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

Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 23, No 15 (May 20), 2005: pp. 3536-3544
© 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.09.100

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 Vallböhmer, D.
Right arrow Articles by Lenz, H.-J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vallböhmer, D.
Right arrow Articles by Lenz, H.-J.

Molecular Determinants of Cetuximab Efficacy

Daniel Vallböhmer, Wu Zhang, Michael Gordon, Dong Yun Yang, Jim Yun, Oliver A. Press, Katrin E. Rhodes, Andy E. Sherrod, Syma Iqbal, Kathleen D. Danenberg, Susan Groshen, Heinz-Josef Lenz

From the Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Preventive Medicine, Department of Pathology, University of Southern California/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine; and Response Genetics Inc, Los Angeles, CA

Address reprint requests to Heinz-Josef Lenz, MD, FACP, University of Southern California/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine, 1441 Eastlake Ave, Suite 3456, Los Angeles, CA 90033; e-mail: lenz{at}usc.edu


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 Authors' Disclosures of...
 REFERENCES
 
PURPOSE: To investigate whether mRNA expression levels of cyclin D1 (CCND1), cyclooxygenase 2 (Cox-2), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), interleukin 8 (IL-8), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), all members of the EGFR signaling pathway, are associated with clinical outcome in patients with EGFR-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with cetuximab.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients with metastatic CRC, refractory to both irinotecan and oxaliplatin, were enrolled on IMCL-0144 and treated with single-agent cetuximab. The intratumoral mRNA levels of CCND1, Cox-2, EGFR, IL-8, and VEGF were assessed from paraffin-embedded tissue samples using laser-capture microdissection and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS: There were 21 women and 18 men with a median age of 64 years (range, 35 to 83 years). Higher gene expression levels of VEGF were associated with resistance to cetuximab (P = .038; Kruskal-Wallis test). The combination of low gene expression levels of Cox-2, EGFR, and IL-8 was significantly associated with overall survival (13.5 v 2.3 months; P = .028; log-rank test). Both findings were independent of skin toxicity that was itself significantly correlated to survival. Patients with a lower mRNA amount of EGFR had a longer overall survival compared with patients that had a higher mRNA amount (7.3 v 2.2 months; P = .09; log-rank test). Patients with lower expression of Cox-2 had a significantly higher rate of grade 2 to 3 skin reactions under cetuximab treatment.

CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that gene expression levels of Cox-2, EGFR, IL-8, and VEGF in patients with metastatic CRC may be useful markers of clinical outcome in single-agent cetuximab treatment.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 Authors' Disclosures of...
 REFERENCES
 
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignant tumor in the United States. In 2004 an estimated 146,940 new cases and 56,730 deaths will occur.1 The median overall survival of patients with advanced CRC has increased from 12 months to about 18 to 21 months in the past decade.2 This improvement is mainly based on the introduction of two chemotherapeutic drugs in the treatment of CRC—oxaliplatin and irinotecan (CPT-11).3,4 Even with the significant improvement in traditional chemotherapy, there remain limitations with this treatment. Therefore, several novel targets are being investigated both as single agents and in combination with chemotherapy to assess the potential for increased efficacy.

One of the most promising targets is the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), a member of the type I receptor tyrosine kinase family. EGFR is over-expressed in different solid cancer types, including up to 77% of CRC and is involved in malignant transformation and tumor growth through the interference of apoptosis, cellular proliferation, angiogenesis, and metastasis.5 Overexpression of EGFR has been associated with poor prognosis and has been suggested as a potential target for antitumor agents.5-8 Studies have shown that monoclonal antibodies directed at the EGFR inhibit the growth of EGFR-expressing cancer cells.5

Monoclonal antibodies represent one of the most important options in the inhibition of EGFR. They specifically bind to the domain of the receptor and competitively inhibit ligand binding, inducing receptor dimerization and down-regulation.9,10 The most promising monoclonal antibody to date is cetuximab (Erbitux; ImClone Systems Inc, York, NY). There are multiple mechanisms that are thought to contribute to the antitumor activity of cetuximab. The addition of this monoclonal antibody to tumor cell cultures has been shown to result in a direct inhibition of receptor tyrosine kinase activity.11 Furthermore, it has been shown that the blockade of the EGFR signaling pathway lead to an activation of proapoptotic mechanisms, the induction of antimetastatic and anti-invasive properties, and to a significant inhibition of angiogenesis.11

