Advertisement
Journal of Clinical Oncology  
Search for:
Limit by:
  Browse by Subject or Issue
Home Search or Browse JCO My JCO Subscriptions Customer Service Site Map

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Osman, I.
Right arrow Articles by Pfister, D. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Osman, I.
Right arrow Articles by Pfister, D. G.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 20, Issue 13 (July), 2002: 2980-2987
© 2002 American Society for Clinical Oncology

Alteration of p53 Pathway in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: Impact on Treatment Outcome in Patients Treated With Larynx Preservation Intent

By Iman Osman, Eric Sherman, Bhuvanesh Singh, Ennapadam Venkatraman, Michael Zelefsky, George Bosl, Howard Scher, Jatin Shah, Ashok Shaha, Dennis Kraus, Carlos Cordon-Cardo, David G. Pfister

From the Departments of Medicine, Radiation Oncology, Surgery, Pathology, and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.

Supported in part by the Overman Fund and the Garban Intercapital Fund.Address reprint requests to: David G. Pfister, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Box 188, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021; email: pfisterd{at}mskcc.org


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
PURPOSE: To identify the role of p53 pathway alteration(s) as predictors of treatment outcome in patients with advanced, resectable, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the larynx and pharynx treated with larynx preservation (LP) intent.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-one patients treated on two consecutive LP protocols were studied based on availability of representative tissues. We analyzed the expression pattern of p53, its upstream regulator mdm2, and downstream transcriptional target p21/WAF1 by immunohistochemistry. Positive phenotype was defined as >= 20% of tumor cells showing nuclear immunoreactivity. Results were correlated with treatment outcomes.

RESULTS: Positive phenotype was observed in 35 (49%) of 71 cases for p53, in 52 (74%) of 70 for mdm2, and in 37 (54%) of 68 for p21. There was no correlation between p53 phenotype and p21 nuclear accumulation. The mdm2-negative phenotype was most predictive of major response at the primary tumor site (P = .088). p53-positive phenotype was associated with worse local control with LP (LCLP; 49% v 23%, P = .053) and inferior overall survival (OS; 51% v 29%, P = .017) at 5 years. On Cox regression analysis, p53-positive phenotype predicted inferior OS (P = .033) and showed a trend for worse LCLP (P = .102). When analyzed in a multivariate model as continuous variables, p53 showed a stronger correlation with inferior OS (P < .01), and mdm2 was associated with worse OS (P < .01).

CONCLUSION: Among the three markers studied, our data support p53 phenotype as the most informative predictor of unfavorable outcomes in the LP setting, and suggest a role for mdm2 phenotype that requires further exploration. Our analysis does not support a p53-dependent mechanism for p21 expression. Prospective and larger studies are necessary before integration of these molecular markers as part of molecular staging and predictors for organ preservation or other outcomes.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
CONVENTIONAL TREATMENTS of surgery and radiation therapy for advanced squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the larynx and pharynx are associated with significant morbidity affecting speech, swallowing, and overall quality of life. Combination chemoradiotherapy yields survival results comparable with total laryngectomy and radiotherapy, with a possibility of larynx preservation (LP). However, the LP approach is not successful in all cases, and more than 30% of surviving patients require salvage laryngectomy.1-3 Reliable predictors of treatment outcome are needed to minimize the morbidity and cost of unsuccessful LP because many patients may be best served by early referral for surgical intervention.

In this study, we tested the hypothesis that inactivation of the p53 pathway might confer tumor resistance to apoptosis-inducing chemoradiotherapy, resulting in a decrease in local control and overall survival (OS). Alteration of p53 pathway is of interest in this setting because TP53 mutations and/or p53 protein overexpression are common events in SCC of the head and neck,4,5 and several studies have reported a correlation between TP53 mutation and response to cisplatin and fluorouracil, the chemotherapeutic agents historically most frequently used in this setting.6,7 Moreover, several clinical studies have demonstrated a correlation between TP53 mutation and radioresistance.8,9

A recognized limitation of most studies is that they are confined to the analysis of TP53 mutation or p53 expression patterns but do not examine other critical components of the p53 pathway (Fig 1). The product encoded by the MDM2 gene binds to the transcriptional activation domain of p53, blocking its ability to regulate gene expression. The MDM2 gene itself is a transcriptional target of p53, thus resulting in a feedback loop that controls both the activity of p53 and the expression of mdm2. Moreover, mdm2 is involved in p53 degradation because it binds to its amino-terminal region and, functioning as an ubiquitin E3-ligase, presents p53 for proteosome-mediated enzymatic degradation.10-12 Thus, mdm2 is recognized as a critical p53-negative regulator. Both in vitro and in vivo data support the oncogenic role of MDM2 in several tumor models. In vitro, the overexpression of mdm2 in murine cells increases their growth rate.13 Transgenic mice overexpressing mdm2 were tumor prone, with 50% developing lymphomas and sarcomas. Moreover, these mice showed an increased incidence of sarcomas in comparison to p53-null mice. This increased incidence was maintained in crosses onto the p53-null background, demonstrating a p53-independent role for MDM2 in tumorigenesis.14



View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig 1. Diagrammatic representation of the p53 pathway. In response to DNA damage, p53 regulates the expression of several genes involved in cell cycle arrest (ie, p21) and apoptosis (ie, BAX) and produces an autoregulatory feedback loop by transactivating mdm2.

