Relationship Between Serum VEGF Level and Radiosensitivity of Patients with Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer Among Asians: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the relationships between serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) level and radiosensitivity in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) among Asians. We searched CISCOM, CINAHL, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and CBM databases from their inception through October 1, 2013. Meta-analysis was performed using the STATA 12.0 software. Fourteen clinical studies were included in this meta-analysis, including five case–control studies and nine cohort studies. Our meta-analysis results revealed that levels of serum VEGF in NSCLC patients were higher than that of healthy controls. There was a significant difference in serum VEGF levels between before and after radiotherapy in NSCLC patients. Further, we found significant differences in serum VEGF levels between effective and noneffective clinical response groups pre- and postradiotherapy. Serum VEGF levels showed no significant associations with tumor–node–metastasis (TNM) stage and histologic grade in NSCLC patients. NSCLC patients with positive VEGF expression had shorter overall survival than those with negative VEGF expression. Our meta-analysis suggests that serum VEGF level may be a useful biomarker in predicting radiosensitivity and prognosis of NSCLC patients among Asians.

Introduction

Lung cancer has become the number one cancer-related killer and causes more than 1 million cancer-related deaths each year worldwide (Bray et al., 2012). Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which consists of squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and large cell carcinoma, accounts for more than 80% of all lung cancer, with about 30% of NSCLC patients presenting locally advanced unresectable tumors (Guan et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2012a). Generally, radiotherapy, alone or combined with concurrent or sequential chemotherapy, is the standard treatment approach for patients with inoperable or unresectable NSCLC because it is capable of improving local control and overall survival (OS) (Yin et al., 2012). However, the 5-year survival rate of NSCLC is only ∼15% with a median survival time of 16 to 18 months despite the standard treatment approach (Molina et al., 2008). The low 5-year survival rate has been reported to be a result of decreased sensitivity of NSCLC to radiotherapy (Carrillo-de Santa Pau et al., 2010). Previous studies showed that tumor protein 53 (p53) encoded by TP 53 gene may be strongly associated with the low sensitivity to radiotherapy (Lim et al., 2009; Naga Deepthi, 2011; Shintani et al., 2011). In recent studies, large quantity of evidence has documented that the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression levels may also significantly reduce radiotherapy sensitivity of NSCLC (Guan et al., 2010; Rades et al., 2010).

It is well established that the balance between apoptosis and tumor cell proliferation in invasive tumors depends on the ability of tumors to induce neovascularization to provide oxygen and nutrition for the malignant tumor cells (Bremnes et al., 2006). Generally, neovascularization promotes the progression of tumor by delivering nutrients and oxygen necessary for tumor cells to grow, facilitating the penetration of tumor cells through vessel walls and eventually leading to metastasis to distant organs, and secreting cytokines and growth factors from endothelial cells that stimulate tumor cells (Choi et al., 2001; Jones and Thompson, 2009). Therefore, angiogenesis is necessary for the growth and invasion of primary tumor and is also an essential step in tumor metastasis (Weis and Cheresh, 2011). An increasing number of angiogenic cytokines released by tumor cells have been identified over the years, including fibroblast growth factor, VEGF, transforming growth factor-α, platelet-derived endothelial cell growth factor, and hepatocyte growth factor (Senger, 2010; Carmeliet and Jain, 2011). Among these angiogenic factors, VEGF is a potent and commonly circulating vascular angiogenic peptide (D'Andrea et al., 2010).

VEGF, a member of the platelet-derived growth factor family, is a highly specific mitogen in vascular endothelial cells, which have been implicated in endothelial cell proliferation and migration, and plays crucial roles in modulating host response and tumor invasion, metastasis, and prognosis (Saharinen et al., 2011; Freeman et al., 2012). Consequently, VEGFs are considered to be prime regulators of both physiological and pathological angiogenesis in malignancy and function significantly in the regulation of tumor angiogenesis and development (Niers et al., 2011; Sina et al., 2011; Weis and Cheresh, 2011). VEGF expression has been demonstrated in a large variety of human malignancies including breast, liver, colorectal, bladder, and ovarian cancer (Tsutsui et al., 2010; Formica et al., 2011; Ji et al., 2012). Besides, in NSCLC, VEGF expression has been reported in over 50% of cases (de Boer et al., 2011). Meanwhile, high VEGF expression and angiogenic activity was noted in ∼30–40% of NSCLC (Yilmaz et al., 2007). High levels of serum VEGF induces the formation of neovascularization, allowing the tumor cells to infiltrate into the lymphatic vessels and neovascularization, and acceleration of distant metastases, and thence forming a vicious cycle (Thangarajah et al., 2009). There was mounting evidence that neoangiogenesis and blood VEGF levels in NSCLC patients may be negative prognostic indicators for survival (Carrillo-de Santa Pau et al., 2010; Salgia, 2011). Consistently, it has been shown that tumor angiogenesis and tumor growth was suppressed if VEGF signal transduction is inhibited (Ferrara, 2010). Such inhibition of the VEGF signaling may also prevent metastases because of reduced contact between tumor cells and the capillaries (Saharinen et al., 2011). Moreover, for majority of the radiotherapy-treated patients with advanced NSCLC, researchers observed a significant decrease in circulating VEGF in responders, while nonresponders showed increasing levels (Bremnes et al., 2006; Farhat et al., 2012). Clearly, it indicated that circulating levels of VEGF may be used in planning therapy, evaluating treatment effect, monitoring patients for relapse post-therapy in the future, and subsequently improve the sensitivity and accuracy of diagnosis in NSCLC remarkably (Zhou et al., 2009). However, there were only few studies focused on the levels of VEGF in sera of lung cancer patients and its effect on diagnostic sensitivity (Kaya et al., 2004; Steffensen et al., 2010). Many previous studies have indicated that high expression of serum VEGF may reduce radiotherapy sensitivity of NSCLC, but contradictory results were also reported (Zhang et al., 2008; Gu et al., 2011, 2013; Di et al., 2012). Given the conflicting evidence on this issue, we conducted a meta-analysis of all available studies to provide insights into the relationships between serum VEGF level and radiosensitivity in NSCLC patients.

