FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2115874718> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2115874718 endingPage "2448" @default.
• W2115874718 startingPage "2447" @default.
• W2115874718 abstract "Currently, the use of bevacizumab in combination with fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced colorectal cancer (ACC). However, only a subset of ACC patients will respond to treatment, and to date, there is no biological marker that may predict the benefit of this treatment. Recently, Ronzoni et al. reported on the correlation between the baseline levels of both total circulating endothelial cells (CECs) and their subsets and the response to bevacizumab-based first-line treatment in ACC patients. They suggested significant correlations between the CEC baseline levels and the antitumor efficacy [1.Ronzoni M. Manzoni M. Mariucci S. et al.Circulating endothelial cells and endothelial progenitors as predictive markers of clinical response to bevacizumab-based first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer patients.Ann Oncol. 2010; 21: 2382-2389Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (86) Google Scholar].We assessed the prognostic and predictive value of CECs in 473 ACC patients treated in a randomized phase III trial with first-line chemotherapy and targeted therapy including bevacizumab (CAIRO2 trial of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group) [2.Tol J. Koopman M. Cats A. et al.Chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer.N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 563-572Crossref PubMed Scopus (1166) Google Scholar]. Peripheral blood was collected at baseline and at three time points after the start of treatment (1–2, 3–5, and 6–12 weeks). Samples were collected in 10-ml evacuated tubes (CellSave tubes; Veridex LLC, Raritan, NJ) and processed in a central laboratory within 72 hours. The CellSearch™ System (Veridex LLC) was used for CEC enumeration [3.Rowand J.L. Martin G. Doyle G.V. et al.Endothelial cells in peripheral blood of healthy subjects and patients with metastatic carcinomas.Cytometry A. 2007; 71: 105-113Crossref PubMed Scopus (110) Google Scholar]. The criteria for CEC included round-to-oval morphology, a visible nucleus [4′-6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) positive], expression of CD146 as well as CD105, and absence of CD45.The median number of CECs at baseline was 6.8 CEC/ml, which is comparable with that found in other studies using the automated immunomagnetic separation system [3.Rowand J.L. Martin G. Doyle G.V. et al.Endothelial cells in peripheral blood of healthy subjects and patients with metastatic carcinomas.Cytometry A. 2007; 71: 105-113Crossref PubMed Scopus (110) Google Scholar, 4.Strijbos M.H. Gratama J.W. Schmitz P.I. et al.Circulating endothelial cells, circulating tumour cells, tissue factor, endothelin-1 and overall survival in prostate cancer patients treated with docetaxel.Eur J Cancer. 2010; 46: 2027-2035Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar]. In our study population, 17% had a CEC count at baseline above the upper reference limit of 24 CECs/ml, which is comparable with that of Rowand et al. [3.Rowand J.L. Martin G. Doyle G.V. et al.Endothelial cells in peripheral blood of healthy subjects and patients with metastatic carcinomas.Cytometry A. 2007; 71: 105-113Crossref PubMed Scopus (110) Google Scholar]. To define the prognostic value of CECs, the correlation of baseline CEC count and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was analyzed. In univariate Cox regression analysis, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of progression was 0.99 (0.90–1.08) and of death 0.95 (0.87–1.05). A significant increase in CECs was observed after 1–2 weeks of treatment compared with baseline (P ≤ 0.001). Hereafter, no further increase in CEC count was observed. However, we could not predict PFS or OS by changes in CEC levels at any time point during therapy (Table 1).Table 1Univariate Cox regression analysis for prediction of PFS and OS of CECs at different time pointsPatients (n)Median number CECs/mlPFS riskOS riskBaselineChange from baselineBaselineChange from baselineHR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)PBaseline4356.80.99 (0.90–1.08)0.768––0.95 (0.87–1.05)0.333––1–2 weeks38810.0––0.96 (0.89–1.03)0.2400.96 (0.89–1.05)0.3753–5 weeks3539.5––1.01 (0.93–1.10)0.7810.97 (0.89–1.06)0.5286–12 weeks23910.5––0.97 (0.88–1.07)0.5550.91 (0.81–1.02)0.094CECs, circulating endothelial cells; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval. Open table in a new tab Our results are in contrast to the findings of Ronzoni et al., which are based on a considerable smaller number of patients. Ronzoni et al. [1.Ronzoni M. Manzoni M. Mariucci S. et al.Circulating endothelial cells and endothelial progenitors as predictive markers of clinical response to bevacizumab-based first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer patients.Ann Oncol. 