ArticlePloS one2024
Plasma and serum concentrations of VEGF-A121, but not of VEGF-A165, increase post-bevacizumab administration.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantification of vitreous VEGF-A121 and VEGF-A165 using an isoform-specific ELISA in proliferative diabetic retinopathy.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Inflammatory neuropathy in mouse and primate models of colorectal cancer.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Efficacy and survival outcomes of bevacizumab plus minocycline for glioblastoma.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVEGF-A concentrations were measured in the blood of bevacizumab-treated cancer patients in previous studies, but a consensus has not formed that would develop VEGF-A into a clinical biomarker. Recently, methods to strictly distinguish between the VEGF-A isoforms have been developed but have not yet been applied to cancer patients undergoing bevacizumab treatment.
methodsAn ELISA that strictly distinguishes between VEGF-A121 and VEGF-A165-the major isoforms of VEGF-A-and a commercially available ELISA for VEGF-A are used to determine the concentration of VEGF-A121, VEGF-A165, and VEGF-A in the blood of 12 patients with advanced colorectal cancer receiving bevacizumab therapy.
resultsThe serum and plasma concentrations of VEGF-A121 increased substantially post-bevacizumab administration; the median increase in serum was 860.8 pg/mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) [468.5, 1128.9], p = 0.0024, and in plasma was 808.6 pg/mL, 95% CI [748.7, 874.0], p = 0.00049. In stark contrast, VEGF-A165 after bevacizumab administration decreased in serum by a medium change of -73.8 pg/mL, 95% CI [-149.4, -10.2], p = 0.0034, with 83.3% of the post-bevacizumab concentrations falling below the high-accuracy threshold of 38 pg/mL; in plasma, all pre and post VEGF-A165 concentrations fell below this threshold. Concentrations of VEGF-A121 and VEGF-A165 in platelets did not change to a statistically significant degree. Adding recombinant VEGF-A121 (and -A165) or bevacizumab to plasma in patients post-bevacizumab administration increased or decreased, respectively, VEGF-A121 and VEGF-A165 levels. The increase in VEGF-A121 in plasma and serum after bevacizumab administration may be due to the dissociation of the complex of tumor-derived VEGF-A121 and bevacizumab when it moves from the stroma into the blood.
conclusionsThe VEGF-A121 isoform has been uniquely demonstrated as a clear marker of bevacizumab therapy in both plasma and serum, motivating further research on pursuing these isoforms as biomarkers in cancer care.
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.