 
The lack of data regarding the functional status of p53 downstream products in analyzed tumors represents another drawback in the published studies. The described yeast-based assay can distinguish between silent TP53 mutations acquired by the malignant cells and those that truly contribute to the malignant phenotype, but this assay is difficult to perform as part of routine clinical investigations.15 Accordingly, we chose to study the expression of p21/WAF1 as an indirect evidence of p53 function. It has been reported that p21/WAF1 gene expression may serve as an indicator of p53 activity because p21/WAF1 is under the direct transcription control of p53.16 However, serum or individual growth factors, such as epidermal growth factor and fibroblast growth factor, which are known to be upregulated in SCC of the larynx, can also induce p21 expression in p53-deficient cells.17 Thus, there are at least two separate pathways that could account for the induction of p21 in SCC of the head and neck, one linked to DNA damage recognition (p53 dependent) and the other produced by signaling mechanisms caused by certain cellular mitogens (p53 independent).

In the present study, we analyzed the expression pattern of p53 and its upstream regulator mdm2 and downstream transcriptional target p21/WAF1 in 71 patients with advanced SCC of the larynx and pharynx treated on one of two consecutive LP protocols at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) between 1988 and 1995. The association between these markers and response to induction chemotherapy, local control with LP (LCLP), time to distant failure, and OS was examined to determine their potential prognostic impact.


    PATIENTS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Patient Selection
One hundred seventy patients with advanced SCC of the larynx and pharynx treated on one of two consecutive LP protocols at MSKCC between 1988 and 1995 were the subjects of our investigation. Entry criteria were similar among the two studies and have been previously reviewed.18,19 All patients had the following: histologically confirmed SCC; advanced-stage SCC of the larynx, hypopharynx, or oropharynx that would, if treated surgically, jeopardize the larynx; assessable/measurable disease present; Karnofsky performance status (KPS) >= 60%; and adequate hematologic, renal, hepatic, cardiac, and auditory functions to tolerate therapy with high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy. All patients gave written informed consent for participation in these protocols approved by the MSKCC Institution Review Board. Archival representative blocks from the primary tumors were available for 71 of 170 patients’ tumors, which formed the basis of this study. These patients were entered onto a separate Institution Review Board–approved tissue-acquisition protocol to conduct the correlative immunohistochemical study.

Initial Evaluation
All patients had a complete medical history and physical examination. The details of the evaluation have been previously described.18,19 Direct laryngoscopy and esophagoscopy were performed at the discretion of the examining surgeon. Baseline laboratory studies were drawn, including a complete blood count with differential, platelet, liver function tests, and creatinine clearance. Computed tomography scan or magnetic resonance imaging of the primary site and/or neck region was performed in 60 (85%) patients. Staging reported in this study is based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor, node, metastasis system for head and neck cancer in 1988.20 Nuclear medicine (liver scan and bone scan) and body computed tomography scans were performed only if clinically indicated based on symptoms and/or laboratory tests.

Treatment
The exact details of protocol treatment have been previously described.18,19,21 Briefly, after initial cisplatin-based induction chemotherapy, patients with a major response at the primary site and no progression in the neck underwent either definitive dose radiation alone (once-daily fractions, 66 to 70 Gy total, protocol 1988-90) or concomitant boost radiation therapy (1.8 Gy/d, weeks 1 to 4, and 1.8 Gy/AM + 1.6 Gy/PM weeks 5 and 6; 70 Gy total, protocol 1991-95) with concurrent cisplatin. If patients had less than a major response at the primary site or progression in the neck, they were referred for appropriate surgical management followed by postoperative radiation therapy. If disease was present at the end of treatment or there was relapse, appropriate surgical management was recommended.

Evaluation of Tumor Response
Tumor response was determined after induction chemotherapy using standard response criteria for measurable disease22 and criteria reported by Kris et al23 for assessable disease. Response assessment was based primarily on clinical examination; radiographic data were used in selected cases. Chemotherapy response was assessed independently at the primary site and neck nodal metastasis. Overall response was scored as the lesser of these two responses.

Assessment of Treatment Outcome
The main outcome measures were chemotherapy response, LCLP, time to distant failure, and OS. Because prospective functional data were not available on these patients, LCLP was defined as local control without any surgery (except biopsy) to the primary site and without a permanent tracheostomy or gastrostomy. Death due to any cause was counted as an event for survival analysis. Clinical data collection and immunohistochemical analysis were performed independently of each other, with respective investigators remaining blinded to the clinical outcome and p53, mdm2, and p21 data until the completion of the study.

