Plasma VEGF levels in breast cancer patients with and without metastases

  • Authors:
    • J. Stathopoulos
    • A. Armakolas
    • I. P. Gomatos
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: July 1, 2010     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol_00000129
  • Pages: 739-741
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a key mediator of angiogenesis since it stimulates the formation of new blood vessels. Basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) is related to the promotion of endothelial cells into tube-like structures, and it is therefore expected to promote angiogenesis with a greater potency than VEGF. VEGF and bFGF are considered to be biomarkers that predict treatment effectiveness. Elevated plasma VEGF and bFGF levels have been reported in a variety of different malignant tumors, and patients with metastatic disease have also been reported to present with higher serum VEGF and bFGF levels. Other studies have documented controversial results with respect to the prognostic and predictive value of the aforementioned biomarkers. This study aimed to determine the plasma VEGF and bFGF levels in breast cancer patients without metastatic disease compared with breast cancer patients with advanced metastatic disease. The study included 93 patients with breast cancer, 46 without recurrent disease (group A) and 47 with metastatic disease (group B), as well as 21 healthy individuals. The median age was 58 years (range 34-78) for group A and 59 years (range 37-75) for group B. All 93 patients underwent chemotherapy, adjuvant for group A, and adjuvant plus chemotherapy for group B patients with advanced disease. Plasma VEGF and bFGF levels were determined using a quantitative sandwich immunoassay, and samples were tested in triplicate (ELISA). The plasma levels of VEGF and bFGF varied greatly, i.e., from extremely low to extremely high in the two groups, as well as in the healthy individuals. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups or between the patients and healthy individuals. Data of the present study therefore showed that VEGF and bFGF levels are not valuable biomarkers for predicting treatment outcome.

Introduction

Certain biomarkers predict the treatment effectiveness of a number of targeting therapies. Molecular biology research has detected a number of protein receptors that regulate certain functions, such as cancer cell development. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a key mediator of angiogenesis since it stimulates the formation of new blood vessels. VEGF is a homodimeric glycoprotein with a molecular weight of approximately 45 kDa (1) and a member of the VEGF platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) family of structurally related mitogens (2). At least four main VEGF isoforms exist as a result of alternative patterns of splicing (3,4). A variety of factors, including PDGF, FGF, EGF and TNF up-regulate VEGF gene expression (5). Hypoxia also induces VEGF (6).

As with VEGF, 20 members of the basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) family, all of which are structurally related to signaling molecules, have been identified. One of the most important FGF isoforms is FGF 2 or bFGF. Since its function is the promotion of endothelial cells into tube-like structures, it is anticipated to promote angiogenesis with a greater potency than VEGF, since is chemotactic and mitogenic for endothelial cells. The FGF isoform modulates embryonic development and differentiation. Furthermore, it stimulates the proliferation of mesodermal and neuroectodermal cells (79).

Elevated serum and urine levels of VEGF and bFGF have been reported in patients with a variety of different malignant tumors (19). Patients with metastatic disease presented with higher serum VEGF and bFGF levels when compared to patients with localized disease (10). Subsequently, studies were performed to determine the diagnostic and prognostic (or predictive) value of these biomarkers. Results of these studies showed fluctuations in plasma (serum) VEGF levels, irrespective of the existence of the disease in the case of breast cancer patients (1114).

Information is scarce regarding the plasma levels of VEGF and bFGF in breast cancer patients with respect to advanced versus non-advanced disease. This study aimed to determine the plasma VEGF 165 and bFGF levels in patients with versus those without recurrent metastatic disease. VEGF and bFGF plasma levels were also examined in healthy individuals, as controls.

Materials and methods

Patient eligibility

Eligibility for the study required histologically confirmed breast cancer. All patients had previously undergone surgery, and the primary tumor was excised. Patients with no recurrence after a follow-up of 5–20 years, and patients with recurrent disease within the first 5 years of follow-up were included. Patients with metastases had bidimensionally measurable disease on physical examination, X-rays, computed tomography (CT), WHO performance status (PS) of 0–2, expected survival ≥12 weeks, adequate bone marrow reserves (leukocyte count ≥3500 μl−1, platelet count ≥100.000 μl−1, and hemoglobin ≥10 g μl−1), adequate renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg dl−1) and liver function (serum bilirubin ≤1.5 mg dl−1) and serum transaminases (≤3 times the upper limit of normal or ≤5 times the upper limit of normal in cases of liver metastases) and age ≥18 years. Patients with a second primary malignancy were excluded. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice Guidelines (15) and was approved by the hospital institutional ethics review boards. All 93 patients gave their informed consent before entering the study.