Materials and Methods

Search strategy

We searched CISCOM, CINAHL, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and CBM databases from their inception through October 1, 2013. The following keywords and MeSH terms were used: (“vascular endothelial growth factors” or “vascular endothelial growth factor” or “VEGF” or “vascular permeability factor” or “VPF”) and (“non-small-cell lung carcinoma” or “non-small cell lung carcinomas” or “non-small cell lung cancer” or “non small cell lung cancer” or “non-small-cell lung cancer” or “NSCLC”) and (“radiotherapy” or “chemoradiotherapy” or “RT” or “radiosensitivity”). We also performed a manual search of the reference lists to find other potential articles.

Selection criteria

In our meta-analysis, included studies must meet all the following criteria: (1) the associated study design must be a clinical cohort or case–control study; (2) the study must correlate to the relationships between serum VEGF level and radiosensitivity of NSCLC patients among Asians; (3) all patients diagnosed with NSCLC must be confirmed by histopathologic examinations; (4) the study must provide sufficient information about serum VEGF levels, patients' clinical responses, OS, and so on. If the study could not meet the inclusion criteria, it would be excluded. The most recent or the largest sample size publication was included when the authors published several studies using the same subjects.

Data extraction

Using a standardized form, relevant data were systematically extracted from all included studies by two researches. The standardized form included the following items: language of publication, article's publication year, the first author's surname, geographical location, design of study, sample size, source of the subjects, pathological subtype, detection method of serum VEGF, clinical response, and others. Staining for VEGF was assessed using a relatively simple, reproducible scoring method. The extent of the staining, defined as the percentage of positive stained areas of tumor cells in relation to the whole tissue area, is as follows: negative (<10%) and positive (≥10%). According to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guideline (Eisenhauer et al., 2009), clinical response evaluation was categorized into four grades: (1) Complete response (CR): the complete disappearance of all measurable and evaluable disease, and with no new lesions and disease-related symptoms. (2) Partial response (PR): an at least 50% decrease in the sum of the product of the perpendicular diameters of measurable lesions from baseline, and with no development of new lesions. (3) Progressive disease (PD): an at least 50% increase (whichever is smaller) in measurable lesions; clear worsening from previous assessment of any evaluable disease; reappearance of any lesion that had disappeared; or appearance of any new lesion or site. (4) Stable disease (SD): the disease status for which both the measurable lesions were less than the criterion to meet PR, but also not sufficient to meet the criterion for PD.

Quality assessment

We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) criteria (Little et al., 2009). The NOS criteria assessed three aspects: (1) subject selection: 0–4 scores; (2) comparability of subject: 0–2 scores; (3) clinical outcome: 0–3 scores. NOS score ranged from 0 to 9; and score ≥7 indicate a good quality.

Statistical analysis

We performed the meta-analysis using the STATA version 12.0 (STATA Corporation, College Station, TX) software. Crude standardized mean difference (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated under a fixed or random effect model. The Z test was used to estimate the statistical significance of odds ratios. The Cochran's Q-statistic and I ² test were used to evaluate potential heterogeneity between studies (Peters et al., 2006). If Q-test shows a p<0.05 or I ² test exhibits >50%, which indicates significant heterogeneity, the random effects model was conducted; otherwise, the fixed effects model was used. Begger's funnel plots and Egger's linear regression test were conducted to investigate publication bias (Zintzaras and Ioannidis, 2005).

Results

Baseline characteristics of included studies

A total of 192 articles relevant to the searched keywords were initially identified. The titles and abstracts of all articles were reviewed and 133 were excluded; full texts and data integrity were then reviewed and another 45 articles were excluded. Finally, 14 clinical studies met our inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis, including 5 case–control studies and 9 cohort studies (Guo et al., 2002; Arinaga et al., 2003; Brattstrom et al., 2004; Iwasaki et al., 2004; Deng et al., 2005; Maekawa et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2008, 2012; Zhang et al., 2008, 2010; Huang, 2010; Ma et al., 2010; Meng et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2010; Gu et al., 2011, 2013; Yang et al., 2011; Di et al., 2012). Publication years of the eligible studies ranged from 2002 to 2013. The selection process of eligible studies was shown in Figure 1. A total of 1747 subjects were involved in this meta-analysis, including 1602 NSCLC patients and 145 healthy controls. Peripheral blood samples were used in detecting serum VEGF. NOS scores of all included studies were ≥6. We summarized the study characteristics and methodological quality in Tables 1 and 2.

FIG. 1.

Flowchart shows study selection procedure. Fourteen clinical studies were included in this meta-analysis.

Table 1.

