Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 18, 2026.

Anti-Angiogenic Therapy: Current Challenges and Future Perspectives

Filipa Lopes-Coelho, Filipa Martins, Sofia A. Pereira and 1 more

International Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2021 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.3390/ijms22073765

Abstract

Anti-angiogenic therapy is an old method to fight cancer that aims to abolish the nutrient and oxygen supply to the tumor cells through the decrease of the vascular network and the avoidance of new blood vessels formation. Most of the anti-angiogenic agents approved for cancer treatment rely on targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) actions, as VEGF signaling is considered the main angiogenesis promotor. In addition to the control of angiogenesis, these drugs can potentiate immune therapy as VEGF also exhibits immunosuppressive functions. Despite the mechanistic rational that strongly supports the benefit of drugs to stop cancer progression, they revealed to be insufficient in most cases. We hypothesize that the rehabilitation of old drugs that interfere with mechanisms of angiogenesis related to tumor microenvironment might represent a promising strategy. In this review, we deepened research on the molecular mechanisms underlying anti-angiogenic strategies and their failure and went further into the alternative mechanisms that impact angiogenesis. We concluded that the combinatory targeting of alternative effectors of angiogenic pathways might be a putative solution for anti-angiogenic therapies.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 18, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

1. Introduction

Cancer angiogenesis is a complex process of a new and abnormal blood vessels network formation that accounts for tumor growth and metastasis. The angiogenic switch that stimulates endothelial cells (ECs) proliferation and migration to form new blood vessels during tumor growth is promoted by the constant release of pro-angiogenic factors by cancer cells and by cancer-associated stromal cells (e.g., macrophages, fibroblasts, neutrophils, adipocytes). During this process, the increased proliferation of ECs leads to the formation of a disorganized and immature vascular network with disrupted ECs junctions, pericytes detachment and without a continuous basement membrane, responsible for tumor neo-vessels permeability, interstitial fluid pressure, and fragility.

While different molecular mediators are important in the control of cancer angiogenesis, the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF-A, also known as simply VEGF) is by far the most well studied and targeted in cancer therapy.

Anti-Angiogenic Therapy, Focused on VEGF, for Cancer Treatment

In 1971, Folkman hypothesized that anti-angiogenic therapy would be beneficial for cancer treatment since it could disrupt the pre-existing blood vessels and avoid the formation of new ones, decreasing oxygen and nutrient supply to cancer cells, and consequently decelerating tumor growth. Decades after Folkman’s statement, antibodies such as bevacizumab, the first VEGF-targeted agent approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cancer treatment, was available for cancer therapy.

In cancer, neo-angiogenesis is essential for tumor growth and for metastatic processes. Despite the existence of other signaling pathways involved in angiogenesis, VEGF/VEGFRs interaction has been considered as a key regulator and constituted an attractive and central target for the development of anti-angiogenic drugs, the blockade of VEGF signaling pathway by neutralizing antibodies to VEGF or to VEGFRs, soluble VEGFR hybrids, or inhibitors of VEGFRs tyrosine kinase (RTKi) seems to be ineffective as a monotherapy, and resistance is a common event in cancer patients. Therefore, the major challenge in VEGF-targeted therapies is to overcome resistance, due to adaptive and compensatory mechanisms (Figure 1). The limited success of single-targeted monotherapy approaches can be justified by six different mechanisms: (1) The activation of alternative angiogenic signaling pathways; (2) the upregulation of other pro-angiogenic factors; (3) the vascular co-option, a process where cancer cells proliferate near the existing blood vessels, avoiding further angiogenesis; (4) the vascular mimicry, in which cancer cells acquire an endothelial-like phenotype and led to the formation of blood vessels without ECs involvement; (5) the endothelial progenitor cells recruitment, and (6) the increased mobilization of other cell types with a pro-inflammatory/pro-angiogenic phenotype. Supported by this knowledge, a new generation of drugs was developed in order to improve anti-tumoral efficacy, by the simultaneously targeting VEGF signaling pathway and alternative angiogenic pathways. For instance, in vitro and in vivo results showed that the dual targeting of VEGF and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) pathway inhibited ECs proliferation and migration. Moreover, the design and development of new anti-VEGF signaling drugs continues, including the arylamide-5-anilinoquinazoline-8-nitro derivative a recent inhibitor of VEGFR2-kinase activity with in vitro anti-tumor and anti-angiogenic activity.

2. Targeting Alternative Angiogenic Signaling Pathways to Weaken Cancer

VEGF blockers act on the recognition and neutralization of all bioactive forms of VEGF, preventing VEGFRs activation and consequently inhibiting tumor growth. However, compensatory mechanisms of other angiogenic mediators may be responsible for patients’ resistance to VEGF signaling pathway blockage (Figure 1). For instance, in metastatic colorectal cancer patients, bevacizumab was associated with increased plasma levels of placental growth factor (PIGF), FGF, and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), prior or along disease progression. Other studies have been reporting the tumor vessels normalization in hepatocellular carcinoma models and the improved efficacy of VEGF-targeted therapy in ocular disease as outcomes of PIGF blockage.

Thus, increased levels of other pro-angiogenic factors may compensate VEGF blockage (Figure 1) and trigger alternative VEGF-independent angiogenic pathways.

2.1. Fibroblast Growth Factors (FGFs)

FGFs are known as potent angiogenic inducers that increase the proliferation and the migration of ECs. FGF family of tyrosine kinase receptors (FGFR, type V RTK) act upon homo- and heterodimers formation. FGFRs present Ig-like loops in the extracellular domain, which can form covalent dimers through disulfide bonds and promote their constitutive activation.

In many cancer types, the anti-VEGF resistant tumors present increased expression of FGF and/or FGFR upon hypoxia that contributes for the synergistic cooperation of FGF/FGFR and VEFG/VEGFR axes to the amplification of tumor angiogenesis. In preclinical studies, the application of dual inhibitors of FGF and VEGF pathways have shown an increased anti-cancer efficacy. Several inhibitors targeting VEGF and other RTK pathways have been tested, including: Brivanib (dual FGF/VEGF- RTKi), which increases the overall survival (OS) of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors mouse models; dovitinib (VEGF, FGF and PDGFRs- RTKi) that delays tumor growth; and S49076 (MET, AXL, and FGF RTKi) that induces tumor growth arrest in bevacizumab-resistant tumors. Nevertheless, in clinical settings after anti-VEGF therapy recurrence, both dovitinib (VEGF, FGF and PDGF RTKi) and nintedanib (VEGF, FGF and PDGF RTKi) were shown to be ineffective. New applications for old drugs have also been tested in the control of cancer angiogenesis. Thalidomide is a good and promising example, as the teratogenic effect of thalidomide is due to the prevention of the embryo normal angiogenesis through the interference with FGFs. Therefore, the use of thalidomide and analogues as anti-angiogenic drugs has been a focus of cancer research. Thalidomide was associated to anti-angiogenic effects in a mice model of neuroblastoma and to decreased tumor growth, metastasis, and angiogenesis in breast cancer. Thalidomide also increases the remodeling and stabilization of the abnormal tumor vasculature, in a process mediated by FGF inhibition. This drug has been also pointed out as a suitable alternative as an anti-angiogenesis effective drug, involving the downregulation of FGF and VEGF production, in multiple myeloma.

2.2. Angiopoietins (ANG)

ANG1 is an angiogenesis suppressor involved in the maturation and stabilization of blood vessels through Tie2 receptor activation (Type XII RTKs) and in the perivascular-ECs interaction and ECs survival. However, ANG1 also seems to limit the continuous angiogenesis in the tumor and consequently contribute for tumor growth inhibition. ANG1 might be useful in a vascular improvement-based cancer therapy, aiming to the stabilization of the tumor vasculature and further improvement of drug delivery.

On the contrary, ANG2 (mostly produced by ECs) acts as an endogenous antagonist of ANG1 function that leads to remodeling processes or vascular sprouting in response to VEGF. The angiogenic pattern activated by ANG2 resembles the cancer angiogenesis, which is characterized by unstable and leakier vessels. ANG2 is upregulated in many cancer types and has been associated with poor survival and with more invasive phenotypes, which indicates a crucial role in the development of resistance to anti-VEGF therapy. Colorectal cancer patients with poor responses to bevacizumab had increased ANG2 serum levels, and VEGF and ANG2 blockage in vivo delayed tumor growth, normalized tumor vasculature and increased the survival of mice with glioblastoma. In pre-clinical studies, the dual VEGF/ANG2 blockage has been shown to suppress revascularization and tumor progression, but their clinical efficacy using vanucizumab (humanized VEGF/ANG2 bi-specific monoclonal antibody) is still under Phase I human trials, though with promising results.

2.3. Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF)

In different cancer types aberrant PDGF signaling leads to the secretion of pro-angiogenic factors, promoting an increase in ECs proliferation, migration, sprouting, and tube formation, with a consequent stimulation of lymph-angiogenesis and lymphatic metastasis. PDGF signaling is associated with tumor vascularization in ovarian, non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), and hepatocellular carcinoma. In glioblastoma, the increased expression of PDGFR is related to poor prognosis, and the dual inhibition of VEGF/PDGFR improves survival in mice models. In vitro, ponatinib, a multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor including PDGFR inhibitor, reduces the viability, migration, and tube forming capacity of human umbilical vein ECs (HUVECs). In the future, the use of PDGF inhibitors might have a place in the portfolio of therapeutic options for the improvement of clinical efficacy of VEGF blockers.

2.4. Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)/c-MET

HGF/c-MET signaling pathway (type X TKR) regulates cell proliferation, motility, and survival, also being a mediator of tumor growth and neo-angiogenesis. In a cancer context, HGF/c-MET activation exerts pro-angiogenic effects, leading to a direct activation of ECs and an indirect stimulation of other pro-angiogenic factors, as VEGF. HGF/c-MET has a role in anti-VEGF therapy resistance and bevacizumab-resistant patients exhibit an upregulation of c-MET expression. In cancer models, it was proven that HGF/c-MET is responsible for the resistance to anti-VEGF therapy with sunitinib (VEGFR and PDGFR RTKi), while the concomitant exposure to HGF/c-MET inhibitors and sunitinib abrogated angiogenesis and tumor growth. In patient-derived glioblastoma cells, VEGF blockage restores MET activity, and c-MET inhibition decreases the invasive capacity of glioblastoma cells. Unfortunately, the concomitant use of onartuzumab (anti-c-MET) with bevacizumab brought no additional clinical benefits.

2.5. Placental Growth Factor (PIGF)

PIGF is a member of the VEGF family that binds to VEGFR1 and its co-receptors neuropilin-1 and 2 (NRP1 and NRP2). PIGF has been indicated as a putative player in anti-VEGF agents resistance since some reports showed its upregulation in patients subjected to anti-VEGF therapy. Moreover, aflibercept (or ziv-aflibercept), a drug that neutralizes both VEGF and PIGF, showed to be effective in cancer patients-derived xenografts models.

2.6. Alternative Anti-Angiogenic Factors

In normal conditions, naturally anti-angiogenic factors, such as thrombospondin (TSP-1 and 2), pigment epithelium-derived factor (PEDF), and endostatin, play an important role in the counterbalance of pro-angiogenic factors, through the blockade of multiple pro-angiogenic factors and endothelial cell apoptosis. Given that and considering that the expression of those factors in tumors is often low, there was an increasing interest in the application of these factors and its derivatives as potential anticancer agents.

TSP is amongst the first described angiogenesis inhibitors, and different attempts were already made to validate TSP and analogs as anti-angiogenic modulators for therapeutic use. For instance, although ATB-510, a TSP mimetic peptide, in a phase I clinical trial showed a favorable low toxicity profile in patients with various solid tumors, in a posterior phase II trial in soft tissue sarcoma and stage IV melanoma patients ATB-510 did not show efficacy as a monotherapy, since no improvement in patients outcome was achieved. Likewise, a recombinant version of the three thrombospondin repeat (TSR) domains designated 3TSR was shown to normalize tumor vasculature and to potentiate the tumor regression mediated by chemotherapy, reinforcing that a stable vasculature potentiates the anti-cancer therapy by allowing a more effective drug delivery.

PEDF is a multifunctional member of the serine proteinase inhibitor (serpin) family and it plays a role as an inhibitor of angiogenesis. The use of PEGF as a drug has been explored, and different phosphomimetic mutants and post-translational modified variants with enhanced anti-angiogenic activity were already developed. These strategies have focused mainly on eye disease and wound healing, but their application in cancer therapy is under debate.

Endostatin is a C-terminal fragment of type XVIII collagen and it is the strongest endogenous inhibitor of angiogenesis, its use in cancer therapy being a promising tool. The use of a recombinant human endostatin (Endostar) was approved by the State Food and Drug Administration of China in 2005 for the treatment of NSCLC patients. Since then, several studies have been relating the anti-cancer properties of this therapy for a variety of other cancer types, including colorectal cancer, melanoma, and breast cancer, whether as a monotherapy or in combination. Despite being tested in clinical trials since 2002, further clinical studies are needed to confirm its safety and to better understand endostatin mechanism of action and efficacy, since its effects are complex and may interfere with several different mechanisms.

3. The Use of Anti-Angiogenic Agents in Cancer: A Disappointing Therapeutic Strategy

The standard care of cancer patients with solid tumors is based on surgical resection followed by chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, in order to prevent cancer recurrence and the progression of occult microscopic tumors. However, therapy resistance is still one of the major obstacles for the optimal success of cancer management is.

