Search

Purpose There is an unmet need for biomarkers for identifying patients likely to benefit from anticancer treatments, selecting dose, and understanding mechanisms of resistance. Plasma vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and soluble VEGF receptor 2 (sVEGFR-2) are known to be modulated by VEGF pathway inhibitors. It is unknown whether chemotherapy or VEGFR inhibitor/chemotherapy combinations induce changes in these or other cytokines and angiogenic factors (CAFs) and whether such changes could be markers of benefit. Methods Thirty-five plasma CAFs were analyzed using multiplexed bead arrays and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays from 123 patients with non–small-cell lung cancer in a randomized phase II study who received vandetanib, a VEGFR and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, monotherapy carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP), or the combination (VCP). Changes in CAFs at days 8, 22, and 43 from baseline were correlated with progression risk. Results VEGF increased and sVEGFR-2 decreased by day 43 in the vandetanib arm, whereas a distinct pattern was observed in the CP and VCP arms, with significant decreases in interleukin (IL) -12, IL-1 receptor antagonist, and matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9) and increased macrophage chemoattractant protein 1. In each treatment arm, changes in different markers were associated with progression risk. For example, increases in IL-8 with VCP, MMP-9 with CP, and VEGF with vandetanib monotherapy were associated with increased progression risk, and increase in intercellular adhesion molecule 1 with vandetanib was associated with decreased risk. Conclusion Vandetanib and chemotherapy treatment led to distinct patterns of CAF changes; the combination resembled chemotherapy alone. Changes in specific CAFs correlated with clinical outcome, but markers differed for each treatment arm. CAF profiling may provide insights into the biologic effects of treatment and identify drug-specific markers of activity and clinical benefit.

Background: We investigated cytokines and angiogenic factors (CAFs) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated in a randomized phase II clinical trial of sorafenib versus sorafenib+ interferon-a (IFN-a) that yielded no differences in progression-free survival (PFS). We aimed to link the CAF profile to PFS and select candidate predictive and prognostic markers for further study. Methods: The concentrations of 52 plasma CAFs were measured pretreatment (n = 69), day 28, and day 56 using multiplex bead arrays and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. We investigated the association between baseline levels of CAFs with PFS and posttreatment changes. Results: Unsupervised CAF clustering analysis revealed two distinct mRCC patient groups with elevated proangiogenic or proinflammatory mediators. A six-marker baseline CAF signature [osteopontin, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), carbonic anhydrase 9, collagen IV, VEGF receptor-2, and tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand] correlated with PFS benefit (hazard ratio 0.20 versus 2.25, signature negative versus positive, respectively; P = 0.0002). While changes in angiogenic factors were frequently attenuated by the sorafenib+ IFN combination, most key immunomodulatory mediators increased. Conclusions: Using CAF profiling, we identified two mRCC patient groups, a candidate plasma signature for predicting PFS benefit, and distinct marker changes occurring with each treatment. This platform may provide valuable insights into renal cell carcinoma biology and the molecular consequences of targeted therapies.

5114 Background: SR, an oral inhibitor of Raf kinase, RET-receptor (R), VEGFR-1, 2, and 3, PDGFR-β, FLT-3, and c-KIT tyrosine kinases, has been shown to prolong progression-free survival (PFS) in mRCC after cytokine failure. In a phase II trial, mRCC pts were randomized to first line treatment with SR vs. SR plus interferon (IFN) to assess whether combination therapy improved PFS. Both treatment arms showed similar outcomes (Tannir et al, ASCO. 2008). Here we investigated predictive and prognostic biomarkers in plasma. Methods: Pts received SR 400 mg PO BID or same dose SR plus IFN 0.5 MU SC BID. Plasma was collected from 69 pts at baseline (BL; SR 34, SR+IFN 35), 59 on day (D) 28, and 57 pts on D56. We used multiplex bead suspension arrays to measure concentrations of 54 CAFs, including VEGF, PDGFbb, EGF, HGF, MMP-9, and multiple chemokines and interleukins (IL). Osteopontin (OPN), soluble carbonic anhydrase 9 (sCA9), placental growth factor (PlGF), collagen type IV (ColIV) and sVEGFR-2 were measured by ELISA. The primary objective of this analysis was to establish a CAF signature based on a set of individual markers at BL with a significant and differential impact on the association between treatment arm and PFS. Results: Among 52 CAFs available at BL, higher than median EGF concentrations associated with poor outcome independently of treatment arm, whereas low IL-2 had the opposite effect (p = 0.003 for both). Only OPN showed a significant treatment by factor interaction at BL (p < 0.01), suggesting that OPN has a differential effect on PFS in the two arms. Pts with high OPN benefitted more from single agent SR (7.74 vs. 3.93 mos for the combination; p = 0.007), but no differences were found for those with low OPN. Lower than median on-treatment increases in sCA9 (D28, p = 0.01) and GRO-alpha (D56, p = 0.04) on SR only were also associated with a better outcome. A 6-marker CAF signature at BL containing OPN, sCA9, VEGF, sVEGFR-2, ColIV, and TRAIL demonstrated predictive value on PFS. Conclusions: A CAF signature showed potential value in predicting differential benefit from single agent SR vs. SR+IFN in mRCC. Broad-based screening of circulating CAFs may identify predictive and prognostic biomarkers in the context of clinical trials. [Table: see text]

7593 Background: VAN (ZD6474) is an oral inhibitor of VEGFR, EGFR and RET. In a phase II trial, 181 patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to 1st-line treatment with VAN, CP or VAN + CP. Progression free survival (PFS) was prolonged for VAN + CP vs CP (Heymach et al, submitted for ASCO 2007). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggest gender differences in PFS benefit for VAN + CP vs CP (HR 0.47 in females vs 1.05 in males). We performed exploratory analyses of plasma levels of 35 C/AFs to investigate gender differences and potential prognostic or predictive markers. Methods: Plasma was collected at baseline (n = 123; VAN 55, CP 32, VAN + CP 36), day (D) 8 (n = 104), D22 (n = 95), and D43 (n = 83). We used multiplex bead assays to measure 33 plasma C/AFs, including VEGF, basic FGF, EGF, HGF, E-selectin, ICAM-1, MMP-9, multiple chemokines and interleukins (IL). Osteopontin and sVEGFR-2 were measured by ELISA. Cox models were applied on PFS to identify prognostic/predictive markers after rank transformation and adjusted for covariates. Results: Significant gender differences in baseline C/AF levels were seen for IL-15, IL-1RA, IL-2R, MIG, and MIP-1A (all higher in females, all p = 0.022). Controlling for gender and treatment, high baseline E-selectin (p = .01), IL-6 (p = 0.018), and IL-2R (p = 0.008) were adverse prognostic indicators for PFS. Controlling for gender, the tests for treatment by factor interactions (to assess whether treatment effect was different in patients with low and high C/AF levels) were significant for baseline HGF (p = 0.04) and IL-2R (p = 0.008). For both HGF and IL- 2R, low levels were associated with prolonged PFS in the VAN arm, but were not associated with differences in the CP or VAN + CP arms. Significant changes in VEGF (rise) and sVEGFR-2 (decrease) occurred with treatment in the VAN arm; IL12, IL-1RA, MMP-9 and MCP-1 changed in the CP and VAN + CP arms. Conclusions: There are gender differences in PFS benefit from VAN and in plasma C/AF profile. Several C/AFs were of prognostic value, whereas low HGF and IL-2R were predictive of benefit in the VAN but not CP and VAN + CP arms. These gender differences and markers warrant further investigation. [Table: see text]