 (37) | 23 (48) | 358 (47) | 334 (45) |
| 1 | 27 (63) | 23 (48) | 354 (47) | 366 (49) |
| 2 | 0 | 2 (4) | 43 (8) | 45 (6) |
| Ovary epithelial | 42 (95) | 38 (79) | 667 (87) | 673 (88) |
| Fallopian tube | 1 | 2 | 29 (4) | 27 (4) |
| Primary peritoneal | 1 | 8 (17) | 56 (7) | 50 (6) |
| Multiple sites | 0 | 0 | 12 (2) | 14 (2) |
| Serous | 32 (73) | 40 (83) | 529 (69) | 525 (69) |
| Mucinous | 1 | 0 | 15 (2) | 19 (2) |
| Endometrioid | 5 (11) | 4 | 57 (7) | 60 (8) |
| Clear cell | 5 (11) | 3 | 60 (8) | 67 (9) |
| Mixed | 0 | 0 | 48 (6) | 40 (5) |
| Other | 1 | 1 | 55 (7) | 53 (7) |
| I/IIA | 4 (9) | 5 (10) | 75 (10) | 67 (9) |
| IIB/IIC | 5(11) | 2 | 70 (9) | 70 (9) |
| III | 0 | 1 | 14 (2) | 18 (2) |
| IIIA | 3 | 1 | 32 (4) | 22 (3) |
| IIIB | 2 | 8 (17) | 44 (6) | 45 (6) |
| IIIC | 26 (59) | 26 (54) | 432 (57) | 438 (57) |
| IV | 4 (9) | 5 (11) | 97 (12) | 104 (13) |
| Grade 1 | 1 | 2 | 56 (7) | 41 (5) |
| Grade 2 | 9 (20) | 5 (10) | 142 (19) | 175 (23) |
| Grade 3 | 34 (77) | 41 (85) | 556 (74) | 538 (71) |
| Unknown | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
| No (inoperable) | 0 | 0 | 17 (2) | 13 (2) |
| Yes | 44 (100) | 48 (100) | 747 (98) | 751 (98) |
| >1 cm residual disease | 16 (36) | 15 (31) | 195 (26) | 192 (26) |
| ⩽1 cm residual disease | 28 (64) | 33 (69) | 552 (74) | 559 (74) |
| ⩽4 weeks | 13 (30) | 23 (48) | 328 (43) | 326 (43) |
| >4 weeks | 31 (70) | 25 (52) | 436 (57) | 438 (57) |
| Median (range) | 25.3 (18.4–35.2) | (23.3 17.9–37.6) | Not reported | Not reported |
| Current | 2 (5) | 4 (8) | ||
| Never/ex-smoker | 41 (95) | 44 (92) | Not reported | Not reported |
Abbreviations: BMI=body mass index; PS=performance status.
Data from appendix to (Perren ).
Kruskal–Wallis test, P=0.030.
Missing data on PS in one patient.
Inoperable cases were excluded in TRICON7.
Missing BMI and smoking data in one patient.
Figure 1Analysis of correlation networks.(A) Pearson's correlation network for all patients pre-treatment. (B) Partial correlation network for all patients pre-treatment. (C) Pearson's correlation network for patients on the standard arm, during treatment. (D) Partial correlation network for patients on the standard arm, during treatment. (E) Pearson's correlation network for patients on the experimental arm, during treatment. (F) Partial correlation network for patients on the experimental arm, during treatment. Pearson's correlation networks were plotted on the left panel (A, C, E) and partial correlation networks were plotted on the right (B, D, F). Each row of plots, from top to bottom, demonstrated the correlation networks for patients at baseline, on standard arm during treatment and on experimental arm during treatment, respectively. Each node in the networks represents one angio-biomarker. The thickness of the edge between two nodes represents the strength of correlation. Positive correlations are red solid lines and negative correlations, green dashed lines. Correlations with absolute values smaller than 0.3 were not displayed. The thickest line represents a maximum correlation of 0.74 while the median correlation shown in the networks is 0.55. Angio-biomarkers are highlighted if they demonstrate significant changes in correlation.
Figure 2Mean trajectory of Ang1, Tie2 and Ca125.The dynamics of Ang1, Tie2 and Ca125, measured as mean percentage change over baseline (log ratio), were plotted against percentage of PFS. The red solid line refers to the experimental arm, and the blue dashed line refers to the standard arm. The data points are presented as ±s.e. Mann–Whitney U tests were used to compare the two arms at each 10% time interval and the minimum P-value was listed. P-values smaller than 0.0003 can be considered as indicating significant difference between the two arms, in accordance with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison. As Ca125 (2c) was not subject to multiple comparisons, it achieved statistical significance with P=0.01. The first time point represents the mean of the two pre-treatment samples.
Modelling biomarker trajectories
| Ang1 × Tie2 | −2.9 | 0.1 | 1.2 | 0.6 | ||
| Tie2 only | −3.4 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 0.6 | ||
| Ca125 | −4.4 | −4.4 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.7 |
The trajectories of Tie2, Ang1 × Tie2 and Ca125 were modelled using the Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo modelling approach, and the estimated values for major parameters are summarised in the table. In the experimental arm, all putative biomarkers demonstrated negative slopes before the inflection point in trajectories, followed by positive slopes after the inflection point. These results confirmed the validity of the hypothesis on inflection points. In the standard arm, however, significantly different trajectories were observed on Tie2 and Ang1 × Tie2. Only the trajectories of Ca125 were consistent in both arms. The bold values indicate significant P-values.
Figure 3Tie2 in combination with Ca125 provides better prediction on tumour progression.The performance of Tie2, Ang1 × Tie2 and Ca125 as biomarkers for predicting tumour progression is shown. 1–biomarker prediction rate is plotted against percentage of PFS time when a prediction is made. Data points close to the top left corner indicate superior performance. The red solid line represents the performance of using Ca125 and the GCIG criteria are shown as a red circle. The green dashed line and the blue dotted line represent the performance of Tie2 and Ang1 × Tie2 as resistance biomarkers, respectively. The highlighted dots on these lines correspond to using 50% elevation from nadir points as criteria for prediction. It demonstrated that if Tie2 was used in conjunction with Ca125, a better prediction can be made compared with using either one alone, as indicated by the black diamond. The combination of Tie2 and Ca125 predicted tumour progression in 74.1% of patients at an average of 62.8%±14.1 %PFS time.