Given the central role of VEGF in the promotion of tumor angiogenesis, its targeting has emerged as the most promising therapeutic strategy for angiogenesis inhibition and cancer treatment. However, decades after Folkman’s statement, anti-angiogenic strategies were developed, and antibodies such as bevacizumab are available for cancer therapy. Nevertheless, so far these strategies have failed, at least in part because the precise molecular mechanisms of cancer neo-angiogenesis remain unclear. Additionally, a novel paradigm emerges since some studies suggested that the abrogation of blood supply will restrict drug delivery (e.g., cytostatic agents) to the tumor, decreasing their clinical efficacy. Additionally, strategies focused on restoring tumor vessels normalization will increase the penetration of therapeutic agents into the tumor, improving the efficacy of drugs.

VEGF:VEGR axis is considered as the key mediator of pathophysiological angiogenesis. Overactivation of VEGF:VEGFR axis is a trait of many cancer types and correlates with increased microvessel density (MVD) and metastatic spread. The blockage of the VEGF:VEGFR axis seems to be ineffective as monotherapy, and primary or de novo resistance is a common feature in cancer patients. At the molecular level, the disappointing clinical results obtained by the use of VEGFR inhibitors could be explained by VEGF-independent compensatory mechanisms, though the activation of other angiogenic signaling pathways (e.g., PDGF/PDGFR, FGF/FGFR, Ang/Tie2) (Figure 2) and/or the upregulation of the expression of other pro-angiogenic factors (e.g., bFGF, PDGF). This was clinically evident since cancer patients treated with bevacizumab increase the plasma levels of PIDF, FGF, and PDGF concomitantly with disease progression. Accordingly, the in vivo blockage of PIGF or FGF pathway normalizes the tumor vessels and improves the efficacy of VEGF-targeted therapy. Strategies focused on the dual inhibition of VEGF and other pro-angiogenic signaling pathways might be pivotal for the improvement of anti-angiogenic cancer therapy. For instance, in bevacizumab-resistant tumors, brivanib (dual FGF/VEGF inhibitor) increases the overall survival (OS) in a mouse model of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor, dovitinib (VEGFR, FGFR and PDGR inhibitor) delays tumor growth, and S49076 (MET, AXL, and FGFR kinase inhibitor) induces tumor growth arrest. Additionally, in mice models of cancer, the blockage of VEGF/ANG2 suppresses revascularization and tumor progression and increases OS. Although pre-clinical models showed increased efficacy in tackling tumor angiogenesis, unfortunately the results in clinical settings are not so favorable (Figure 2). The limited success of the anti-antigenic approaches may be also related to the complexity of tumors vascularization processes, as the angiogenic-like phenomena (see Subsection of Section 1) and the recruitment of EPCs (see Subsection of Section 1). A better understanding on how tumors become vascularized and how they escape from anti-angiogenic therapy will for sure open new perspectives for the development of more effective anti-angiogenic approaches.

4. The Versatile Use of Anti-VEGF Agents to Enhance Immunotherapies

VEGF, besides its role as a major driver of angiogenesis, can also have immunosuppressive functions, as the inhibition of immune effector cells and the promotion of immunosuppressive cells. For instance, VEGF through the inhibition of NF-kB signaling pathway is able to inhibit dendritic cell maturation and differentiation, and by the upregulation of PD-L1 (programmed death-protein ligand 1) expression, it inhibits dendritic cell antigen-presentation function, suppressing the further activation and expansion of T-cells. Furthermore, Alfaro et al. demonstrated that VEGF inhibits monocytes differentiation into dendritic cells, being this inhibitory effect reversed upon bevacizumab or sorafenib treatment (VEGFR and PDGFR RTKi).

VEGF-dependent mechanisms promote the generation of an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME), favoring cancer immune escape and cancer progression. VEGF favors monocyte and macrophage recruitment to the TME, but it inhibits the differentiation and proliferation of CD8+ cytotoxic T-cells. VEGFR-2 activation by VEGF on CD8+ cells induces the upregulation of immune checkpoint molecules, such as PD-1, TIM-3 (T-cell immunoglobulin mucin receptor 3), and CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4), leading to cytotoxic T-cell exhaustion. In contrast, VEGF promotes the proliferation of regulatory T-cells (Tregs), which are involved in tumor development and progression by inhibiting anti-tumor immunity. In fact, VEGF levels are positively correlated with the percentage of Tregs, this effect being reversed by VEGF/VEGFR2 blockade in a mouse model of colorectal cancer and by bevacizumab administration in colorectal cancer patients. The interaction between VEGF and NRP1 also contributes to the generation of the immunosuppressive microenvironment. Hansen et al. showed that the knockout of NRP1 in Foxp3+ Tregs reduced Tregs infiltration into the TME, while it increased CD8+ cytotoxic T-cells, leading to prolonged survival in melanoma bearing mice.

Considering the role of VEGF in the TME, the inhibition of VEGF-induced signaling cascades can ideally suppress tumor growth through two mechanisms: By suppressing angiogenesis and by exerting immunosuppressive effects. Due to the dual effect of VEGF on angiogenesis and in the tumor immune microenvironment, several studies addressed the combinatory effect of anti-angiogenic therapies with immune checkpoint blockade.

Cancer immunotherapy is based on the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) directed against immune checkpoint molecules, vital components of immune homeostasis. Cancer cells are able to hijack the expression of these molecules, inducing immune suppression and contributing to tumor evasion of immune surveillance. The most common targets of ICIs are the immune checkpoint molecules CTLA-4, PD-1, and its ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. Their blockade results in the removal of inhibitory signals of T-cell activation, enhancing anti-tumor immune activity and leading to the inhibition of tumor growth, through CD8+ T-cell mediated cancer cells death. Although the use of ICIs enhances the immune system of the host towards the recognition and attack of the tumor, the clinical usage of immunotherapy alone only benefit a small subset of patients. Given the decreased ICIs-cancer patient response and the correlation between anti-angiogenic factors and immunity, anti-angiogenic therapies have been considered as putative enhancers of ICIs treatment.

As previously mentioned, anti-VEGFRs are the first line therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. More recently, their use in combination with ICIs has been tested. Two phase III clinical trials compared the effect of sunitinib versus the combinatory therapy of axitinib (VEGFR and PDGFR RTKi) and pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) (NCT02853331) and combined with avelumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) (NCT02684006). In both cases, the combination induced a significantly increase in progression free survival (PFS) of cancer patients. Additionally, the combination of axitinib and pembrolizumab ICI prolonged the OS of cancer patients. Interestingly, Wallin et al. observed an increase of intra-tumoral antigen-specific CD8+ T-cells migration after the combination with bevacizumab and atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1), in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients.

Two clinical trials (phase I and phase II) are currently testing the combination of ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) and bevacizumab in melanoma patients (stage III-IV), focusing on the effect on OS and PFS (NCT01950390) (ClinicalTrials.gov, started in 2013, accessed on 25 March 2021) and on the maximum dose tolerated (NCT00790010) (ClinicalTrials.gov, started in 2008, accessed on 25 March 2021). In mouse models of melanoma brain metastasis, the combination of axitinib with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies increases the number of effector T-cells and antigen presentation by dendritic cells, which promotes a reduction on tumor growth and an increase in OS. A phase III clinical trial (IMpower150) reported a significant improvement of PFS and OS in metastatic non-squamous subset of NSCLC patients after the combined administration of atezolizumab, bevacizumab, and chemotherapy (carboplatin and paclitaxel). This result expanded the application of atezolizumab in NSCLC treatment, because its combinatory usage is effective regardless PD-L1 expression.

Thus far, there is a large panel of promising preclinical and clinical studies ongoing (Table 1). However, a better understanding of the mechanisms involved in both immunotherapy and anti-angiogenic therapy will improve and open new perspectives on the synergistic efficacy, cancer patient safety, and outcome.

5. The Potential Use of Other Therapeutic Strategies Targeting Cancer Cells and Impacting Angiogenesis

The clinical results of the use of anti-angiogenic compounds, alone and in combination with conventional cancer therapy, are far from the remarkable successes obtained in pre-clinical settings. Since the efficacy and mechanism of action of the anti-angiogenic drugs (inhibition vs. normalization of tumor vasculature) is still a matter of debate, new efforts have been made for the development of new compounds with both anti-tumor and anti-angiogenic properties. For instance, ivermectin, a FDA-approved anti-parasitic drug for the treatment of intestinal worm infections, inhibit ovarian, breast, and glioma cancer cells growth, and promote cancer cell death while it also targets angiogenesis through the inhibition of capillary network formation, proliferation, and survival of human brain microvascular ECs. In addition, carnosol and carnosic acid, the major components of rosemary extracts, inhibit tumor cell growth and affect several steps of the angiogenesis process, as EC differentiation, proliferation, migration, and proteolytic capability. Other compounds, as fucoidan and sulfated galactofucan have been shown to reduce tumor growth and inhibit tumor angiogenesis, in part through the inhibition of STAT3-regulated genes, as VEGF, Bcl-xL, and cyclin D1.

5.1. ROS-Related Drugs: A Double-Edge Sword

The metabolic remodeling of tumor and tumor associated stromal cells (TASCs) drive the generation of a pro-oxidant rich-microenvironment, which in turn favors tumor angiogenesis. The generation of a pro-oxidant and a pro-angiogenic tumor microenvironment seems to work synergistically in the promotion of the angiogenic switch and further tumor angiogenesis. The generation of ROS levels in cancer cells prompted by 27-hydroxycholesterol (27HC) and deferoxamine (DFO) activates STAT-3/VEGF and ERK1/2/HIF1α signaling pathways, promoting tumor angiogenesis and metastasis. Moreover, in human colon carcinoma cells, the mutant p53 triggers angiogenesis through the ROS-mediated activation of VEGF and HiF1α.

The modulation of the ROS levels in cancer treatment is a double-edged sword. On one hand, the generation of a pro-oxidant microenvironment in early stages of tumor development, and at moderate and non-toxic levels, activates cancer cell survival signaling cascades (e.g., MAPK/ERK1/2, p38, c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK), PI3K/Akt) and prompt tumor angiogenesis through the release of pro-angiogenic factors (e.g., VEGF, FGF) and extracellular matrix degrading enzymes (e.g., matrix metalloproteinases- MMPs). On the other hand, the generation of high and toxic ROS levels by chemotherapy and radiotherapy promotes oxidative stress and further cell death and senescence. The in vitro exposure of breast cancer cells to the antioxidant resveratrol reduce the ROS accumulation, decreasing paclitaxel-induced cell death. The tamoxifen-induced cytotoxicity in MCF-7 breast cancer cells was regulated by the intracellular concentration of the antioxidant vitamin C, decreasing the levels of ROS and lipid peroxides.

As mentioned, ROS generation in the TME, depending on the levels, can exert pro-tumorigenic and pro-angiogenic effects or drive oxidative stress-mediated cell death, pointing out that strategies focused on the modulation of ROS levels and oxidative stress to impair tumor progression, angiogenesis, and metastasis need to be carefully monitored. Baicalein, a phenolic flavonoid compound with antioxidant properties, inhibits cancer proliferation and migration, induces cancer cell death, and disrupts the development of tumor vasculature. OptiBerry, a anthocyanins-rich berry extract with antioxidant properties, shown to inhibit H2O2 and TNFα-induced VEGF expression by keratinocytes and to diminish the ability of ECs to form hemangioma, suggesting a putative anti-angiogenic, antioxidant, and anti-cancer effect. Other compounds have also shown strong ROS scavenging activities and anti-cancer activity, as the polyphenol from T. pallida and white mulberry (Morus alba). However, the effects of this compound on the tumor vasculature have not been evaluated so far. Contradictory information comes from studies suggesting that strategies focused on the generation of ROS and further oxidative stress induce ECs dysfunction, impairing tumor angiogenesis. Although most of the studies support the angiogenic potential of ROS as a therapeutic target for anti-cancer and anti-angiogenic therapy, the effects of those strategies on tumor angiogenesis and their mechanisms of action not only in ECs, but also in the crosstalk between ECs:cancer cells, need to be explored. Further research to a better understanding of disease-specific ROS involvement and their potential as anti-tumor strategy will be pivotal for the discovery of new therapeutic targets and further drug development for cancer treatment.

5.2. β-Adrenergic Drugs: Repurposing Existing Drugs for Anti-Cancer and Anti-Angiogenic Clinical Purposes

The activation of the β-adrenergic system by catecholamines, epinephrine, and norepinephrine has been related to the tumorigenic processes, as cancer cell proliferation and apoptosis, and also with vascular events, as angiogenesis. In ovarian cancer patients under social isolation, the increased levels of noradrenaline are correlated with tumor grade and stage, suggesting the contribution of the β-adrenergic receptors (β-AR) system in cancer progression. Chronic behavioral stress hormones, as adrenaline and/or noradrenaline, promote pancreas, breast, colorectum, and prostate cancer progression. More recently, the expression of β2-AR has been proposed as a useful and novel prognostic factor for patients with clear cell renal carcinoma. Besides the biobehavioral factors that contribute to the activation of β-AR system, some cancer cells (e.g., pancreatic, lung, colon) are able to synthesize and release adrenaline.

β-AR signaling activation via adrenaline and/or noradrenaline is implicated in the promotion of angiogenesis, through the upregulation of pro-angiogenic factors, as VEGF, IL6, IL8, and MMP2 and 9 and by the upregulation of VEGFR2. In prostate cancer xenograft models, β-AR signaling promote tumor angiogenesis. The crosstalk between ECs and cancer cells potentiates tumor angiogenesis mediated by β-AR signaling pathway, inducing the EC activation of Jagged1/Notch intercellular signaling and the metabolic shift of ECs from oxidative phosphorylation to aerobic glycolysis, which represents a critical step during the angiogenic switch. Interestingly, in a mice model of ovarian cancer, dopamine administration (antagonize the effect of stress hormones) inhibits tumor angiogenesis and stabilizes the already formed tumor vasculature, enhancing cisplatin delivery and efficacy. These results reinforce that the activation of the AR signaling pathway by catecholamines might be a key event in the tumor angiogenesis cascade.