Several clinical phase II studies have shown that cetuximab has promising effects in patients with advanced/metastatic CRC.2,12-14 In a European multicenter trial, Cunningham et al enrolled 329 patients with CRC that progressed under CPT-11-based therapy.2 Patients received either a combined therapy with CPT-11 and cetuximab or a monotherapy with the monoclonal antibody. The combined therapy with cetuximab/CPT-11 produced significantly greater efficacy than the single-agent therapy, with a higher objective response rate (22.9% v 10.8%, respectively), overall disease control rate (55.5% v 32.4%, respectively), and a prolonged time to progression (4.1 v 1.5 months, respectively). Saltz et al enrolled 57 patients with EGFR-expressing CRC in a phase II trial that progressed on CPT-11 treatment.12 All patients were treated with single-agent cetuximab. Of all patients, 9.5% had a partial response, and 35% had a minor response or stable disease.

Until now, there have been no reliable markers to identify patients who will most likely benefit from this therapy. Both the trials of Cunningham and Saltz have failed to show a significant correlation between EGFR expression based on immunhistochemistry (IHC) and response to treatment with either cetuximab and CPT-11, or cetuximab alone.2,12 Interestingly, in this phase II multicenter trial, one of nine patients with undetectable levels of EGFR protein expression responded to cetuximab therapy.13 To date, only skin toxicity has been shown to be significantly associated with response and overall survival in patients with metastatic CRC receiving cetuximab treatment.2,12

Our goal was to obtain preliminary data on molecular predictors of cetuximab therapy. We tested the hypothesis that EGFR gene expression levels are associated with response, survival and toxicity independent of skin toxicity in patients with metastatic CRC treated with cetuximab. Furthermore, we analyzed the mRNA levels of enzymes involved in the EGFR signaling pathway: cyclo-oxygenase 2 (Cox-2), which is thought to be a regulator of EGFR, as well as cyclin D1 (CCND1), interleukin 8 (IL-8), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which are thought to be effectors of EGFR (Fig 1).15-18



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig 1. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling pathway. AKT, v-akt murine thymoma viral oncogene; Cox-2, cyclo-oxygenase 2; CCND1, cyclin D1; IL-8, interleukin 8; MAPK, mitogen-activated protein kinase; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor.

 

    PATIENTS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 Authors' Disclosures of...
 REFERENCES
 
Patient Selection and Chemotherapy Treatment
All patients from the University of Southern California/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center (Los Angeles, CA) who took part in the phase II open-label multicenter study (IMCL-0144) of cetuximab were included in our pilot study because these 39 patients signed an additional informed consent for tissue and blood collection to study molecular correlates.13 The patients included had histopathologically confirmed metastatic CRC, had failed at least two prior chemotherapy regimens or adjuvant therapy plus one chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease, and had disease progression within 6 months of completing adjuvant therapy. The study was investigated at University of Souther California/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Southern California for Medical Sciences. All patients had IHC evidence of EGFR expression in their tumor samples.

Patients were treated with cetuximab at a standard loading dose of 400 mg/m2 over 2 hours, followed by weekly 250-mg/m2 treatment over 1 hour. Treatment was continued until progression of disease or toxicity occurred and patients were evaluated every 6 weeks for tumor response.

For the evaluation of gene expression levels, tumor samples were obtained from the primary colorectal tumor or from metastatic site at the time of diagnosis.

Microdissection
Paraffin-embedded tumor blocks were reviewed for quality and tumor content by a pathologist; 10-µm-thick sections were obtained from the identified areas with the highest tumor concentration. Sections were mounted on uncoated glass slides. For histology diagnosis, three representative sections, consisting of the beginning, the middle, and the end of sections of the tissue were stained with H&E by the standard method. Before microdissection, sections were deparafinized in xylene for 10 minutes and hydrated with 100%, 95%, and finally, 70% ethanol. Then they were washed in water for 30 seconds. Afterwards, they were stained with nuclear fast red (American MasterTech Scientific Inc, Lodi, CA) for 20 seconds and rinsed in water for 30 seconds. Samples were then dehydrated with 70%, 95%, and 100% ethanol for 30 seconds each, followed by xylene for 10 minutes. The slides were then completely air-dried. If the histology of the samples was homogeneous and contained more than 90% tissue of interest, samples were dissected from the slides using a scalpel. All other sections of interest were selectively isolated by laser capture microdissection (P.A.L.M. Microsystem; Leica, Wetzlar, Germany) according to the standard procedure.19 The dissected particles of tissue were transferred to a reaction tube containing 400 µL of RNA lysis buffer.