Immunohistochemistry Methods
Tissues were obtained from the Department of Pathology at MSKCC. Samples were formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue specimens. Representative hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections were examined to evaluate the pathologic type of the tumors to be analyzed. All retrieved blocks were freshly cut to provide the representative tumor sections subsequently used in staining. The following well-characterized mouse monoclonal antibodies and corresponding final working dilution were used for the present study: anti-p53 monoclonal antibody PAB 1801 (antibody-2; Calbiochem/Oncogene Science, Boston, MA; 1:500 dilution); anti-mdm2 monoclonal antibody 2A10 (a gift from Dr Levine of Rockefeller University, New York, NY; 1:500 dilution); and an anti-p21 monoclonal antibody (antibody-1 clone; Calbiochem/Oncogene Science, 1:20 dilution). MIgS-Kp1, a mouse monoclonal antibody of the same subclass as the primary antibody, was used as a negative control at similar working dilution. Sections were subsequently immersed in boiling 0.01% citric acid (pH 6.0) for 15 minutes to enhance antigen retrieval, allowed to cool, and incubated with primary antibody overnight at 4°C. Biotinylated horse antimouse immunoglobulin G antibodies were applied for 1 hour (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA; 1:500 dilution), followed by avidin-biotin peroxidase complexes for 30 minutes (Vector laboratories; 1:25 dilution). Diaminobenzidine was used as the final chromogen, and hematoxylin was used as the nuclear counterstain. Nuclear immunoreactivity was classified on a continuous scale with values that ranged from undetectable levels (or 0%) to homogenous staining (or 100%).

Statistical Methods
The three markers were analyzed both for the percentage of positive tumor cells as discrete variables (< 20% v >= 20%) based on a priori cut points and as the percentage of positive tumor cells because appropriate cutoff points, especially for mdm2 and p21 expression, are less well defined. The cut point for p53 of >= 20% was based on our previous analysis of p53 alterations in bladder cancer that revealed a strong association between p53 point mutation and p53 nuclear accumulation in >= 20% of tumor cells.24,25 For mdm2, the cut point was based on what has been published, correlating mdm2 overexpression in >= 20% of tumor cells with worse clinicopathologic parameters in other tumor types.26-28 For p21, the cut point of >= 20% was based on our finding that adjacent normal tissues lack p21 expression and the observation of p21 nuclear staining and presence of mitotic figures comparable with high proliferative activity of tumors.

Correlations of biologic marker expression and response (major and complete) to chemotherapy (both at the primary site and overall) were performed using the {chi}2 test unless there was concern regarding an inadequate number of observations, in which case a Fisher’s exact test was used.29 OS, LCLP, and time to distant failure were calculated from the start of treatment and estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.30 LCLP was assigned a value of 0 if local control was never achieved. The exact date of distant failure was unavailable in two patients, so an estimated date halfway between the date of first relapse and date of death was used. Univariate analyses of biologic markers were evaluated by log-rank tests for significance in predicting LCLP, time to distant failure, and OS.31

Multivariate analysis was felt to be necessary to correct for potential baseline characteristic confounders as well as imbalances in the treatment regimens between groups. Given the available sample size and related outcome events, only a limited number of covariates could be entered into each model. Accordingly, the following strategy was used. Each potential pretreatment prognostic factor (KPS, stage, age, treatment regimen, weight loss, symptoms, comorbidity [Charlson Comorbidity Index], alcohol use, cigarette use, albumin, ALT, hemoglobin, platelets, mean corpuscular volume, lactic acid dehydrogenase, tracheostomy, and feeding tube status) were also analyzed with univariate analysis by log-rank tests for significance in predicting OS and LCLP. Each potential prognostic pretreatment factor that was determined to be significant in predicting OS (ie, log-rank test < 0.05) was then included in a multivariate analysis using Cox’s proportional-hazards model,31 doing the regression in a forward stepwise manner with a threshold significant value of 0.05. Then, while only including the variables that remained significant in the multivariate model, each biologic marker was added separately into the Cox’s proportional-hazards model and reanalyzed in a forward stepwise manner with a threshold significant value of 0.05. The biologic markers were analyzed in a similar manner for their significance in predicting LCLP. A multivariate assessment focusing on time to distant failure was not performed because the number of distant failure events (n = 10) was judged insufficient to yield a stable analysis. Median follow-up data was computed using the inverse Kaplan-Meier method32 and was obtained through December 1, 2000. Nonparametric inferences were performed using the {chi}2 test, unless there was concern regarding an inadequate number of observations, in which case Fisher’s exact test was used.29 Differences were considered significant if the P value (two-sided) was less than .05. No attempt was made to compensate for the potential impact of multiple comparisons.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Table 1 compares the study population with available archival tissues (n = 71) with unavailable cases (n = 99). No significant differences in baseline variables were observed, with the exception of the location of primary disease, with a greater proportion of larynx cancer (49%, tissue available v 62%, tissue unavailable) in the group for which tissue was unavailable. The reason for unavailability of specimens was frequently that patients had their diagnostic biopsies performed outside MSKCC, with no available tissues in the archival bank. Immunophenotypic study of p53 expression was performed in all 71 cases, whereas representative slides for mdm2 and p21 analysis were available for 70 (99%) of 71 and 68 (96%) of 71 cases, respectively.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Table 1. Comparison of the Study Population and Cases With No Archival Tissue Available
 