2010; 21: 2382-2389Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (86) Google Scholar] only observed a correlation between baseline ‘total’ and ‘resting’ CEC counts and PFS, and no correlation was found regarding activated CECs or circulating progenitor cells and outcome. The lack of correlation of CECs with outcome in our study may be due to the different technique used for CEC enumeration. So far, there is no consensus on the phenotypic characterization of CECs and technique for CEC enumeration, and conflicting results concerning the role of CECs as a marker for prognosis and/or response to treatment have been reported. The most commonly used techniques for CEC evaluation are flow cytometry or microscopic evaluation after immunomagnetic separation. We used the CellSearch System, which is an automated system based on immunomagnetic enrichment targeting the CD146 antigen and detection by fluorescent microscopy of DAPI+, CD105+, CD45- cells, that has shown to be a reproducible and accurate method [3.Rowand J.L. Martin G. Doyle G.V. et al.Endothelial cells in peripheral blood of healthy subjects and patients with metastatic carcinomas.Cytometry A. 2007; 71: 105-113Crossref PubMed Scopus (110) Google Scholar]. Our technique also included morphology in classification of CECs, which allows to discriminate CECs from endothelial microparticles, conglomerates, and/or anuclear cells. In the study by Ronzoni [1.Ronzoni M. Manzoni M. Mariucci S. et al.Circulating endothelial cells and endothelial progenitors as predictive markers of clinical response to bevacizumab-based first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer patients.Ann Oncol. 2010; 21: 2382-2389Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (86) Google Scholar], staining with a nucleic acid dye was not included in the definition, which may lead to the inclusion of large platelets rather than endothelial cells into the CEC definition [5.Strijbos M.H. Kraan J. den Bakker M.A. et al.Cells meeting our immunophenotypic criteria of endothelial cells are large platelets.Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2007; 72: 86-93Crossref PubMed Scopus (64) Google Scholar].In conclusion, our study demonstrated that CEC counts at baseline were not prognostic for PFS or OS in a subset of ACC patients. Neither was change in CEC counts at baseline and during treatment predictive for outcome. To our knowledge, this is the first study that investigates the correlation between CECs and bevacizumab-based treatment in a large number of ACC patients. However, different subsets of CECs exist and consensus on phenotypic characterization and enumeration technique is the first step to make comparison of different studies concerning CEC evaluation possible. Currently, the use of bevacizumab in combination with fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced colorectal cancer (ACC). However, only a subset of ACC patients will respond to treatment, and to date, there is no biological marker that may predict the benefit of this treatment. Recently, Ronzoni et al. reported on the correlation between the baseline levels of both total circulating endothelial cells (CECs) and their subsets and the response to bevacizumab-based first-line treatment in ACC patients. They suggested significant correlations between the CEC baseline levels and the antitumor efficacy [1.Ronzoni M. Manzoni M. Mariucci S. et al.Circulating endothelial cells and endothelial progenitors as predictive markers of clinical response to bevacizumab-based first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer patients.Ann Oncol. 2010; 21: 2382-2389Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (86) Google Scholar]. We assessed the prognostic and predictive value of CECs in 473 ACC patients treated in a randomized phase III trial with first-line chemotherapy and targeted therapy including bevacizumab (CAIRO2 trial of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group) [2.Tol J. Koopman M. Cats A. et al.Chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer.N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 563-572Crossref PubMed Scopus (1166) Google Scholar]. Peripheral blood was collected at baseline and at three time points after the start of treatment (1–2, 3–5, and 6–12 weeks). Samples were collected in 10-ml evacuated tubes (CellSave tubes; Veridex LLC, Raritan, NJ) and processed in a central laboratory within 72 hours. The CellSearch™ System (Veridex LLC) was used for CEC enumeration [3.Rowand J.L. Martin G. Doyle G.V. et al.Endothelial cells in peripheral blood of healthy subjects and patients with metastatic carcinomas.Cytometry A. 2007; 71: 105-113Crossref PubMed Scopus (110) Google Scholar]. The criteria for CEC included round-to-oval morphology, a visible nucleus [4′-6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) positive], expression of CD146 as well as CD105, and absence of CD45. The median number of CECs at baseline was 6.8 CEC/ml, which is comparable with that found in other studies using the automated immunomagnetic separation system [3.Rowand J.L. Martin G. Doyle G.V. et al.Endothelial cells in peripheral blood of healthy subjects and patients with metastatic carcinomas.Cytometry A. 2007; 71: 105-113Crossref PubMed Scopus (110) Google Scholar, 4.Strijbos M.H. Gratama J.W. Schmitz P.I. et al.Circulating endothelial cells, circulating tumour cells, tissue factor, endothelin-1 and overall survival in prostate cancer patients treated with docetaxel.Eur J Cancer. 