RNA Isolation and cDNA Synthesis
RNA isolation from paraffin-embedded samples was done according to a proprietary procedure of Response Genetics Inc (Los Angeles, CA; US patent No. 6248,535). cDNA was prepared as previously described.20

Real Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Quantification of mRNA expression
Quantitation of Cox-2, CCND1, EGFR, IL-8, VEGF, and an internal reference gene (ß-actin) was done using a fluorescence-based real-time detection method (ABI PRISM 7900 Sequence Detection System [TaqMan] Perkin-Elmer Applied Biosystem, Foster City, CA). The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) reaction mixture consisted 1,200 nmol/L each primer, 200 nmol/L probe, 0.4 U of AmpliTaq Gold Polymerase, 200 nmol/L each dATP, dCTP, dGTP, and dTTP; 3.5 mmol/L MgCl2; and 1 x Taqman Buffer A containing a reference dye, to a final volume of 20 µL (all reagents from Perkin-Elmer Applied Biosystems). Cycling conditions were 50°C for 2 minutes and 95°C for 10 minutes, followed by 46 cycles at 95°C for 15 seconds and 60°C for 1 minute. The primers and probes used are listed in Table 1.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Primers and Probes Sequences

 
TaqMan measurements yield cycle threshold (Ct) values that are inversely proportional to the amount of cDNA in the tube (ie, a higher Ct value means more PCR cycles are required to reach a certain level of detection). Gene expression values (relative mRNA levels) are expressed as ratios (differences between the Ct values) between the gene of interest and an internal reference gene (ß-actin) that provides a normalization factor for the amount of RNA isolated from a specimen.

IHC
Paraffin-embedded tumor blocks were used for IHC. EGFR immunnoreactivity was investigated using the EGFR pharmDx (DakoCytomation, Glostrup, Denmark) in a central laboratory. The intensity of membranous immunostaining was defined as weak (score, 1+), moderate (score, 2+), or strong (score, 3+).

Statistical Analysis
Objective tumor response to cetuximab, overall survival, and toxicity (acne-like rash) were the primary end points. The overall survival time was calculated as the period from the first day of cetuximab treatment until death from any cause or until the date of the last follow-up, at which point data were censored.

Gene expression values are expressed as ratios between two absolute measurements—the gene of interest and the internal reference gene, ß-actin. The associations between gene expression levels and response to cetuximab (partial response (PR), stable disease, and progressive disease) and toxicity (grade 0-1 v grade 2 to 3) were evaluated by nonparametric methods (the Kruskal-Wallis test for response and the Mann-Whitney U test for toxicity). To assess the associations between the expression level of each gene and overall survival, the expression level was categorized into a low and a high value at optimal cut points. The maximal {chi}2 method of Miller and Siegmund and Halpern was adapted to determine which gene expression (optimal cut point) best segregated patients into poor- and good-prognosis subgroups (in terms of likelihood of survival). To determine a P value that could be interpreted as a measure of the strength of the association based on the maximal {chi}2 analysis, 2000 bootstrap-like simulations were used to estimate the distribution of the maximal {chi}2 statistics under the null hypothesis of no association. The corrected P value was calculated as the proportion of the 2000 simulated maximal {chi}2 statistics that was greater than the original maximal {chi}2. Median survival with 95% CIs and the Pike estimate of relative risk with 95% CIs based on the log-rank test were used to provide quantitative summaries of the gene expression data.

All reported P values were two-sided. All analyses were performed using the SAS statistical package version 8.2 (version 8; SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) and Epilog Plus Version 1.0 (Epicenter Software, Pasadena, CA).