Main Characteristics and Methodological Quality of Case–Control Studies

				Sample size		Gender (M/F)		Age (years)
First author	Year	Country	Total	Case	Control	Case	Control	Case	Control	Method	NOS score
Guo	2002	China	59	39	20	29/10	11/9	61.9 (36–71)	29.6 (21–37)	ELISA	7
Wang	2008	China	31	21	10	12/9	—	—	—	ELISA	6
Huang	2010	China	56	35	21	21/14	14/7	57.6±10.5	—	ELISA	7
Ma	2012	China	66	41	25	31/10	13/12	61.7 (35–71)	—	ELISA	7
Zhang	2008	China	89	69	20	48/21	—	62 (36–78)	—	ELISA	6

M, male; F, female; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Table 2.

Main Characteristics and Methodological Quality of Cohort Studies

					Age (years)
First author	Year	Country	Case number	Gender (M/F)	<60	≥60	Treatment regimen	Method	NOS score
Deng	2005	China	56	44/12	38	18	50–60 Gy of RT (200 cGy/day, 5–6 times/week)+4–6 cycles of platinum-based CT	ELISA	6
Arinaga	2003	Japan	180	133/47	71	109	NR	ELISA	7
Meng	2010	China	56	36/20	55 (33–74)		60–70 Gy of RT (200 cGy/day, 5 times/week)	ELISA	6
Wang	2012	China	766	153/116	189	80	60–70 Gy of RT (200 cGy/day, 5 times/week)	ELISA	8
Gu	2013	China	136	102/34	72	64	60 Gy of RT (200 cGy/day, 5 times/week)	ELISA	7
Iwasaki	2004	Japan	71	17/54	67 (35–84)		NR	ELISA	6
Di	2012	China	56	29/27	61 (37–83)		64–68 Gy of RT (200 cGy/day, 5 times/week)+5–6 weeks of cisplatin-based CT (25 mg/m2, 1 time/week)	ELISA	6
Gu	2011	China	46	32/14	74 (72–78)		66–70 Gy of RT (200 cGy/day, 5 times/week)	ELISA	6
Zhang	2010	China	30	21/9	66.3±6.6		55–60 Gy of RT (200 cGy/day, 5 times/week)+HT (41°C −42°C, 2 times/week, 60 min⁻¹)	ELISA	6

RT, radiotherapy; HT, hyperthennia therapy; CT, chemotherapy; NR, not reported.

Quantitative data synthesis

Four studies referred to the difference in serum VEGF levels between NSCLC patients and healthy controls. The random effects model was conducted due to the potential existence of significant heterogeneity between studies (I ²=85.9%, p<0.001). Our meta-analysis results revealed that NSCLC patients had higher levels of serum VEGF than that of healthy controls (SMD=2.48, 95% CI=1.43 to 3.53, p<0.001) (Fig. 2). Subgroup analysis by NOS score also suggested that serum VEGF level of NSCLC patients was higher than that of healthy controls (NOS=6: SMD=1.66, 95% CI=0.63 to 2.69, p=0.002; NOS=7: SMD=2.74, 95% CI=1.42 to 4.05, p<0.001; respectively).

FIG. 2.

Forest plot for the difference in serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels between nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and healthy controls.

Five studies involved the difference in serum VEGF levels between pre- and postradiotherapy care of NSCLC patients. The heterogeneity obviously existed (I ²=90.9%, p=0.001), so the random effects model was conducted to pool the results. There was significant differences in serum VEGF levels between before and after radiotherapy of NSCLC patients (SMD=−1.21, 95% CI=−2.06 to −0.36, p<0.001) (Fig. 3). In the subgroup analysis based on NOS score, the results showed that serum VEGF level of NSCLC patients after radiotherapy was lower than those before radiotherapy in the high-quality (NOS=7) subgroup (SMD=−1.68, 95% CI=−2.51 to −0.85, p<0.001), but not in the low-quality (NOS=6) subgroup (SMD=−0.41, 95% CI=−1.43 to 0.60, p=0.428).

FIG. 3.

Forest plot for the difference in serum VEGF levels between before and after radiotherapy of NSCLC patients.

The difference in serum VEGF levels between the effective (CR+PR) and noneffective (SD+PD) groups were investigated in four studies. Since obvious heterogeneity was observed, the random effects model was used (all p<0.05). We found significant differences in serum VEGF levels between effective and noneffective clinical response groups pre- and postradiotherapy (before radiotherapy: SMD=−0.78, 95% CI=−1.39 to −0.16, p=0.013; after radiotherapy: SMD=−3.62, 95% CI=−5.93 to −1.32, p=0.002; respectively) (Fig. 4). Stratified analysis based on NOS score also revealed significant differences in serum VEGF levels between effective and noneffective clinical response groups pre- and postradiotherapy (all p<0.05).

FIG. 4.

Forest plot for the difference in serum VEGF levels between the effective (complete response [CR]+partial response [PR]) and noneffective (stable disease [SD]+progressive disease [PD]) groups.

Five of 14 studies focused on the associations between serum VEGF levels and tumor–node–metastasis (TNM) stage and histologic grade of NSCLC patients. Significant heterogeneity was identified; so, the random effects model was used (all p<0.05). Nevertheless, serum VEGF levels showed no significant associations with TNM stage and histologic grade of NSCLC patients (TNM stage: SMD=1.63, 95% CI=0.52 to 5.09, p=0.401; histologic grade: SMD=0.40, 95% CI=0.09 to 1.88, p=0.248; respectively) (Fig. 5). We also conducted a subgroup analysis based on NOS score. However, no positive associations of serum VEGF level with TNM stage and histologic grade of NSCLC patients were observed (all p<0.05).

FIG. 5.