p53-positive phenotype, defined as >= 20% of tumor cell showing nuclear immunoreactivity, was observed in 35 (49%) of 71 cases (Fig 2 upper panel). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline variables between p53-negative and p53-positive cases (Table 2), although the power of such comparison is limited.



View larger version (173K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig 2. Photomicrographs of selected cases using immunohistochemical staining with antibodies PAB 1801 (p53, upper panels), 2A10 (mdm2, middle panels), and antibody-1 (p21/WAF1, lower panels). Left panels illustrate intense nuclear staining for each marker respectively. Right panels illustrate negative cases (< 5% positive tumor cells) for each marker, respectively.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Table 2. Summary of Data in Relation to Immunophenotype Profile
 
Fifty-two (74%) of 70 tumors were positive for mdm2 (Fig 2 middle panel), and 37 (54%) of 68 tumors were positive for p21 overexpression (Fig 2 lower panel). We examined all possible correlations between the three markers, and we did not observe any statistically significant association. Because of the role p53 plays in the induction of p21 transcription, this analysis was of special interest. There was no correlation found between p53 wild phenotype and p21 expression (P = .64).

As noted in Table 2, for the most part, baseline characteristics were comparable among negative and positive cases. However, we observed a higher proportion of patients whose tumor was negative for p21 (P = .089) or mdm2 (P = .154) overexpression who participated in the earlier protocol (1988-90). To determine whether there might be significant clinical or prognostic differences between patients on the older versus newer protocols, exploratory analyses were performed. Although the numbers compared limit the power of the significance testing, no significant imbalance in age, KPS, primary site, T stage, N stage, or overall stage was found.

Correlation With Response to Induction Chemotherapy
We explored correlation between the expression of the three markers with major response at the primary site, complete response at the primary site, major response at the primary site and neck, and complete response at the primary site and neck. We considered response at the primary site separately because the biopsy specimens evaluated were from the primary site, and in this population treated with LP intent, local control (LCLP) is an outcome of special significance. Furthermore, not all patients have neck node involvement (No = 27%), and among those who do, the response to chemotherapy at each site may differ at times in type and extent. For example, four patients in this study had a major discordance in response between the primary site and the neck (ie, a major response at one site and stable disease or progression at the other).

No molecular marker, analyzed individually or in combination, significantly predicted tumor response to induction chemotherapy (P values ranged between .88 to .98). However, lack of mdm2 expression showed a trend with major response at the primary site (P = .088) and complete response at the primary site and neck (P = .10). Because there were no major differences in the induction regimen or response rates of the different protocols (except for recycling time), these comparisons were not controlled by treatment regimen.

Correlation With Local Control (LCLP) and Time to Distant Failure
On univariate analysis, only p53-positive phenotype was associated with inferior LCLP (P = .053). At 5 years, 49% of patients with p53-negative tumors had LCLP compared with only 23% of patients whose tumor overexpressed p53 (Fig 3A). On Cox regression analysis incorporating other outcome predictors that were significant on univariate and multivariate assessment (serum albumin, KPS, and history of major alcohol use), p53-positive phenotype showed a trend with worse LCLP (P = .102). Analyzed as a continuous variable, p53 demonstrated a stronger correlation with worse LCLP (P = .066).



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig 3. (A) Kaplan-Meier curves for LCLP stratified by p53 expression. Curves compared using log-rank test. (B) Kaplan-Meier curves for OS stratified by p53 expression. Curves compared using log-rank test.

 
Only 10 patients had documented distant failure, approximately one fourth the rate of local failure observed, and in only four patients was it the sole site of failure. Accordingly, given the limited number of distant failure events, the related analyses should be interpreted cautiously. None of studied markers significantly predicted time to distant failure, although the p53-negative group had a somewhat higher incidence of distant failure (P = .10). A multivariate assessment was not performed because the relatively small number of distant events was judged insufficient to yield a stable analysis.

Correlation With OS
On univariate analysis, p53-positive phenotype significantly predicted for inferior OS (P = .017). At 5 years, 51% of the patients whose tumor did not overexpress p53 were alive in comparison with only 29% of the patients whose tumor did overexpress p53 (Fig 3B). On Cox regression analysis incorporating other significant survival predictors on univariate and multivariate assessment (treatment regimen, KPS, history of major alcohol use, and T stage), expression of p53 was a significant predictor for OS both as a dichotomous variable (P = .033, hazard ratio of 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 3.74) and as a continuous variable (P < .01, hazard ratio of 1.02, 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.03). In addition, mdm2 expression as a continuous variable was a significant predictor of OS on multivariate analysis (P < .01, hazard ratio of 1.02, 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.03).

