Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • "Best of" Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • "Best of" Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Article

Prognostic Significance of VEGF after Twenty-Year Follow-up in a Randomized Trial of Fenretinide in Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer

Matteo Puntoni, Marilena Petrera, Sara Campora, Elsa Garrone, Carlotta Defferrari, Rosalba Torrisi, Harriet Johansson, Silvia Bruno, Antonio Curotto and Andrea DeCensi
Matteo Puntoni
1Clinical Trial Unit, Scientific Direction, E.O. Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marilena Petrera
2Medical Oncology Unit, E.O. Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sara Campora
2Medical Oncology Unit, E.O. Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elsa Garrone
3Liguria Region Mortality Registry, IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Genoa, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carlotta Defferrari
2Medical Oncology Unit, E.O. Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rosalba Torrisi
4Department of Oncology and Hematology, Humanitas Cancer Center, Humanitas Clinical and Research Hospital, Rozzano (Milan), Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harriet Johansson
5Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Silvia Bruno
6Department of Experimental Medicine (DIMES), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Antonio Curotto
7University Urology Clinic, IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Genoa, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrea DeCensi
2Medical Oncology Unit, E.O. Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy.
8Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
9Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: andrea.decensi@galliera.it
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-15-0345 Published June 2016
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) may progress to muscle-invasive disease, but no effective preventive treatments are available. In addition, no reliable prognostic biomarkers have been identified. We assessed the long-term effect of the oral retinoid fenretinide and the prognostic value of circulating VEGF levels. We updated through the Tumor Registry the vital status of 99 patients with resected Ta/T1 bladder tumors who were recruited in a randomized trial of 2 years of fenretinide or no treatment in 1993–1994. Serum VEGF levels measured at baseline and 12 months were available in a subgroup of 62 patients. After a median of 20.5 years, 54 subjects died, 35 of any cancer and 14 of bladder cancer. Neither overall survival (OS), nor cancer survival (CS) or bladder cancer survival (BCS) was affected by fenretinide (log-rank P ≥ 0.2). DNA aneuploidy in bladder washing was associated with shorter OS (P = 0.02), CS (P = 0.05), and BCS (P = 0.09). Subjects with baseline VEGF levels in the top quintile (≥350 pg/mL) had a significantly shorter OS (P = 0.01), CS (P = 0.02), and BCS (P = 0.008). The trend across quintiles of VEGF was significant for BCS (P = 0.007). Multivariate analyses showed that, in addition to smoking status, VEGF level in the top quintile was an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR = 2.7; 95% CI, 1.1–6.5), CS (HR = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.1–9.4) and BCS (HR = 8.9; 95% CI,1.3–61). Fenretinide did not affect the long-term outcome of patients with NMIBC. High serum VEGF level was a significant predictor of overall and cancer death and may help to identify high-risk subjects who may benefit from a preventive therapy. Cancer Prev Res; 9(6); 437–44. ©2016 AACR.

Introduction

Bladder cancer is the fourth most common tumor in men and the twelfth most common cancer in women in the United States, with approximately 74,000 new cases being expected in 2015 (1).

Non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) represents about 70% to 80% of bladder neoplasms and includes low-grade papillary forms (stage Ta), tumors invading the lamina propria (T1) and carcinoma in situ (Tis) (2, 3). Roughly between 50% and 70% of non–muscle-invasive tumors do recur, and approximately 10% to 20% of them progress to muscle-invasive disease (4–6). Bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG) intravesical immunotherapy is the recommended treatment for high-risk, early-stage bladder cancer, but high recurrence and progression rates (15–20%) to muscle-invasive cancer still remain (5). Furthermore, no reliable quantitative biomarkers that predict progression and death from the affected target organ have been identified (7, 8).

NMIBC is an important target for the accelerated development of new agents designed to reduce cancer incidence and mortality (9). There is increasing need to identify risk biomarkers that are measurable and repeatable in order to allow selection of high-risk individuals to allow efficient drug testing in chemoprevention clinical trials (10–12).

Based on encouraging findings from a phase IIa trial (10), in 1993 we conducted a randomized trial of the synthetic retinoid fenretinide given orally for 2 years in patients with resected stage T1 or Ta bladder cancer, with negative results on the primary outcome measure, which was DNA flow cytometry in bladder washings (13). More recently, we showed the prognostic effect of DNA aneuploidy (i.e., DNA index > 1.1) from bladder washed cells on disease progression and death after a median follow-up time of 11.5 years (14).