Forest plots for the associations of serum VEGF levels with tumor–node–metastasis (TNM) stage and histologic grade of NSCLC patients.

Only three studies reported the relationship between serum VEGF levels and OS of NSCLC patients. No heterogeneity was found; therefore, the fixed effects model was conducted. NSCLC patients with positive VEGF expression had shorter OS than those with negative VEGF expression (hazard ratio=1.55, 95% CI=1.05 to 2.04, p<0.001) (Fig. 6). In the subgroup analysis by NOS score, we observed positive correlations between positive VEGF expression and poor OS of NSCLC patients in both high-quality (NOS=7) and low-quality (NOS=6) subgroups (all p<0.05).

FIG. 6.

Forest plots for the relationship between serum VEGF levels and overall survival of NSCLC patients.

We performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the influence of single studies on the overall estimate. The results indicated that the overall pooled estimates could not be affected by single study (Fig. 7). Begger's funnel plot and Egger's linear regression test were used to assess potential publication bias of included studies. We found no evidence of obvious asymmetry in the Begger's funnel plots (Fig. 8). Egger's test also did not display any strong statistical evidence for publication bias (all p>0.05).

FIG. 7.

Sensitivity analysis of the summary odds ratio coefficients on the relationships of serum VEGF levels with radiosensitivity in patients with NSCLC.

FIG. 8.

Begger's funnel plots of the relationships between serum VEGF level and radiosensitivity of NSCLC patients.

Discussion

VEGF, a subfamily of growth factors, plays a crucial role in the stimulation, proliferation, and migration of endothelial cells and increases the permeability of vessel walls. It can induce the development of neovascularization through a paracrine mechanism in both physiological and pathological processes, such as developmental and reproductive angiogenesis and proliferative retinopathies (Choi et al., 2013; Faur et al., 2013). In addition, it has been reported that a number of solid tumor cells in experimental and human models produce larger amounts of VEGF and express higher levels of VEGF mRNA, suggesting that VEGF expression may be strongly linked to angiogenesis in tumor development and progression, including gastric, colonic, and lung carcinomas (Hicklin and Ellis, 2005; He et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2013). Several clinical studies have confirmed that VEGF status is predictive of resistance to various treatments, which include radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and endocrine therapy, and that inhibitors to anti-VEGF therapies are effective in reducing tumor size, metastasis, and blood vessel formation (Toi et al., 2001; Takahashi, 2011). Moreover, VEGFR1 antagonists and a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR2 reverted radiation-refractory tumor models to radiation-sensitive phenotype, which suggests that the high VEGF expression may define a radio-resistant phenotype (Geng et al., 2001; Veeravagu et al., 2007). Consequently, accumulating amounts of evidence have indicated that the degree of VEGF expression in the tumor tissue was a significant predictor of relapse-free survival and OS in patients with node-negative breast cancer with locoregional radiotherapy treatments (Linderholm et al., 1999). Similarly, other studies have suggested that expression of VEGF determined by immunohistochemical analysis is a highly significant and independent indicator of survival in patients treated with radiotherapy for advanced carcinoma of the cervix (Loncaster et al., 2000; Braicu et al., 2013). Recently, a growing number of studies have shown that VEGF is significantly expressed in NSCLC tissues, and positively correlated with sentinel lymph node metastasis, lymphangiogenesis density, and clinical staging (Hirakawa et al., 2007; Kawai et al., 2008). NSCLC accounts for 80% of the total lung carcinomas, and it has shown poor sensitivity to conventional radiotherapy and chemotherapy treatments (Kim et al., 2013). Naumnik et al. (2009) observed increase in serum VEGF level in patients with NSCLC that decreased after radiotherapy, and they pointed out that serum VEGF level could be used as a complementary diagnostic value of reference. Therefore, it is plausible that the combination of radiotherapy and inhibition of VEGF as therapeutic target could improve the radiosensitivity of the tumor (Ausborn et al., 2012). Further, abundant studies have documented that NSCLC patients with low serum VEGF levels have high radiosensitivity and VEGF expression was negatively correlated with radiosensitivity, revealing that serum VEGF level is strongly associated with tumor burden, tumor metastasis, and therapeutic effectiveness in patients with NSCLC (Takahashi, 2011; Yin et al., 2012). While other studies found no convincing evidence that serum VEGF levels lead to decreasing sensitivity to radiotherapy in patients with NSCLC (Sano et al., 2011; Topkan et al., 2013). This controversy could be explained with several reasons, such as the differences in study designs, sample size, source of controls, and so on. This meta-analysis aims to provide a more comprehensive and reliable conclusion on the associations between serum VEGF levels and sensitivity to radiotherapy for patients with NSCLC.