Considering the modulatory role of β-AR signaling in tumorigenesis, β-blockers showed a promising anti-angiogenic and anti-cancer therapeutic value. Preclinical and retrospective studies highlighted the beneficial actions of β-blockers administration in cancer patients, improving the relapse free survival and decreasing the tumor recurrence, cancer-specific mortality, and metastasis. Moreover, the efficacy of Propranolol, a first generation non-selective β-AR antagonist (in some tissues inverse agonist), that acts by competing with catecholamines for the binding to β-adrenergic receptors, was shown to be effective in the treatment of hemangioma, the most common infantile benign tumor that involves the accumulation, proliferation, and differentiation of aberrant vascular structures. Propranolol demonstrated anti-cancer and anti-angiogenic pharmacological properties since its administration in breast cancer patients with arterial hypertension significantly reduced the primary tumor development, nodal/metastatic occurrence, and breast cancer-specific mortality; abrogated the VEGF production; inhibited the noradrenaline-induced HIF1α expression in cancer cells and inhibited the catecholamine-induced signaling between macrophages and ECs. In neuroblastoma, β-blockers (carvedilol, nebivolol, and Propranolol) independently of their selectivity, promoted vincristine-induced tumor regression, in part mediated by the inhibition of tumor angiogenesis. Controversially, an ex vivo study using aortic rings showed that β-blockers’ pro-angiogenic or anti-angiogenic activity is independent of their ability to antagonize catecholamine action. For instance, forskolin (β-AR agonist) a direct activator of adenylate cyclase that increased AMPc production through β-signaling activation, decreases VEGF-mediated microvessel sprouting while increases were observed with Propranolol, metoprolol, and bisoprolol (2nd generation, β1-AR–selective antagonists), and while carvedilol (3rd generation, a nonselective β-AR antagonist with additional alfa blocking activity and antioxidant properties) was unable to affect aortic sprouting.

Although it has been suggested that β-blockers could be a putative anti-angiogenic drug, some studies have failed to observe this association, remaining unclear as to how β-blockers mechanistically affects and impairs tumor angiogenesis. Moreover, as mentioned, previous studies demonstrated that inhibitory neurotransmitters induce tumor vessel normalization, which might suggest that the inhibition of the β-adrenergic system by β-blockers will promote tumor vessel normalization. This will in turn increase the efficacy of the delivery of anti-cancer drugs. The favorable safety profile, the low cost and immediate clinical availability, together with the putative cancer patient welfares point to the benefits of repositioning an old drug for new clinical purposes.

5.3. The Anti-Angiogenic Modulatory Role of Oxidative Stress and DNA Repair Controllers

As previously mentioned (in Section 5.1), a pro-oxidant rich tumor microenvironment is tightly associated with angiogenesis promotion. Considering that high ROS levels activate VEGF and HIF1α signaling pathways, several therapeutic strategies have been developed to target ROS-induced angiogenesis. The generation of free radicals in the cancer context is not a new topic, since the effect of several chemotherapeutic and radiotherapeutic strategies are mediated by ROS production, which in turn affect signaling cascades responsible for cell survival. For instance, the widely used platinum derivatives, such as carboplatin and cisplatin, increase ROS levels, generating nuclear and mitochondrial DNA adducts. These adducts are then recognized by DNA damage repair pathways, triggering apoptosis. However, higher ROS are also associated with chemotherapy resistance. Therefore, the combination of these therapies with ROS modulators (either pro- or antioxidants) has been proposed, but its translation to clinics has been difficult to apply.

One key signaling molecule that is activated in response to hypoxia is the nuclear factor erythroid 2 like-2 (Nrf2). This transcription factor is the major one responsible for the redox balance, controlling the expression of antioxidant-response genes. More recently, the role of Nrf2 in DNA damage repair has been explored, and some studies have already shown a potential protective effect of Nrf2 in chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced DNA damage. For instance, in lung cancer cell lines, the Nrf2/glutathione-mediated antioxidant defense pathway plays an important role in conferring resistance to cisplatin, acting as a good biomarker to predict cisplatin sensitivity. Moreover, Nrf2 also has a role in radiotherapy resistance, facilitating the repair of induced DNA damage through the HDR, in a ROS independent manner. Regarding its role in angiogenesis, this transcription factor is activated by hypoxia and triggers several pathways also activated by HIF-1α, through different target genes, such as HO-1, a member of the heme oxygenase family that activates angiogenesis in a VEGF-independent manner. Therefore, targeting Nrf2 or its downstream targets could provide new therapeutic strategies to impair tumor angiogenesis. Several Nrf2 inhibitors have been studied in the context of cancer therapy, as reviewed in Panieri and Saso, 2019, including brusatol, a quassinoid compound extracted from Brucea javanica that was shown to deplete Nrf2 protein levels in mouse hepatoma cells. Moreover, brusatol can also inhibit HIF1α accumulation under hypoxia in colon carcinoma cells, abrogating its signaling pathway. Even though these are promising results, it is important to note that some controversy remains on the impact of NRF2 pharmacological modulation on tumor growth.

In a study developed by Pastukh et al., an oxidative DNA damage and repair mechanism in the VEGF promoter was described, showing a surprising target of ROS generated by hypoxia. ROS were able to cause modifications in the hypoxic responsive elements (HRE) present in the VEGF promoter, thereby increasing VEGF expression through the involvement of the base excision DNA repair (BER) pathway. By chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis, it was found that HIF1 and BER enzymes (8-oxoguanine glycosylase 1, Ogg1, and redox effector factor-1, Ref-1) were bound on HRE, and DNA strand breaks were introduced. Accordingly, inhibition of BER by downregulation of Ogg1 decreased VEGF expression.

Moreover, Kaplan et al. showed in an in vivo ovarian cancer model that cediranib, an anti-angiogenic agent (anti-VEGFR), is able to suppress the expression of homology-directed DNA repair (HDR) factors. This effect occurred not only in a hypoxic context, in which hypoxia is able to inhibit HDR by several mechanisms, but also in normoxic conditions through the down-regulation of BRCA1/2 and RAD51 genes.

One emerging class of tumor therapeutic drugs is poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, which target DNA damage repair mechanisms. PARPs belong to BER system and their inhibition promotes the accumulation of single-strand DNA breaks, which will force the occurrence of double-strand DNA breaks. This way PARPs inhibition will account for the accumulation of single-strand and double-strand DNA lesions and consequently it will also affect the homology-directed DNA repair (HDR) system. Therefore, tumors with BRCA 1/2 mutations are more sensitive to this treatment once the mutated proteins are incapable of repairing double-strand DNA breaks (HDR deficit). Initially, this therapy was only applied to breast and ovarian cancer tumors with this alteration, but its efficacy was later showed in subsets of tumors without HDR deficit. Therefore, the combination of PARP inhibitors with chemo- and radiotherapy is currently under phase II trial (ANLOLA, NCT04566952).

Interestingly, PARP inhibition also affects ECs. A PARP inhibitor, GPI, was shown to abrogate EC migration and the formation of tube-like structures, thus impairing angiogenesis, without compromising ECs viability, both in vitro and in vivo. In the last years, some clinical trials were organized to explore the impact of the combination of anti-angiogenic therapies with PARP inhibitors in cancer treatment. For instance, a phase I/II study, investigating the combination of cediranib and olaparib (PARP inhibitor) in women with recurrent ovarian and breast cancer (NCT01116648) has already shown some promising results, improving PFS in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Another ongoing phase I/II trial is evaluating the PARP inhibitor niraparib tolerability and efficacy in combination with bevacizumab vs. niraparib alone in patients with platinum-sensitive epithelial ovarian cancer (AVANOVA, NCT02354131). Some results already available show a promising activity of this combination therapy resulting in improvement in PFS, regardless of the HDR deficiency status or the chemotherapy-free interval. More recently, a following phase III trial is comparing the efficacy of niraparib and bevacizumab combination, with the standard of care treatment (NCT03806049).

It is important to notice that ROS-induced DNA damage does not only occur in the nucleus, but also at the mitochondrial level. Mitochondrial damage, resulting in mitochondrial DNA release to cytosol, is able to dysregulate the Hippo-Yap pathway. This pathway is a key inhibitor of angiogenesis. A study with an aging rat model showed that mitochondrial DNA-deficient kidney cells failed to upregulate VEGF in response to hypoxia due to mitochondrial dysfunction, which contributes to impaired angiogenesis.

Therefore, the relation between ROS-induced DNA damage and angiogenesis has already provided some new potential therapeutic combinations, which needs to be further explored mechanistically and in clinical settings.

6. Final Remarks

The failure of anti-VEGF strategies in the control of cancer can be in part related to two major factors. On one hand, the fact that the precise molecular mechanisms of cancer neo-angiogenesis still have secrets. On the other hand, because the abrogation of blood supply will also restrict drug delivery to the tumor, decrease their efficacy, and promote drug resistance. In line, the paradox in the use of anti-angiogenic drugs arises from new findings showing that instead of eradicating blood supply, strategies focused on restoring the tumor vessels normalization would increase the delivery of therapeutic agents to cancer cells, improving the therapeutic efficacy and impairing cancer cells spread.

Interestingly, simvastatin, a statin with antioxidant properties, has been showed to reduce hypoxia-induced endothelium leakage and decrease ROS-induced HIF1α and VEGF expression, attenuating VEGF-derived tumor vessel hyperpermeability and improving cisplatin and cyclophosphamide efficacy. In a theoretical scenario, cancer treatment might rely on multi-mechanisms targeting strategies focused on the induction of cancer cells death and in the promotion of tumor vascular regression or stabilization events (Figure 3). At the same time, these strategies will transform the remaining vessels into a more functional vascular network with decreased permeability, promoting drug delivery and impairing metastasis. Cancer cells under a certain threshold have adaptive antioxidant mechanisms controlling oxidative stress, however, above this threshold, ROS accumulation disrupts redox homeostasis and causes severe damage in cancer cells, ultimately leading to cell death. Given these results, strategies to enhance lethal ROS production in cancer cells have a promising anti-cancer effect.

Angiogenesis-based cancer therapeutic strategies must accompany the microenvironmental and metabolic drift, which tumor cells (malignant and stromal) undergo in order to progress. Therefore, by presenting different metabolic patterns and adaptive redox mechanisms, ECs and cancer cells would present a disparate behavior, and whereas oxidative stress activates ECs and stabilizes blood vessels that will be more competent in drugs delivery; cancer cells would be endangered by oxidative stress and by drugs aggression.

References 242

  1. 1.

    Hashizume H., Baluk P., Morikawa S., McLean J.W., Thurston G., Roberge S., Jain R.K., McDonald D.M. Openings between Defective Endothelial Cells Explain Tumor Vessel Leakiness. Am. J. Pathol. 2000;156:1363-1380.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0002-9440(10)65006-7

  2. 2.

    Trédan O., Galmarini C.M., Patel K., Tannock I.F. Drug Resistance and the Solid Tumor Microenvironment. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1441-1454.

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/djm135

  3. 3.
    Mosaic blood vessels in tumors: Frequency of cancer cells in contact with flowing blood · 2000
    Not checked
  4. 4.

    Jain R.K. Antiangiogenesis Strategies Revisited: From Starving Tumors to Alleviating Hypoxia. Cancer Cell. 2014;26:605-622.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2014.10.006

  5. 5.

    Domingues G., Fernandes S.G., Serpa J. Dynamics of VEGF-A and its Receptors in Cancer Vascularization—An Overview. Understand Cancer: Research and Treatment. 2015.

    Not in our library

  6. 6.

    Gacche R.N. Compensatory Angiogenesis and Tumor Refractoriness. Oncogenesis. 2015;4:e153.

    Not in our library10.1038/oncsis.2015.14

  7. 7.
    Consensus guidelines for the use and interpretation of angiogenesis assays · 2018
    No notice
  8. 8.

    Masiero M., Simões F.C., Han H.D., Snell C., Peterkin T., Bridges E., Mangala L.S., Wu S.Y.Y., Pradeep S., Li D., et al. A Core Human Primary Tumor Angiogenesis Signature Identifies the Endothelial Orphan Receptor ELTD1 as a Key Regulator of Angiogenesis. Cancer Cell. 2013;24:229-241.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2013.06.004

  9. 9.

    Rohlenova K., Veys K., Miranda-Santos I., De Bock K., Carmeliet P. Endothelial Cell Metabolism in Health and Disease. Trends Cell Biol. 2018;28:224-236.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tcb.2017.10.010

  10. 10.

    Folkman J. Successful Treatment of an Angiogenic Disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 1989;320:1211-1212.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejm198905043201811

  11. 11.

    Zetter B.R. The Scientific Contributions of M. Judah Folkman to Cancer Research. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2008;8:647-654.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc2458

  12. 12.
    Anti-angiogenic therapy for cancer: current progress, unresolved questions and future directions · 2014
    Corrected
  13. 13.

    Sherwood L.M., Parris E.E., Folkman J. Tumor Angiogenesis: Therapeutic Implications. N. Engl. J. Med. 1971;285:1182-1186.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejm197111182852108

  14. 14.

    Bergers G., Javaherian K., Lo K.M., Folkman J., Hanahan D. Effects of Angiogenesis Inhibitors on Multistage Carcinogenesis in Mice. Science. 1999;284:808-812.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.284.5415.808

  15. 15.