Study design and methods
Laboratory work technique

Blood samples were obtained after at least 5 h of fasting. Plasma VEGF and bFGF levels were determined using a quantitative sandwich immunoassay technique (Quantikine; R&D systems) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, and all samples were tested in triplicate. Briefly, 100 μl of the sample was added to 100 μl of diluent/well of the ELISA plate and incubated for 2 h at room temperature. After the wells were washed three times, 200 μl of VEGF or bFGF conjugate was added in each well followed by a 2-h incubation. Subsequently, 200 μl of substrate was added to each well, followed by a 25-min incubation at room temperature. The reaction was stopped by the addition of 50 μl stop buffer (2 M sulphuric acid), and the color intensity was measured in each case at 450 nm for VEGF and 490 nm for bFGF using a microplate reader. Corrections for the obtained values were carried out by subtracting the readings of 450 nm or 490 nm from the reading of 540 nm, as indicated by the manufacturer of the kits.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were reported as the mean ± standard deviation. Relationships between categorical variables were tested by χ2 analysis. Yate’s correction or Fisher’s exact test were used when necessary. The ANOVA test was used to compare mean VEGF and bFGF values between the two groups of patients. P<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Data were analyzed using SPSS 13.0.

Data were presented as the median and inter-quartile range (Q1–Q3). A comparison of the two groups was carried out by the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test. A comparison of statistical differences was performed between the two groups (group A patients without metastasis and group B patients with metastatic disease).

Results

The study included 93 patients with breast cancer. The patients had initially undergone surgery, where the primary tumor was excised. At the time of examination, 46 patients were without recurrent disease (group A) and 47 had metastatic disease (group B). The median age was 58 years (range 34–78) for group A and 59 years (range 37–75) for Group B. The patients had chemotherapy (adjuvant, for group A) and adjuvant plus chemotherapy for a second time when the disease recurred (group B). Table I shows the patient characteristics. The healthy controls consisted of 21 cancer-free individuals. All 93 patients (46 patients without metastasis and 47 with metastases) were evaluable for the VEGF and bFGF plasma values.

Table I

Characteristics of the patients (n=93) and controls (n=21).

Table I

Characteristics of the patients (n=93) and controls (n=21).

Group AGroup BHealthy controls
No of patientsa464721
Age, years
 Median585938
 Range34–7837–7530–58
Performance status (WHO)
 0461521
 1-26-
 2-6-
Disease stage
 I–III at diagnosis46--
 IV-47-
Disease metastasis
 Bone-7-
 Liver-14-
 Lungs-6-
 Multiple-20-

a No. of evaluable patients, 93.

{ label (or @symbol) needed for fn[@id='tfn2-ol-01-04-0739'] } WHO, World Health Organization.

No statistically significant difference was determined between the two groups in either VEGF or bFGF values. The results are shown in Table II. In the healthy individuals, the plasma values of VEGF and bFGF fluctuated in a similar manner to that of the patients. These values were 5–680 with a median of 74.

Table II

Comparison of VEGF and bFGF markers between patient group A (no recurrence) and group B (with recurrence).

Table II

Comparison of VEGF and bFGF markers between patient group A (no recurrence) and group B (with recurrence).

Group A
No recurrence (n=46)
Median (Q1–Q3)
Group B
With recurrence (n=47)
Median (Q1–Q3)
P-valuea
VEGF84.16 (12.38–195.54)86.33 (18.31–182.30)0.979
bFGF73.92 (28.62–142.18)44.79 (23.13–144.86)0.541

a Mann-Whitney test.

Discussion

Elevated VEGF expression was reported to correlate with poor prognosis for cancer patients (1315). It was also suggested that VEGF is a prognostic marker that determines high versus low risk for disease relapse, and whether patients are node-negative or node-positive (14,16,17). Patients with high levels of VEGF in tumors are unlikely to benefit from adjuvant conventional treatments. This may indicate that VEGF has predictive value in the treatment of breast carcinoma (16). VEGF expression correlates with microvessel density, indicating the direct involvement of VEGF in angiogenesis (18). Similarly to VEGF, basic FGF is involved in tumorigenesis, angiogenesis and metastasis (18). The stromal-derived fraction of bFGF is the predominant form in breast tumors (16,18). Studies of either node-positive or node-negative breast tumors reported negative results with regard to the clinical significance of bFGF (1518). The relationship between tumor microvessel counts and bFGF levels implies no direct involvement between bFGF and angiogenesis. One important point is that bFGF may be one of the multiple factors that synergize with other growth factors in order to enhance angiogenesis (18). In our results, VEGF as well as bFGF plasma levels were shown to be extensively varied and showed no difference in patients with recurrent metastatic disease versus patients without recurrent disease. This extensive variation in plasma values indicates that VEGF and bFGF are not biomarkers with a prognostic and predictive value. Data from the literature presented here are controversial and provide no definite answers regarding the role of VEGF and bFGF values in carcinogenesis and metastasis. Two other studies confirm this conclusion. In one study, high levels of bFGF showed a significantly longer disease-free survival than in patients with a low bFGF level (19). The opposite results were documented in a second study (20). The above-mentioned findings as well as data related to treatment with anti-angiogenic agents (agents that target VEGF) are controversial. In clinical practice, bevacizumab, which targets VEGF, has shown both positive and negative results concerning the prolongation of survival in patients with colorectal cancer (2124).

In conclusion, our findings as well as the inconsistencies documented in the literature, do not confirm that VEGF and bFGF levels act as convincing biomarkers that assist the prognosis and prediction of breast cancer as well as other types of cancer.