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 Authors' Disclosures of...
 REFERENCES
 
A total of 39 patients were enrolled on this study, including 21 women and 18 men, with a median age of 64 years (range, 35 to 83 years). Thirty-one patients (79%) were white, six (15%) were Asian, and two (5%) were Hispanic. All patients were assessable to associate EGFR expression detected by IHC staining to parameter of clinical outcome. Due to limited tissue sampling, 34 patients (87%) were assessable to associate gene expression levels of Cox-2, CCND1, EGFR, IL-8, and VEGF to response, survival, and toxicity. The median follow-up was 7.1 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 21.6 months), and the median survival time was 5.5 months (95% CI, 2.7 to 8.7 months). Two patients (6%) had PR, 21 patients (60%) had stable disease, and 12 patients (34%) had progressive disease under treatment with cetuximab, while no patient had complete response, and for four patients, the response was not assessable. Skin reactions were observed in 85% of the 39 patients, of whom 12 (31%) had grade 1, 20 (51%) had grade 2, and one (3%) had grade 3 skin reactions (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Demographic and Clinical Parameters of Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Cetuximab

 
Gene Expression Levels of Cox-2, CCND1, EGFR, IL-8, and VEGF
Cox-2 gene expression was quantifiable in 27 (79%) of the 34 samples; CCND1 expression, in 31 samples (91%); EGFR expression, in 30 samples (88%); IL-8 expression, in 33 samples (97%); and VEGF expression, in 31 samples (91%). The reason for these different gene expression levels is due to the low or limited amount of cDNA/RNA generated from these microdissected paraffin-embedded tissues. The median gene expression levels relative to the internal reference gene (ß-actin) of the analyzed genes are listed in Table 3.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3. Gene Expression Levels Relative to the Internal Reference Gene ß-actin of the Analyzed Genes

 
Gene Expression Levels of Cox-2, CCND1, EGFR, IL-8, and VEGF, and Response to Cetuximab
The only factor that showed a significant correlation between response and gene expression level was VEGF (Table 4). Patients with a PR had a median gene expression level of 4.63 x 10–3; patients with stable disease, 3.76 x 10–3; and patients with progressive disease, 6.56 x 10–3 (P = .038, Kruskal-Wallis test).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 4. Gene Expression Levels and Clinical Outcome (response, toxicity) in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Cetuximab

 
Gene Expression Levels of Cox-2, CCND1, EGFR, IL-8, and VEGF, and Survival
Gene expression cutoff values that best segregated patients into poor- and good-prognosis subgroups (in terms of likelihood of surviving) were defined for Cox-2, CCND1, EGFR, IL-8, and VEGF by using the maximal {chi}2 method of Miller, Siegmund, and Halpern. The log-rank test was used to evaluate the association between gene expression levels and survival for each single gene. Using an EGFR cutoff value of 1.19 x 10–3, 21 patients had a low EGFR expression level, and nine had a high EGFR expression level. The median survival was 7.3 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 13.5 months) in patients with low EGFR mRNA levels, and 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.7 to 4.5 months) in patients with high EGFR mRNA levels (P = .09, log-rank test; Table 5 and Fig 2). The association between expression levels of CCND1, EGFR, IL-8, and VEGF, and survival did not show significant results or relevant trends, as indicated in Table 4.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 5. Analysis of Survival in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Single-Agent Cetuximab: Association With mRNA Expression Levels (univariate/combined analyses)

 


View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig 2. Plot of probability of survival for the study patients in relation to the epidermal growth factor receptor mRNA expression levels.

 
The combination of low expression levels of Cox-2, EGFR, and IL-8 had a median overall survival of 13.5 months (95% CI, 5.5 to 15.9 months), and patients with high gene expression levels of these three genes had a median overall survival of 2.3 months (95% CI, 2.1 to 4.8 months; P = .028, log-rank test; Table 5 and Fig 3). In addition, the combination of gene expression levels of Cox-2, EGFR, and IL-8 was an independent prognostic factor after adjusting skin toxicity, which was associated with survival. Other combinations of genes did not show a significant relation to survival.



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig 3. Plot of probability of survival for the study patients in relation to the cyclo-oxygenase 2, epidermal growth factor receptor, and interleukin 8 mRNA expression levels.

