4.6 Article

Circulating Endothelial Cells in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Carboplatin and Paclitaxel

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 208-213

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318193030d

关键词

Circulating endothelial cell; NSCLC; Chemotherapy

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Welfare and Labour Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) increase in cancer patients and play an important role in tumor neovascularization. Methods: This study was designed to investigate the role of CEC as a marker for predicting the effectiveness of a carboplatin plus paclitaxel based first line chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Results: The CEC count in 4 ml of peripheral blood before starting chemotherapy (baseline value) was significantly higher in NSCLC patients, ranging from 32 to 4501/4 ml (n = 31, mean +/- SD = 595 +/- 832), than in healthy volunteers (n = 53, 46.2 +/- 86.3). We did not detect a significant correlation between the CEC count and estimated tumor Volume. CECs were significantly decreased by chemotherapy as compared with pretreatment values (175.6 +/- 24 and 173.0 +/- 24, day +8, +22, respectively). We investigated the correlation between baseline CEC and the clinical effectiveness of chemotherapy. CEC values are significantly higher in patients with clinical benefit (partial response and stable disease, 516 +/- 458, 870.8 +/- 1215, respectively) than in progressive disease patients (211 +/- 150). Furthermore, a statistically significant decrease in CECs, on day 22, was observed only in patients with partial response. Patients who had a baseline CEC count greater than 400/4 ml showed a longer progression-free survival (>400, 271 days [range: 181-361] versus <400, 34 [range: 81-186], p = 0.019). Conclusion: CEC is suggested to be a promising predictive marker of the clinical efficacy of the CBDCA plus paclitaxel regimen in patients with NSCLC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据