Angiogenesis is critical for tumor growth by providing oxygen, nutrients, and growth factors to the cancer cells (15). VEGF, a homodimeric glycoprotein with a molecular weight of approximately 45 kDa, is considered to be a crucial regulator of both normal and pathologic angiogenesis (16, 17). The expression of VEGF, either in tissue and serum, has been extensively investigated in patients with NMIBC and bladder cancer with different findings (18–25). Retinoids have been shown to modulate angiogenesis and to inhibit carcinogenesis through different mechanisms, including an angiopreventive effect (26, 27).

In the present paper, we report the results of fenretinide on survival endpoints after a median of 20.5 years and assess the prognostic value of circulating VEGF, which was measured in a subgroup of patients (n = 62).

Materials and Methods

Study design, subjects, and treatment

A phase IIb chemoprevention trial with fenretinide in NMIBC started at the National Cancer Institute of Genoa in 1993. A detailed description of the trial has been published elsewhere (13). Briefly, 99 subjects, ages < 80, with NMIBC (stage Ta or T1, any grade) resected within the previous 3 years, were randomized to receive fenretinide 200 mg/day or no treatment for 2 years. An additional year of follow-up was included to evaluate any potential rebound effect. The primary outcome measure was the flow cytometric DNA content in epithelial cells obtained after 12 months. A detailed description of the original trial design, study procedures, and main results has previously been described (10, 13, 28). Years later, we decided to assess the prognostic significance of circulating VEGF and its potential surrogate effect on survival by fenretinide modulation. Available samples from 63 subjects who had completed the first year of study and had serum aliquots at both time points were identified; data from one subject was further excluded because of a second malignancy at the end of the first year of treatment. Analysis was thus performed on samples from 62 subjects, 29 allocated in the fenretinide and 33 in the control arm, respectively.

Assay methods

Serum concentrations of VEGF were measured on morning fasting blood samples. Blood were drawn at baseline and after 12-month treatment and serum aliquots were stored at −80°C until assayed in a single experiment at the end of the trial to minimize analytical variability and blinded as to treatment allocation.

Serum VEGF was measured by means of a quantitative sandwich enzyme immunoassay kit (SVE00) produced by R&D Systems. A monoclonal antibody specific for VEGF was precoated onto a 96-well microplate. Standards and samples were dispensed into the wells in duplicate. Any VEGF present was bound by the immobilized antibody. After washing away any unbound substances, an enzyme-linked polyclonal antibody specific for VEGF was added to the wells. Following washing to remove any unbound antibody–enzyme reagent, a substrate solution was added to the wells and color developed in proportion to the amount of VEGF bound in the initial step. The color development was stopped and the optical density was determined on a microliter plate reader at 450 nm. A standard curve was created by plotting the logarithm of the mean absorbance of each standard versus the logarithm of the cytokine concentration. The sensitivity of the assay was 9.0 pg/mL. The intra-assay and inter-assay coefficients of variation were less than 7% and 9%, respectively.

Cohort follow-up.

Information on patients' health status was ascertained from the Urology Units who participated in the trial or, when the patient was lost to follow-up, through computer linkage with the local Mortality Registry or by phone. Causes of death were ascertained through death certificates or by review of the local Mortality Registry.

Statistical analysis.

The main descriptive statistics were mean and standard deviation, median, interquartile range (IQR), and quintiles for continuous factors, absolute and relative frequency for categorical factors. The Mann–Whitney rank test was used to compare continuous factors and Pearson χ2 or Fisher exact test were used to compare categorical factors between treatment arms. Kaplan–Meier estimates of the cumulative probability for overall survival (OS), cancer survival (CS), bladder cancer–specific survival (BCS), defined as the time from randomization to death, death from cancer, death from bladder cancer, respectively, were obtained for all the baseline factors, including allocated treatment (fenretinide versus control), age, sex, smoking habit, tumor stage, tumor grade, recurrence history, previous intravesical treatment, DNA aneuploidy (DNA index < 1.1 vs. ≥ 1.1) and VEGF baseline levels. To assess the prognostic role of VEGF and in the absence of any validated threshold, we considered quintiles of VEGF distribution and evaluated the clinical outcome in terms of OS, CS, and BCS.