 
Gene Expression Levels of Cox-2, CCND1, EGFR, IL-8, and VEGF, and Skin Toxicity
CCND1, IL-8, and VEGF gene expression levels did not show a significant correlation with the grade of skin toxicity. Patients with a grade 2 to 3 skin reaction had lower intratumoral EGFR gene expression levels compared with patients with a grade 0 to 1 toxicity; however, it did not reach statistical significance (0.85 v 1.19 x 10–3; P = .086). Patients with skin toxicity of higher grade had statistically significant lower gene expression levels of Cox-2 (0.27 v 1.20; P = .009; Table 4).

Skin Toxicity: A Surrogate for Response and Survival
There was no significant correlation between skin toxicity and response; nevertheless, only two of 39 patients responded, and both of them had a higher grade of skin toxicity. However, patients with a grade 2 to 3 skin reaction had a significantly longer median progression free survival of 3.3 months (95% CI, 2.4 to 4. 6 months) compared with patients who had a grade 0-1 toxicity (median, 1.3 months; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.0 months; P = .001, log-rank test), and their overall survival was significantly longer (median, 7.7 months [95% CI, 4.4 to 15.0 months] v 2.2 months [95% CI, 1.8 to 5.7 months]; P = .049, log-rank test; Table 6).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 6. Toxicity in Relation to Response and Survival Among Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Single-Agent Cetuximab

 
IHC Analysis of EGFR in Tumor Samples
IHC analysis of EGFR protein expression in tumor samples demonstrated the following: 23 (59%) had a weak EGFR staining (1+ intensity), 11 (28%) a moderate EGFR staining (2+ intensity), and five (13%) a strong EGFR staining (3+ intensity). There was no association of EGFR staining with response, survival, and toxicity (Table 7). In 30 patients, we were able to compare IHC and gene expression levels of EGFR (Table 8). We did not find a significant association.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 7. Parameters of Clinical Outcome in Relation to the Immunhistochemical Analysis of EGFR in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Single-Agent Cetuximab

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 8. Correlation of Immunhistostaining and mRNA Levels of EGFR in Colorectal Cancer Samples

 

    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 Authors' Disclosures of...
 REFERENCES
 
The use of the EGFR targeting monoclonal antibody cetuximab in patients with metastatic CRC demonstrates promising efficacy in three different phase II clinical trials. However, there are currently no molecular markers established to identify patients most likely to benefit from this novel targeted therapy.2,12-14 Our goal was to identify gene expression levels of enzymes involved in the EGFR signaling pathway to predict response, survival, and toxicity in patients undergoing cetuximab treatment.

Clinical trials investigating the effect of cetuximab in patients with metastatic CRC have failed to show a significant correlation between EGFR expression determined by IHC and clinical outcome.2,12 IHC is a semiquantitative and subjective method and is limited by the sensitivity of the monoclonal antibody and the tissue handling. However, in these trials, the presence of any skin toxicity was significantly associated with response and overall survival, suggesting that skin toxicity may be a surrogate marker. In our study, we confirmed the significant correlation between skin toxicity and time to tumor progression and overall survival. The association of skin toxicity and response did not reach statistical significance, probably due to the low number of responders in our study, but both patients who responded had a higher grade of skin toxicity.

Using quantitative real-time PCR we were able to demonstrate that low intratumoral gene expression of VEGF was associated with response to cetuximab therapy, which was independent of skin toxicity. VEGF is one of the most important angiogenetic factors and is associated with poor prognosis and metastatic potential.21 This factor has been shown to be downstream of EGFR, and both pathways are linked through the neuropilin-1 receptor.22 Ciardiello et al23 demonstrated in GEO colon cancer cells a dose-dependent inhibition of VEGF with cetuximab therapy, and described in GEO xenografts in nude mice that cetuximab lead to a simultaneous reduction of VEGF expression and microvessel count. Furthermore, in vitro data suggest that VEGF is a main effector of EGFR to influence the regulation of angiogenesis in tumor development in glioblastoma and prostate cancer models.18,24 Therefore, one of the mechanisms of action of cetuximab is inhibition of angiogenesis, suggesting that high levels of intratumoral VEGF may lead to resistance to cetuximab treatment.

