| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Review |
1 Department of Nuclear Medicine, St. Vincent’s University Hospital, Dublin, Department of Surgery, Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical Research, University College Dublin and Dublin Molecular Medicine Centre, Dublin 4, Ireland.
aAddress for correspondence: Department of Nuclear Medicine, St. Vincent’s University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland. Fax 353-1-2696018; e-mail Michael.J.Duffy{at}ucd.ie.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionHormone ReceptorsHER-2p53ATP-Dependent TransportersThymidylate SynthaseOther Individual Predictive...MicroarrayConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Methods: The English literature relating to predictive markers in oncology was reviewed. Particular attention was paid to metaanalyses, systematic reviews, prospective trials, and guidelines issued by expert panels.
Results: The prototype predictive tests in oncology are the estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR), which are used to select patients with breast cancer likely to respond to hormone therapy. A more recently introduced predictive marker is HER-2 for selecting patients with advanced breast cancer for treatment with the therapeutic antibody trastuzumab (Herceptin). In adjuvant breast cancer, overproduction of HER-2 may also indicate an enhanced sensitivity to high-dose anthracycline-based regimens. On the other hand, in both early and advanced breast cancer, high concentrations of HER-2 appear to correlate with a lower probability of response to hormone therapy. Although many different anticancer drugs appear to mediate tumor regression by inducing apoptosis, there is currently no consistent evidence that any of the molecules implicated in this process can be used as predictive markers.
Conclusions: Currently, the only recommended predictive markers in oncology are ER and PR for selecting endocrine-sensitive breast cancers and HER-2 for identifying breast cancer patients with metastatic disease who may benefit from trastuzumab. For malignancies other than breast cancers, validated predictive markers do not exist at present.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionHormone ReceptorsHER-2p53ATP-Dependent TransportersThymidylate SynthaseOther Individual Predictive...MicroarrayConclusionsReferences |
|---|
) (1)(2)(3)(4), whereas most are likely to suffer from adverse side effects. For optimum patient management, it is therefore desirable to know in advance the likelihood of a tumor responding to the therapy under consideration.
|
Predictive markers are sometimes confused with prognostic markers. Both types of markers are used to provide information on the likely future behavior of a tumor, but whereas predictive factors are used to prospectively select responsiveness or resistance to a specific treatment, prognostic factors provide information on outcome independent of systemic adjuvant therapy. Some markers can have both prognostic and predictive utility. For example, the estrogen receptor (ER) 1 in breast cancer not only predicts response to endocrine therapy but also correlates with good prognosis, at least in the short term. Whereas the use of markers for assessing prognosis has been widely discussed in recent years (5)(6)(7), there are few comprehensive reviews on predictive factors. The aim of this review is therefore to provide an overview on the current status of predictive markers in oncology. Because most work on predictive markers has been carried out on breast cancer, the main, but not exclusive, focus will be on this malignancy. The most widely studied predictive markers in oncology are now reviewed.
|
Hormone Receptors |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionHormone ReceptorsHER-2p53ATP-Dependent TransportersThymidylate SynthaseOther Individual Predictive...MicroarrayConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Both the ER and PR exist in two main forms. For the ER, these are known as ER
and ERß. ER and ERß are the products of distinct genes but possess 
95% and 60% homology in their DNA- and ligand-binding domains, respectively (9).
Considerable divergence exists at the amino terminus with <25% homology (8). Both forms of receptor bind to the same DNA response elements and exhibit similar, but not identical, ligand-binding characteristics. In certain situations, ERß can attenuate the actions of ER (9). For clinical purposes, only ER is currently measured.
The two forms of PR, termed PR-A and PR-B, are transcribed from a single gene under the control of separate promoters (10). The main structural difference between PR-A and PR-B is that the A form lacks the first 164 amino-terminal amino acids contained in PR-B (10). Both forms of PR bind progestins and interact with the PR-responsive element (10). A functional difference between PR-A and PR-B is that PR-A can act as a dominant repressor of both PR-B and ER in a promoter- and cell type-specific manner (11)(12).
use of er and pr for predicting response to hormone therapy in breast cancer
Hormone therapy has been a mainstay of breast cancer treatment for more than 50 years. Initially, oophorectomy for premenopausal patients and pharmacologic concentrations of estrogens were used. More recently, these therapies have been replaced with antiestrogens (e.g., tamoxifen), aromatase inhibitors (e.g., anastrozole and letrozole), and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (e.g., goserelin); for a review, see Ref. (13). Irrespective of the type of hormone therapy used, only 30% of unselected patients with metastatic breast cancer respond (13).