In this present meta-analysis, we evaluated the relationships between serum VEGF level and radiosensitivity in NSCLC patients. Finally, 14 clinical studies were included with a total of 1602 NSCLC patients and 145 healthy controls. Our meta-analysis results showed that serum VEGF level in NSCLC patients was significantly higher than that in healthy controls, suggesting that high serum VEGF level may play an important role in the progression and development of NSCLC. High expression level of VEGF is responsible for the formation of neovascularization and allows the tumor cells to infiltrate into the lymphatic vessels, which may aggravate the progress of NSCLC (Thangarajah et al., 2009). In addition, there was an obvious decrease in serum VEGF levels after radiotherapy. A reasonable explanation for this decrease in serum VEGF levels may be that radiotherapy can cause degeneration and necrosis of tumor cells, which leads to reduction in secretion of serum VEGF. Bremnes et al. (2006) confirmed that serum VEGF levels in NSCLC patients was significantly evaluated compared with that in the healthy controls, indicating that VEGF could be an important angiogenic factor in primary NSCLC. Further, our results showed that serum VEGF levels in patients of the effective group (CR+PR) was significantly lower than those in the noneffective group (SD+PD), revealing that serum VEGF may be strongly associated with efficacy and outcome of radiotherapy in NSCLC patients. Further analysis revealed that NSCLC patients with positive VEGF expression had a poorer OS than those with negative VEGF expression, suggesting that serum VEGF level may strongly correlate with the prognosis in NSCLC patients receiving radiotherapy. Although the exact function of VEGF in NSCLC is not fully understood yet, a potential explanation might be that VEGF functions as a primary driving force for physiological and pathological angiogenesis, and having positive serum VEGF levels leading to neoangiogenesis representing an important prognostic indicator of poor prognosis in NSCLC through a paracrine mechanism, thus affecting the prognosis of NSCLC patients. These results were consistent with previous studies and suggested that high levels of serum VEGF might be significantly linked to poor prognosis in NSCLC patients treated with radiotherapy (Salgia, 2011; Tischler et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2012b). Our findings have provided a compelling biological rationale in using serum VEGF as a useful tool for early diagnosis and prognosis of patients with NSCLC receiving radiotherapy.

The current meta-analysis also had several limitations that should be pointed out. First, our results had lacked sufficient statistical power to assess the relationships of serum VEGF levels with radiosensitivity in NSCLC patients due to the small number of studies. Since some of the studies were small and even had standard deviations, our meta-analysis might induce fairly wide CIs, which restrain our confidence in drawing conclusions. Another important limitation of our meta-analysis is that our findings may be confined by source of control. In this meta-analysis, we only investigated the correlations between serum VEGF levels and radiosensitivity in NSCLC patients in Asian populations. It is widely accepted that there exist significant difference in genotypes among different ethnicity due to various environmental conditions and natural selection, which may have an impact on the reliability of our results and constrain the general applicability of our findings. Consequently, the cognitive function of our meta-analysis should be regarded preliminary. Third, our meta-analysis failed to obtain original data from the included studies, which may limit further evaluation of potential role of VEGF in the development and progression of NSCLC. Although our study has several limitations, this is the first meta-analysis focusing on the association of serum VEGF levels with radiosensitivity in NSCLC patients. Further, we performed a highly sensitive literature search strategy for electronic databases. A manual search of the reference lists from the relevant articles was also conducted to find other potential articles. The selection process of eligible articles was based on strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Importantly, rigorous statistical analysis provided a basis for pooling of information from individual studies.

In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggests that serum VEGF level may be a useful biomarker for predicting radiosensitivity and prognosis of NSCLC patients among Asians. Thus, detection of serum VEGF may be a useful tool for early diagnosis and prognosis of NSCLC receiving radiotherapy. However, due to the limitations mentioned above, further detailed studies are still required to confirm our findings.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the reviewers for their helpful comments on this article. We would also like to thank our colleagues at the Department of Oncology, The First Hospital of Qinhuangdao.

Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

Arinaga

, Noguchi

, Takeno

, Chujo

, Miura

, and Uchida

(2003). Clinical significance of vascular endothelial growth factor C and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 3 in patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Cancer, 97, 457–464.

Ausborn

N.L.

, Le

Q.T.

, Bradley

J.D.

, Choy

, Dicker

A.P.

, Saha

, et al. (2012). Molecular profiling to optimize treatment in non-small cell lung cancer: a review of potential molecular targets for radiation therapy by the translational research program of the radiation therapy oncology group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 83, e453–e464.

Braicu

E.I.

, Fotopoulou

, Chekerov

, Richter

, Blohmer

, Kummel

, et al. (2013). Role of serum concentration of VEGFR1 and TIMP2 on clinical outcome in primary cervical cancer: results of a companion protocol of the randomized, NOGGO-AGO phase III adjuvant trial of simultaneous cisplatin-based radiochemotherapy vs. carboplatin and paclitaxel containing sequential radiotherapy. Cytokine, 61, 755–758.

Brattstrom

, Bergqvist

, Hesselius

, Larsson

, Wagenius

, and Brodin

(2004). Serum VEGF and bFGF adds prognostic information in patients with normal platelet counts when sampled before, during and after treatment for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer, 43, 55–62.

Bray

, Jemal

, Grey

, Ferlay

, and Forman

(2012). Global cancer transitions according to the Human Development Index (2008–2030): a population-based study. Lancet Oncol, 13, 790–801.

Bremnes

R.M.

, Camps

, and Sirera

(2006). Angiogenesis in non-small cell lung cancer: the prognostic impact of neoangiogenesis and the cytokines VEGF and bFGF in tumours and blood. Lung Cancer, 51, 143–158.

Carmeliet

, and Jain

R.K.

(2011). Molecular mechanisms and clinical applications of angiogenesis. Nature, 473, 298–307.

Carrillo-de Santa Pau

, Carrillo Arias

, Caso Pelaez

, Muguruza Trueba

, Sanchez Hernandez

, Munoz Molina

G.M.

, et al. (2010). Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) serum levels are associated with survival in early stages of lung cancer patients. Cancer Invest, 28, 393–398.

Choi

J.A.

, Hwang

J.U.

, Yoon

Y.H.

, and Koh

J.Y.

(2013). Methallothionein-3 contributes to vascular endothelial growth factor induction in a mouse model of choroidal neovascularization. Metallomics, 5, 1387–1396.