It should be emphasized that these last two hazard ratios, obtained when the representative markers were used as continuous variables, reflect the increased risk associated with a 1% increase in staining. The scale of change used will affect the hazard ratio. For example, if the staining was to increase from 20% to 40%, the related hazard risk becomes 1.49.

Because of the disparity in mdm2 staining characteristics between the 1988 to 1990 and 1991 to 1995 groups, we evaluated the impact of mdm2 expression on survival in these two groups separately to see if its predictive value might be affected. On univariate analysis, mdm2 overexpression (as a continuous variable) delineated a strong trend (P = .086) in the older group and was also significant in the newer group (P = .014). Because the specific groups were now 33 and 37 patients, respectively, we felt a multivariate assessment involving more than two variables would be too unstable. Accordingly, a Cox model was performed using KPS, the most predictive variable in a previous model, with mdm2 as a continuous variable. In this analysis, mdm2 overexpression was significant in both groups (P = .021 and .030, respectively).


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Avoidance of total laryngectomy is the goal of organ/function preservation in SCC of the larynx and pharynx. Several groups have demonstrated that combination chemoradiotherapy is feasible in patients with advanced disease whose surgical management would have required total laryngectomy. Survival results were similar to those obtained historically using standard management, and a substantial proportion of patients avoided total laryngectomy. However, in more than one third of patients selected for chemoradiotherapy, the treatment will fail.1-3 Better markers of treatment outcome are needed.

This study supports p53 phenotype, among the three markers studied, as the most informative predictor of unfavorable outcome in patients undergoing LP treatment. We could not demonstrate a role for p21 expression as an indirect evidence of functioning p53. Nonetheless, the analysis suggests a role for mdm2 phenotype that requires further study because of the observed trend with chemotherapy response as well as the correlation with OS when analyzed as a continuous variable. The preliminary results, however, need to be interpreted cautiously and require validation.

Most of the published studies examining the role of p53 as a prognostic marker in SCC of the head and neck have focused on correlation with pathologic features, mostly in the setting of initial presentation. Few studies have examined the correlation of p53 and response to specific treatment intervention and outcome. Our results are in concordance with studies that revealed a strong correlation between p53 nuclear accumulation and worse treatment outcome in patients with advanced SCC.33,34 Of special interest is a study conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs Laryngeal Cancer Cooperative Study Group, which examined the correlation between p53 nuclear accumulation and response to chemotherapy in SCC of the larynx. This study showed that p53 nuclear accumulation significantly correlated with successful organ preservation,35 a finding that is divergent from our analysis. There are several possible explanations for the observed dichotomy in the results, including differences in methodology and cutoff points used to define p53 overexpression. The same group has subsequently published an article on a subset of patients that showed a correlation between p53 mutation and worse outcome, and there was no correlation between p53 mutation and p53 overexpression.36 Other differences between the studies were that our study was not limited to laryngeal carcinoma as was the Veterans Affairs study, and had a higher proportion of patients with T4 (59% v 26%) and N2/N3 (60% v 28%) disease, affecting the anticipated incidence of treatment failure and related ability to detect prognostic differences.

There are two studies of mdm2 in SCC of the larynx, which suggest that mdm2 overexpression may be an early event in pathogenesis37,38 because it occurs in preneoplastic lesions that progress to invasive SCC. No studies have directly correlated mdm2 overexpression with clinical outcome in SCC. The mdm2 protein product could be considered a novel target of treatment for patients with advanced SCC of the head and neck. Recently, enhancement of drug-induced apoptosis by antisense oligodeoxynucleotides and synthetic peptides targeted against mdm2 has been described.39,40 These novel antitumor agents, which have proven sufficient in blocking the degradation of p53 in vitro and have shown antitumor activity using xenografts models, should be considered as potential candidates for the treatment of tumors overexpressing mdm2. The relatively high frequency of mdm2 overexpression in our study population (74%) and the observed trend with chemotherapy response as well as correlation with worse outcome merit further consideration of mdm2 as a biomarker and target of treatment in SCC of the larynx and pharynx.