    Chung A.S., Lee J., Ferrara N. Targeting the Tumour Vasculature: Insights from Physiological Angiogenesis. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2010;10:505-514.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc2868

  16. 16.

    Hanahan D., Weinberg R.A. Hallmarks of Cancer: The next Generation. Cell. 2011;144:646-674.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013

  17. 17.

    Kerbel R.S. Tumor Angiogenesis: Past, Present and the near Future. Carcinogenesis. 2000;358:2039-2049.

    Not in our library10.1093/carcin/21.3.505

  18. 18.

    Yancopoulos G.D., Davis S., Gale N.W., Rudge J.S., Wiegand S.J., Holash J. Vascular-Specific Growth Factors and Blood Vessel Formation. Nature. 2000;407:242-248.

    Not in our library10.1038/35025215

  19. 19.

    Carmeliet P. VEGF as a Key Mediator of Angiogenesis in Cancer. Oncology. 2005;69:4-10.

    Not in our library10.1159/000088478

  20. 20.

    Wu Y., Zhong Z., Huber J., Bassi R., Finnerty B., Corcoran E., Li H., Navarro E., Balderes P., Jimenez X., et al. Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-1 Antagonist Antibody as a Therapeutic Agent for Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2006;12:6573-6584.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-06-0831

  21. 21.

    Wu Y., Hooper A.T., Zhong Z., Witte L., Bohlen P., Rafii S., Hicklin D.J. The Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor (VEGFR-1) Supports Growth and Survival of Human Breast Carcinoma. Int. J. Cancer. 2006;119:1519-1529.

    Not in our library10.1002/ijc.21865

  22. 22.

    Giantonio B.J., Catalano P.J., Meropol N.J., O’Dwyer P.J., Mitchell E.P., Alberts S.R., Schwartz M.A., Benson A.B. Bevacizumab in Combination with Oxaliplatin, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin (FOLFOX4) for Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E3200. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007;25:1539-1544.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2006.09.6305

  23. 23.

    Taylor A.P., Rodriguez M., Adams K., Goldenberg D.M., Blumenthal R.D. Altered Tumor Vessel Maturation and Proliferation in Placenta Growth Factor-Producing Tumors: Potential Relationship to Post-Therapy Tumor Angiogenesis and Recurrence. Int. J. Cancer. 2003;105:158-164.

    Not in our library10.1002/ijc.11059

  24. 24.

    Casanovas O., Hicklin D.J., Bergers G., Hanahan D. Drug Resistance by Evasion of Antiangiogenic Targeting of VEGF Signaling in Late-Stage Pancreatic Islet Tumors. Cancer Cell. 2005;8:299-309.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2005.09.005

  25. 25.

    Crawford Y., Kasman I., Yu L., Zhong C., Wu X., Modrusan Z., Kaminker J., Ferrara N. PDGF-C Mediates the Angiogenic and Tumorigenic Properties of Fibroblasts Associated with Tumors Refractory to Anti-VEGF Treatment. Cancer Cell. 2009;15:21-34.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2008.12.004

  26. 26.

    Li D., Xie K., Ding G., Li J., Chen K., Li H., Qian J., Jiang C., Fang J. Tumor Resistance to Anti-VEGF Therapy through up-Regulation of VEGF-C Expression. Cancer Lett. 2014;346:45-52.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2013.12.004

  27. 27.

    Michaelsen S.R., Staberg M., Pedersen H., Jensen K.E., Majewski W., Broholm H., Nedergaard M.K., Meulengracht C., Urup T., Villingshøj M., et al. VEGF-C Sustains VEGFR2 Activation under Bevacizumab Therapy and Promotes Glioblastoma Maintenance. Neuro. Oncol. 2018;20:1462-1474.

    Not in our library10.1093/neuonc/noy103

  28. 28.

    Auguste P., Lemiere S., Larrieu-Lahargue F., Bikfalvi A. Molecular Mechanisms of Tumor Vascularization. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2005;54:53-61.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.critrevonc.2004.11.006

  29. 29.

    Frentzas S., Simoneau E., Bridgeman V.L., Vermeulen P.B., Foo S., Kostaras E., Nathan M.R., Wotherspoon A., Gao Z.H., Shi Y., et al. Vessel Co-Option Mediates Resistance to Anti-Angiogenic Therapy in Liver Metastases. Nat. Med. 2016;22:1294-1302.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm.4197

  30. 30.

    Maniotis A.J., Folberg R., Hess A., Seftor E.A., Gardner L.M., Pe’er J., Trent J.M., Meltzer P.S., Hendrix M.J. Vascular Channel Formation by Human Melanoma Cells in Vivo and in Vitro: Vasculogenic Mimicry. Am. J. Pathol. 1999;155:739-752.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0002-9440(10)65173-5

  31. 31.

    Angara K., Borin T.F., Arbab A.S. Vascular Mimicry: A Novel Neovascularization Mechanism Driving Anti-Angiogenic Therapy (AAT) Resistance in Glioblastoma. Transl. Oncol. 2017;10:650-660.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tranon.2017.04.007

  32. 32.

    Fernández-Cortés M., Delgado-Bellido D., Oliver F.J. Vasculogenic Mimicry: Become an Endothelial Cell “But Not So Much”. Front. Oncol. 2019;9:803.

    Not in our library10.3389/fonc.2019.00803

  33. 33.

    Yoder M.C. Human Endothelial Progenitor Cells. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2012;2:a006692.

    Not in our library10.1101/cshperspect.a006692

  34. 34.

    Haider K.H., Aziz S., Al-Reshidi M.A. Endothelial Progenitor Cells for Cellular Angiogenesis and Repair: Lessons Learned from Experimental Animal Models. Regen. Med. 2017;12:969-982.

    Not in our library10.2217/rme-2017-0074

  35. 35.

    Pahler J.C., Tazzyman S., Erez N., Chen Y.Y., Murdoch C., Nozawa H., Lewis C.E., Hanahan D. Plasticity in Tumor-Promoting Inflammation: Impairment of Macrophage Recruitment Evokes a Compensatory Neutrophil Response. Neoplasia. 2008;10:329-340.

    Not in our library10.1593/neo.07871

  36. 36.

    Li D., Xie K., Zhang L., Yao X., Li H., Xu Q., Wang X., Jiang J., Fang J. Dual Blockade of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) and Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF-2) Exhibits Potent Anti-Angiogenic Effects. Cancer Lett. 2016;377:164-173.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2016.04.036

  37. 37.

    Zhao Y., Liu F., He G., Li K., Zhu C., Yu W., Zhang C., Xie M., Lin J., Zhang J., et al. Discovery of Arylamide-5-Anilinoquinazoline-8-Nitro Derivatives as VEGFR-2 Kinase Inhibitors: Synthesis, in Vitro Biological Evaluation and Molecular Docking. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2019;29:126711.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bmcl.2019.126711

  38. 38.

    Kim K.J., Li B., Winer J., Armanini M., Gillett N., Phillips H.S., Ferrara N. Inhibition of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-Induced Angiogenesis Suppresses Tumour Growth in Vivo. Nature. 1993;362:841-844.

    Not in our library10.1038/362841a0

  39. 39.

    Kopetz S., Hoff P.M., Morris J.S., Wolff R.A., Eng C., Glover K.Y., Adinin R., Overman M.J., Valero V., Wen S., et al. Phase II Trial of Infusional Fluorouracil, Irinotecan, and Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Efficacy and Circulating Angiogenic Biomarkers Associated with Therapeutic Resistance. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010;28:453-459.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2009.24.8252

  40. 40.

    Lieu C.H., Tran H., Jiang Z.Q., Mao M., Overman M.J., Lin E., Eng C., Morris J., Ellis L., Heymach J.V., et al. The Association of Alternate VEGF Ligands with Resistance to Anti-VEGF Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e77117.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0077117

  41. 41.

    Van de Veire S., Stalmans I., Heindryckx F., Oura H., Tijeras-Raballand A., Schmidt T., Loges S., Albrecht I., Jonckx B., Vinckier S., et al. Further Pharmacological and Genetic Evidence for the Efficacy of PlGF Inhibition in Cancer and Eye Disease. Cell. 2010;141:178-190.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2010.02.039

  42. 42.

    Presta M., Dell’Era P., Mitola S., Moroni E., Ronca R., Rusnati M. Fibroblast Growth Factor/Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor System in Angiogenesis. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2005;16:159-178.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cytogfr.2005.01.004

  43. 43.
    THE CONCISE GUIDE TO PHARMACOLOGY 2019/20: Catalytic receptors · 2019
    No notice
  44. 44.

    Cao Y., Cao R., Hedlund E.M. R Regulation of Tumor Angiogenesis and Metastasis by FGF and PDGF Signaling Pathways. J. Mol. Med. 2008;76:785-789.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00109-008-0337-z

  45. 45.

    Turner N., Pearson A., Sharpe R., Lambros M., Geyer F., Lopez-Garcia M.A., Natrajan R., Marchio C., Iorns E., Mackay A., et al. FGFR1 Amplification Drives Endocrine Therapy Resistance and Is a Therapeutic Target in Breast Cancer. Cancer Res. 2010;70:2085-2094.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-09-3746

  46. 46.

    Allen E., Walters I.B., Hanahan D. Brivanib, a Dual FGF/VEGF Inhibitor, Is Active Both First and Second Line against Mouse Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors Developing Adaptive/Evasive Resistance to VEGF Inhibition. Clin. Cancer Res. 2011;17:5299-5310.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-10-2847

  47. 47.

    André F., Bachelot T., Campone M., Dalenc F., Perez-Garcia J.M., Hurvitz S.A., Turner N., Rugo H., Smith J.W., Deudon S., et al. Targeting FGFR with Dovitinib (TKI258): Preclinical and Clinical Data in Breast Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2013;19:3693-3702.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-13-0190

  48. 48.

    Burbridge M.F., Bossard C.J., Saunier C., Fejes I., Bruno A., Léonce S., Ferry G., Da Violante G., Bouzom F., Cattan V., et al. S49076 Is a Novel Kinase Inhibitor of MET, AXL, and FGFR with Strong Preclinical Activity Alone and in Association with Bevacizumab. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2013;12:1749-1762.

    Not in our library10.1158/1535-7163.mct-13-0075

  49. 49.

    Lee C.K., Lee M.E., Lee W.S., Kim J.M., Park K.H., Kim T.S., Lee K.Y., Ahn J.B., Chung H.C., Rha S.Y. Dovitinib (TKI258), a Multi-Target Angiokinase Inhibitor, Is Effective Regardless of KRAS or BRAF Mutation Status in Colorectal Cancer. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2015;5:72-86.

    Not in our library

  50. 50.

    Norden A.D., Schiff D., Ahluwalia M.S., Lesser G.J., Nayak L., Lee E.Q., Rinne M.L., Muzikansky A., Dietrich J., Purow B., et al. Phase II Trial of Triple Tyrosine Kinase Receptor Inhibitor Nintedanib in Recurrent High-Grade Gliomas. J. Neurooncol. 2015;121:297-302.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11060-014-1631-y

  51. 51.

    Semrad T.J., Kim E.J., Tanaka M.S., Sands J., Roberts C., Burich R.A., Li Y., Gandara D.R., Lara P., Mack P.C. Phase II Study of Dovitinib in Patients Progressing on Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy. Cancer Treat. Res. Commun. 2017;10:21-26.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ctarc.2016.12.002

  52. 52.

    Jones R.L., Ratain M.J., O’Dwyer P.J., Siu L.L., Jassem J., Medioni J., DeJonge M., Rudin C., Sawyer M., Khayat D., et al. Phase II Randomised Discontinuation Trial of Brivanib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumours. Eur. J. Cancer. 2019;120:132-139.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2019.07.024

  53. 53.

    Therapontos C., Erskine L., Gardner E.R., Figg W.D., Vargesson N. Thalidomide Induces Limb Defects by Preventing Angiogenic Outgrowth during Early Limb Formation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2009;106:8573-8578.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0901505106

  54. 54.
    Novel thalidomide analogues display anti-angiogenic activity independently of immunomodulatory effects · 2002
    No notice
  55. 55.

    Sherbet G.V. Therapeutic Potential of Thalidomide and Its Analogues in the Treatment of Cancer. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:5767-5772.

    Not in our library

  56. 56.

    Kaicker S., McCrudden K.W., Beck L., New T., Huang J., Frischer J.S., Serur A., Kadenhe-Chiweshe A., Yokoi A., Kandel J.J., et al. Thalidomide Is Anti-Angiogenic in a Xenograft Model of Neuroblastoma. Int. J. Oncol. 2003;23:1651-1655.

    Not in our library10.3892/ijo.23.6.1651

  57. 57.

    Maria de Souza C., Fonseca de Carvalho L., da Silva Vieira T., Cândida Araújo e Silva A., Teresa Paz Lopes M., Alves Neves Diniz Ferreira M., Passos Andrade S., Dantas Cassali G. Thalidomide Attenuates Mammary Cancer Associated-Inflammation, Angiogenesis and Tumor Growth in Mice. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2012;66:491-498.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biopha.2012.04.005

  58. 58.

    De Souza C.M., Araújo e Silva A.C., De Jesus Ferraciolli C., Moreira G.V., Campos L.C., Dos Reis D.C., Lopes M.T.P., Ferreira M.A.N.D., Andrade S.P., Cassali G.D. Combination Therapy with Carboplatin and Thalidomide Suppresses Tumor Growth and Metastasis in 4T1 Murine Breast Cancer Model. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2014;68:51-57.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biopha.2013.08.004

  59. 59.