Multivariate Cox modeling was used to assess the independent prognostic effect of all factors under investigation. All covariates were tested for the proportional hazards assumption. Starting from a full model (i.e., including all baseline factors cited above), we adopted a backward stepwise selection approach with a significance cutoff level for removal from the model equal to 0.20 (Wald P value). P values were two-sided and considered significant if <0.05; all calculations were performed using STATA version 13 software.

Results

Patient characteristics at baseline according to the treatment arm had been described extensively in previous publications (10, 16) and are shown in Supplementary Table S1. Briefly, the two arms were well balanced for patient and tumor characteristics except for a trend toward an excess of former smokers in the fenretinide treatment arm.

Table 1 illustrates VEGF levels by the treatment arm, in the subgroup of 62 patients who had measured this biomarker at baseline and after 12 months from randomization. VEGF levels were not significantly different between fenretinide-treated and control subjects either at baseline or after 12 months. Overall, a significant decrease of VEGF levels was observed after 12 months (P = 0.007), regardless of the treatment arm.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

VEGF levels at baseline and after 12 months by the treatment arm (n = 62)

A comparison of subjects' characteristics according to VEGF levels determination is shown in Table 2. Except for age, where subjects without VEGF determination were on average 5 years older, there was no statistically significant difference between groups in any patients' characteristic. However, as illustrated in Fig. 1, patients with VEGF determinations showed a trend to an increased survival (HR 0.59 and 0.42 for OS and BCS, respectively), suggesting that VEGF analysis was not performed in a random subgroup.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Main subject characteristics by serum availability for VEGF level determination

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Kaplan–Meier OS (A), CS (B), and BCS (C) according to VEGF determination (undetermined, dotted line; determined, continuous line). HRs from a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age are provided.

After a median follow-up of 20.5 years (interquartile range, 20.3–20.8), a total of 54 subjects died, 35 of any cancer and 14 of bladder cancer. The distribution of VEGF levels at baseline (quintiles of distribution) according to subsequent deaths is summarized in Supplementary Table S2. Within the subgroup of 62 in whom VEGF levels were measured, all 6 bladder cancer deaths had baseline VEGF levels higher than or equal to the median level (216 pg/mL), and 3 had VEGF levels in the top quintile (>350 pg/mL).

In univariate analyses, we tested the effect of fenretinide treatment, aneuploidy in bladder washings (DNA index < 1.1 vs. ≥ 1.1) and VEGF levels (< and ≥ the 5th quintile, 350 pg/mL) on OS, CS, and BCS. There was no effect of the retinoid on any of the three outcome measures (Fig. 2), nor was there any interaction between retinoid treatment and smoking status (data not shown). As regards DNA index (Supplementary Fig. S1), the cumulative probability of death at 20 years from any cause, any cancer and bladder cancer was 28%, 53%, and 77% for DNA diploid washings and 60%, 71% and 88% for DNA aneuploid washings, respectively (log-rank test P = 0.02, 0.05, and 0.1, respectively). Finally, compared with subjects in quintiles 1–4 of VEGF levels pooled together, subjects in the top VEGF quintile had a significantly shorter OS (cumulative probability of death at 20 years: 62% vs. 33%, respectively, P = 0.01), CS (74% vs. 44%, P = 0.02) and BCS (92% vs. 69%, P = 0.008; Fig. 3). More importantly, a statistically significant trend across ordered quintiles of VEGF was found for BCS (P = 0.007), but not for OS and CS (P = 0.13 and 0.2, respectively).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier OS (A), CS (B), and BCS (C) according treatment (fenretinide, dotted line; no treatment, continuous line).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Kaplan–Meier OS (A), CS (B), and BCS (C) curves according to VEGF values at baseline (below vs. above or equal the top quintile, i.e., 350 pg/mL). P values for test for trend across ordered quintiles of VEGF are provided.