Research carried out in the early 1970s showed that the ER protein was present in 50–70% of invasive breast cancers. On the basis of a pooled analysis of 400 patients with advanced breast cancer from eight different institutions, McGuire et al. (14) showed that 50–60% of women possessing ER-positive tumors responded to endocrine therapy. In contrast, only 5–10% of ER-negative tumors regressed with this treatment (14). It was later shown that 70–80% of breast cancers containing both ER and PR regressed with hormone therapy (15).
As well as predicting response to hormone therapy in advanced breast cancer, ER and PR are also associated with benefit from adjuvant endocrine treatment (16).
The relationship between steroid receptors and response to adjuvant tamoxifen was clearly shown in a metaanalysis involving more than 37 000 women with operable breast cancer enrolled in 55 randomized trials comparing tamoxifen vs placebo for the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer (16). The metaanalysis showed that adjuvant tamoxifen prolonged both disease-free and overall survival in patients with ER-rich tumors but had little benefit in patients who had ER-poor cancers (Table 2
) (16). Although PR was assayed on fewer tumors than ER, knowledge of PR status did not appear to enhance the predictive power of ER (16). However, patients who were ER-negative but PR-positive did benefit from tamoxifen (16).
|
In contrast to findings from the metaanalysis (16), Bardou et al. (17), using results from two large databases, recently showed that the combined measurement of ER and PR is superior to ER alone in predicting benefit from adjuvant hormone therapy. The ability of PR to enhance the predictive potential of ER in this more recent study (17) may be attributable to the fact that all PR assays were carried out in two central laboratories using identical assays, whereas in the metaanalysis (16), PR assays were carried out in many different laboratories using different assays.
The contribution of PR to ER may also depend on the relative amounts of the two forms of PR present. For example, Hopp et al. (18) reported that patients with high PR-A:PR-B ratios in their breast cancers responded poorly to adjuvant therapy. This finding, if confirmed, would necessitate measurement of the individual forms of PR rather than total PR, which is the form measured with the currently available assays.
Whether ERß correlates with response or resistance to hormone therapy is currently unknown. As with ER, tamoxifen and its active metabolite 4-OH-tamoxifen both bind to ERß and prevent estrogen-mediated transactivation at estrogen response elements (8). ERß is produced in a subset (40–70%) of invasive breast cancers (19). A preliminary report showed that ERß was produced in higher amounts in tamoxifen-resistant than in tamoxifen-sensitive cancers (20). In another preliminary report, however, the production of ERß was found to be associated with a favorable response to adjuvant tamoxifen therapy (21). Clearly, further work is necessary to establish whether ERß can prospectively predict resistance or response to hormone therapy in breast cancer.
Because of the striking difference in response of steroid receptor-positive and -negative breast cancers to hormone therapy, multiple expert panels, including an American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Expert Panel, the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (United States), a National Institutes of Health panel, the European Group on Tumor Markers, and the European Society of Mastology have recommended that ER (i.e., ER) and PR be assayed on all primary breast cancers (22)(23)(24)(25)(26).
Currently, most investigators use immunohistochemistry to measure ER and PR. Unlike the older biochemical assays, immunohistochemical assays can be carried out on small tumors, including core needle biopsy material. Immunohistochemistry, however, is difficult to standardize, and assessment of staining score is subjective. According to Harvey et al. (27), patients with breast cancers containing as few as 1–10% of cells staining for ER respond to hormone therapy.
|
HER-2 |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionHormone ReceptorsHER-2p53ATP-Dependent TransportersThymidylate SynthaseOther Individual Predictive...MicroarrayConclusionsReferences |
|---|
In breast cell lines and model tumor systems, overexpression of the HER-2 gene has been associated with increased mitogenesis, malignant transformation, increased cell motility, invasion, and metastasis (28). In human breast cancer, amplification of the HER-2 gene is found in 15–30% of primary invasive tumors. This means that instead of having only 2 copies of the gene per cell, up to 100 copies may be present. This increased gene copy number can lead to an increase in the number of receptors per cell from 20 000–50 000 up to 2 million (29). Either gene amplification or increased production of HER-2 is generally found to correlate with adverse prognosis, particularly in node-positive breast cancer patients (30).