    Shen Y., Li S., Wang X., Wang M., Tian Q., Yang J., Wang J., Wang B., Liu P., Yang J. Tumor Vasculature Remolding by Thalidomide Increases Delivery and Efficacy of Cisplatin. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019;38:427.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13046-019-1366-x

  60. 60.

    Stephens T.D., Bunde C.J.W., Fillmore B.J. Mechanism of Action in Thalidomide Teratogenesis. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2000;59:1489-1499.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0006-2952(99)00388-3

  61. 61.

    Mercurio A., Adriani G., Catalano A., Carocci A., Rao L., Lentini G., Cavalluzzi M.M., Franchini C., Vacca A., Corbo F. A Mini-Review on Thalidomide: Chemistry, Mechanisms of Action, Therapeutic Potential and Anti-Angiogenic Properties in Multiple Myeloma. Curr. Med. Chem. 2017;24:2736-2744.

    Not in our library10.2174/0929867324666170601074646

  62. 62.

    Du W., Hattori Y., Hashiguchi A., Kondoh K., Hozumi N., Ikeda Y., Sakamoto M., Hata J.I., Yamada T. Tumor Angiogenesis in the Bone Marrow of Multiple Myeloma Patients and Its Alterations by Thalidomide Treatment. Pathol. Int. 2004;54:285-294.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1440-1827.2004.01622.x

  63. 63.

    Thomas M., Augustin H.G. The Role of the Angiopoietins in Vascular Morphogenesis. Angiogenesis. 2009;12:125-137.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10456-009-9147-3

  64. 64.
    Angiopoietin–Tie signalling in the cardiovascular and lymphatic systems · 2016
    No notice
  65. 65.

    Kiss E.A., Saharinen P. Anti-angiogenic Targets: Angiopoietin and Angiopoietin Receptors. Tumor Angiogenesis. 2019.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-3-319-33673-2_4

  66. 66.

    Metheny-Barlow L.J., Li L.Y. The Enigmatic Role of Angiopoietin-1 in Tumor Angiogenesis. Cell Res. 2003;13:309-317.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.cr.7290176

  67. 67.

    Cascone T., Heymach J.V. Targeting the Angiopoietin/Tie2 Pathway: Cutting Tumor Vessels with a Double-Edged Sword? J. Clin. Oncol. 2012;30:441-444.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2011.38.7621

  68. 68.

    Fagiani E., Lorentz P., Kopfstein L., Christofori G. Angiopoietin-1 and -2 Exert Antagonistic Functions in Tumor Angiogenesis, yet Both Induce Lymphangiogenesis. Cancer Res. 2011;71:5717-5727.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-10-4635

  69. 69.

    Tait C.R., Jones P.F. Angiopoietins in Tumours: The Angiogenic Switch. J. Pathol. 2004;204:1-10.

    Not in our library10.1002/path.1618

  70. 70.

    Murdoch C., Tazzyman S., Webster S., Lewis C.E. Expression of Tie-2 by Human Monocytes and Their Responses to Angiopoietin-2. J. Immunol. 2007;178:7405-7411.

    Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.178.11.7405

  71. 71.

    Huang H., Bhat A., Woodnutt G., Lappe R. Targeting the ANGPT-TIE2 Pathway in Malignancy. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2010;10:575-585.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc2894

  72. 72.
    Identification of serum angiopoietin-2 as a biomarker for clinical outcome of colorectal cancer patients treated with bevacizumab-containing therapy · 2010
    No notice
  73. 73.

    Kloepper J., Riedemann L., Amoozgar Z., Seano G., Susek K., Yu V., Dalvie N., Amelung R.L., Datta M., Song J.W., et al. Ang-2/VEGF Bispecific Antibody Reprograms Macrophages and Resident Microglia to Anti-Tumor Phenotype and Prolongs Glioblastoma Survival. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2016;113:4476-4481.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1525360113

  74. 74.

    Peterson T.E., Kirkpatrick N.D., Huang Y., Farrar C.T., Marijt K.A., Kloepper J., Datta M., Amoozgar Z., Seano G., Jung K., et al. Dual Inhibition of Ang-2 and VEGF Receptors Normalizes Tumor Vasculature and Prolongs Survival in Glioblastoma by Altering Macrophages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2016;113:4470-4475.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1525349113

  75. 75.

    Rigamonti N., Kadioglu E., Keklikoglou I., Rmili C.W., Leow C.C., de Palma M. Role of Angiopoietin-2 in Adaptive Tumor Resistance to VEGF Signaling Blockade. Cell Rep. 2014;8:696-706.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2014.06.059

  76. 76.

    Hidalgo M., Martinez-Garcia M., Le Tourneau C., Massard C., Garralda E., Boni V., Taus A., Albanell J., Sablin M.P., Alt M., et al. First-in-Human Phase i Study of Single-Agent Vanucizumab, a First-in-Class Bispecific Anti-Angiopoietin-2/Anti-Vegf-a Antibody, in Adult Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors. Clin. Cancer Res. 2018;24:1536-1545.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-17-1588

  77. 77.
    Vanucizumab mode of action: Serial biomarkers in plasma, tumor, and skin-wound-healing biopsies · 2021
    Not checked
  78. 78.

    Cao Y. Multifarious Functions of PDGFs and PDGFRs in Tumor Growth and Metastasis. Trends Mol. Med. 2013;19:460-473.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molmed.2013.05.002

  79. 79.

    Wilke H., Muro K., Van Cutsem E., Oh S.C., Bodoky G., Shimada Y., Hironaka S., Sugimoto N., Lipatov O., Kim T.Y., et al. Ramucirumab plus Paclitaxel versus Placebo plus Paclitaxel in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Gastric or Gastro-Oesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma (RAINBOW): A Double-Blind, Randomised Phase 3 Trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1224-1235.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70420-6

  80. 80.

    Cantanhede I.G., De Oliveira J.R.M. PDGF Family Expression in Glioblastoma Multiforme: Data Compilation from Ivy Glioblastoma Atlas Project Database. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:15271.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-017-15045-w

  81. 81.
    PDGF-mediated mesenchymal transformation renders endothelial resistance to anti-VEGF treatment in glioblastoma · 2018
    No notice
  82. 82.

    Gover-Proaktor A., Granot G., Shapira S., Raz O., Pasvolsky O., Nagler A., Lev D.L., Inbal A., Lubin I., Raanani P., et al. Ponatinib Reduces Viability, Migration, and Functionality of Human Endothelial Cells. Leuk. Lymphoma. 2017;58:1455-1467.

    Not in our library10.1080/10428194.2016.1239258

  83. 83.

    Massaro F., Molica M., Breccia M. Ponatinib: A Review of Efficacy and Safety. Curr. Cancer Drug Targets. 2018;18:847-856.

    Not in our library10.2174/1568009617666171002142659

  84. 84.

    Tan F.H., Putoczki T.L., Stylli S.S., Luwor R.B. Ponatinib: A Novel Multi-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor against Human Malignancies. Onco. Targets. Ther. 2019;12:635-645.

    Not in our library10.2147/ott.s189391

  85. 85.

    You W.K., McDonald D.M. The Hepatocyte Growth Factor/c-Met Signaling Pathway as a Therapeutic Target to Inhibit Angiogenesis. J. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2008;41:833-839.

    Not in our library10.5483/bmbrep.2008.41.12.833

  86. 86.

    Wojta J., Kaun C., Breuss J.M., Koshelnick Y., Beckmann R., Hattey E., Mildner M., Weninger W., Nakamura T., Tschachler E., et al. Hepatocyte Growth Factor Increases Expression of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor-1 in Human Keratinocytes and the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Flk-1 in Human Endothelial Cells. Lab. Investig. 1999;79:427-438.

    Not in our library

  87. 87.

    Jahangiri A., De Lay M., Miller L.M., Shawn Carbonell W., Hu Y.L., Lu K., Tom M.W., Paquette J., Tokuyasu T.A., Tsao S., et al. Gene Expression Profile Identifies Tyrosine Kinase C-Met as a Targetable Mediator of Antiangiogenic Therapy Resistance. Clin. Cancer Res. 2013;19:1773-1783.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-1281

  88. 88.

    Shojaei F., Lee J.H., Simmons B.H., Wong A., Esparza C.O., Plumlee P.A., Feng J., Stewart A.E., Hu-Lowe D.D., Christensen J.G. HGF/c-Met Acts as an Alternative Angiogenic Pathway in Sunitinib-Resistant Tumors. Cancer Res. 2010;70:10090-10100.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-10-0489

  89. 89.

    Lu K.V., Chang J.P., Parachoniak C.A., Pandika M.M., Aghi M.K., Meyronet D., Isachenko N., Fouse S.D., Phillips J.J., Cheresh D.A., et al. VEGF Inhibits Tumor Cell Invasion and Mesenchymal Transition through a MET/VEGFR2 Complex. Cancer Cell. 2012;22:21-35.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2012.05.037

  90. 90.

    Cloughesy T., Finocchiaro G., Belda-Iniesta C., Recht L., Brandes A.A., Pineda E., Mikkelsen T., Chinot O.L., Balana C., Macdonald D.R., et al. Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Phase II Study of Onartuzumab plus Bevacizumab versus Placebo plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma: Efficacy, Safety, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor and O6-Methylguanine-DNA Methy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017;35:343-351.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2015.64.7685

  91. 91.

    Kim B., Kim D., Kim J., Kim H., Jang H. The Efficacy and Safety of Onartuzumab in Patients with Solid Cancers: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. Indian J. Cancer. 2020.

    Not in our library10.4103/ijc.ijc_797_18

  92. 92.

    Rini B.I., Michaelson M.D., Rosenberg J.E., Bukowski R.M., Sosman J.A., Stadler W.M., Hutson T.E., Margolin K., Harmon C.S., DePrimo S.E., et al. Antitumor Activity and Biomarker Analysis of Sunitinib in Patients with Bevacizumab-Refractory Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008;26:3743-3748.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2007.15.5416

  93. 93.

    Willett C.G., Duda D.G., Di Tomaso E., Boucher Y., Ancukiewicz M., Sahani D.V., Lahdenranta J., Chung D.C., Fischman A.J., Lauwers G.Y., et al. Efficacy, Safety, and Biomarkers of Neoadjuvant Bevacizumab, Radiation Therapy, and Fluorouracil in Rectal Cancer: A Multidisciplinary Phase II Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009;27:3020-3026.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2008.21.1771

  94. 94.

    Bagley R.G., Ren Y., Weber W., Yao M., Kurtzberg L., Pinckney J., Bangari D., Nguyen C., Brondyk W., Kaplan J., et al. Placental Growth Factor Upregulation Is a Host Response to Antiangiogenic Therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2011;17:976-988.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-10-2687

  95. 95.

    Chiron M., Bagley R.G., Pollard J., Mankoo P.K., Henry C., Vincent L., Geslin C., Baltes N., Bergstrom D.A. Differential Antitumor Activity of Aflibercept and Bevacizumab in Patient-Derived Xenograft Models of Colorectal Cancer. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2014;13:1636-1644.

    Not in our library10.1158/1535-7163.mct-13-0753

  96. 96.

    Zhang X., Lawler J. Thrombospondin-Based Antiangiogenic Therapy. Microvasc. Res. 2007;74:90-99.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.mvr.2007.04.007

  97. 97.

    Bornstein P. Thrombospondins Function as Regulators of Angiogenesis. J. Cell Commun. Signal. 2009;3:189-200.

    Not in our library10.1007/s12079-009-0060-8

  98. 98.

    Hoekstra R., de Vos F.Y.F.L., Eskens F.A.L.M., Gietema J.A., van der Gaast A., Groen H.J.M., Knight R.A., Carr R.A., Humerickhouse R.A., Verweij J., et al. Phase I Safety, Pharmacokinetic, and Pharmacodynamic Study of the Thrombospondin-1-Mimetic Angiogenesis Inhibitor ABT-510 in Patients with Advanced Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:5188-5197.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2005.05.013

  99. 99.

    Nabors L.B., Fiveash J.B., Markert J.M., Kekan M.S., Gillespie G.Y., Huang Z., Johnson M.J., Meleth S., Kuo H., Gladson C.L., et al. A Phase 1 Trial of ABT-510 Concurrent with Standard Chemoradiation for Patients with Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma. Arch. Neurol. 2010;67:313-319.

    Not in our library10.1001/archneurol.2010.16

  100. 100.

    Lawler J. Thrombospondin-1 as an Endogenous Inhibitor of Angiogenesis and Tumor Growth. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2002;2:a006627.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1582-4934.2002.tb00307.x

  101. 101.

    Markovic S.N., Suman V.J., Rao R.A., Ingle J.N., Kaur J.S., Erickson L.A., Pitot H.C., Croghan G.A., McWilliams R.R., Merchan J., et al. A Phase II Study of ABT-510 (Thrombospondin-1 Analog) for the Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. Cancer Clin. Trials. 2007;30:303-309.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.coc.0000256104.80089.35

  102. 102.

    Baker L.H., Rowinsky E.K., Mendelson D., Humerickhouse R.A., Knight R.A., Qian J., Carr R.A., Gordon G.B., Demetri G.D. Randomized, Phase II Study of the Thrombospondin-1-Mimetic Angiogenesis Inhibitor ABT-510 in Patients with Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008;26:5583-5588.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2008.17.4706

  103. 103.

    Russell S., Duquette M., Liu J., Drapkin R., Lawler J., Petrik J. Combined Therapy with Thrombospondin-1 Type I Repeats (3TSR) and Chemotherapy Induces Regression and Significantly Improves Survival in a Preclinical Model of Advanced Stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. FASEB J. 2015;29:576-588.