We did not find a significant correlation between intratumoral EGFR gene expression and response, which may be because of the small sample size and low response rate. Therefore, the question remains unanswered whether a more accurate measurement of EGFR will be useful for predicting the response to therapy. Although EGFR gene expression levels did not correlate with response, patients in our study with higher gene expression of EGFR had a shorter overall survival. These findings are consistent with recent studies describing a significant association between increased protein levels of EGFR and poor prognosis in patients with CRC.25-27 Whether EGFR is not only a prognostic but a predictive factor is still unclear.

Our study showed that patients with the combination of low gene expression levels of Cox-2, EGFR, and IL-8 showed a significantly longer overall survival that was independent of skin toxicity. These data suggest that Cox-2 and IL-8 may be important factors in the EGFR signaling pathway. Cox-2, a rate-limiting enzyme involved in the conversion of arachidonic acid to prostaglandins, is well known to affect tumorigenesis in the colon by the regulation of apoptosis, angiogenesis, and tumor cell invasiveness.28 Pai et al recently showed that prostaglandin E2, produced by the cyclo-oxygenase enzymes, transactivates EGFR in gastric epithelial and colon cancer cells, suggesting that Cox-2 induces the pathogenesis of cancer development by the activation of EGFR.15 In addition, Kinoshita et al29 described growth stimulation and induction of EGFR by the overexpression of cyclo-oxgenases in human colon cancer cells. IL-8, a member of the CXC chemokine family, was found to possess angiogenic and mitogenic properties. Overexpression of IL-8 is associated with increased tumor stage, disease progression, and metastatic potential in CRC.30 Perrotte et al17 showed that treatment with cetuximab in human transitional cell carcinoma growing orthotopically in nude mice inhibited mRNA and protein production of IL-8 accompanied by the involution of blood vessels. These data suggest that inhibition of angiogenesis by cetuximab may be by down-regulation of IL-8. Our findings implicate that Cox-2 may be an important regulator of EGFR, while IL-8 may play a part in cetuximab-related inhibition of angiogenesis.

In addition, our data are consistent with studies describing Cox-2 and IL-8 as prognostic factors in different cancer types. High expression levels of Cox-2 are known to be associated with a shorter survival time in ovarian and head and neck cancer.28,31,32 Increased IL-8 expression has been associated with shortened overall survival in non–small-cell lung cancer.33

The most common side effect of cetuximab treatment is an acneiform follicular or perifollicular dermatitis that generally appears during the first 3 weeks of therapy.34 In our study, 85% of patients presented with such an acne-like rash. Interestingly, study patients with a grade 2 to 3 cutaneous reaction had significantly lower Cox-2 gene expression levels compared with patients who had grade 0 to 1 toxicity. Patients with lower EGFR mRNA amounts are more likely to have severe skin reactions compared with patients who have higher EGFR expression levels. These results imply that low levels of Cox-2 induce low levels of EGFR, leading to a down-regulated signaling pathway and therefore leading to the acne-like rash.

However, the relationship between Cox-2 and EGFR in the signaling pathway has been controversial (eg, Kulkarni et al showed that treatment with EGF markedly induced Cox-2 protein and Cox-2 mRNA, and stimulated Cox-2 promoter activity in cervical cancer cells).35 In lung cancer, it has been suggested that EGFR regulates Cox-2 by the transcription factor NF-{kappa}B.36 It remains unclear why our patients with low Cox-2 expression are more prone to develop EGFR-inducted skin toxicities. Interestingly, celecoxib (Celebrex; Pfizer, New York, NY), a specific Cox-2 inhibitor, has been shown to decrease hand and foot disease in patients with colorectal cancer treated with capecitabine (Xeloda; Roche Laboratories Inc, Nutley, NJ) therapy.37 In addition, it has been suggested that Cox-2, via the upregulation of prostaglandins, is mainly involved in the pathogenesis of oral mucositis, a common side effect in fluorouracil- and radiation-treated patients.38

We report for the first time that candidate genes (ie, Cox-2, EGFR, IL-8, and VEGF) are associated with clinical outcome independent of skin toxicity, suggesting that these members of the EGFR signaling pathway may play an important role in the efficacy of cetuximab. Our data are hypothesis-generating and should be validated in larger and prospective clinical trials.