Because HER-2 is involved in the pathogenesis and progression of certain breast cancers, exhibits extracellular accessibility, and is overexpressed in some cancers, it is a logical target for tumor-specific therapies. In particular, several monoclonal antibodies directed against the HER-2 ectodomain that specifically inhibit the growth of cell lines overexpressing HER-2 have been developed. One of these, known as 4D5, was modified for administration to patients by insertion of its complementarity determinant region into the structure of a consensus human IgG molecule. The resulting antibody was termed trastuzumab (HerceptinTM; Genentech Inc.) (31).
Trastuzumab was found to bind to HER-2 protein with greater affinity than the original mouse 4D5 antibody and inhibited the growth of breast cancer cells overexpressing HER-2 (31). Inhibition of growth in vitro was associated with down-modulation of HER-2, inhibition of cell cycle progression as a result of p27 induction, inhibition of angiogenesis, and induction of immune response (32).
In a multicenter phase II clinical trial (n = 222), 15% of patients with metastatic breast cancer that had relapsed after chemotherapy responded to trastuzumab used as a single agent (33). More recently, a phase III trial was performed comparing chemotherapy in combination with trastuzumab to chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy in 469 patients with metastatic breast cancer (34). All patients enrolled in this trial overexpressed HER-2 as determined by immunohistochemistry. At a median of 30 months of follow-up, the time to progression for patients receiving both trastuzumab and chemotherapy was 7.4 months compared with 4.6 months for those who received chemotherapy alone. The overall response rate and response duration were also significantly increased in patients who received the combined therapy.
use of her-2 for predicting response to trastuzumab in breast cancer
On the basis of cell culture and animal model experiments, it is generally believed and highly likely that overexpression of HER-2 is necessary for trastuzumab to induce tumor regression. Consequently, at this stage, trastuzumab should be given only to breast cancer patients showing gene amplification or overexpression of HER-2. Thus, the main clinical use, and the only mandatory use of HER-2 assays at present, is for selecting breast cancer patients with advanced disease for treatment with trastuzumab. In 2000, an ASCO Expert Panel stated that "unless it can be shown by future work that Herceptin is of benefit in HER-2-normal tumors, use of this antibody will be confined to those patients that have either amplification or overexpression of HER-2" (22).
Although measurement of HER-2 is mandatory before the administration of trastuzumab, controversy exists regarding the optimum type of assay for this marker. Currently, two main types of assay exist, i.e., immunohistochemistry and fluorescent in situ hybridization [FISH; for a review, see Ref. (30)]. Each of these methods has distinct advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of immunohistochemistry include its wide availability, simplicity, and relatively low costs. Its disadvantages include subjectivity in evaluating the staining score, possible loss of HER-2 protein as a result of tissue storage and fixation, and variable results depending on both the antibody and staining procedure used.
In contrast to immunohistochemistry, FISH provides a more objective scoring system. It also has the advantage of a built-in internal control consisting of two HER-2 gene copies in the nonmalignant cells within the specimen. The disadvantages of FISH include its high costs, the requirement for a fluorescence microscope, and inability to preserve the slide for storage and review. Emerging results, however, suggest that FISH is more accurate than immunohistochemistry in predicting both patient outcome and response to trastuzumab (30).
use of her-2 for predicting response to hormone therapy in breast cancer
At least 20 different studies have investigated the relationship between HER-2 and response to endocrine therapy in patients with breast cancer [for reviews, see Refs. (30),(35),(36)]. For patients with both early and advanced disease, the authors of the majority of these studies concluded that overexpression of HER-2 correlates with either relative resistance or adverse outcome after treatment with hormonal therapy (35)(36).
The studies published to date, however, have the following limitations (36):
Because of these limitations, the available data are not sufficiently strong to recommend routine use of HER-2 for determining breast cancers likely to be resistant to endocrine therapy. In particular, the value of HER-2 in selecting for hormone resistance has not been validated in a level I evidence study, i.e., in either a large randomized trial or metaanalysis of small-scale prospective or retrospective studies (37). Consequently, the recent ASCO guidelines on breast cancer markers stated that "the use of HER-2 to decide whether to prescribe endocrine therapy either in the adjuvant or metastatic setting is not recommended" (22).
use of her-2 in predicting response to chemotherapy in breast cancer
The relationship between HER-2 concentrations and response to chemotherapy in breast cancers appears to depend on the type of drug(s) administered. With adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF), the majority of studies showed a diminished benefit in HER-2-positive compared with HER-2-negative patients [for reviews, see Refs. (30),(35),(36)]. However, it should be stated that patients with cancers overexpressing HER-2 are likely to derive benefit from treatment with CMF-based regimes compared with no treatment. CMF-based therapy should therefore not be withheld from women whose tumors express high amounts of HER-2 and for whom anthracyclines are contraindicated (36).
