Effect of oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine on circulating and imaging biomarkers in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a prospective biomarker study.
Angiogenesis
Bevacizumab
Biomarkers
Colorectal cancer
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Apr 2021
01 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
19
07
2020
accepted:
24
03
2021
entrez:
2
4
2021
pubmed:
3
4
2021
medline:
13
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer are treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy supplemented by molecularly targeted therapies. There is a critical need to define biomarkers that can optimise the use of these therapies to maximise efficacy and avoid unnecessary toxicity. However, it is important to first define the changes in potential biomarkers following cytotoxic chemotherapy alone. This study reports the impact of standard cytotoxic chemotherapy across a range of circulating and imaging biomarkers. A single-centre, prospective, biomarker-driven study. Eligible patients included those diagnosed with colorectal cancer with liver metastases that were planned to receive first line oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. Patients underwent paired blood sampling and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and biomarkers were associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Twenty patients were recruited to the study. Data showed that chemotherapy significantly reduced the number of circulating tumour cells as well as the circulating concentrations of Ang1, Ang2, VEGF-A, VEGF-C and VEGF-D from pre-treatment to cycle 2 day 2. The changes in circulating concentrations were not associated with PFS or OS. On average, the MRI perfusion/permeability parameter, K In patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer with liver metastases, treatment with standard chemotherapy changes cell- and protein-based biomarkers, although these changes are not associated with survival outcomes. In contrast, the imaging biomarker, K
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer are treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy supplemented by molecularly targeted therapies. There is a critical need to define biomarkers that can optimise the use of these therapies to maximise efficacy and avoid unnecessary toxicity. However, it is important to first define the changes in potential biomarkers following cytotoxic chemotherapy alone. This study reports the impact of standard cytotoxic chemotherapy across a range of circulating and imaging biomarkers.
METHODS
METHODS
A single-centre, prospective, biomarker-driven study. Eligible patients included those diagnosed with colorectal cancer with liver metastases that were planned to receive first line oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. Patients underwent paired blood sampling and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and biomarkers were associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty patients were recruited to the study. Data showed that chemotherapy significantly reduced the number of circulating tumour cells as well as the circulating concentrations of Ang1, Ang2, VEGF-A, VEGF-C and VEGF-D from pre-treatment to cycle 2 day 2. The changes in circulating concentrations were not associated with PFS or OS. On average, the MRI perfusion/permeability parameter, K
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer with liver metastases, treatment with standard chemotherapy changes cell- and protein-based biomarkers, although these changes are not associated with survival outcomes. In contrast, the imaging biomarker, K
Identifiants
pubmed: 33794823
doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08097-9
pii: 10.1186/s12885-021-08097-9
pmc: PMC8017714
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Oxaliplatin
04ZR38536J
Capecitabine
6804DJ8Z9U
Fluorouracil
U3P01618RT
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
354Références
BMC Cancer. 2016 Mar 25;16:249
pubmed: 27016045
N Engl J Med. 2004 Jun 3;350(23):2335-42
pubmed: 15175435
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009 Sep;7(8):778-831
pubmed: 19755046
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Apr;188(4):1001-8
pubmed: 17377036
Br J Cancer. 2013 Nov 26;109(11):2765-73
pubmed: 24149180
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Oct;16(13):1306-15
pubmed: 26338525
Br J Cancer. 2009 Aug 4;101(3):410-7
pubmed: 19603019
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2011 Nov-Dec;35(6):690-6
pubmed: 22082538
Ann Oncol. 2016 Aug;27(8):1386-422
pubmed: 27380959
N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 12;369(11):1023-34
pubmed: 24024839
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Oct;14(11):1077-1085
pubmed: 24028813
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012 Feb 14;9(3):167-77
pubmed: 22330689
Int J Biol Markers. 2003 Apr-Jun;18(2):152-5
pubmed: 12841685
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jul 1;28(19):3191-8
pubmed: 20516443
Br J Cancer. 2012 Oct 23;107(9):1518-24
pubmed: 22996610
Eur J Cancer. 2003 Apr;39(6):718-27
pubmed: 12651195
Oncology. 2008;75(3-4):215-23
pubmed: 18852492
N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 2;360(14):1408-17
pubmed: 19339720
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 20;28(3):453-9
pubmed: 20008624
Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Nov 1;15(21):6674-82
pubmed: 19861458
Br J Cancer. 2016 Jul 12;115(2):228-35
pubmed: 27351218
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Sep 1;20(17):4549-4558
pubmed: 24947924
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 1;28(31):4697-705
pubmed: 20921465
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr 20;26(12):2013-9
pubmed: 18421054
Nat Commun. 2018 Nov 7;9(1):4672
pubmed: 30405103