4.6 Article

Serum levels of angiogenic cytokines decrease after radiotherapy in non-Hodgkin lymphomas

期刊

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 141-145

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10238-008-0170-2

关键词

angiogenesis; cytokines; non-Hodgkin; lymphoma; prognosis; radiotherapy

资金

  1. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro AIRC
  2. Ministry of Education, Universities and Research MUR [2005]
  3. CARSO Project [72/2]
  4. Ministry for Health - Regione Puglia [BS2]
  5. Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (FIRC), Milan, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Serum levels of angiogenic cytokines decrease after radiotherapy in patients with cancer, and this may be relevant for treatment response and progression-free survival. Herein, we set out to determine whether circulating fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and platelet-derived growth factor-beta (PDGF-beta) decrease after radiotherapy in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs) and if so, whether their decrease correlates with age, tumour histotype and stage, and radiation dose. Material and methods The serum levels of FGF-2, VEGF, HGF and PDGF-beta were evaluated before and after radiotherapy by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay ( ELISA). These levels were correlated both reciprocally and with age, histotype, stage and radiation dose. Results After radiotherapy, FGF-2, VEGF and PDGF-beta, but not HGF, significantly decreased in relation to the radiation dose and response. No correlation was established between cytokine levels, except for VEGF and PDGF-beta, which decreased in parallel. Haemoglobin levels did not decrease after radiotherapy, while FGF-2, VEGF, HGF and PDGF-beta levels did not correlate with age, NHL stage and histotype. Conclusions Soluble FGF-2, VEGF and PDGF-beta levels decline after radiotherapy in NHLs, and may have predictive significance for response to treatment and recurrence.

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