Table 3 shows the results of Cox multivariate analysis. The final models showed that the top VEGF quintile at baseline were the only independent predictor for all three outcomes, namely, all-cause mortality (HR = 2.65, 95% CI, 1.09–6.47; P = 0.03), cancer mortality (HR = 3.27, 95% CI, 1.14–9.40; P = 0.03), and bladder cancer mortality (HR = 8.87, 95% CI, 1.29–61.2; P = 0.03). Smoking and T1 stage had prognostic effect on OS and CS, respectively, whereas there was a trend toward a higher risk of death from bladder cancer in subjects in the fenretinide arm (P = 0.09). Adjusting for other variables, DNA index was not independently associated with any of the mortality outcomes (P > 0.7).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Multivariate Cox proportional hazard model OS, CS, and BCS (n = 59)a

Discussion

Despite recent advances in screening and multimodality therapy, the outcome for advanced bladder cancer remains generally poor, thus emphasizing the need for early detection and effective prevention strategies as well as better prognostic and predictive markers and tailored treatment approaches. Currently, the most widely studied prognostic factors are related to pathologic characteristics of the neoplasm, including tumor size, grade, stage, and vascular invasion (29–32).

Angiogenesis is a multistep process and there is evidence that the angiogenic switch, defined as the point at which a tumor is able to induce the formation of new vessels, occurs very early during the carcinogenesis process with VEGF being a pivotal regulator of this event (15, 16). It thus appears plausible that chemoprevention may include inhibition of angiogenesis among its potential targets (33, 34).

Our results after a median follow-up time of 20.5 years show that 55% of subjects with NMIBC who participated in a chemoprevention trial of fenretinide have died, 35% of any cancer and 15% of invasive bladder cancer, supporting the notion that this is a high-risk group in whom effective preventive interventions are needed. Conventional clinical factors such as tumor stage and smoking habit were associated with a greater risk of death, in line with literature findings (35). Interestingly, we showed an intriguing trend to an association between circulating VEGF levels at baseline and death for bladder cancer inasmuch as all of the 6 subjects who died of bladder cancer had VEGF levels above the median value, and the half of them were in the top VEGF quintile. We showed a significant trend across ordered quintiles of VEGF with BCS only (P = 0.007), supporting a biologic link between angiogenesis and bladder carcinogenesis progression. More importantly, high circulating levels of VEGF also had an independent, statistically significant, prognostic effect on all mortality endpoints after adjustment for age, stage, and smoking habit. Specifically, VEGF level ≥350 pg/mL was the strongest predictor of BCS, although the small sample size precludes any firm conclusion, as reflected by the wide confidence interval of the estimate.

To our knowledge this is the first report showing a prognostic value of circulating VEGF levels in NMIBC, with not only OS but also cancer-specific survival and BCS as endpoints, thus linking a strong and validated angiogenesis biomarker to death for invasive bladder cancer.

The role of VEGF in bladder carcinogenesis has extensively been studied, but results remain inconclusive. Higher urinary and serum VEGF levels have been associated with a greater risk of recurrence and progression to invasive cancer in NMIBC (18, 19). Furthermore, the degree of invasiveness of NMIBC have recently been linked to high levels of VEGF (20, 21), suggesting a relationship between VEGF and prognosis of NMIBC (22, 23), and a recent meta-analysis (36) of over 1,200 patients showed that elevated VEGF expression was significantly associated with poor prognosis, both in terms of OS (HR = 1.84; 95% CI, 1.23–2.76) and disease-free survival (HR = 1.50; 95% CI, 1.26–1.79).

A strength of our observation is the long-term follow-up and the source of data derived from a randomized clinical trial. Moreover, in contrast to other reports, in our study, circulating VEGF was determined in patients after TURB and therefore possibly unrelated to the papillary tumor burden. Thus, we hypothesize that high serum levels reflect the degree of field cancerization in the bladder and high serum VEGF may represent a biomarker of imbalance between proangiogenic and antiangiogenic factors, which may ultimately result in an angiogenic switch toward proliferation of endothelial cells and the development of a neoplastic phenotype. Additional studies are necessary to confirm our exploratory finding. As for the significant decrease of VEGF levels 1 year apart, we have no ready explanation for this, except for a regression to the mean phenomenon rather than an a real biologic effect associated with the prolonged interval from initial TURB or an analytical artifact.

An important weakness of our analysis is the lack of VEGF measurements in all subjects as only a subgroup of 62 had available serum aliquots. These subjects were on average 5 years younger and, consequently, had increased survival compared with the 37 subjects without VEGF determination. However, age difference does not appear to fully explain the increased survival of this group since the association still persists after adjusting for age, although not significantly so. The reason for this selection bias, which clearly limits the generalizability of our findings, is still unclear but has likely to do with the possibility that older patients could be less likely to remain on the fenretinide trial for a full year.