    Authors' Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 Authors' Disclosures of...
 REFERENCES
 
The following authors or their immediate family members have indicated a financial interest. No conflict exists for drugs or devices used in a study if they are not being evaluated as part of the investigation. Employment: Kathleen D Danenberg, Response Genetics. Consultant/Advisory Role: Heinz-Josef Lenz, Chiron, Genentech, Response Genetics. Stock Ownership: Kathleen D. Danenberg, Response Genetics. Honoraria: Heinz-Josef Lenz, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi. Research Funding: Heinz-Josef Lenz, NCI, NIH. For a detailed description of these categories, or for more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to the Author Disclosure Declaration and Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest found in Information for Contributors in the front of each issue.


    NOTES
 
Supported by the National Institutes of Health grant 5 P30CA14089-27l, the San Pedro Guild Research Fund, and the Phase One Foundation Fund.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 Authors' Disclosures of...
 REFERENCES
 
1. Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, et al: Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 54 : 8 -29, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S, et al: Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 351 : 337 -345, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]

3. Douillard JY, Cunningham D, Roth AD, et al: Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: A multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 355 : 1041 -1047, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]

4. de Gramont A, Figer A, Seymour M, et al: Leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 18 : 2938 -2947, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]

5. Herbst RS, Shin DM: Monoclonal antibodies to target epidermal growth factor receptor-positive tumors: A new paradigm for cancer therapy. Cancer 94 : 1593 -1611, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]

6. Salomon DS, Brandt R, Ciardiello F, et al: Epidermal growth factor-related peptides and their receptors in human malignancies. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 19 : 183 -232, 1995[Medline]

7. Mayer A, Takimoto M, Fritz E, et al: The prognostic significance of proliferating cell nuclear antigen, epidermal growth factor receptor, and mdr gene expression in colorectal cancer. Cancer 71 : 2454 -2460, 1993[CrossRef][Medline]

8. Hemming AW, Davis NL, Kluftinger A, et al: Prognostic markers of colorectal cancer: An evaluation of DNA content, epidermal growth factor receptor, and Ki-67. J Surg Oncol 51 : 147 -152, 1992[Medline]

9. El-Rayes BF, LoRusso PM: Targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor. Br J Cancer 91 : 418 -424, 2004[CrossRef][Medline]

10. Veronese ML, O'Dwyer PJ: Monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 40 : 1292 -1301, 2004

11. Mendelsohn J, Baselga J: The EGF receptor family as targets for cancer therapy. Oncogene 19 : 6550 -6565, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]

12. Saltz LB, Meropol NJ, Loehrer PJ Sr, et al: Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with refractory colorectal cancer that expresses the epidermal growth factor receptor. J Clin Oncol 22 : 1201 -1208, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]

13. Lenz HJ, Mayer RJ, Gold PJ, et al: Activity of cetuximab in patients with colorectal cancer refractory to both irinotecan and oxaliplatin. J Clin Oncol 22 : 247s , 2004 (abstr 3510)

14. Tabernero M, Van Cutsem E, Sastre J, et al: An international phase II study of cetuximab in combination with oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid (FA) (FOLFOX-4) in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) expressing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR): Preliminary results. J Clin Oncol 22 : 248s , 2004 (abstr 3512)[CrossRef]

15. Pai R, Soreghan B, Szabo IL, et al: Prostaglandin E2 transactivates EGF receptor: A novel mechanism for promoting colon cancer growth and gastrointestinal hypertrophy. Nat Med 8 : 289 -293, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]

16. Poch B, Gansauge F, Schwarz A, et al: Epidermal growth factor induces CCND1 in human pancreatic carcinoma: Evidence for a CCND1-dependent cell cycle progression. Pancreas 23 : 280 -287, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]

17. Perrotte P, Matsumoto T, Inoue K, et al: Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody C225 inhibits angiogenesis in human transitional cell carcinoma growing orthotopically in nude mice. Clin Cancer Res 5 : 257 -265, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]

18. Maity A, Pore N, Lee J, et al: Epidermal growth factor receptor transcriptionally up-regulates vascular endothelial growth factor expression in human glioblastoma cells via a pathway involving phosphatidylinositol 3'-kinase and distinct from that induced by hypoxia. Cancer Res 60 : 5879 -5886, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]

