Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27031850›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2016

Evaluation of Angiopoietin-2 as a biomarker in gastric cancer: results from the randomised phase III AVAGAST trial.

Ulrich T Hacker, Laura Escalona-Espinosa, Nicola Consalvo, Valentin Goede, Lars Schiffmann, Stefan J Scherer, Priti Hedge, Eric Van Cutsem, Oliver Coutelle, Hildegard Büning

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Regional differences in advanced gastric cancer: exploratory analyses of the AVAGAST placebo arm.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2018
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Ulrich T HackerUniversity Cancer Center Leipzig (UCCL), University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstr. 20, Leipzig 04103, Germany.
Laura Escalona-EspinosaCenter for Molecular Medicine Cologne (CMMC), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Nicola ConsalvoBiostatistics F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Valentin GoedeDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Lars SchiffmannCenter of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Cologne-Bonn, Cologne, Germany.
Stefan J SchererUniversity of Wuerzburg, PCI, Biocenter, Am Hubland, Wuerzburg 97074, Germany.
Priti HedgeOncology Early Clinical Developement, Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Eric Van CutsemUniversity Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Oliver CoutelleDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Hildegard BüningCenter for Molecular Medicine Cologne (CMMC), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
University Hospital Cologne · DEUniversity of Cologne · DERoche (Switzerland) · CHUniversitair Ziekenhuis Leuven · BEUniversity Hospital Leipzig · DEUniversity of Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the phase III AVAGAST trial, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy improved progression-free survival (PFS) but not overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced gastric cancer. We studied the role of Angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2), a key driver of tumour angiogenesis, metastasis and resistance to antiangiogenic treatment, as a biomarker.

methodsPreviously untreated, advanced gastric cancer patients were randomly assigned to receive bevacizumab (n=387) or placebo (n=387) in combination with chemotherapy. Plasma collected at baseline and at progression was analysed by ELISA. The role of Ang-2 as a prognostic and a predictive biomarker of bevacizumab efficacy was studied using a Cox proportional hazards model. Logistic regression analysis was applied for correlations with metastasis.

resultsMedian baseline plasma Ang-2 levels were lower in Asian (2143 pg ml(-1)) vs non-Asian patients (3193 pg ml(-1)), P<0.0001. Baseline plasma Ang-2 was identified as an independent prognostic marker for OS but did not predict bevacizumab efficacy alone or in combination with baseline VEGF. Baseline plasma Ang-2 correlated with the frequency of liver metastasis (LM) at any time: Odds ratio per 1000 pg ml(-1) increase: 1.19; 95% CI 1.10-1.29; P<0.0001 (non-Asians) and 1.37; 95% CI 1.13-1.64; P=0.0010 (Asians).

conclusionsBaseline plasma Ang-2 is a novel prognostic biomarker for OS in advanced gastric cancer strongly associated with LM. Differences in Ang-2 mediated vascular response may, in part, account for outcome differences between Asian and non-Asian patients; however, data have to be further validated. Ang-2 is a promising drug target in gastric cancer.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAngiogenesis InhibitorsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabBiomarkers, TumorDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisPrognosisStomach NeoplasmsVesicular Transport ProteinsAngiogenesis InhibitorsBevacizumabBiomarkers, TumorVesicular Transport ProteinsVPS51 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID27031850
PMCPMC4984795
OpenAlexW2314956816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.