    Not in our library10.1096/fj.14-261636

  104. 104.
    PEDF and its roles in physiological and pathological conditions: implication in diabetic and hypoxia-induced angiogenic diseases · 2015
    No notice
  105. 105.

    Maik-Rachline G., Shaltiel S., Seger R. Extracellular Phosphorylation Converts Pigment Epithelium-Derived Factor from a Neurotrophic to an Antiangiogenic Factor. Blood. 2005;105:670-678.

    Not in our library10.1182/blood-2004-04-1569

  106. 106.

    Maik-Rachline G., Seger R. Variable Phosphorylation States of Pigment-Epithelium-Derived Factor Differentially Regulate Its Function. Blood. 2006;107:2745-2752.

    Not in our library10.1182/blood-2005-06-2547

  107. 107.

    Duh E.J., Yang H.S., Suzuma I., Miyagi M., Youngman E., Mori K., Katai M., Yan L., Suzuma K., West K., et al. Pigment Epithelium-Derived Factor Suppresses Ischemia-Induced Retinal Neovascularization and VEGF-Induced Migration and Growth. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002;43:821-829.

    Not in our library

  108. 108.

    Subramanian P., Deshpande M., Locatelli-Hoops S., Moghaddam-Taaheri S., Gutierrez D., Fitzgerald D.P., Guerrier S., Rapp M., Notario V., Becerra S.P. Identification of Pigment Epithelium-Derived Factor Protein Forms with Distinct Activities on Tumor Cell Lines. J. Biomed. Biotechnol. 2012;2012:42590.

    Not in our library10.1155/2012/425907

  109. 109.

    Bhutto I.A., McLeod D.S., Hasegawa T., Kim S.Y., Merges C., Tong P., Lutty G.A. Pigment Epithelium-Derived Factor (PEDF) and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) in Aged Human Choroid and Eyes with Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Exp. Eye Res. 2006;82:99-110.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.exer.2005.05.007

  110. 110.

    Michalczyk E.R., Chen L., Fine D., Zhao Y., Mascarinas E., Grippo P.J., DiPietro L.A. Pigment Epithelium-Derived Factor (PEDF) as a Regulator of Wound Angiogenesis. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:11142.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-018-29465-9

  111. 111.

    Becerra S.P., Notario V. The Effects of PEDF on Cancer Biology: Mechanisms of Action and Therapeutic Potential. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2013;13:258-271.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc3484

  112. 112.

    Belkacemi L., Zhang S.X. Anti-Tumor Effects of Pigment Epithelium-Derived Factor (PEDF): Implication for Cancer Therapy. A Mini-Review. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016;35:4.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13046-015-0278-7

  113. 113.

    O’Reilly M.S., Boehm T., Shing Y., Fukai N., Vasios G., Lane W.S., Flynn E., Birkhead J.R., Olsen B.R., Folkman J. Endostatin: An Endogenous Inhibitor of Angiogenesis and Tumor Growth. Cell. 1997;88:277-285.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81848-6

  114. 114.

    Walia A., Yang J.F., Huang Y.H., Rosenblatt M.I., Chang J.H., Azar D.T. Endostatin’s Emerging Roles in Angiogenesis, Lymphangiogenesis, Disease, and Clinical Applications. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Gen. Subj. 2015;1850:2422-2438.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbagen.2015.09.007

  115. 115.

    Biaoxue R., Shuanying Y., Wei L., Wei Z., Zongjuan M. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Endostar (Rh-Endostatin) Combined with Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy Alone for Treating Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2012;10:170.

    Not in our library10.1186/1477-7819-10-170

  116. 116.

    Li T., Kang G., Wang T., Huang H. Tumor Angiogenesis and Anti-Angiogenic Gene Therapy for Cancer (Review). Oncol. Lett. 2018;16:687-702.

    Not in our library10.3892/ol.2018.8733

  117. 117.

    Li K., Shi M., Qin S. Current Status and Study Progress of Recombinant Human Endostatin in Cancer Treatment. Oncol. Ther. 2018;6:21-43.

    Not in our library10.1007/s40487-017-0055-1

  118. 118.

    Sorensen D.R., Read T.A. Delivery of Endostatin in Experimental Cancer Therapy. Int. J. Exp. Pathol. 2002;83:265-274.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2613.2002.00240.x

  119. 119.

    Bellon J.R., Come S.E., Gelman R.S., Henderson I.C., Shulman L.N., Silver B.J., Harris J.R., Recht A. Sequencing of Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Updated Results of a Prospective Randomized Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:1934-1940.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2005.04.032

  120. 120.

    Biondi A., Persiani R., Cananzi F., Zoccali M., Vigorita V., Tufo A., D’Ugo D. R0 Resection in the Treatment of Gastric Cancer: Room for Improvement. World J. Gastroenterol. 2010;16:3358-3370.

    Not in our library10.3748/wjg.v16.i27.3358

  121. 121.

    Kajiyama H., Suzuki S., Yoshihara M., Nishino K., Yoshikawa N., Utsumi F., Niimi K., Mizuno M., Kawai M., Oguchi H., et al. The Possible Existence of Occult Metastasis in Patients with Ovarian Clear-Cell Carcinoma Who Underwent Complete Resection without Any Residual Tumours. Oncotarget. 2018;9:6298-6630.

    Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.23921

  122. 122.

    Holohan C., Van Schaeybroeck S., Longley D.B., Johnston P.G. Cancer Drug Resistance: An Evolving Paradigm. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2013;13:714-726.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc3599

  123. 123.

    Carmeliet P., Jain R.K. Molecular Mechanisms and Clinical Applications of Angiogenesis. Nature. 2011;473:298-307.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature10144

  124. 124.

    Carmeliet P., Jain R.K. Principles and Mechanisms of Vessel Normalization for Cancer and Other Angiogenic Diseases. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2011;10:417-427.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrd3455

  125. 125.

    Fukumura D., Jain R.K. Tumor Microvasculature and Microenvironment: Targets for Anti-Angiogenesis and Normalization. Microvasc. Res. 2007;74:72-84.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.mvr.2007.05.003

  126. 126.

    Shojaei F., Wu X., Malik A.K., Zhong C., Baldwin M.E., Schanz S., Fuh G., Gerber H.P., Ferrara N. Tumor Refractoriness to Anti-VEGF Treatment Is Mediated by CD11b +Gr1+ Myeloid Cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007;25:911-920.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt1323

  127. 127.

    Gabrilovich D.I., Chen H.L., Girgis K.R., Cunningham H.T., Meny G.M., Nadaf S., Kavanaugh D., Carbone D.P. Production of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor by Human Tumors Inhibits the Functional Maturation of Dendritic Cells. Nat. Med. 1996;2:1096-1103.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm1096-1096

  128. 128.

    Oyama T., Ran S., Ishida T., Nadaf S., Kerr L., Carbone D.P., Gabrilovich D.I. Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Affects Dendritic Cell Maturation through the Inhibition of Nuclear Factor-Kappa B Activation in Hemopoietic Progenitor Cells. J. Immunol. 1998;160:1224-1232.

    Not in our library

  129. 129.

    Huang Y., Chen X., Dikov M.M., Novitskiy S.V., Mosse C.A., Yang L., Carbone D.P. Distinct Roles of VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2 in the Aberrant Hematopoiesis Associated with Elevated Levels of VEGF. Blood. 2007;110:624-631.

    Not in our library10.1182/blood-2007-01-065714

  130. 130.

    Curiel T.J., Wei S., Dong H., Alvarez X., Cheng P., Mottram P., Krzysiek R., Knutson K.L., Daniel B., Zimmermann M.C., et al. Blockade of B7-H1 Improves Myeloid Dendritic Cell-Mediated Antitumor Immunity. Nat. Med. 2003;9:562-567.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm863

  131. 131.
    Influence of bevacizumab, sunitinib and sorafenib as single agents or in combination on the inhibitory effects of VEGF on human dendritic cell differentiation from monocytes · 2009
    No notice
  132. 132.

    Motz G.T., Coukos G. The Parallel Lives of Angiogenesis and Immunosuppression: Cancer and Other Tales. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2011;11:702-711.

    Not in our library10.1038/nri3064

  133. 133.

    Barleon B., Sozzani S., Zhou D., Weich H.A., Mantovani A., Marme D. Migration of Human Monocytes in Response to Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Is Mediated via the VEGF Receptor Flt-1. Blood. 1996;87:3336-3343.

    Not in our library10.1182/blood.v87.8.3336.bloodjournal8783336

  134. 134.

    Lopes-Coelho F., Silva F., Gouveia-Fernandes S., Martins C., Lopes N., Domingues G., Brito C., Almeida A.M., Pereira S.A., Serpa J. Monocytes as Endothelial Progenitor Cells (EPCs), Another Brick in the Wall to Disentangle Tumor Angiogenesis. Cells. 2020;9:107.

    Not in our library10.3390/cells9010107

  135. 135.

    Ohm J.E., Gabrilovich D.I., Sempowski G.D., Kisseleva E., Parman K.S., Nadaf S., Carbone D.P. VEGF Inhibits T-Cell Development and May Contribute to Tumor-Induced Immune Suppression. Blood. 2003;101:4878-4886.

    Not in our library10.1182/blood-2002-07-1956

  136. 136.

    Gavalas N.G., Tsiatas M., Tsitsilonis O., Politi E., Ioannou K., Ziogas A.C., Rodolakis A., Vlahos G., Thomakos N., Haidopoulos D., et al. VEGF Directly Suppresses Activation of T Cells from Ascites Secondary to Ovarian Cancer via VEGF Receptor Type 2. Br. J. Cancer. 2012;107:1869-1875.

    Not in our library10.1038/bjc.2012.468

  137. 137.

    Lapeyre-Prost A., Terme M., Pernot S., Pointet A.L., Voron T., Tartour E., Taieb J. Immunomodulatory Activity of VEGF in Cancer. Int. Rev. Cell Mol. Biol. 2017;330:295-342.

    Not in our library10.1016/bs.ircmb.2016.09.007

  138. 138.

    Nishikawa H., Sakaguchi S. Regulatory T Cells in Tumor Immunity. Int. J. Cancer. 2010;127:759-767.

    Not in our library10.1002/ijc.25429

  139. 139.

    Khan K.A., Kerbel R.S. Improving Immunotherapy Outcomes with Anti-Angiogenic Treatments and Vice Versa. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2018;15:310-324.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2018.9

  140. 140.

    Wada J., Suzuki H., Fuchino R., Yamasaki A., Nagai S., Yanai K., Koga K., Nakamura M., Tanaka M., Morisaki T., et al. The Contribution of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor to the Induction of Regulatory T- Cells in Malignant Effusions. Anticancer Res. 2009;29:881-888.

    Not in our library

  141. 141.

    Terme M., Pernot S., Marcheteau E., Sandoval F., Benhamouda N., Colussi O., Dubreuil O., Carpentier A.F., Tartour E., Taieb J. VEGFA-VEGFR Pathway Blockade Inhibits Tumor-Induced Regulatory T-Cell Proliferation in Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Res. 2013;73:539-549.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-12-2325

  142. 142.

    Hansen W., Hutzler M., Abel S., Alter C., Stockmann C., Kliche S., Albert J., Sparwasser T., Sakaguchi S., Westendorf A.M., et al. Neuropilin 1 Deficiency on CD4+Foxp3+ Regulatory T Cells Impairs Mouse Melanoma Growth. J. Exp. Med. 2012;209:2001-2016.

    Not in our library10.1084/jem.20111497

  143. 143.

    Hansen W. Neuropilin 1 Guides Regulatory T Cells into Vegf-Producing Melanoma. Oncoimmunology. 2013;2:e2303.

    Not in our library10.4161/onci.23039

  144. 144.
    Exploring the Immunological Mechanisms Underlying the Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Activity in Tumors · 2019
    Not checked
  145. 145.
    Synergistic effect of immune checkpoint blockade and anti-angiogenesis in cancer treatment · 2019
    No notice
  146. 146.

    Ramjiawan R.R., Griffioen A.W., Duda D.G. Anti-Angiogenesis for Cancer Revisited: Is There a Role for Combinations with Immunotherapy? Angiogenesis. 2017;20:185-204.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10456-017-9552-y

  147. 147.

    Procaccio L., Damuzzo V., Di Sarra F., Russi A., Todino F., Dadduzio V., Bergamo F., Prete A.A., Lonardi S., Prenen H., et al. Safety and Tolerability of Anti-Angiogenic Protein Kinase Inhibitors and Vascular-Disrupting Agents in Cancer: Focus on Gastrointestinal Malignancies. Drug Saf. 2019;42:159-179.

    Not in our library10.1007/s40264-018-0776-6

  148. 148.

    Bluthgen M.V., Basté N., Recondo G. Immunotherapy Combinations for the Treatment of Patients with Solid Tumors. Future Oncol. 2020;16:1715-1736.

    Not in our library10.2217/fon-2020-0303

  149. 149.

    Wei S.C., Duffy C.R., Allison J.P. Fundamental Mechanisms of Immune Checkpoint Blockade Therapy. Cancer Discov. 2018;8:1069-1086.

    Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-18-0367

  150. 150.
    PD-L1 Distribution and Perspective for Cancer Immunotherapy—Blockade, Knockdown, or Inhibition · 2019
    No notice
  151. 151.

    Haanen J.B.A.G., Robert C. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Prog. Tumor Res. 2015;42:55-66.

    Not in our library10.1159/000437178

  152. 152.

    Duan J., Cui L., Zhao X., Bai H., Cai S., Wang G., Zhao Z., Zhao J., Chen S., Song J., et al. Use of Immunotherapy with Programmed Cell Death 1 vs Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 Inhibitors in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:375-384.

    Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.5367

  153. 153.
    Clinical efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for the treatment of advanced or metastatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis · 2020
    No notice
  154. 154.

    Rini B.I., Bellmunt J., Clancy J., Wang K., Niethammer A.G., Hariharan S., Escudier B. Randomized Phase III Trial of Temsirolimus and Bevacizumab versus Interferon Alfa and Bevacizumab in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: INTORACT Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014;32:752-759.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2013.50.5305

  155. 155.

    Motzer R.J., Penkov K., Haanen J., Rini B., Albiges L., Campbell M.T., Venugopal B., Kollmannsberger C., Negrier S., Uemura M., et al. Avelumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019;308:1103-1115.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1816047

  156. 156.

    Argentiero A., Solimando A.G., Krebs M., Leone P., Susca N., Brunetti O., Racanelli V., Vacca A., Silvestris N. Anti-Angiogenesis and Immunotherapy: Novel Paradigms to Envision Tailored Approaches in Renal Cell-Carcinoma. J. Clin. Med. 2020;9:1594.

    Not in our library10.3390/jcm9051594

  157. 157.
    Atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab enhances antigen-specific T-cell migration in metastatic renal cell carcinoma · 2016
    No notice
  158. 158.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. Ipilimumab with or without Bevacizumab in Treating Patients with Stage III-IV Melanoma That Cannot Be Removed by Surgery (NCT01950390). 2013.

    Not in our library

  159. 159.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. Bevacizumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients with Unresectable Stage III or IV Melanoma (NCT00790010). 2008.

    Not in our library

  160. 160.

    Du Four S., Maenhout S.K., Niclou S.P., Thielemans K., Neyns B., Aerts J.L. Combined VEGFR and CTLA-4 Blockade Increases the Antigen-Presenting Function of Intratumoral DCs and Reduces the Suppressive Capacity of Intratumoral MDSCs. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2016;6:2514-2531.

    Not in our library

  161. 161.

    Socinski M.A., Jotte R.M., Cappuzzo F., Orlandi F., Stroyakovskiy D., Nogami N., Rodriguez-Abreu D., Moro-Sibilot D., Thomas C.A., Barlesi F., et al. Atezolizumab for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Nonsquamous NSCLC. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018;378:2288-2301.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1716948

  162. 162.

    Qiang H., Chang Q., Xu J., Qian J., Zhang Y., Lei Y., Han B., Chu T. New Advances in Antiangiogenic Combination Therapeutic Strategies for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2020;146:631-645.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00432-020-03129-6

  163. 163.

    Hashimoto H., Sudo T., Maruta H., Nishimura R. The Direct PAK1 Inhibitor, TAT-PAK18, Blocks Preferentially the Growth of Human Ovarian Cancer Cell Lines in Which PAK1 Is Abnormally Activated by Autophosphorylation at Thr 423. Drug Discov. Ther. 2010;4:1-4.

    Not in our library

  164. 164.
    Modulation of P2X4/P2X7/Pannexin-1 sensitivity to extracellular ATP via Ivermectin induces a non-apoptotic and inflammatory form of cancer cell death · 2015
    No notice
  165. 165.

    Dou Q., Chen H.N., Wang K., Yuan K., Lei Y., Li K., Lan J., Chen Y., Huang Z., Xie N., et al. Ivermectin Induces Cytostatic Autophagy by Blocking the PAK1/Akt Axis in Breast Cancer. Cancer Res. 2016;76:4457-4469.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-15-2887

  166. 166.

    Liu Y., Fang S., Sun Q., Liu B. Anthelmintic Drug Ivermectin Inhibits Angiogenesis, Growth and Survival of Glioblastoma through Inducing Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Oxidative Stress. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2016;480:415-421.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.10.064

  167. 167.

    López-Jiménez A., García-Caballero M., Medina M.Á., Quesada A.R. Anti-Angiogenic Properties of Carnosol and Carnosic Acid, Two Major Dietary Compounds from Rosemary. Eur. J. Nutr. 2013;52:85-95.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00394-011-0289-x

  168. 168.
    Anti-tumor and anti-angiogenic effects of Fucoidan on prostate cancer: possible JAK-STAT3 pathway · 2017
    Not checked
  169. 169.

    Jin W., Wu W., Tang H., Wei B., Wang H., Sun J., Zhang W., Zhong W. Structure Analysis and Anti-Tumor and Anti-Angiogenic Activities of Sulfated Galactofucan Extracted from Sargassum Thunbergii. Mar. Drugs. 2019;17:52.

    Not in our library10.3390/md17010052

  170. 170.

    Szatrowski T.P., Nathan C.F. Production of Large Amounts of Hydrogen Peroxide by Human Tumor Cells. Cancer Res. 1991;51:794-798.

    Not in our library

  171. 171.

    Josson S., Matsuoka Y., Chung L.W.K., Zhau H.E., Wang R. Tumor–Stroma Co-Evolution in Prostate Cancer Progression and Metastasis. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2010;21:26-32.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.semcdb.2009.11.016

  172. 172.

    Martinez-Outschoorn U.E., Lin Z., Trimmer C., Flomenberg N., Wang C., Pavlides S., Pestell R.G., Howell A., Sotgia F., Lisanti M.P. Cancer Cells Metabolically “Fertilize” the Tumor Microenvironment with Hydrogen Peroxide, Driving the Warburg Effect: Implications for PET Imaging of Human Tumors. Cell Cycle. 2011;10:2504-2520.

    Not in our library10.4161/cc.10.15.16585

  173. 173.

    Dewhirst M.W., Cao Y., Moeller B. Cycling Hypoxia and Free Radicals Regulate Angiogenesis and Radiotherapy Response. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2008;8:425-437.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc2397

  174. 174.

    Liu Y., Cui Y., Shi M., Zhang Q., Wang Q., Chen X. Deferoxamine Promotes MDA-MB-231 Cell Migration and Invasion through Increased Ros-Dependent HIF-1α Accumulation. Cell. Physiol. Biochem. 2014;33:1036-1046.

    Not in our library10.1159/000358674

  175. 175.

    Zhu D., Shen Z., Liu J., Chen J., Liu Y., Hu C., Li Z., Li Y. The ROS-Mediated Activation of STAT-3/VEGF Signaling Is Involved in the 27-Hydroxycholesterol-Induced Angiogenesis in Human Breast Cancer Cells. Toxicol. Lett. 2016;264:79-86.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.11.006

  176. 176.

    Khromova N.V., Kopnin P.B., Stepanova E.V., Agapova L.S., Kopnin B.P. P53 Hot-Spot Mutants Increase Tumor Vascularization via ROS-Mediated Activation of the HIF1/VEGF-A Pathway. Cancer Lett. 2009;276:143-151.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2008.10.049

  177. 177.

    Assi M. The Differential Role of Reactive Oxygen Species in Early and Late Stages of Cancer. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 2017;313:R646-R653.

    Not in our library10.1152/ajpregu.00247.2017

  178. 178.

    Raza M.H., Siraj S., Arshad A., Waheed U., Aldakheel F., Alduraywish S., Arshad M. ROS-Modulated Therapeutic Approaches in Cancer Treatment. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2017;143:1789-1809.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00432-017-2464-9

  179. 179.

    Kumari S., Badana A.K., Murali Mohan G., Shailender G., Malla R.R. Reactive Oxygen Species: A Key Constituent in Cancer Survival. Biomark. Insights. 2018;13:1177271918755391.

    Not in our library10.1177/1177271918755391

  180. 180.

    Thyagarajan A., Sahu R.P. Potential Contributions of Antioxidants to Cancer Therapy: Immunomodulation and Radiosensitization. Integr. Cancer Ther. 2018;17:210-216.

    Not in our library10.1177/1534735416681639

  181. 181.
    Role of Reactive Oxygen Species in Cancer Progression: Molecular Mechanisms and Recent Advancements · 2019
    No notice
  182. 182.

    Alexandre J., Batteux F., Nicco C., Chéreau C., Laurent A., Guillevin L., Weill B., Goldwasser F. Accumulation of Hydrogen Peroxide Is an Early and Crucial Step for Paclitaxel-Induced Cancer Cell Death Both in Vitro and in Vivo. Int. J. Cancer. 2006;119:41-48.

    Not in our library10.1002/ijc.21685

  183. 183.

    Fukui M., Yamabe N., Zhu B.T. Resveratrol Attenuates the Anticancer Efficacy of Paclitaxel in Human Breast Cancer Cells in Vitro and in Vivo. Eur. J. Cancer. 2010;46:1882-1891.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.004

  184. 184.

    Subramani T., Yeap S.K., Ho W.Y., Ho C.L., Omar A.R., Aziz S.A., Rahman N.M.A.N.A., Alitheen N.B. Vitamin C Suppresses Cell Death in MCF-7 Human Breast Cancer Cells Induced by Tamoxifen. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2014;18:305-313.

    Not in our library10.1111/jcmm.12188

  185. 185.

    Kang K.A., Zhang R., Piao M.J., Chae S., Kim H.S., Park J.H., Jung K.S., Hyun J.W. Baicalein Inhibits Oxidative Stress-Induced Cellular Damage via Antioxidant Effects. Toxicol. Ind. Health. 2012;28:412-421.

    Not in our library10.1177/0748233711413799

  186. 186.

    Park Y.G., Choi J., Jung H.K., Kim B., Kim C., Park S.Y., Seol J.W. Baicalein Inhibits Tumor Progression by Inhibiting Tumor Cell Growth and Tumor Angiogenesis. Oncol. Rep. 2017;38:3011-3018.

    Not in our library10.3892/or.2017.6007

  187. 187.

    Park C., Choi E.O., Kim G.Y., Hwang H.J., Kim B.W., Yoo Y.H., Park H.T., Choi Y.H. Protective Effect of Baicalein on Oxidative Stress-Induced DNA Damage and Apoptosis in RT4-D6P2T Schwann Cells. Int. J. Med. Sci. 2019;16:8-16.

    Not in our library10.7150/ijms.29692

  188. 188.

    Bagchi D., Sen C.K., Bagchi M., Atalay M. Anti-Angiogenic, Antioxidant, and Anti-Carcinogenic Properties of a Novel Anthocyanin-Rich Berry Extract Formula. Biochemistry. 2004;69:75-80.

    Not in our library10.1023/b:biry.0000016355.19999.93

  189. 189.

    Alam A.H.M.K., Hossain A.S.M.S., Khan M.A., Kabir S.R., Reza M.A., Rahman M.M., Islam M.S., Rahman M.A.A., Rashid M., Sadik M.G. The Antioxidative Fraction of White Mulberry Induces Apoptosis through Regulation of P53 and NFκB in EAC Cells. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0167536.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0167536

  190. 190.

    Incalza M.A., D’Oria R., Natalicchio A., Perrini S., Laviola L., Giorgino F. Oxidative Stress and Reactive Oxygen Species in Endothelial Dysfunction Associated with Cardiovascular and Metabolic Diseases. Vascul. Pharmacol. 2018;100:1-19.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.vph.2017.05.005

  191. 191.

    Yang J., Li G., Bao K., Liu W., Zhang Y., Ting W. Ropivacaine Inhibits Tumor Angiogenesis via Sodium-Channel-Independent Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Oxidative Stress. J. Bioenerg. Biomembr. 2019;51:231-238.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10863-019-09793-9

  192. 192.

    Hulsurkar M., Li Z., Zhang Y., Li X., Zheng D., Li W. Beta-Adrenergic Signaling Promotes Tumor Angiogenesis and Prostate Cancer Progression through HDAC2-Mediated Suppression of Thrombospondin-1. Oncogene. 2017;36:1525-1536.

    Not in our library10.1038/onc.2016.319

  193. 193.

    Zhao Y., Li W. Beta-Adrenergic Signaling on Neuroendocrine Differentiation, Angiogenesis, and Metastasis in Prostate Cancer Progression. Asian J. Androl. 2019;21:253-259.

    Not in our library10.4103/aja.aja_32_18

  194. 194.

    Lutgendorf S.K., DeGeest K., Dahmoush L., Farley D., Penedo F., Bender D., Goodheart M., Buekers T.E., Mendez L., Krueger G., et al. Social Isolation Is Associated with Elevated Tumor Norepinephrine in Ovarian Carcinoma Patients. Brain. Behav. Immun. 2011;25:250-255.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbi.2010.10.012

  195. 195.

    Sastry K.S.R., Karpova Y., Prokopovich S., Smith A.J., Essau B., Gersappe A., Carson J.P., Weber M.J., Register T.C., Chen Y.Q., et al. Epinephrine Protects Cancer Cells from Apoptosis via Activation of CAMP-Dependent Protein Kinase and BAD Phosphorylation. J. Biol. Chem. 2007;282:14094-14100.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m611370200

  196. 196.

    Hermes G.L., Delgado B., Tretiakova M., Cavigelli S.A., Krausz T., Conzen S.D., McClintock M.K. Social Isolation Dysregulates Endocrine and Behavioral Stress While Increasing Malignant Burden of Spontaneous Mammary Tumors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2009;106:22393-22398.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0910753106

  197. 197.

    Wong H.P.S., Ho J.W.C., Koo M.W.L., Yu L., Wu W.K.K., Lam E.K.Y., Tai E.K.K., Ko J.K.S., Shin V.Y., Chu K.M., et al. Effects of Adrenaline in Human Colon Adenocarcinoma HT-29 Cells. Life Sci. 2011;88:1108-1112.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.lfs.2011.04.007

  198. 198.