As in a previous report (14), we showed no effect of the treatment with fenretinide (200 mg day for 2 years) on survival endpoint. This finding is consistent with previous results suggesting a lack of efficacy (13, 37) or even a detrimental effect by beta carotene and retinoids when used to inhibit tobacco-related carcinogenesis in large clinical trials (38, 39). We have no strong evidence to support a detrimental effect, although a slight trend to an increase in overall mortality was noted in the fenretinide arm, in line with preclinical evidence of a detrimental effect of beta-carotene in smokers (40).

In conclusion, our 20-year survival data show that fenretinide does not affect disease outcome in subjects with NMIBC. However, we detected an inverse association between baseline VEGF levels and BCS in our cohort of patients with resected NMIBC, even if generalizability of our results may not be fully applicable due to the apparent selection bias in the cohort we examined. Because angiogenesis represents a key step in tumor progression, and VEGF is implied in early stages of angiogenesis, its circulating levels may represent a putative biomarker to select high-risk patients as well as a candidate surrogate endpoint for future chemoprevention studies.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: M. Puntoni, R. Torrisi, A. DeCensi

Development of methodology: M. Puntoni, R. Torrisi, H. Johansson, A. Curotto, A. DeCensi

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): S. Campora, E. Garrone, C. Defferrari, R. Torrisi, H. Johansson, S. Bruno, A. Curotto

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): M. Puntoni, A. DeCensi

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: M. Puntoni, M. Petrera, R. Torrisi, H. Johansson, A. DeCensi

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): S. Campora, E. Garrone, R. Torrisi

