Search

Supplementary Data Figure 9 from Determination of Microvessel Density by Quantitative Real-time PCR in Esophageal Cancer: Correlation with Histologic Methods, Angiogenic Growth Factor Expression, and Lymph Node Metastasis

Purpose: Angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis are important steps in tumor growth and dissemination and are of prognostic importance in solid tumors. The determination of microvessel density (MVD) by immunohistology is subject to considerable variability between different laboratories and observers. We compared MVD determination by immunohistology and quantitative real-time PCR and correlated the results with clinical variables.Experimental Design: The expression of endothelial antigens vascular endothelial cadherin (CD144), P1H12 (CD146), tie-2, and VEGFR-2, and lymphatic endothelial markers VEGFR-3, Prox, and LYVE was assessed by quantitative PCR (qPCR) in primary surgical samples. The expression of angiogenetic growth factors VEGF-A, VEGF-C, VEGF-D, angiopoietin-1, and angiopoietin-2 was quantified by PCR and correlated with MVD and clinical variables.Results: The expression of endothelial antigens vascular endothelial cadherin (CD144), P1H12 (CD146), tie-2, and VEGFR-2 correlated with each other in 54 samples of primary esophageal cancer (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). MVD determined immunohistologically by CD31 staining in a subgroup of 35 patients correlated significantly with the qPCR method. The expression of angiogenetic growth factors VEGF-A, VEGF-C, VEGF-D, angiopoietin-1, and angiopoietin-2 was significantly associated with MVD (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Analysis of the expression of lymphendothelial markers VEGFR-3, Prox, and LYVE revealed concordant results, indicating that quantification of lymphendothelial cells is possible by qPCR. The presence of lymph node metastasis on surgical specimens was significantly correlated with MVD (P < 0.003), VEGFR-2 (P < 0.048), and VEGF-C (P < 0.042) expression.Conclusions: These results indicate that quantification of MVD by qPCR in surgical samples of esophageal carcinoma yields similar results with immunohistology. Interestingly, the extent of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis was not related in individual tumor samples. Lymph node metastases could be predicted by MVD and VEGF-C expression.

Supplementary Data Figure 10 from Determination of Microvessel Density by Quantitative Real-time PCR in Esophageal Cancer: Correlation with Histologic Methods, Angiogenic Growth Factor Expression, and Lymph Node Metastasis

Supplementary Data Figure 13 from Determination of Microvessel Density by Quantitative Real-time PCR in Esophageal Cancer: Correlation with Histologic Methods, Angiogenic Growth Factor Expression, and Lymph Node Metastasis

Supplementary Data Figure 3 from Determination of Microvessel Density by Quantitative Real-time PCR in Esophageal Cancer: Correlation with Histologic Methods, Angiogenic Growth Factor Expression, and Lymph Node Metastasis

Supplementary Data Figure 7 from Determination of Microvessel Density by Quantitative Real-time PCR in Esophageal Cancer: Correlation with Histologic Methods, Angiogenic Growth Factor Expression, and Lymph Node Metastasis

Supplementary Data Figure 4 from Determination of Microvessel Density by Quantitative Real-time PCR in Esophageal Cancer: Correlation with Histologic Methods, Angiogenic Growth Factor Expression, and Lymph Node Metastasis

Supplementary Data Figure 8 from Determination of Microvessel Density by Quantitative Real-time PCR in Esophageal Cancer: Correlation with Histologic Methods, Angiogenic Growth Factor Expression, and Lymph Node Metastasis

Supplementary Data Figure 12 from Determination of Microvessel Density by Quantitative Real-time PCR in Esophageal Cancer: Correlation with Histologic Methods, Angiogenic Growth Factor Expression, and Lymph Node Metastasis

Supplementary Data Figure 5 from Determination of Microvessel Density by Quantitative Real-time PCR in Esophageal Cancer: Correlation with Histologic Methods, Angiogenic Growth Factor Expression, and Lymph Node Metastasis

Supplementary Data Figure 6 from Determination of Microvessel Density by Quantitative Real-time PCR in Esophageal Cancer: Correlation with Histologic Methods, Angiogenic Growth Factor Expression, and Lymph Node Metastasis

Supplementary Data Figure 2 from Determination of Microvessel Density by Quantitative Real-time PCR in Esophageal Cancer: Correlation with Histologic Methods, Angiogenic Growth Factor Expression, and Lymph Node Metastasis

Supplementary Data Figure 11 from Determination of Microvessel Density by Quantitative Real-time PCR in Esophageal Cancer: Correlation with Histologic Methods, Angiogenic Growth Factor Expression, and Lymph Node Metastasis

4043 Background: FOLFOX plus nivolumab (nivo) has become standard of care for first-line therapy of patients (pts) with esophagogastric adenocarcinomas. The aim of Moonlight trial is to generate signals for whether (a) dual checkpoint inhibition or (b) a triplet chemotherapy is beneficial in the context of nivolumab therapy in this setting. Methods: The AIO-STO-0417 trial (Moonlight) is a four-arm investigator-initiated trial. Pts were randomized to FOLFOX alone (Arm B) or FOLFOX plus nivo 240 mg; q2w and ipilimumab (ipi) 1 mg/kg; q6w administered in parallel (Arm A/A1) or sequentially (Arm A2) or pts were treated in a non-randomized fashion with FLOT plus nivo 240 mg; q2w (Arm C). PD-L1 expression was centrally assessed. Primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). Results: The study completed enrollment with 260 pts. Arms A1/A2 and C started later and will be analyzed in Mar 2022 and presented at the meeting. The abstract, therefore, focuses on Arms A (n = 60) vs B (n = 60). Baseline characteristics were: median age 62.5y, GEJ, 55%, intestinal type, 36%. Forty-one percent had PD-L1 CPS≥1 (available in 79% of pts). Pts received a median of 10 and 9 cycles Arms A and B. Adverse events of grade 3/4 were seen in 86% for Arm A and 60% for Arm B, respectively, and serious adverse events (SAE) in 78% in Arm A and 50% in Arm B. Median follow-up was 9.7 mo. No difference in PFS (5.7 and 6.6 mo), OS (10 vs. 12 mo) or objective response rate (45% and 48%) was seen in Arms A and B, respectively. The results were similar in the PD-L1+ group. Conclusions: FOLFOX plus dual checkpoint inhibition administered in parallel is associated with an increase in toxicity but not activity. This portion of the moonlight trial does not generate a signal for further trials on FOLFOX plus nivo and ipi for adenocarcinoma of stomach and GEJ. Clinical trial information: NCT03647969.