10.

Choi

J.H.

, Kim

H.C.

, Lim

H.Y.

, Nam

D.K.

, Kim

H.S.

, Yi

J.W.

, et al. (2001). Vascular endothelial growth factor in the serum of patients with non-small cell lung cancer: correlation with platelet and leukocyte counts. Lung Cancer, 33, 171–179.

11.

D'Andrea

L.D.

, Romanelli

, Di Stasi

, and Pedone

(2010). Bioinorganic aspects of angiogenesis. Dalton Trans, 39, 7625–7636.

12.

de Boer

R.H.

, Arrieta

, Yang

C.H.

, Gottfried

, Chan

, Raats

, et al. (2011). Vandetanib plus pemetrexed for the second-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized, double-blind phase III trial. J Clin Oncol, 29, 1067–1074.

13.

Deng

H.B.

, Zhang

X.P.

, and Liu

(2005). The study of p53, VEGF, MVD expressions and their correlations in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res Prevent Treatm, 32, 702–704, 741.

14.

, Fu

Z.Z.

, Gu

, Gao

L.M.

, Qi

X.M.

, and Yang

Y.H.

(2012). Clinical significance and expression level of VEGF/PLT in serum and Opn before and after chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Chin J Coal Industry Med, 15, 803–805.

15.

Eisenhauer

E.A.

, Therasse

, Bogaerts

, Schwartz

L.H.

, Sargent

, Ford

, et al. (2009). New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer, 45, 228–247.

16.

Farhat

F.S.

, Tfayli

, Fakhruddin

, Mahfouz

, Otrock

Z.K.

, Alameddine

R.S.

, et al. (2012). Expression, prognostic and predictive impact of VEGF and bFGF in non-small cell lung cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol, 84, 149–160.

17.

Faur

A.C.

, Lazar

, and Cornianu

(2013). Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression and microvascular density in salivary gland tumours. APMIS. 1–9.

18.

Ferrara

(2010). Pathways mediating VEGF-independent tumor angiogenesis. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev, 21, 21–26.

19.

Formica

, Palmirotta

, Del Monte

, Savonarola

, Ludovici

, De Marchis

M.L.

, et al. (2011). Predictive value of VEGF gene polymorphisms for metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving first-line treatment including fluorouracil, irinotecan, and bevacizumab. Int J Colorectal Dis, 26, 143–151.

20.

Freeman

, Girsh

, Jou

A.F.

, Ho

J.A.

, Hug

, Dernedde

, et al. (2012). Optical aptasensors for the analysis of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Anal Chem, 84, 6192–6198.

21.

Geng

, Donnelly

, McMahon

, Lin

P.C.

, Sierra-Rivera

, Oshinka

, et al. (2001). Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor signaling leads to reversal of tumor resistance to radiotherapy. Cancer Res, 61, 2413–2419.

22.

, Fu

Z.Z.

, Fu

B.H.

, Zhang

L.N.

, Zhang

S.H.

, and Cao

X.Y.

(2011). Clinical significance of serum VEGF and TGF-β1 by detecting their expression level before and after three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in elder patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Chin J Clin Oncol, 38, 1565–1567.

23.

, Cun

, Li

, Qing

, Jin

, Zhong

, et al. (2013). Human apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease siRNA inhibits the angiogenesis induced by X-ray irradiation in lung cancer cells. Int J Med Sci, 10, 870–882.

24.

Guan

, Yin

, Wei

, Zhao

, Liu

, Wang

L.E.

, et al. (2010). Genotypes and haplotypes of the VEGF gene and survival in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy. BMC Cancer 10, 431.

25.

Guo

Z.W.

, Gong

Y.H.

, Li

, Xue

W.C.

, Yan

, and Tian

Q.H.

(2002). Study on changes of vascular endothelial cell growth factor in serum with non small cell hung cancer patients before and after radiotherapy. Chin J Immunol, 18, 807–809.

26.

, Tang

, Yang

, Li

, Song

, Cheang

, et al. (2013). Double-positive expression of high-mobility group box 1 and vascular endothelial growth factor C indicates a poorer prognosis in gastric cancer patients. World J Surg Oncol 11, 161.

27.

Hicklin

D.J.

, and Ellis

L.M.

(2005). Role of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway in tumor growth and angiogenesis. J Clin Oncol, 23, 1011–1027.

28.

Hirakawa

, Brown

L.F.

, Kodama

, Paavonen

, Alitalo

, and Detmar

(2007). VEGF-C-induced lymphangiogenesis in sentinel lymph nodes promotes tumor metastasis to distant sites. Blood, 109, 1010–1017.

29.

Huang

Z.J.

(2010). Expression and significance of serum level of vascular endothelial growth factor in patients with non-small cell lung cancer undergoing radiotherapy. J Pract Med, 26, 2503–2505.

30.

Iwasaki

, Kuwahara

, Yoshinaga

, and Shirakusa

(2004). Basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels, as prognostic indicators in NSCLC. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 25, 443–448.

31.

, Wang

, Sarkar

F.H.

, and Gupta

S.V.

(2012). Delta-tocotrienol augments cisplatin-induced suppression of non-small cell lung cancer cells via inhibition of the Notch-1 pathway. Anticancer Res, 32, 2647–2655.

32.

Jones

R.G.

, and Thompson

C.B.

(2009). Tumor suppressors and cell metabolism: a recipe for cancer growth. Genes Dev, 23, 537–548.

