Prognostic value of CEC count in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients treated with bevacizumab and chemotherapy: a prospective validation study (UCBG COMET)
Angiogenesis, ISSN: 1573-7209, Vol: 23, Issue: 2, Page: 193-202
2020
- 11Citations
- 19Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations11
- Citation Indexes11
- 11
- Captures19
- Readers19
- 19
Article Description
Background: Proof of concept studies has reported that circulating endothelial cell (CEC) count may be associated with the outcome of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients treated by chemotherapy and the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab. We report the results obtained in an independent prospective validation cohort (COMET study, NCT01745757). Methods: The main baseline criteria were HER2-negative mBC, performance status 0–2 and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. CECs were detected by CellSearch® from 4 ml of blood at baseline and after 4 weeks of weekly paclitaxel and bevacizumab therapy. CEC counts (considered both as a continuous variable and using the previously described 20 CEC/4 ml cutoff) were associated with clinical characteristics and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: CEC count was obtained in 251 patients at baseline and in 207 patients at 4 weeks. Median baseline CEC count was 22 CEC/4 ml (range 0–2231). Baseline CEC counts were associated with performance status (p = 0.02). No statistically significant change in CEC counts was observed between baseline and 4 weeks of therapy. High baseline CEC count was associated with shorter PFS in univariate and multivariate analyses (continuous: p < 0.001; dichotomized: HR 1.52, 95% CI [1.15–2.02], p = 0.004). CEC counts at 4 weeks had no prognostic impact. Conclusion: This study confirms that CEC count may be associated with the outcome of mBC patients treated with chemotherapy and bevacizumab. However, discrepancies with previous reports in terms of both the timing of CEC count and the direction of the prognostic impact warrant further clinical investigation.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85075619127&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10456-019-09697-7; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01745757; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31773439; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10456-019-09697-7; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10456-019-09697-7; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10456-019-09697-7
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know