Study supervision: R. Torrisi, A. DeCensi

Grant Support

This study was supported in part by the U.S. NIH/National Cancer Institute, grant number 5UO1 CA-56457 (A. DeCensi), the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC; A. DeCensi), the Italian Foundation for Cancer Research (FIRC; A. DeCensi), the Italian League against Cancer (LILT; A. DeCensi).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Prevention Research Online (http://cancerprevres.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Received September 17, 2015.
  • Revision received March 17, 2016.
  • Accepted March 25, 2016.
  • ©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Siegel RL,
    2. Miller KD,
    3. Jemal A
    . Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:5–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Burger M,
    2. Catto JW,
    3. Dalbagni G,
    4. Grossman HB,
    5. Herr H,
    6. Karakiewicz P,
    7. et al.
    Epidemiology and risk factors of urothelial bladder cancer. Eur Urol 2013;63:234–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Kirkali Z,
    2. Chan T,
    3. Manoharan M,
    4. Algaba F,
    5. Busch C,
    6. Cheng L,
    7. et al.
    Bladder cancer: epidemiology, staging and grading, and diagnosis. Urology 2005;66:4–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Oosterlinck W,
    2. Solsona E,
    3. Akaza H,
    4. Busch C,
    5. Goebell PJ,
    6. Malmström PU,
    7. et al.
    Low-grade Ta (noninvasive) urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Urology 2005;66:75–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Nieder AM,
    2. Brausi M,
    3. Lamm D,
    4. O'Donnell M,
    5. Tomita K,
    6. Woo H,
    7. et al.
    Management of stage T1 tumors of the bladder: International Consensus Panel. Urology 2005;66:108–25.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Sun M,
    2. Trinh QD
    . Diagnosis and staging of bladder cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2015;29:205–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Stein JP,
    2. Grossfeld GD,
    3. Ginsberg DA,
    4. Esrig D,
    5. Freeman JA,
    6. Figueroa AJ,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic markers in bladder cancer: a contemporary review of the literature. J Urol 1998;160:645–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Habuchi T,
    2. Marberger M,
    3. Droller MJ,
    4. Hemstreet GP 3rd.,
    5. Grossman HB,
    6. Schalken JA,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic markers for bladder cancer: International Consensus Panel on bladder tumor markers. Urology 2005;66:64–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. O'Shaughnessy JA,
    2. Kelloff GJ,
    3. Gordon GB,
    4. Dannenberg AJ,
    5. Hong WK,
    6. Fabian CJ,
    7. et al.
    Treatment and prevention of intraepithelial neoplasia: an important target for accelerated new agent development. Clin Cancer Res 2002;8:314–46.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Decensi A,
    2. Bruno S,
    3. Costantini M,
    4. Torrisi R,
    5. Curotto A,
    6. Gatteschi B,
    7. et al.
    Phase IIa study of fenretinide in superficial bladder cancer, using DNA flow cytometry as an intermediate end point. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:138–40.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Schatzkin A,
    2. Freedman LS,
    3. Dorgan J,
    4. McShane LM,
    5. Schiffman MH,
    6. Dawsey SM
    . Surrogate end points in cancer research: a critique. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 1996;5:947–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  12. 12.↵
    1. Kelloff GJ,
    2. Hawk ET,
    3. Karp JE,
    4. Crowell JA,
    5. Boone CW,
    6. Steele VE,
    7. et al.
    Progress in clinical chemoprevention. Semin. Oncol 1997;24:241–52.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Decensi A,
    2. Torrisi R,
    3. Bruno S,
    4. Costantini M,
    5. Curotto A,
    6. Nicolò G,
    7. et al.
    Randomized trial of fenretinide in superficial bladder cancer using DNA flow cytometry as an intermediate end point. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000;9:1071–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Puntoni M,
    2. Zanardi S,
    3. Branchi D,
    4. Bruno S,
    5. Curotto A,
    6. Varaldo M,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic effect of DNA aneuploidy from bladder washings in superficial bladder cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16:979–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Folkman J
    . Angiogenesis in cancer, vascular, rheumatoid and other disease. Nat Med 1995;1:27–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Ferrara N
    . Vascular endothelial growth factor: basic science and clinical progress. Endocr Rev 2004;25:581–611.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Hoeben A,
    2. Landuyt B,
    3. Highley MS,
    4. Wildiers H,
    5. Van Oosterom AT,
    6. De Bruijn EA
    . Vascular endothelial growth factor and angiogenesis. Pharmacol Rev 2004;56:549–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Crew JP,
    2. O'Brien T,
    3. Bradburn M,
    4. Fuggle S,
    5. Bicknell R,
    6. Cranston D,
    7. et al.
    Vascular endothelial growth factor is a predictor of relapse and stage progression in superficial bladder cancer. Cancer Res 1997;57:5281–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Crew JP,
    2. O'Brien T,
    3. Bicknell R,
    4. Fuggle S,
    5. Cranston D,
    6. Harris AL
    . Urinary vascular endothelial growth factor and its correlation with bladder cancer recurrence rates. J Urol 1999;161:799–804.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Beecken WD,
    2. Engl T,
    3. Hofmann J,
    4. Jonas D,
    5. Blaheta R
    . Clinical relevance of serum angiogenic activity in patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. J Cell Mol Med 2005;9:655–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Jeon SH,
    2. Lee SJ,
    3. Chang SG
    . Clinical significance of urinary vascular endothelial growth factor in patients with superficial bladder tumors. Oncol Rep 2001;8:1265–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Theodoropoulos VE,
    2. Lazaris ACh,
    3. Sofras F,
    4. Gerzelis I,
    5. Tsoukala V,
    6. Ghikonti I,
    7. et al.
    Hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha expression correlates with angiogenesis and unfavorable prognosis in bladder cancer. Eur Urol 2004;46:200–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Shariat SF,