References

1 

Carmeliet P: VEGF as a key mediator of angiogenesis in cancer. Oncology. 69(Suppl 3): 4–10. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Ferrara N and Davis-Smyth T: The biology of vascular endothelial growth factor. Endocr Rev. 18:4–25. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar

3 

Ferrara N, Gerber HP and Le Couter J: The biology of VEGF and its receptors. Nat Med. 9:669–676. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Ferrara N: Role of vascular endothelial growth factor in regulation of physiological angiogenesis. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 280:C1358–C1366. 2001.PubMed/NCBI

5 

Ferrara N: Vascular endothelial growth factor as target for anticancer therapy. Oncologist. 9(Suppl 1): 2–10. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar

6 

Shweiki D, Itin A, Soffer D and Kesdet E: Vascular endothelial growth factor induced by hypoxia may mediate hypoxia-initiated angiogenesis. Nature. 359:843–845. 1992. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7 

Popovici C, Roubin R, Coulier F and Birnbaum D: An evolutionary history of the FGF superfamily. Bioessays. 27:849–857. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Bottcher RT and Niehrs C: Fibroblast growth factor signaling during vertebrate development. Endocr Rev. 26:63–77. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Powers CJ, McLeskey SW and Wellstein A: Fibroblast growth factors, their receptors and signaling. Endocr Rel Cancer. 7:165–197. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Hayes DF: Prognostic and predictive factors revisited. Breast. 14:493–499. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Hicklin DJ and Ellis LM: Role of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway in tumor growth and angiogenesis. J Clin Oncol. 23:1010–1027. 2005.PubMed/NCBI

12 

Larsson A, Sköldenberg E and Ericson H: Serum and plasma levels of FGF-2 and VEGF in healthy blood donors. Angiogenesis. 5:107–110. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Potgens A, Westphal H, De Waal R and Ruiter D: The role of vascular permeability factor and basic fibroblast growth factor in tumor angiogenesis. Biol Chem Hoppe-Seyler. 376:57–70. 1995.PubMed/NCBI

14 

Relf M, LeJeune S, Scott PA, et al: Expression of the angiogenic factors vascular endothelial cell growth factor, acidic and basic fibroblast growth factor, tumor growth factor beta-1, platelet-derived endothelial cell growth factor, placenta growth factor, and pleiothophin in human primary breast cancer and its relation to angiogenesis. Cancer Res. 57:963–969. 1997.

15 

Agnantis NJ, Goussia AC, Batistatou A and Stefanou D: Tumor markers in cancer patients: an update of their prognostic significance (part II). In Vivo. 18:481–485. 2004.PubMed/NCBI

16 

Gasparini G: Clinical significance of determination of surrogate markers of angiogenesis in breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 37:97–114. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

17 

Eppenberger U, Kueng W, Schlaeppi JM, et al: Markers of tumor angiogenesis and protelysis independently define high- and low-risk subsets of node negative breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 16:3129–3136. 1998.PubMed/NCBI

18 

Smith K, Fox SB, Whitehouse R, et al: Upregulation of bFGF in breast carcinoma and its relationship to vascular density, estrogen receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor and survival. Ann Oncol. 10:707–713. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Yiangon C, Gomm JJ, Coope RC, et al: Fibroblast growth factor 2 in breast cancer: occurrence and prognostic significance. Br J Cancer. 75:28–33. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

20 

Colomer R, Aparicio J, Montero S, Guzman C, Larrodera L and Cortes-Funes H: Low levels of bFGF are associated with poor prognosis in human breast carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 76:1215–1220. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Giantonio BJ, Katalano PJ, Meropol NJ, et al: Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E 3200. J Clin Oncol. 25:1539–1544. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar

22 

Saltz LA, Clarke S, Diaz-Rubio E, et al: Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 26:2013–2019. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

23 

Carmeliet P: VEGF as a key mediator of angiogenesis in cancer. Oncology. 69(Suppl 3): 4–10. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

24 

Ellis LM and Haller DG: Bevacizumab beyond progression: Does this make sense? Editorial J Clin Oncol. 3:1–3. 2009.

Related Articles

Journal Cover

July-August 2010
Volume 1 Issue 4

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Stathopoulos J, Armakolas A and Gomatos IP: Plasma VEGF levels in breast cancer patients with and without metastases . Oncol Lett 1: 739-741, 2010
APA
Stathopoulos, J., Armakolas, A., & Gomatos, I.P. (2010). Plasma VEGF levels in breast cancer patients with and without metastases . Oncology Letters, 1, 739-741. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol_00000129
MLA
Stathopoulos, J., Armakolas, A., Gomatos, I. P."Plasma VEGF levels in breast cancer patients with and without metastases ". Oncology Letters 1.4 (2010): 739-741.
Chicago
Stathopoulos, J., Armakolas, A., Gomatos, I. P."Plasma VEGF levels in breast cancer patients with and without metastases ". Oncology Letters 1, no. 4 (2010): 739-741. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol_00000129