33.

Kawai

, Minamiya

, Ito

, Saito

, and Ogawa

(2008). VEGF121 promotes lymphangiogenesis in the sentinel lymph nodes of non-small cell lung carcinoma patients. Lung Cancer, 59, 41–47.

34.

Kaya

, Ciledag

, Gulbay

B.E.

, Poyraz

B.M.

, Celik

, Sen

, et al. (2004). The prognostic significance of vascular endothelial growth factor levels in sera of non-small cell lung cancer patients. Respir Med, 98, 632–636.

35.

Kim

S.W.

, Kim

M.Y.

, Lee

Y.P.

, Ryu

Y.J.

, Lee

S.J.

, Lee

J.H.

, et al. (2013). Clinical features and prognostic factors in elderly koreans with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in a tertiary referral hospital. Tuberc Respir Dis (Seoul), 75, 52–58.

36.

Lim

E.H.

, Zhang

S.L.

, Li

J.L.

, Yap

W.S.

, Howe

T.C.

, Tan

B.P.

, et al. (2009). Using whole genome amplification (WGA) of low-volume biopsies to assess the prognostic role of EGFR, KRAS, p53, and CMET mutations in advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Thorac Oncol, 4, 12–21.

37.

Linderholm

, Tavelin

, Grankvist

, and Henriksson

(1999). Does vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) predict local relapse and survival in radiotherapy-treated node-negative breast cancer?. Br J Cancer, 81, 727–732.

38.

Little

, Higgins

J.P.

, Ioannidis

J.P.

, Moher

, Gagnon

, von Elm

, et al. (2009). Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA)—an extension of the STROBE statement. Eur J Clin Invest, 39, 247–266.

39.

Loncaster

J.A.

, Cooper

R.A.

, Logue

J.P.

, Davidson

S.E.

, Hunter

R.D.

, and West

C.M.

(2000). Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression is a prognostic factor for radiotherapy outcome in advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Br J Cancer, 83, 620–625.

40.

, Bo

Y.J.

, Li

, Yang

W.B.

, and Zhang

T.Y.

(2010). Significance of combined determination of vascular endothelial growth factor, CA125 and carcinoembryanic antigen in peripheral blood of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Chongqing Med J, 39, 430–431, 433.

41.

Maekawa

, Iwasaki

, Shirakusa

, Enatsu

, Kawakami

, and Kuroki

(2007). Correlation between lymph node metastasis and the expression of VEGF-C, VEGF-D and VEGFR-3 in T1 lung adenocarcinoma. Anticancer Res, 27, 3735–3741.

42.

Meng

, Zhang

Y.D.

, and Wang

Y.B.

(2010). Clinical significance of vascular endothelial growth factor C and CD44v6 expressions in hunam non-small cell lung cancer. J Shandong Univers (Health Science), 48, 83–86.

43.

Molina

J.R.

, Yang

, Cassivi

S.D.

, Schild

S.E.

, and Adjei

A.A.

(2008). Non-small cell lung cancer: epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and survivorship. Mayo Clin Proc, 83, 584–594.

44.

Naga Deepthi

(2011). Role of tumor suppressor protein p53 in apoptosis and cancer therapy. J Cancer Sci Ther, S17, 001.

45.

Naumnik

, Nilklinska

, Ossolinska

, and Chyczewska

(2009). Serum levels of HMGB1, survivin, and VEGF in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer during chemotherapy. Folia Histochem Cytobiol, 47, 703–709.

46.

Niers

T.M.

, Richel

D.J.

, Meijers

J.C.

, and Schlingemann

R.O.

(2011). Vascular endothelial growth factor in the circulation in cancer patients may not be a relevant biomarker. PLoS One 6, e19873.

47.

Peters

J.L.

, Sutton

A.J.

, Jones

D.R.

, Abrams

K.R.

, and Rushton

(2006). Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA, 295, 676–680.

48.

Rades

, Setter

, Dunst

, Dahl

, Schild

S.E.

, and Noack

(2010). Prognostic impact of VEGF and VEGF receptor 1 (FLT1) expression in patients irradiated for stage II/III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Strahlenther Onkol, 186, 307–314.

49.

Saharinen

, Eklund

, Pulkki

, Bono

, and Alitalo

(2011). VEGF and angiopoietin signaling in tumor angiogenesis and metastasis. Trends Mol Med, 17, 347–362.

50.

Salgia

(2011). Prognostic significance of angiogenesis and angiogenic growth factors in nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer, 117, 3889–3899.

51.

Sano

, Matsumoto

, Valdecanas

D.R.

, Zhao

, Molkentine

D.P.

, Takahashi

, et al. (2011). Vandetanib restores head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells' sensitivity to cisplatin and radiation in vivo and in vitro . Clin Cancer Res, 17, 1815–1827.

52.

Senger

D.R.

(2010). Vascular endothelial growth factor: much more than an angiogenesis factor. Mol Biol Cell, 21, 377–379.

53.

Shintani

, Okimura

, Sato

, Nakagiri

, Kadota

, Inoue

, et al. (2011). Epithelial to mesenchymal transition is a determinant of sensitivity to chemoradiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg, 92, 1794–1804.

54.

Sina

, Sonia

, Xiujuan

, Laura

, and Lena

C.-W.

(2011). Signal transduction by vascular endothelial growth factor receptors. Biochem J, 437, 169–183.

55.

Steffensen

K.D.

, Waldstrom

, Brandslund

, and Jakobsen

(2010). The relationship of VEGF polymorphisms with serum VEGF levels and progression-free survival in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 117, 109–116.