Our observation that p21/WAF1 accumulates in invasive tumor cells (Fig 2 lower panel) and the lack of correlation with wild-type p53 phenotype suggest that p21 overexpression in advanced SCC may reflect a p53-independent mechanism. In support of this postulate, overexpression of epidermal growth factor receptor and/or basic fibroblast growth factor are reported in epithelial hyperplastic laryngeal lesions and observed in both early and advanced head and neck SCC.41,42 The postulate that p21 expression, in this setting, is not p53-dependent has been previously suggested.43,44 A similar observation has been reported for both prostate and breast cancers.45,46

There were several limitations in this study that need to be considered. First, tissue collection was not inclusive. This problem is common to many studies that examine potential biomarkers and can potentially bias the final results. Second, the observation that mdm2- and p21-positive staining was less frequent in the 1988 to 1990 group, cannot be entirely explained. Statistical chance is possible but should not be assumed.47 It is reassuring in this regard, however, that mdm2 remained predictive of survival in both groups. Third, by convention, overexpression of p53, p21, and mdm2 is defined as >= 20% of the cells overexpressing the marker. We have to emphasize that the appropriate cutoff points for predictive purposes in advanced SCC of head and neck remain controversial. Different cutoff points for the three biologic markers have been used both in SCC and other types of tumors. The cut point for p53 of >= 20% was based on our previous analysis of p53 alterations in bladder cancer that revealed a strong association between TP53 point mutation and p53 nuclear accumulation in >= 20% of tumor cells.24,25 The cutoff point for mdm2 used in this study was based on our analysis of the p53 pathway in bladder, prostate, and sarcoma clinical specimens, which suggest that they might be the most clinically relevant.26-28 The dichotomization of these markers needs to be critically considered in future analysis of these markers. Finally, our observations may be affected by the therapy employed (eg, specific chemotherapy agents, manner of integration with radiation). This potential treatment specificity deserves further study.

In conclusion, our study supports p53 phenotype as the most informative predictor of unfavorable outcome, as well a potential role for mdm2, which will require further studies and exploration. Future prospective research, in which all tissue in a treatment group is analyzed, will be required to truly understand the impact these molecular markers may have on outcome.


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
1. The Department of Veterans Affairs Laryngeal Cancer Study Group: Induction chemotherapy plus radiation compared with surgery plus radiation in patients with advanced laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 324: 1685-1690, 1991[Abstract]

2. Lefebvre JL, Chevalier D, Luboinski B, et al: Preliminary results of a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III trial: EORTC Head and Neck Cancer Cooperative Group. Cancer 88: 890-899, 1996

3. Pfister DG, Shaha AR, Harrison LB: The role of chemotherapy in the curative treatment of head and neck cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 6: 749-768, 1997[Medline]

4. Gottschlich S, Maune S, Preugschat J, et al: p53 analysis of laryngeal cancer in exon 4 to 9. Anticancer Res 20: 2613-2616, 2000[Medline]

5. Morawski K, Gabriel A, Namyslowski G, et al: Clinical application of proliferating cell nuclear antigen, oncoprotein p53 and tumor front grading analysis in patients operated on for laryngeal cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 256: 378-383, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]

6. Nakashima S, Natsugoe S, Matsumoto M, et al: Expression of p53 and p21 is useful for the prediction of preoperative chemotherapeutic effects in esophageal carcinoma. Anticancer Res 20: 1933-1937, 2000[Medline]

7. Thor AD, Berry DA, Budman DR, et al: erbB-2, p53, and efficacy of adjuvant therapy in lymph node-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 90: 1346-1360, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]

8. Concin N, Zeillinger C, Stimpfel M, et al: p53-dependent radioresistance in ovarian carcinoma cell lines. Cancer Lett 150: 191-199, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]

9. Raybaud H, Fortin A, Bairati I, et al: Nuclear DNA content, an adjunct to p53 and Ki-67 as a marker of resistance to radiation therapy in oral cavity and pharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 29: 36-41, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]

10. Prives C: Signaling to p53: Breaking the MDM2-p53 circuit. Cell 95: 5-8, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]

11. Freedman DA, Wu L, Levine AJ: Functions of the MDM2 oncoprotein. Cell Mol Life Sci 55: 96-107, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]

12. Oren M: Regulation of the p53 tumor suppressor protein. J Biol Chem 274: 36031-36034, 1999[Free Full Text]

13. Fakharzadeh SS, Trusko SP, George DL: Tumorigenic potential associated with enhanced expression of gene that is amplified in a mouse tumor cell line. EMBO J 10: 1565-1595, 1991[Medline]

14. Jones SN, Hancock AR, Vogel H, et al: Overexpression of Mdm2 in mice reveals a p53-independent role for Mdm2 in tumorigenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95: 15608-15612, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]

15. Bureik M, Jungbluth A, Drescher R, et al: Human p53 restores DNA synthesis control in fission yeast. Biol Chem 378: 1361-1371, 1997[Medline]

16. Ozdemir E, Kakehi Y, Yoshida O: p21 (WAF-1/CIP-1), a downstream regulator of functional p53 loss, in transitional cell carcinoma of urothelium. Eur Urol 38: 230-234, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]

17. Cao L, Yao Y, Lee V, et al: Epidermal growth factor induces cell cycle arrest and apoptosis of squamous carcinoma cells through reduction of cell adhesion. J Cell Biochem 77: 569-583, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]

18. Pfister DG, Harrison LB, Strong EW, et al: Organ-function preservation in advanced oropharynx cancer: Results with induction chemotherapy and radiation. J Clin Oncol 13: 671-680, 1995[Abstract/Free Full Text]

