Vascular integrins in tumor angiogenesis: mediators and therapeutic targets.

The notion that tumor angiogenesis may have therapeutic implications in the control of tumor growth was introduced by Dr. Judah Folkman in 1971. The approval of Avastin in 2004 as the first antiangiogenic systemic drug to treat cancer patients came as a validation of this visionary concept and opened new perspectives to the treatment of cancer. In addition, this success boosted the field to the quest for new therapeutic targets and antiangiogenic drugs. Preclinical and clinical evidence indicate that vascular integrins may be valid therapeutic targets. In preclinical studies, pharmacological inhibition of integrin function efficiently suppressed angiogenesis and inhibited tumor progression. alphaVbeta3 and alphaVbeta5 were the first vascular integrins targeted to suppress tumor angiogenesis. Subsequent experiments revealed that at least four additional integrins (i.e., alpha1beta1, alpha2beta1, alpha5beta1, and alpha6beta4) might be potential therapeutic targets. In clinical studies low-molecular-weight integrin inhibitors and anti-integrin function-blocking antibodies demonstrated low toxicity and good tolerability and are now being tested in combination with radiotherapy and chemotherapy for anticancer activity in patients. In this article the authors review the role of integrins in angiogenesis, present recent development in the use of alphaVbeta3 and alpha5beta1 integrin antagonists as potential therapeutics in cancer, and discuss future perspectives.

Biomarkers of angiogenesis for the development of antiangiogenic therapies in oncology: tools or decorations?

Since 2004, four antiangiogenic drugs have been approved for clinical use in patients with advanced solid cancers, on the basis of their capacity to improve survival in phase III clinical studies. These achievements validated the concept introduced by Judah Folkman that the inhibition of tumor angiogenesis could control tumor growth. It has been suggested that biomarkers of angiogenesis would greatly facilitate the clinical development of antiangiogenic therapies. For these four drugs, the pharmacodynamic effects observed in early clinical studies were important to corroborate activities, but were not essential for the continuation of clinical development and approval. Furthermore, no validated biomarkers of angiogenesis or antiangiogenesis are available for routine clinical use. Thus, the quest for biomarkers of angiogenesis and their successful use in the development of antiangiogenic therapies are challenges in clinical oncology and translational cancer research. We review critical points resulting from the successful clinical trials, review current biomarkers, and discuss their potential impact on improving the clinical use of available antiangiogenic drugs and the development of new ones.

Anti-angiogenic therapies in cancer: achievements and open questions.

The approval in 2004 of bevacizumab (Avastin), a neutralizing monoclonal antibody directed against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as the first anti-angiogenic systemic drug to treat cancer patients validated the notion introduced 33 years earlier by Dr. Judah Folkman, that inhibition of tumor angiogenesis might be a valid approach to control tumor growth. Anti-angiogenic therapy was greeted in the clinic a major step forward in cancer treatment. At the same time this success recently boosted the field to the quest for new anti-angiogenic targets and drugs. In spite of this success, however, some old questions in the field have remained unanswered and new ones have emerged. They include the identification for surrogate markers of angiogenesis and anti-angiogenesis, the understanding about how anti-angiogenic therapy and chemotherapy synergize, the characterization of the biological consequences of sustained suppression of angiogenesis on tumor biology and normal tissue homeostasis, and the mechanisms of tumor escape from anti-angiogenesis. In this review we summarize some of these outstanding questions, and highlight future challenges in clinical, translational and experimental research in anti-angiogenic therapy that need to be addressed in order to improve current treatments and to design new drugs.

15

The present article examines the final part of the regnal formulas in the Book of Kings, i.e. the epilogue formulary. Most reports of the kings of Israel and Judah end with an epilogue containing formulaic statements about the death of the king and his succession. Typically, the epilogue formula is introduced by the phrase (source reference): 'Now the rest of the acts of PN1, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel)?' and consists of three elements: 1. Dynastic notice ('PN1 slept with his fathers'); 2. Statement of burial; 3. Statement of succession. Sometimes one, two or all three of these elements are altered or lacking. The epilogue formulae of the Judean kings are more consistent than those of the Israelite kings; the latter often lacks a burial notice. Interestingly, the accounts of the deported (arrested) kings (Hoshea: 2 Kgs 17:6, Jehoahaz: 23:34, Zedekiah:25:7 and Jehoiachin: 25:27-30) do not contain an epilogue at all, nor the accounts of the reigns of Ahaziah and Athaliah which mark an episode of disruption in the history of the Davidic kingdom. For all these kings even the phrase 'Now the rest of the acts of PN1, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of... ?' is lacking. The absence of an epilogue in these cases is probably due to the fact that the king's succession (cf. element 3) is considered a constitutive and indispensable component of the epilogue. In the first instance, the approach of this study is descriptive and philological; it aims to contribute to the understanding of the notices. Secondly, the study addresses the question how the irregularities and variations within the formulae are to be explained. In particular, the study will pay attention to differences between the epilogue formulae concerning the kings of Israel and those concerning the Judean kings. At the end, questions concerning the epilogues formula's provenance and its formation date and concerning further redactional developments will be considered.