Oncotarget

Research Papers:

Angiogenesis genotyping in the selection of first-line treatment with either sunitinib or pazopanib for advanced renal cell carcinoma

Maristella Bianconi _, Luca Faloppi, Cristian Loretelli, Antonio Zizzi, Riccardo Giampieri, Alessandro Bittoni, Kalliopi Andrikou, Michela Del Prete, Luciano Burattini, Rodolfo Montironi, Mario Scartozzi and Stefano Cascinu

PDF  |  HTML  |  How to cite

Oncotarget. 2016; 7:37599-37607. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.9229

Metrics: PDF 1927 views  |   HTML 2573 views  |   ?  


Abstract

Maristella Bianconi1, Luca Faloppi1, Cristian Loretelli1, Antonio Zizzi2, Riccardo Giampieri1, Alessandro Bittoni1, Kalliopi Andrikou1, Michela Del Prete1, Luciano Burattini1, Rodolfo Montironi2, Mario Scartozzi3,*, Stefano Cascinu1,*

1Department of Oncology, AOU Ospedali Riuniti, Polytechnic University of The Marche Region, Ancona, Italy

2Institute of Pathological Anatomy, AOU Ospedali Riuniti, Polytechnic University of The Marche Region, Ancona, Italy

3Department of Medical Oncology, Università degli Studi di Cagliari - Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria, Cagliari, Italy

*Co-last authors

Correspondence to:

Maristella Bianconi, email: [email protected]

Keywords: renal cell carcinoma, VEGF, angiogenesis, sunitinib, pazopanib

Received: September 22, 2015     Accepted: March 28, 2016     Published: May 9, 2016

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Recent data from the COMPARZ study seem to suggest a non-inferiority of pazopanib confronted with sunitinib in PFS and OS. We previously reported how VEGF and VEGFR polymorphisms might have a predictive role in patients treated with first-line sunitinib. Aim of our study was to investigate whether tumour angiogenesis genotyping could influence clinical outcome in RCC patients treated with either sunitinib or pazopanib, in order to help clinicians select the appropriate treatment for each patient.

Results: 19 patients were treated with pazopanib while 78 received sunitinib. VEGF A rs833061 resulted significant in PFS in sunitinib vs pazopanib patients (CC+CT>TT in sunitinib, TT>CC+CT in pazopanib; p<0,0001); VEGF A rs2010963 resulted significant in PFS in sunitinib vs pazopanib patients (GG+CG>CC in sunitinib, CC>GG+CG in pazopanib; p<0,0001); VEGF A rs699947 resulted significant in PFS in sunitinib vs pazopanib patients (AA+AC>CC in sunitinib, CC>AA+AC in pazopanib; p<0,0001). OS showed no statistically significant difference.

Conclusions: in our analysis patients with opposite polymorphisms of rs833061, rs2010963, rs699947 of VEGF A seems to have a better PFS if treated with either sunitinib or pazopanib. Our data seem to suggest that biology could have a role choosing first line treatment for mRCC patients.

Methods: a retrospective analysis on 97 histologic samples of mRCC patients was conducted for VEGF-A, VEGF-C and VEGFR-1,2,3 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).


Creative Commons License All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PII: 9229