ArticleInvestigational new drugs2014
Evaluation of a novel blood pressure scoring method and its association with clinical response in cancer patients treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy.
Article in Investigational new drugs, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular prevention in the cancer survivor.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purposes of this study were to establish a novel blood pressure (BP) scoring method and to correlate it with clinical response in advanced cancer patients treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data for 368 patients from 23 clinical trials that included at least one anti-VEGF agent. We determined BP scores using the traditional Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 and our novel method that considers both BP readings and number of anti-hypertensive medications the patient received. BP scores were categorized at baseline and four months. Logistic regression analysis correlated elevated scores with clinical response. Agreement between the CTCAE and the new method was assessed.
resultsUnder the new BP scoring method, partial response rates were 20 % in patients with an elevated score at four months versus 6 % in patients without elevated score (P < 0.001). When adjusted for tumor type, age, sex, history of anti-VEGF treatment, and number of anti-VEGF treatments, elevated BP under the new scoring method had an odds ratio of 3.8 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.8, 8.2; P < 0.001). The kappa statistic for agreement between the CTCAE and new scoring methods was 0.57 (95 % CI: 0.47, 0.67; P < 0.001), indicating significant concordance.
conclusionUsing the novel scoring method, an increase in BP scores was a marker for favorable clinical response in patients who received anti-VEGF treatment. This new method ultimately provides information with regard to clinical tumor response over and above that provided by the CTCAE scoring method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.