19. Pfister DG, Bajorin D, Motzer R, et al: Cisplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin: Increased toxicity without improved response in squamous cell head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120: 89-95, 1994[Abstract/Free Full Text]

20. American Joint Committee on Cancer: TNM staging, in Beahrs O, Henson D, Hutter R, et al (eds): Manual for Staging of Cancer, ed 3. Philadelphia, PA, JB Lippincott, 1988, pp 33-45

21. Harrison LB, Pfister DG, Fass DE, et al: Concomitant chemotherapy-radiation therapy followed by hyperfractionated radiation therapy for advanced unresectable head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21: 703-708, 1991[Medline]

22. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, et al: Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47: 207-214, 1981[CrossRef][Medline]

23. Kris MG, Gralla RJ, Kelsen DP, et al: Trial of vindesine plus mitomycin in stage-3 non-small cell lung cancer, an active regimen for outpatient treatment. Chest 87: 368-372, 1985[Abstract/Free Full Text]

24. Cordon-Cardo C, Dalbagni G, Saez GT, et al: p53 mutations in human bladder cancer: Genotypic versus phenotypic patterns. Cancer 56: 347-353, 1994

25. Dalbagni G, Presti JC Jr, Reuter VE, et al: Molecular genetic alterations of chromosome 17 and p53 nuclear overexpression in human bladder cancer. Diagn Mol Pathol 2: 4-13, 1993[Medline]

26. Osman I, Drobnjak M, Fazzari M, et al: Inactivation of the p53 pathway in prostate cancer: Impact on tumor progression. Clin Cancer Res 5: 2082-2088, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]

27. Osman I, Scher HI, Zhang ZF, et al: Alterations affecting the p53 control pathway in bilharzial-related bladder cancer. Clin Cancer Res 3: 531-536, 1997[Abstract]

28. Cordon-Cardo C, Latres E, Drobnjak M, et al: Molecular abnormalities of mdm2 and p53 genes in adult soft tissue sarcomas. Cancer Res 54: 794-799, 1994[Abstract/Free Full Text]

29. Agresti A: Categorical Data Analysis. New York, NY, Wiley, 1966, pp 39-44

30. Kaplan E, Meyer P: Nonparametric estimation for incomplete observation. J Am Stat Assoc 53: 457-481, 1958[CrossRef]

31. Cox DR: Regression models and life-tables. J Royal Stat Soc 34: 187-220, 1972

32. Schemper M, Smith TL: A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials 17: 343-346, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]

33. Temam S, Flahault A, Perie S, et al: p53 gene status as a predictor of tumor response to induction chemotherapy of patients with locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol 18: 385-394, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]

34. Warnakulasuriya S, Jia C, Johnson N, et al: p53 and P-glycoprotein expression are significant prognostic markers in advanced head and neck cancer treated with chemo/radiotherapy. J Pathol 191: 33-38, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]

35. Bradford CR, Zhu S, Wolf GT, et al: Overexpression of p53 predicts organ preservation using induction chemotherapy and radiation in patients with advanced laryngeal cancer: Department of Veterans Affairs Laryngeal Cancer Study Group. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113: 408-412, 1995[CrossRef][Medline]

36. Bradford CR, Zhu S, Poore J, et al: p53 mutation as a prognostic marker in advanced laryngeal carcinoma: Department of Veterans Affairs Laryngeal Cancer Cooperative Study Group. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123: 605-609, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text]

37. Capaccio P, Carboni N, Pignataro L, et al: Cyclin D1, p53, mdm2, and Ki67 protein expression in preneoplastic lesions of the larynx. J Chemother 9: 113-114, 1997[Medline]

38. Pignataro L, Capaccio P, Pruneri G, et al: The predictive value of p53, MDM-2, cyclin D1 and Ki67 in the progression from low-grade dysplasia towards carcinoma of the larynx. J Laryngol Otol 112: 455-459, 1998[Medline]

39. Sato N, Mizumoto K, Maehara N, et al: Enhancement of drug-induced apoptosis by antisense oligodeoxynucleotides targeted against Mdm2 and p21WAF1/CIP1. Anticancer Res 20: 837-842, 2000[Medline]

40. Wang H, Zeng X, Oliver P, et al: MDM2 oncogene as a target for cancer therapy: An antisense approach. Int J Oncol 15: 653-660, 1999[Medline]

41. Maiorano E, Botticella MA, Marzullo A, et al: Expression of ER-D5 and EGFr in laryngeal carcinoma and pre-malignant epithelium. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 527: 95-99, 1997[Medline]

42. Dellacono FR, Spiro J, Eisma R, et al: Expression of basic fibroblast growth factor and its receptors by head and neck squamous carcinoma tumor and vascular endothelial cells. Am J Surg 174: 540-544, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]