2010; 46: 2027-2035Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar]. In our study population, 17% had a CEC count at baseline above the upper reference limit of 24 CECs/ml, which is comparable with that of Rowand et al. [3.Rowand J.L. Martin G. Doyle G.V. et al.Endothelial cells in peripheral blood of healthy subjects and patients with metastatic carcinomas.Cytometry A. 2007; 71: 105-113Crossref PubMed Scopus (110) Google Scholar]. To define the prognostic value of CECs, the correlation of baseline CEC count and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was analyzed. In univariate Cox regression analysis, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of progression was 0.99 (0.90–1.08) and of death 0.95 (0.87–1.05). A significant increase in CECs was observed after 1–2 weeks of treatment compared with baseline (P ≤ 0.001). Hereafter, no further increase in CEC count was observed. However, we could not predict PFS or OS by changes in CEC levels at any time point during therapy (Table 1). CECs, circulating endothelial cells; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval. Our results are in contrast to the findings of Ronzoni et al., which are based on a considerable smaller number of patients. Ronzoni et al. [1.Ronzoni M. Manzoni M. Mariucci S. et al.Circulating endothelial cells and endothelial progenitors as predictive markers of clinical response to bevacizumab-based first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer patients.Ann Oncol. 2010; 21: 2382-2389Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (86) Google Scholar] only observed a correlation between baseline ‘total’ and ‘resting’ CEC counts and PFS, and no correlation was found regarding activated CECs or circulating progenitor cells and outcome. The lack of correlation of CECs with outcome in our study may be due to the different technique used for CEC enumeration. So far, there is no consensus on the phenotypic characterization of CECs and technique for CEC enumeration, and conflicting results concerning the role of CECs as a marker for prognosis and/or response to treatment have been reported. The most commonly used techniques for CEC evaluation are flow cytometry or microscopic evaluation after immunomagnetic separation. We used the CellSearch System, which is an automated system based on immunomagnetic enrichment targeting the CD146 antigen and detection by fluorescent microscopy of DAPI+, CD105+, CD45- cells, that has shown to be a reproducible and accurate method [3.Rowand J.L. Martin G. Doyle G.V. et al.Endothelial cells in peripheral blood of healthy subjects and patients with metastatic carcinomas.Cytometry A. 2007; 71: 105-113Crossref PubMed Scopus (110) Google Scholar]. Our technique also included morphology in classification of CECs, which allows to discriminate CECs from endothelial microparticles, conglomerates, and/or anuclear cells. In the study by Ronzoni [1.Ronzoni M. Manzoni M. Mariucci S. et al.Circulating endothelial cells and endothelial progenitors as predictive markers of clinical response to bevacizumab-based first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer patients.Ann Oncol. 2010; 21: 2382-2389Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (86) Google Scholar], staining with a nucleic acid dye was not included in the definition, which may lead to the inclusion of large platelets rather than endothelial cells into the CEC definition [5.Strijbos M.H. Kraan J. den Bakker M.A. et al.Cells meeting our immunophenotypic criteria of endothelial cells are large platelets.Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2007; 72: 86-93Crossref PubMed Scopus (64) Google Scholar]. In conclusion, our study demonstrated that CEC counts at baseline were not prognostic for PFS or OS in a subset of ACC patients. Neither was change in CEC counts at baseline and during treatment predictive for outcome. To our knowledge, this is the first study that investigates the correlation between CECs and bevacizumab-based treatment in a large number of ACC patients. However, different subsets of CECs exist and consensus on phenotypic characterization and enumeration technique is the first step to make comparison of different studies concerning CEC evaluation possible. We would like to thank Alexander van der Kooi, Rianne Levink, Joost Swennenhuis, and Arjan Tibbe for the CEC analysis on the CellSearch System. Leon Terstappen is a consultant for Veridex LLC that produces the CellSearch System." @default.