Because most of the studies relating HER-2 to CMF response suffered from limitations similar to those described above for response to hormonal therapy, assay of HER-2 cannot be recommended at this stage for indicating likely resistance to CMF therapy (22).
Although most published studies suggest that HER-2 overexpression correlates with relative resistance to CMF, increased concentrations may predict enhanced sensitivity to anthracycline-based regimens in the adjuvant setting (30)(35)(36). Thus, the available evidence suggests that patients with HER-2-positive cancers are more likely to respond to anthracycline-based regimens than HER-2-negative patients and that HER-2-positive patients are more likely to benefit from anthracycline-based than alkylating agent-based therapy (30)(35)(36). According to the ASCO statement, "HER-2 may identify patients who particularly benefit from anthracycline-based adjuvant therapy, but levels of HER-2 should not be used to exclude patients from this type of treatment" (22).
|
p53 |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionHormone ReceptorsHER-2p53ATP-Dependent TransportersThymidylate SynthaseOther Individual Predictive...MicroarrayConclusionsReferences |
|---|
p53 is the most commonly mutated gene in human cancers (38). Most of the mutations are of the missense type and occur in the DNA-binding domain. The consequence of many of these mutations is loss of the ability of p53 to bind to DNA in a sequence-specific manner.
p53 controls the expression of multiple genes that are broadly divided into four categories, i.e., cell cycle inhibition, promotion of apoptosis, control of genome stability, and inhibition of angiogenesis (39). Being involved in such a variety of critical cellular activities, it is not surprising that loss of p53 function is so damaging and that such losses occur in almost all human cancers.
use of P53 for predicting response to chemotherapy
As mentioned above, one of the established functions of p53 is induction of apoptosis. It is now widely believed that many anticancer agents induce tumor regression, at least in part, by causing apoptosis (40). Thus, disruption of the apoptotic process, e.g., by loss or mutation in the p53 gene, might therefore be expected to reduce response to treatment or cause drug resistance.
Evidence for a link between dysfunctional p53 and failure to respond to therapy has been found in several model systems (41). For example, p53-null mice have been found to be resistant to apoptosis induced by 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in cancers of the small intestine, to arabinofuranosyl in cancers of sympathetic neurons, and to Adriamycin in cancers of the thymus, spleen, and small intestine. Furthermore, reintroduction of wild-type p53 into mutant cell lines and xenographs led to induction of apoptosis and tumor regression (41).
The relationship between p53 status and response to therapy in human cancers is less clear. Elledge and Allred (42) reviewed the literature on the relationship between alterations in p53 and response to different therapies in patients with breast cancer. Of 17 studies identified, 9 found no correlation between abnormalities in p53 and response, 5 showed that altered p53 predicted resistance, and 3 concluded that dysfunctional p53 was related to sensitivity. Similarly, in other cancers, conflicting findings exist on the relationship between p53 and response to chemotherapy (43). Possible reasons for the conflicting data have been discussed previously (44) and include:
Clearly, at present p53 cannot be used to select for either sensitivity or resistance to anticancer treatments. Similarly, other proteins involved in apoptosis, such as bcl-2, bax, CD95, or specific caspases, cannot currently be used for determining sensitivity or resistance to anticancer treatments [for a review, see Ref. (45)].
|
ATP-Dependent Transporters |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionHormone ReceptorsHER-2p53ATP-Dependent TransportersThymidylate SynthaseOther Individual Predictive...MicroarrayConclusionsReferences |
|---|
The prototype member, ABCB1 (also known as P-glycoprotein, P-170, PGP, or MDR1) is a broad-spectrum multidrug efflux pump that possess 12 transmembrane domains and 2 ATP-binding sites (46)(47). Physiologically, ABCB1 is thought to play a role in extruding neutral and cationic toxins out of cells. Anticancer drugs shown to be substrates for ABCB1 include anthracyclines (e.g., doxorubicin), vinca alkaloids (e.g., vincristine), epipodophylotoxins (e.g., etoposide), and taxanes (e.g., paclitaxel and docetaxol) (47).
