Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Hepatol. Sep 18, 2015; 7(20): 2245-2263
Published online Sep 18, 2015. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i20.2245
Published online Sep 18, 2015. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i20.2245
Ref. | Marker | Patient (n) | Study design | Treatment | Marker treatment-induced changes | Impact value | Comments |
Llovet et al[63] | VEGF-A | 490 | Prospective phase III trial | Sorafenib vs placebo | Increase | No association with OS and ORR | The VEGF-A could serve as pharmacodynamic marker of exposure to sorafenib but did not have prognostic or predictive value |
Harmon et al[93] | 37 | Prospective single arm phase II | Sunitinib | Reversible Increase | Better DCR | Inconsistent results were observed in these trials. The value of VEGF-A to predict response to sunitinib could be confirmed in larger trial | |
Better PFS | |||||||
Better OS | |||||||
Zhu et al[91] | VEGF-C | 34 | Prospective single arm phase II | Sunitinib | Sustained increase | No predictive value | |
Harmon et al[93] | 37 | Prospective single arm phase II | Sunitinib | Decrease | Better DC | The predictive value of VEGF-C was not shown for sorafenib probably because of its limited action against the VEGFR-3 | |
Better ORR | |||||||
Harmon et al[93] | sVEGFR-2/ sVEGFR-3 | 37 | Prospective single arm phase II | Sunitinib | Reversible decrease | Better OS (for sVEGFR-2) | The small cohort did not allow a definite conclusion |
Zhu et al[91] | 34 | Prospective single arm phase II | Sunitinib | Decrease | No predictive value | ||
Llovet et al[63] | Ang2 | 490 | Prospective phase III trial | Sorafenib vs placebo | No significant change (for sorafenib) Increase (for placebo) | Shorter TTP Shorter OS (for patients who experienced increase) | Ang2 was probably a prognostic biomarker than predictive of response to sorafenib |
Llovet et al[63] | c-KIT | 245 | Prospective single arm phase II | Sorafenib vs placebo | Decrease (sorafenib) no change (placebo) | No predictive value | Tumor expression of KIT was considered as low in HCC, and the role of soluble KIT remains unclear |
Zhu et al[91] | 34 | Prospective single arm phase II | Sunitinib | Decrease | Better TTP | ||
Better OS | |||||||
Harmon et al[93] | 37 | Prospective single arm phase II | Sunitinib | Decease | Better TTP | ||
Boige et al[98] | CEC | 36 | Prospective single arm phase II | Bevacizumab | Early increase | Better OR | CEC level was not associated with prognosis in this study. However, it could predict response to bevacizumab. The rarity of CEC level and non-standardized measurement methods limited the use of CEC as a predictive marker of response to treatment in HCC |
Better DCR | |||||||
Zhu et al[91] | CECP | 34 | Prospective single arm phase II | Sunitinib | Decrease | Progression |
- Citation: Bouattour M, Payancé A, Wassermann J. Evaluation of antiangiogenic efficacy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Biomarkers and functional imaging. World J Hepatol 2015; 7(20): 2245-2263
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5182/full/v7/i20/2245.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v7.i20.2245