• W2115874718 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2115874718 creator A5004575257 @default.
• W2115874718 creator A5006731477 @default.
• W2115874718 creator A5037625836 @default.
• W2115874718 creator A5043942519 @default.
• W2115874718 creator A5046706345 @default.
• W2115874718 creator A5071882225 @default.
• W2115874718 date "2010-12-01" @default.
• W2115874718 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2115874718 title "The predictive and prognostic value of circulating endothelial cells in advanced colorectal cancer patients receiving first-line chemotherapy and bevacizumab" @default.
• W2115874718 cites W2009372533 @default.
• W2115874718 cites W2070353588 @default.
• W2115874718 cites W2121731125 @default.
• W2115874718 cites W2122739907 @default.
• W2115874718 cites W2127640925 @default.
• W2115874718 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq640" @default.
• W2115874718 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21030382" @default.
• W2115874718 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2115874718 type Work @default.
• W2115874718 sameAs 2115874718 @default.
• W2115874718 citedByCount "35" @default.
• W2115874718 countsByYear W21158747182012 @default.
• W2115874718 countsByYear W21158747182013 @default.
• W2115874718 countsByYear W21158747182014 @default.
• W2115874718 countsByYear W21158747182015 @default.
• W2115874718 countsByYear W21158747182016 @default.
• W2115874718 countsByYear W21158747182017 @default.
• W2115874718 countsByYear W21158747182019 @default.
• W2115874718 countsByYear W21158747182020 @default.
• W2115874718 countsByYear W21158747182022 @default.
• W2115874718 countsByYear W21158747182023 @default.
• W2115874718 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2115874718 hasAuthorship W2115874718A5004575257 @default.
• W2115874718 hasAuthorship W2115874718A5006731477 @default.
• W2115874718 hasAuthorship W2115874718A5037625836 @default.
• W2115874718 hasAuthorship W2115874718A5043942519 @default.
• W2115874718 hasAuthorship W2115874718A5046706345 @default.
• W2115874718 hasAuthorship W2115874718A5071882225 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConcept C2776694085 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConcept C2777802072 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConcept C3019719930 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConcept C526805850 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConceptScore W2115874718C119857082 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConceptScore W2115874718C121608353 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConceptScore W2115874718C126322002 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConceptScore W2115874718C143998085 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConceptScore W2115874718C2776291640 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConceptScore W2115874718C2776694085 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConceptScore W2115874718C2777802072 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConceptScore W2115874718C3019719930 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConceptScore W2115874718C41008148 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConceptScore W2115874718C526805850 @default.
• W2115874718 hasConceptScore W2115874718C71924100 @default.
• W2115874718 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W2115874718 hasLocation W21158747181 @default.
• W2115874718 hasLocation W21158747182 @default.
• W2115874718 hasOpenAccess W2115874718 @default.
• W2115874718 hasPrimaryLocation W21158747181 @default.
• W2115874718 hasRelatedWork W1964567729 @default.
• W2115874718 hasRelatedWork W2051540233 @default.
• W2115874718 hasRelatedWork W2098707609 @default.
• W2115874718 hasRelatedWork W2122166711 @default.
• W2115874718 hasRelatedWork W2145753255 @default.
• W2115874718 hasRelatedWork W2339289555 @default.
• W2115874718 hasRelatedWork W2517493814 @default.
• W2115874718 hasRelatedWork W3017010154 @default.
• W2115874718 hasRelatedWork W3203896279 @default.
• W2115874718 hasRelatedWork W4212844545 @default.
• W2115874718 hasVolume "21" @default.
• W2115874718 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2115874718 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2115874718 magId "2115874718" @default.
• W2115874718 workType "article" @default.