Another widely studied transporter is ABCC1, which is also known as MRP-1. Structurally, MRP-1 is similar to P-glycoprotein except for an amino-terminal extension that contains 5 transmembrane domains, giving a total of 17 transmembrane sequences (46). MRP-1 has been found to extrude glutathione-conjugated derivatives of multiple toxic compounds as well as organic ions from cells. Cytotoxic drugs that are substrates for MRP-1 include doxorubicin, methotrexate, etoposide, and vincristine (46).
A non-ABC transporter was recently shown to confer multiple drug resistance in lung cancer cells and was given the name lung cancer resistance-related protein (48). Lung cancer resistance-related protein is a vault protein and, in contrast to the ABC transporters, does not possess an ATP-binding domain. Rather, vault proteins are large ribonucleoprotein complexes with a hollow barrel-shaped structure. These complexes are thought to compartmentalize drugs away from their intracellular targets and extrude these molecules by a vesicle-mediated exocytosis efflux mechanism.
use of atp-dependent drug transporters for predicting response to chemotherapy
Multiple small-scale retrospective studies have evaluated the relationship between concentrations of specific drug transporters (especially p170) and response to different chemotherapeutic regimes in a variety of malignancies [for reviews, see Refs. (46),(47),(49)]. In 1997, Trock et al. (50) performed a metaanalysis of 31 published studies on the relationship between p170 and chemotherapy resistance in breast cancer. In total, 31 studies were identified and evaluated. Overall, 42% of the tumors overexpressed p170 mRNA or protein, although there was wide variation in the percentage positivity in the different reports. p170 concentrations increased after therapy, and this increase was associated with lack of response to treatment (50). Five studies with a total of 115 participants assayed p170 before treatment. Although there was a trend, the relationship between pretreatment concentrations of p170 and response to therapy in this subgroup was not significant (P = 0.088).
Compared with breast cancer, less work has been performed on p170 in other human cancers. Some, but not all, investigators have found a correlation between p170 expression and treatment outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia [for a review, see Ref. (51)]. In osteosarcoma, a recent prospective multicenter study found no relationship between p170 expression and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (52). Clearly, assay of p170, or indeed any of the other ATP transporters mentioned above, cannot be used at present for predicting clinical resistance.
|
Thymidylate Synthase |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionHormone ReceptorsHER-2p53ATP-Dependent TransportersThymidylate SynthaseOther Individual Predictive...MicroarrayConclusionsReferences |
|---|
TS is a target for several chemotherapeutic agents, including the fluoropyrimidines, 5-FU and 5-fluorodeoxyuridine, and the antifolate, tomudex. 5-FU, in particular, is used to treat several different malignancies, such as those of the gastrointestinal tract, head and neck, and breast. In colorectal cancer, 5-FU-based therapy has been found to increase both disease-free and overall survival in patients with resected stage 3 disease (54). In advanced colorectal cancer, however, response rates are only 20% (4)(54).
To inhibit TS, 5-FU is first converted to 5-fluorodeoxyuridine monophosphate, which forms a covalent complex with TS in the presence of 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate (53)(54). Inhibition of TS leads to depletion of initially dTMP and later of dTTP and to an accumulation of dUMP. As a consequence, dUTP is incorporated into DNA because of lack of the natural substrate, dTTP. Its subsequent excision leads to DNA damage and apoptosis [for a review, see Ref. (54)]. A different 5-FU metabolite, fluorouridine monophosphate, is incorporated into RNA, disrupting normal RNA processing and function.
use of ts in predicting response to 5-fu in colorectal cancer
Studies using colorectal cancer cell lines initially suggested an association between TS concentrations and response to 5-FU (55). It was later shown that transfection of colonic cancer cells with TS cDNA led to resistance to 5-FU (56). Consistent with these results, several preliminary studies in patients with advanced colorectal cancer have shown that high concentrations of TS correlate with resistance to 5-FU-based chemotherapy, i.e., patients with high tumor concentrations of TS rarely respond to infusion treatment with 5-FU, whereas patients with low concentrations display response rates higher than expected [for reviews, see Refs. (54),(57)].