43. Erber R, Klein W, Andl T, et al: Aberrant p21 (CIP1/WAF1) protein accumulation in head-and-neck cancer. Int J Cancer 74: 383-389, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]

44. Van Oijen MG, Tilanus MG, Medema RH, et al: Expression of p21 (Waf1/Cip1) in head and neck cancer in relation to proliferation, differentiation, p53 status and cyclin D1 expression. J Oral Pathol Med 27: 367-375, 1998[Medline]

45. Gohring UJ, Bersch A, Becker M, et al: p21 (waf) correlates with DNA replication but not with prognosis in invasive breast cancer. J Clin Pathol 54: 866-870, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]

46. Sarkar FH, Li Y, Sakr WA, et al: Relationship of p21 (WAF1) expression with disease-free survival and biochemical recurrence in prostate adenocarcinomas (Pca). Prostate 40: 256-260, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]

47. Jacobs TW, Prioleau JE, Stillman IE, et al: Loss of tumor marker-immunostaining intensity on stored paraffin slides of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 88: 1054-1059, 1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Submitted June 27, 2001; accepted March 21, 2002.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JCOHome page
B. Singh and D. G. Pfister
Individualized Treatment Selection in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: Do Molecular Markers Meet the Challenge?
J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2008; 26(19): 3114 - 3116.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
G. B. van den Broek, V. B. Wreesmann, M. W.M. van den Brekel, C. R.N. Rasch, A. J.M. Balm, and P. H. Rao
Genetic Abnormalities Associated with Chemoradiation Resistance of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Clin. Cancer Res., August 1, 2007; 13(15): 4386 - 4391.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
I. Ganly, S. Talbot, D. Carlson, A. Viale, E. Maghami, I. Osman, E. Sherman, D. Pfister, S. Chuai, A. R. Shaha, et al.
Identification of Angiogenesis/Metastases Genes Predicting Chemoradiotherapy Response in Patients With Laryngopharyngeal Carcinoma
J. Clin. Oncol., April 10, 2007; 25(11): 1369 - 1376.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
INT J SURG PATHOLHome page
S. Etemad-Moghadam, F. Baghaee, F. Tirgary, P. Motahhary, M. Khalili, N. Eshghyar, M. Alaedini, and M. Eslami
Expression of p21WAF in Salivary Gland Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma and Its Relation to Histologic Grade
International Journal of Surgical Pathology, January 1, 2007; 15(1): 6 - 13.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
F. Maluf, C Cordon-Cardo, D. Verbel, J. Satagopan, M. Boyle, H Herr, and D. Bajorin
Assessing interactions between mdm-2, p53, and bcl-2 as prognostic variables in muscle-invasive bladder cancer treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by locoregional surgical treatment
Ann. Onc., November 1, 2006; 17(11): 1677 - 1686.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
D. G. Pfister, S. A. Laurie, G. S. Weinstein, W. M. Mendenhall, D. J. Adelstein, K. K. Ang, G. L. Clayman, S. G. Fisher, A. A. Forastiere, L. B. Harrison, et al.
American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline for the Use of Larynx-Preservation Strategies in the Treatment of Laryngeal Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2006; 24(22): 3693 - 3704.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
M. Rodriguez-Pinilla, J. L. Rodriguez-Peralto, R. Hitt, J. J. Sanchez, C. Ballestin, A. Diez, L. Sanchez-Verde, F. Alameda, and M. Sanchez-Cespedes
Cyclin A as a Predictive Factor for Chemotherapy Response in Advanced Head and Neck Cancer
Clin. Cancer Res., December 15, 2004; 10(24): 8486 - 8492.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck SurgHome page
D. L. Schwartz, J. Rajendran, B. Yueh, M. D. Coltrera, M. LeBlanc, J. Eary, and K. Krohn
FDG-PET Prediction of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Cancer Outcomes
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, December 1, 2004; 130(12): 1361 - 1367.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
I. Osman, H. Yee, S. S. Taneja, B. Levinson, A. Zeleniuch-Jacquotte, C. Chang, C. Nobert, and D. M. Nanus
Neutral Endopeptidase Protein Expression and Prognosis in Localized Prostate Cancer
Clin. Cancer Res., June 15, 2004; 10(12): 4096 - 4100.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
D. Polsky, K. Melzer, C. Hazan, K. S. Panageas, K. Busam, M. Drobnjak, H. Kamino, J. G. Spira, A. W. Kopf, A. Houghton, et al.
HDM2 Protein Overexpression and Prognosis in Primary Malignant Melanoma
J Natl Cancer Inst, December 4, 2002; 94(23): 1803 - 1806.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Osman, I.
Right arrow Articles by Pfister, D. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Osman, I.
Right arrow Articles by Pfister, D. G.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

About
JCO
 Editorial
Roster
 Advertising
Information
 Librarians &
Institutions
 Rights &
Permissions
 PDA Services

Copyright © 2002 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
Terms and Conditions of Use
  HighWire Press HighWire Press™ assists in the publication of JCO Online