Are basic fibroblast growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor prognostic indicators in pediatric patients with malignant solid tumors?

Citation
Md. Tabone et al., Are basic fibroblast growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor prognostic indicators in pediatric patients with malignant solid tumors?, CLIN CANC R, 7(3), 2001, pp. 538-543
Citations number
42
Categorie Soggetti
Oncology
Journal title
CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
ISSN journal
10780432 → ACNP
Volume
7
Issue
3
Year of publication
2001
Pages
538 - 543
Database
ISI
SICI code
1078-0432(200103)7:3<538:ABFGFA>2.0.ZU;2-6
Abstract
Angiogenesis plays an important role in the growth, progression, and metast asis of solid tumors. Among angiogenic factors, basic fibroblast growth fac tor (bFGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) appear to be usefu l markers in adults with cancer. The aim of this pilot study was to determi ne the levels of VEGF in serum and bFGF in serum and urine of children with solid tumor at diagnosis las measured by ELISA), and to investigate whethe r these parameters provide prognostic information. Forty consecutive patien ts with different types of canter were prospectively included in this study . Median values of all studied angiogenic factors were higher in patients t han in controls (n = 40), and the differences were statistically significan t for bFGF in serum and urine: 10 versus 3 pg/ml (P = 0.0008 and 6406 versu s 0 pg/g of creatinine (P < 0.0001), respectively. Among patients, median s erum values of bFGF. and VEGF were higher in children with metastatic disea se (n = 14) than in those with localized disease (n = 26), The difference w as statistically significant for serum bFGF: 17.5 versus 6 pg/ml (P = 0.02) , Serum angiogenic factor levels correlated with outcome. The estimated eve nt-free survival at 3 years was 79% for patients with normal bFGF values (n = 13) versus 42% (n = 26; P = 0.02) for those with high levels, and 71% in case of normal VE:GF values (n = 20) versus 38% (n = 19; P = 0.04) for tho se with high levels. No benefit of normal urinary bFGF values was observed. Our results provide a rationale for exploring the clinical interest of bFG F and VEGF measurements in body fluids of a larger group of children with c ancer.