Recently, Popat et al. (58) carried out a systematic review and metaanalysis of published studies relating TS concentrations to outcome in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with diverse TS inhibitors. In total, 13 studies containing 887 patients were identified. Of these, 12 were deemed to be suitable for pooling of the overall survival data. Following a pooled analysis, the overall hazard ratio associated with high concentrations of TS for overall survival was 1.74 (95% confidence interval, 1.34–2.26). The impact of TS concentrations on outcome, however, was dependent on whether the TS assay was carried out on the primary tumor or on a metastatic lesion. For example, if TS concentrations were determined on the metastatic lesion, the hazard ratio was 2.39 (95% confidence interval, 1.43–4.01). On the other hand, if TS was measured on the primary tumor, the hazard ratio was only 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.07–1.61). It thus appears that for predicting outcome in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with TS inhibitors that TS concentrations must be measured on the metastatic lesion.
|
Other Individual Predictive Markers |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionHormone ReceptorsHER-2p53ATP-Dependent TransportersThymidylate SynthaseOther Individual Predictive...MicroarrayConclusionsReferences |
|---|
. It is important to point out that none of the markers included in Table 3
have yet been validated for clinical use.
|
|
Microarray |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionHormone ReceptorsHER-2p53ATP-Dependent TransportersThymidylate SynthaseOther Individual Predictive...MicroarrayConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Early studies on the use of microarrays for predicting anticancer drug response focused on cell lines (61)(62). These studies showed that, at least for some of the compounds, the gene expression profile of untreated cells was capable of being used for chemosensitivity testing (63). To date, only a few preliminary studies have been published on the use of microarrays for predicting clinical response or resistance to anticancer agents.
In a phase II trial on 24 patients with locally advanced breast cancer, Chang et al. (63) found that 92 genes were differentially expressed in tumors from patients that were sensitive or resistant to neoadjuvant (i.e., given before surgery) docetaxol therapy. Sensitivity or resistance was defined on the basis of residual tumor at the end of treatment. Using this gene signature, the authors could correctly classify 10 of 11 sensitive tumors and 11 of 13 resistant tumors. The results were subsequently validated in an independent set of only six patients. Sensitive tumors displayed increased expression of genes involved in the cell cycle, cytoskeleton, adhesion, protein transport, and apoptosis, whereas resistant tumors had increased expression of transcription and signal transduction genes.
Ayers et al. (64) also used microarrays in an attempt to identify genes predictive of response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with breast cancer. In this study, the chemotherapy used was sequential paclitaxel and 5-FU + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide, the number of patients investigated was 42 (24 used for discovery and 18 for independent validation), and the endpoint was pathologic complete response. Using a 74-gene signature, the authors obtained a 78% (14 of 18) predictive accuracy in the validation group.
Another malignancy for which microarrays have been used to identify therapy-predictive markers is acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Approximately 80% of children with childhood ALL are cured by chemotherapy. In an attempt to address the mechanisms of resistance, Holleman et al. (65) investigated ALL cells from 173 children for in vitro sensitivity to daunorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone, or asparaginase. They then used gene expression profiling with 14 500 probe sets to select differentially expressed genes in drug-sensitive and -insensitive ALL cells.
Overall, 172 gene probe sets were found to be differentially expressed in sensitive and resistant B-lineage leukemic cells. These included 22 gene probes for daunorubicin, 59 for vincristine, 42 for prednisolone, and 54 for asparaginase. Overall, the probes correctly assigned the drug sensitivity status of 86 of 105 cases for daunorubicin, 84 of 104 for vincristine, 66 of 75 cases with respect to prednisolone, and 83 of 106 cases with respect to asparaginase.
Combined gene expression for resistance to the four agents was associated with a significantly increased probability of disease relapse. The combined resistance score was also predictive of treatment outcome in a multivariate model that included age of patient, ALL genetic subtype, ALL lineage, and leukocyte number at diagnosis. These results were confirmed in an independent population of patients treated similarly to that in the original 173 patients (65).
Hofmann et al. (66) used microarrays to identify genes conferring resistance to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib (Glivec) in patients with ALL. This study was carried out on 19 adult patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive ALL who were enrolled in a phase II trial investigating the safety and efficacy of imatinib. Using 95 genes, the authors were able to separate all of the imatinib-sensitive from the imatinib-resistant cases. Among the genes highly expressed in the resistant ALL cells were Bruton’s tyrosine kinase and two ATP synthesases (ATP5A1 and ATP5C1). Genes with decreased expression in the cells included the proapoptotic gene BAK1 and the cell cycle control gene p15INK4B.