    2. Youssef RF,
    3. Gupta A,
    4. Chade DC,
    5. Karakiewicz PI,
    6. Isbarn H,
    7. et al.
    Association of angiogenesis related markers with bladder cancer outcomes and other molecular markers. J Urol 2010;183:1744–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Yang CC,
    2. Chu KC,
    3. Yeh WM
    . The expression of vascular endothelial growth factor in transitional cell carcinoma of urinary bladder is correlated with cancer progression. Urol Oncol 2004;22:1–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Pignot G,
    2. Bieche I,
    3. Vacher S,
    4. Güet C,
    5. Vieillefond A,
    6. Debré B,
    7. et al.
    Large-scale real-time reverse transcription-PCR approach of angiogenic pathways in human transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: identification of VEGFA as a major independent prognostic marker. Eur Urol 2009;56:678–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Sogno I,
    2. Venè R,
    3. Ferrari N,
    4. De Censi A,
    5. Imperatori A,
    6. Noonan DM,
    7. et al.
    Angioprevention with fenretinide: targeting angiogenesis in prevention and therapeutic strategies. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2010;75:2–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Hameed DA,
    2. el-Metwally TH
    . The effectiveness of retinoic acid treatment in bladder cancer: impact on recurrence, survival and TGFalpha and VEGF as end-point biomarkers. Cancer Biol Ther 2008;7:92–100.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Bruno S,
    2. Torrisi R,
    3. Costantini M,
    4. Baglietto L,
    5. Fontana V,
    6. Gatteschi B,
    7. et al.
    Assessment of DNA flow cytometry as a surrogate end point biomarker in a bladder cancer chemoprevention trial. J Cell Biochem 1999;76:311–21.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Thieblemont C,
    2. Fendler JP,
    3. Trillet-Lenoir V,
    4. Petris C,
    5. Chauvin F,
    6. Brunat-Mentigny M,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic factors of survival in infiltrating urothelial bladder carcinoma. A retrospective study of 158 patients treated by radical cystectomy. Bull Cancer 1996;83:139–46.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Kanda S,
    2. Miyata Y,
    3. Kanetake H
    . Current status and perspective of antiangiogenic therapy for cancer: urinary cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2006;11:90–107.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Youssef RF,
    2. Lotan Y
    . Predictors of outcome of non-muscle-invasive and muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Scientific World Journal 2011;11:369–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Van Rhijn BW
    . Combining molecular and pathologic data to prognosticate non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Urol Oncol 2012;30:518–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Albini A,
    2. Noonan DM,
    3. Ferrari N
    . Molecular pathways for cancer angioprevention. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:4320–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Tosetti F,
    2. Ferrari N,
    3. De Flora S,
    4. Albini A
    . Angioprevention': angiogenesis is a common and key target for cancer chemopreventive agents. FASEB J 2002;16:2–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Konety BR,
    2. Williams RD
    . Superficial transitional (Ta/T1/CIS) cell carcinoma of the bladder. BJU Int 2004;94:18–21.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Huang YJ,
    2. Qi WX,
    3. He AN,
    4. Sun YJ,
    5. Shen Z,
    6. Yao Y
    . Prognostic value of tissue vascular endothelial growth factor expression in bladder cancer: a meta-analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013;14:645–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Sabichi AL,
    2. Lerner SP,
    3. Atkinson EN,
    4. Grossman HB,
    5. Caraway NP,
    6. Dinney CP,
    7. et al.
    Phase III prevention trial of fenretinide in patients with resected non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:224–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group. The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med 1994;330:1029–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Omenn GS,
    2. Goodman GE,
    3. Thornquist MD,
    4. Balmes J,
    5. Cullen MR,
    6. Glass A,
    7. et al.
    Effects of a combination of beta carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1150–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Goralczyk R
    . Beta-carotene and lung cancer in smokers: review of hypotheses and status of research. Nutr Cancer 2009;61:767–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Prevention Research: 9 (6)
June 2016
Volume 9, Issue 6
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Prevention Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prognostic Significance of VEGF after Twenty-Year Follow-up in a Randomized Trial of Fenretinide in Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Prevention Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Prevention Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Prognostic Significance of VEGF after Twenty-Year Follow-up in a Randomized Trial of Fenretinide in Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer
Matteo Puntoni, Marilena Petrera, Sara Campora, Elsa Garrone, Carlotta Defferrari, Rosalba Torrisi, Harriet Johansson, Silvia Bruno, Antonio Curotto and Andrea DeCensi
Cancer Prev Res June 1 2016 (9) (6) 437-444; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-15-0345

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Prognostic Significance of VEGF after Twenty-Year Follow-up in a Randomized Trial of Fenretinide in Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer
Matteo Puntoni, Marilena Petrera, Sara Campora, Elsa Garrone, Carlotta Defferrari, Rosalba Torrisi, Harriet Johansson, Silvia Bruno, Antonio Curotto and Andrea DeCensi
Cancer Prev Res June 1 2016 (9) (6) 437-444; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-15-0345
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Grant Support
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • mt-sDNA Specificity in 45–49 Year-Olds
  • Targeting CD40 and PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibits OPL Progression to OSCC
  • Revisiting a clinical diagnosis of NF1 for other syndromes
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Prevention Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Prevention Research
eISSN: 1940-6215
ISSN: 1940-6207

Advertisement