    Schuller H.M., Al-wadei H.A.N., Ullah M.F., Plummer H.K. Regulation of Pancreatic Cancer by Neuropsychological Stress Responses: A Novel Target for Intervention. Carcinogenesis. 2012;33:191-196.

    Not in our library10.1093/carcin/bgr251

  199. 199.

    Ha M., Kim D.W., Kim J., Hong C.M., Park S.M., Woo I.A., Kim M.Y., Koo H., Namkoong J., Kim J., et al. Prognostic Role of the Beta-2 Adrenergic Receptor in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma. Animal Cells Syst. 2019;23:365-369.

    Not in our library10.1080/19768354.2019.1658638

  200. 200.

    Wong H.P.S., Yu L., Lam E.K.Y., Tai E.K.K., Wu W.K.K., Cho C.H. Nicotine Promotes Colon Tumor Growth and Angiogenesis through β-Adrenergic Activation. Toxicol. Sci. 2007;358:321-326.

    Not in our library10.1093/toxsci/kfm060

  201. 201.

    Al-Wadei H.A.N., Schuller H.M. Nicotinic Receptor-Associated Modulation of Stimulatory and Inhibitory Neurotransmitters in NNK-Induced Adenocarcinoma of the Lungs and Pancreas. J. Pathol. 2009;218:437-445.

    Not in our library10.1002/path.2542

  202. 202.

    Chen H., Liu D., Yang Z., Sun L., Deng Q., Yang S., Qian L., Guo L., Yu M., Hu M., et al. Adrenergic Signaling Promotes Angiogenesis through Endothelial Cell-Tumor Cell Crosstalk. Endocr. Relat. Cancer. 2014;21:783-795.

    Not in our library10.1530/erc-14-0236

  203. 203.

    Garg J., Feng Y.X., Jansen S.R., Friedrich J., Lezoualc’h F., Schmidt M., Wieland T. Catecholamines Facilitate VEGF-Dependent Angiogenesis via Β2- Adrenoceptor-Induced Epac1 and PKA Activation. Oncotarget. 2017;8:44732-44748.

    Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.17267

  204. 204.

    Chakroborty D., Goswami S., Basu S., Sarkar C. Catecholamines in the Regulation of Angiogenesis in Cutaneous Wound Healing. FASEB J. 2020;34:14093-14102.

    Not in our library10.1096/fj.202001701r

  205. 205.

    Zahalka A.H., Arnal-Estapé A., Maryanovich M., Nakahara F., Cruz C.D., Finley L.W.S., Frenette P.S. Adrenergic Nerves Activate an Angio-Metabolic Switch in Prostate Cancer. Science. 2017;358:321-326.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aah5072

  206. 206.

    Moreno-Smith M., Lee S.J., Chunhua L., Nagaraja A.S., He G., Rupaimoole R., Han H.D., Jennings N.B., Roh J.W., Nishimura M., et al. Biologic Effects of Dopamine on Tumor Vasculature in Ovarian Carcinoma. Neoplasia. 2013;15:502-510.

    Not in our library10.1593/neo.121412

  207. 207.
    Beta-Blocker Drug Therapy Reduces Secondary Cancer Formation in Breast Cancer and Improves Cancer Specific Survival · 2010
    No notice
  208. 208.

    Barron T.I., Connolly R.M., Sharp L., Bennett K., Visvanathan K. Beta Blockers and Breast Cancer Mortality: A Population-Based Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011;29:2635-2644.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2010.33.5422

  209. 209.

    Lowenthal D.T., Saris S.D., Packer J., Haratz A., Conry K. Mechanisms of Action and the Clinical Pharmacology of Beta-Adrenergic Blocking Drugs. Am. J. Med. 1984;77:119-127.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0002-9343(84)80047-9

  210. 210.

    Sans V., de la Roque E.D., Berge J., Grenier N., Boralevi F., Mazereeuw-Hautier J., Lipsker D., Dupuis E., Ezzedine K., Vergnes P., et al. Propranolol for Severe Infantile Hemangiomas: Follow-Up Report. Pediatrics. 2009;124:e423-e431.

    Not in our library10.1542/peds.2008-3458

  211. 211.

    Chim H., Armijo B.S., Miller E., Gliniak C., Serret M.A., Gosain A.K. Propranolol Induces Regression of Hemangioma Cells through HIF-1α-Mediated Inhibition of VEGF-A. Ann. Surg. 2012;256:146-156.

    Not in our library10.1097/sla.0b013e318254ce7a

  212. 212.

    Chen Y.Z., Bai N., Bi J.H., Liu X.W., Xu G.Q., Zhang L.F., Li X.Q., Huo R. Propranolol Inhibits the Proliferation, Migration and Tube Formation of Hemangioma Cells through HIF-1α Dependent Mechanisms. Brazilian J. Med. Biol. Res. 2017;50:e6138.

    Not in our library10.1590/1414-431x20176138

  213. 213.

    Park S.Y., Kang J.H., Jeong K.J., Lee J., Han J.W., Choi W.S., Kim Y.K., Kang J., Park C.G., Lee H.Y. Norepinephrine Induces VEGF Expression and Angiogenesis by a Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1α Protein-Dependent Mechanism. Int. J. Cancer. 2011;128:2306-2316.

    Not in our library10.1002/ijc.25589

  214. 214.

    Xia Y., Wei Y., Li Z.Y., Cai X.Y., Zhang L.L., Dong X.R., Zhang S., Zhang R.G., Meng R., Zhu F., et al. Catecholamines Contribute to the Neovascularization of Lung Cancer via Tumor-Associated Macrophages. Brain. Behav. Immun. 2019;81:111-121.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbi.2019.06.004

  215. 215.

    Pasquier E., Street J., Pouchy C., Carre M., Gifford A.J., Murray J., Norris M.D., Trahair T., Andre N., Kavallaris M. B-Blockers Increase Response to Chemotherapy via Direct Antitumour and Anti-Angiogenic Mechanisms in Neuroblastoma. Br. J. Cancer. 2013;108:2485-2494.

    Not in our library10.1038/bjc.2013.205

  216. 216.

    Stati T., Musumeci M., Maccari S., Massimi A., Corritore E., Strimpakos G., Pelosi E., Catalano L., Marano G. β-Blockers Promote Angiogenesis in the Mouse Aortic Ring Assay. J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. 2014;64:21-27.

    Not in our library10.1097/fjc.0000000000000085

  217. 217.

    Agarwal R., Kaye S.B. Ovarian Cancer: Strategies for Overcoming Resistance to Chemotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2003;3:502-516.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc1123

  218. 218.

    Yang Z., Schumaker L.M., Egorin M.J., Zuhowski E.G., Guo Z., Cullen K.J. Cisplatin Preferentially Binds Mitochondrial DNA and Voltage-Dependent Anion Channel Protein in the Mitochondrial Membrane of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Possible Role in Apoptosis. Clin. Cancer Res. 2006;12:5817-5825.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-06-1037

  219. 219.
    Comprehensive review on how platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy of ovarian cancer affects biology of normal cells · 2018
    No notice
  220. 220.

    Kim E.-K., Jang M., Song M.-J., Kim D., Kim Y., Jang H.H. Redox-Mediated Mechanism of Chemoresistance in Cancer Cells. Antioxidants. 2019;8:471.

    Not in our library10.3390/antiox8100471

  221. 221.
    ROS and the DNA damage response in cancer · 2019
    No notice
  222. 222.

    Toth R., Warfel N. Strange Bedfellows: Nuclear Factor, Erythroid 2-Like 2 (Nrf2) and Hypoxia-Inducible Factor 1 (HIF-1) in Tumor Hypoxia. Antioxidants. 2017;6:27.

    Not in our library10.3390/antiox6020027

  223. 223.

    Sun X., Wang Y., Ji K., Liu Y., Kong Y., Nie S., Li N., Hao J., Xie Y., Xu C., et al. NRF2 Preserves Genomic Integrity by Facilitating ATR Activation and G2 Cell Cycle Arrest. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48:9109-9123.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkaa631

  224. 224.

    Silva M.M., Rocha C.R.R., Kinker G.S., Pelegrini A.L., Menck C.F.M. The Balance between NRF2/GSH Antioxidant Mediated Pathway and DNA Repair Modulates Cisplatin Resistance in Lung Cancer Cells. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:17639.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-019-54065-6

  225. 225.

    Jayakumar S., Pal D., Sandur S.K. Nrf2 Facilitates Repair of Radiation Induced DNA Damage through Homologous Recombination Repair Pathway in a ROS Independent Manner in Cancer Cells. Mutat. Res. Mol. Mech. Mutagen. 2015;779:33-45.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2015.06.007

  226. 226.
    Potential Applications of NRF2 Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy · 2019
    No notice
  227. 227.
    Brusatol provokes a rapid and transient inhibition of Nrf2 signaling and sensitizes mammalian cells to chemical toxicity—implications for therapeutic targeting of Nrf2 · 2015
    No notice
  228. 228.

    Lu Y., Wang B., Shi Q., Wang X., Wang D., Zhu L. Brusatol Inhibits HIF-1 Signaling Pathway and Suppresses Glucose Uptake under Hypoxic Conditions in HCT116 Cells. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:39123.

    Not in our library10.1038/srep39123

  229. 229.
    Controversy about pharmacological modulation of Nrf2 for cancer therapy · 2017
    Not checked
  230. 230.

    Pastukh V., Roberts J.T., Clark D.W., Bardwell G.C., Patel M., Al-Mehdi A.B., Borchert G.M., Gillespie M.N. An Oxidative DNA “Damage” and Repair Mechanism Localized in the VEGF Promoter Is Important for Hypoxia-Induced VEGF MRNA Expression. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2015;309:L1367-L1375.

    Not in our library10.1152/ajplung.00236.2015

  231. 231.

    Kaplan A.R., Gueble S.E., Liu Y., Oeck S., Kim H., Yun Z., Glazer P.M. Cediranib Suppresses Homology-Directed DNA Repair through down-Regulation of BRCA1/2 and RAD51. Sci. Transl. Med. 2019;11:eaav4508.

    Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.aav4508

  232. 232.

    Kaplan A.R., Glazer P.M. Impact of Hypoxia on DNA Repair and Genome Integrity. Mutagenesis. 2020;35:61-68.

    Not in our library10.1093/mutage/gez019

  233. 233.

    Sachdev E., Tabatabai R., Roy V., Rimel B.J., Mita M.M. PARP Inhibition in Cancer: An Update on Clinical Development. Target. Oncol. 2019;14:657-679.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11523-019-00680-2

  234. 234.

    Tentori L., Lacal P.M., Muzi A., Dorio A.S., Leonetti C., Scarsella M., Ruffini F., Xu W., Min W., Stoppacciaro A., et al. Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase (PARP) Inhibition or PARP-1 Gene Deletion Reduces Angiogenesis. Eur. J. Cancer. 2007;43:2124-2133.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2007.07.010

  235. 235.

    Liu J.F., Barry W.T., Birrer M., Lee J.-M., Buckanovich R.J., Fleming G.F., Rimel B., Buss M.K., Nattam S., Hurteau J., et al. Combination Cediranib and Olaparib versus Olaparib Alone for Women with Recurrent Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer: A Randomised Phase 2 Study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1207-1214.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70391-2

  236. 236.

    Mirza M.R., Bergmann T.K., Mau-Sørensen M., Christensen R.d.P., Åvall-Lundqvist E., Birrer M.J., Jørgensen M., Roed H., Malander S., Nielsen F., et al. A Phase I Study of the PARP Inhibitor Niraparib in Combination with Bevacizumab in Platinum-Sensitive Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: NSGO AVANOVA1/ENGOT-OV24. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2019;84:791-798.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00280-019-03917-z

  237. 237.

    Mirza M.R., Åvall Lundqvist E., Birrer M.J., dePont Christensen R., Nyvang G.B., Malander S., Anttila M., Werner T.L., Lund B., Lindahl G., et al. Niraparib plus Bevacizumab versus Niraparib Alone for Platinum-Sensitive Recurrent Ovarian Cancer (NSGO-AVANOVA2/ENGOT-Ov24): A Randomised, Phase 2, Superiority Trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1409-1419.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30515-7

  238. 238.

    Yuan L., Mao Y., Luo W., Wu W., Xu H., Wang X.L., Shen Y.H. Palmitic Acid Dysregulates the Hippo-YAP Pathway and Inhibits Angiogenesis by Inducing Mitochondrial Damage and Activating the Cytosolic DNA Sensor CGAS-STING-IRF3 Signaling Mechanism. J. Biol. Chem. 2017;292:15002-15015.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m117.804005

  239. 239.
    Role of Hippo Pathway-YAP/TAZ Signaling in Angiogenesis · 2019
    No notice
  240. 240.

    Satoh M., Fujimoto S., Horike H., Ozeki M., Nagasu H., Tomita N., Sasaki T., Kashihara N. Mitochondrial Damage-Induced Impairment of Angiogenesis in the Aging Rat Kidney. Lab. Investig. 2011;91:190-202.

    Not in our library10.1038/labinvest.2010.175

  241. 241.

    Chen Y., Zhang S., Peng G., Yu J., Liu T., Meng R., Li Z., Zhao Y., Wu G. Juncendothelial NO Synthase and Reactive Oxygen Species Mediated Effect of Simvastatin on Vessel Structure and Function: Pleiotropic and Dose-Dependent Effect on Tumor Vascular Stabilization. Int. J. Oncol. 2013;42:1325-1336.

    Not in our library10.3892/ijo.2013.1833

  242. 242.

    Moloney J.N., Cotter T.G. ROS Signalling in the Biology of Cancer. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2018;80:50-64.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.05.023

Cited by papers we hold 1

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.