56.

Takahashi

(2011). Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), VEGF receptors and their inhibitors for antiangiogenic tumor therapy. Biol Pharm Bull, 34, 1785–1788.

57.

Thangarajah

, Yao

, Chang

E.I.

, Shi

, Jazayeri

, Vial

I.N.

, et al. (2009). The molecular basis for impaired hypoxia-induced VEGF expression in diabetic tissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 106, 13505–13510.

58.

Tischler

, Pfeifer

, Hausladen

, Schirmer

, Bonde

A.-K.

, Kristiansen

, et al. (2011). L1CAM protein expression is associated with poor prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer. Mol Cancer 10, 127.

59.

Toi

, Matsumoto

, and Bando

(2001). Vascular endothelial growth factor: its prognostic, predictive, and therapeutic implications. Lancet Oncol, 2, 667–673.

60.

Topkan

, Parlak

, Topuk

, Guler

O.C.

, and Selek

(2013). Outcomes of aggressive concurrent radiochemotherapy in highly selected septuagenarians with stage IIIB non-small cell lung carcinoma: retrospective analysis of 89 patients. Lung Cancer, 81, 226–230.

61.

Tsutsui

, Matsuyama

, Yamamoto

, Takeuchi

, Oshiro

, Ishida

, et al. (2010). The Akt expression correlates with the VEGF-A and -C expression as well as the microvessel and lymphatic vessel density in breast cancer. Oncol Rep, 23, 621–630.

62.

Veeravagu

, Hsu

A.R.

, Cai

, Hou

L.C.

, Tse

V.C.

, and Chen

(2007). Vascular endothelial growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors as anti-angiogenic agents in cancer therapy. Recent Pat Anticancer Drug Discov, 2, 59–71.

63.

Wang

H.B.

, Lin

Y.C.

, Lin

W.Z.

, Zeng

, Lin

, and Hong

C.Q.

(2008). Clinical significance of serum vascular endothelial growth factor in advanced malignant tumors. Chin Clin Oncol, 13, 126–128.

64.

Wang

R.H.

, Xie

J.G.

, Chen

, Ren

T.T.

, and Zhang

Y.C.

(2013). Expression of angiopoietin-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor in human colon cancer. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao, 33, 1236–1239.

65.

Wang

Y.P.

, Wang

M.Z.

, Luo

Y.R.

, Wei

Z.X.

, and Xuan

Y.P.

(2012). Clinical study of vaecular endothelial frowth factor-C and cytokeratin 19 in stage I non-small cell lung cancer patients. Chin J Clin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 19, 385–389.

66.

Weis

S.M.

, and Cheresh

D.A.

(2011). Tumor angiogenesis: molecular pathways and therapeutic targets. Nat Med, 17, 1359–1370.

67.

Yang

S.Y.

, Zhong

Z.P.

, Hu

L.J.

, Wang

J.J.

, Cai

, and Shi

D.P.

(2011). A clinical analysis of the whole body therm aerotherapy for patients with nin-small cell lung cancer after operation. Chin J Clin Oncol Rehabilit, 18, 66–68.

68.

Yilmaz

, Ernam

, Unsal

, Demirag

, Atikcan

, and Tastepe

(2007). Vascular endothelial growth factor immunostaining correlates with postoperative relapse and survival in non-small cell lung cancer. Arch Med Res, 38, 764–768.

69.

Yin

, Liao

, Yuan

, Guan

, O'Reilly

M.S.

, Welsh

, et al. (2012). Polymorphisms of the vascular endothelial growth factor gene and severe radiation pneumonitis in non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with definitive radiotherapy. Cancer Sci, 103, 945–950.

70.

Zhang

H.J.

, Guo

W.D.

, Niu

D.S.

, Di

J.J.

, Li

H.L.

, Geng

C.L.

, et al. (2010). Observation on efficacy of radiotherapy combined with hyperthermia in treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and significance of change of VEGF, sIL-2R and IL-6. Chin J Clin Oncol Rehabilit, 17, 299–304.

71.

Zhang

, Hu

L.K.

, Xu

, Fu

, and Zhu

X.L.

(2008). Significance of serum vascular endothelial growth factor in non-small cell lung cancer. J Shandong Uni (Health Sciences), 46, 1177–1180.

72.

Zhang

W.C.

, Shyh-Chang

, Yang

, Rai

, Umashankar

, Ma

, et al. (2012a). Glycine decarboxylase activity drives non-small cell lung cancer tumor-initiating cells and tumorigenesis. Cell, 148, 259–272.

73.

Zhang

, Yu

L.K.

, and Xia

(2012b). Evaluation of serum and pleural levels of endostatin and vascular epithelial growth factor in lung cancer patients with pleural effusion. Asian Pac J Trop Med, 5, 239–242.

74.

Zhao

X.F.

, Liu

X.Q.

, Guo

W.F.

, and Li

X.B.

(2010). Expression of carbonic anhydrase IX in NSCLC and its Relationship with VEGF and Ki67 expression. Chin J Lung Cancer, 13, 861–866.

75.

Zhou

W.B.

, Bai

, and Jin

(2009). Diagnostic value of vascular endothelial growth factor and endostatin in malignant pleural effusions. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis, 13, 381–386.

76.

Zintzaras

, and Ioannidis

J.P.

(2005). HEGESMA: genome search meta-analysis and heterogeneity testing. Bioinformatics, 21, 3672–3673.