|
Conclusions |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionHormone ReceptorsHER-2p53ATP-Dependent TransportersThymidylate SynthaseOther Individual Predictive...MicroarrayConclusionsReferences |
|---|
30 years ago to predict response to hormone therapy in patients with advanced breast cancer. Today, their principal application is selecting patients with early breast cancer likely to respond to hormone therapy. A more recently introduced predictive marker is HER-2, which is used for selecting patients with metastatic breast cancer for treatment with trastuzumab. Further work, including validation in level 1 evidence studies, is necessary before HER-2 can be used for predicting response to either chemotherapy or hormone therapy in patients with breast cancer. Further research will also be necessary to establish whether molecules involved in apoptosis or drug efflux mechanisms are associated with clinical response. However, because drug resistance or response almost certainly depends on the interplay of multiple genes, it is likely that multiple markers will have to be assessed to have reliable predictive tests (67). The most convenient ways of simultaneously determining such multiple markers is likely to be customized DNA microarrays or proteomics.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionHormone ReceptorsHER-2p53ATP-Dependent TransportersThymidylate SynthaseOther Individual Predictive...MicroarrayConclusionsReferences |
|---|
and ß in human breast cancer and its clinical application. Endocr Relat Cancers 2003;10:193-202.[Abstract]
as a marker predicting the efficacy of anthracyclines in breast cancer: are we at the end of the beginning?. Clin Breast Cancer 2003;4:179-186.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:
|
|
 |
|
  C. M. Sturgeon, M. J. Duffy, U.-H. Stenman, H. Lilja, N. Brunner, D. W. Chan, R. Babaian, R. C. Bast Jr., B. Dowell, F. J. Esteva, et al. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for Use of Tumor Markers in Testicular, Prostate, Colorectal, Breast, and Ovarian Cancers Clin. Chem., December 1, 2008; 54(12): e11 - e79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Duffy and J. Crown A Personalized Approach to Cancer Treatment: How Biomarkers Can Help Clin. Chem., November 1, 2008; 54(11): 1770 - 1779. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M Hofmann, O Stoss, T Gaiser, H Kneitz, P Heinmoller, T Gutjahr, M Kaufmann, T Henkel, and J Ruschoff Central HER2 IHC and FISH analysis in a trastuzumab (Herceptin) phase II monotherapy study: assessment of test sensitivity and impact of chromosome 17 polysomy J. Clin. Pathol., January 1, 2008; 61(1): 89 - 94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Mavi, T. F. Cermik, M. Urhan, H. Puskulcu, S. Basu, J. Q. Yu, H. Zhuang, B. Czerniecki, and A. Alavi The Effects of Estrogen, Progesterone, and C-erbB-2 Receptor States on 18F-FDG Uptake of Primary Breast Cancer Lesions J. Nucl. Med., August 1, 2007; 48(8): 1266 - 1272. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Cronin, C. Sangli, M.-L. Liu, M. Pho, D. Dutta, A. Nguyen, J. Jeong, J. Wu, K. C. Langone, and D. Watson Analytical Validation of the Oncotype DX Genomic Diagnostic Test for Recurrence Prognosis and Therapeutic Response Prediction in Node-Negative, Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Clin. Chem., June 1, 2007; 53(6): 1084 - 1091. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. A. Cardone, A. Bellizzi, G. Busco, E. J. Weinman, M. E. Dell'Aquila, V. Casavola, A. Azzariti, A. Mangia, A. Paradiso, and S. J. Reshkin The NHERF1 PDZ2 Domain Regulates PKA-RhoA-p38-mediated NHE1 Activation and Invasion in Breast Tumor Cells Mol. Biol. Cell, May 1, 2007; 18(5): 1768 - 1780. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Nakagawa, S. K. Huang, S. R. Martinez, A. N. Tran, D. Elashoff, X. Ye, R. R. Turner, A. E. Giuliano, and D. S.B. Hoon Proteomic Profiling of Primary Breast Cancer Predicts Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis Cancer Res., December 15, 2006; 66(24): 11825 - 11830. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Duffy Serum Tumor Markers in Breast Cancer: Are They of Clinical Value? Clin. Chem., March 1, 2006; 52(3): 345 - 351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. S. Jung, H. S. Park, I. J. Lee, H. Namkoong, S. M. Shin, G. W. Cho, S.-A. Ha, Y. G. Park, Y. S. Lee, J. Ko, et al. The HCCR Oncoprotein as a Biomarker for Human Breast Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., November 1, 2005; 11(21): 7700 - 7708. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
