Is it advisable to go back from bedside to the bench? During the last
decade, few topics encountered such a broad interest in bio- gy and
medicine as angiogenesis. The amazing ability of the body to restore
blood flow by induction of blood vessel growth as part of an adaptive
process has alarmed physicians dealing with diseases in which
angiogenesis is either exaggerated (as in tumors) or too slow (as in
ischemic diseases of heart and brain). Not surprisingly, pro- and
antiangiogenic strategies have found their way into clinical trials. For
instance, for the USA, the NIH website in early 2004 displayed 38
clinical studies involving either pro- or antiangiogenic th- apies.
Given the expected overwhelming wealth of clinical data, the question
may be asked whether further exploration of biological mechanisms is
required or whether results from the bedside are instructive enough to
proceed. This question depends also on the progress of pro- and
antiangiogenic clinical trials. In the following, I give a short
overview about some of the progress that has been made in this field.
Since Judah Folkman proposed antiangiogenic tumor therapy thirty years
ago, it has become increasingly evident that agents which interfere with
blood vessel formation also block tumor progression. Accordingly,
antiangiogenic therapy has gained much attention as a potential adjunct
to conventional c- cer therapy.
