Recent data from the COMPARZ study seem to suggest a noninferiority 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)

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

FALOPPI, LUCA;SCARTOZZI, MARIO;
2016

Abstract

Recent data from the COMPARZ study seem to suggest a noninferiority 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)
VEGF, Angiogenesis, Pazopanib, Renal cell carcinoma, Sunitinib
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
AngiogenesiReneOncotarget2016.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: versione editoriale
Dimensione 2.16 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.16 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11584/174290
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 8
  • Scopus 12
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 13
social impact