19. Bonner RF, Emmert-Buck M, Cole K, et al: Laser capture microdissection: Molecular analysis of tissue. Science 278 : 1481 -1483, 1997[Free Full Text]

20. Lord RV, Salonga D, Danenberg KD, et al: Telomerase reverse transcriptase expression is increased early in the Barrett's metaplasia, dysplasia, adenocarcinoma sequence. J Gastrointest Surg 4 : 135 -142, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]

21. Guba M, Seeliger H, Kleespies A, et al: Vascular endothelial growth factor in colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 19 : 510 -517, 2004[CrossRef][Medline]

22. Parikh AA, Fan F, Liu WB, et al: Neuropilin-1 in human colon cancer: Expression, regulation, and role in induction of angiogenesis. Am J Pathol 164 : 2139 -2151, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]

23. Ciardiello F, Bianco R, Damiano V, et al: Antiangiogenic and antitumor activity of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor C225 monoclonal antibody in combination with vascular endothelial growth factor antisense oligonucleotide in human GEO colon cancer cells. Clin Cancer Res 6 : 3739 -3747, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]

24. Ravindranath N, Wion D, Brachet P, et al: Epidermal growth factor modulates the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor in the human prostate. J Androl 22 : 432 -443, 2001[Abstract]

25. Goldstein NS, Armin M: Epidermal growth factor receptor immunohistochemical reactivity in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage IV colon adenocarcinoma: Implications for a standardized scoring system. Cancer 92 : 1331 -1346, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]

26. Khorana AA, Ryan CK, Cox C, et al: Vascular endothelial growth factor, CD68, and epidermal growth factor receptor expression and survival in patients with Stage II and Stage III colon carcinoma: A role for the host response in prognosis. Cancer 97 : 960 -968, 2003[CrossRef][Medline]

27. Resnick MB, Routhier J, Konkin T, et al: Epidermal growth factor receptor, c-MET, beta-catenin, and p53 expression as prognostic indicators in stage II colon cancer: A tissue microarray study. Clin Cancer Res 10 : 3069 -3075, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]

28. Sinicrope FA, Gill S: Role of cyclooxygenase-2 in colorectal cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev 23 : 63 -75, 2004[CrossRef][Medline]

29. Kinoshita T, Takahashi Y, Sakashita T, et al: Growth stimulation and induction of epidermal growth factor receptor by overexpression of cyclooxygenases 1 and 2 in human colon carcinoma cells. Biochim Biophys Acta 1438 : 120 -130, 1999[Medline]

30. Li A, Varney ML, Singh RK: Expression of interleukin 8 and its receptors in human colon carcinoma cells with different metastatic potentials. Clin Cancer Res 7 : 3298 -3304, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]

31. Denkert C, Kobel M, Pest S, et al: Expression of cyclooxygenase 2 is an independent prognostic factor in human ovarian carcinoma. Am J Pathol 160 : 893 -903, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]

32. Gallo O, Masini E, Bianchi B, et al: Prognostic significance of cyclooxygenase-2 pathway and angiogenesis in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Hum Pathol 33 : 708 -714, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]

33. Yuan A, Yang PC, Yu CJ, et al: Interleukin-8 messenger ribonucleic acid expression correlates with tumor progression, tumor angiogenesis, patient survival, and timing of relapse in non-small-cell lung cancer. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 162 : 1957 -1963, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]

34. Busam KJ, Capodieci P, Motzer R, et al: Cutaneous side-effects in cancer patients treated with the antiepidermal growth factor receptor antibody C225. Br J Dermatol 144 : 1169 -1176, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]

35. Kulkarni S, Rader JS, Zhang F, et al: Cyclooxygenase-2 is overexpressed in human cervical cancer. Clin Cancer Res 7 : 429 -434, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]

36. Richardson CM, Sharma RA, Cox G, et al: Epidermal growth factor receptors and cyclooxygenase-2 in the pathogenesis of non-small cell lung cancer: Potential targets for chemoprevention and systemic therapy. Lung Cancer 39 : 1 -13, 2003[CrossRef][Medline]

37. Lin E, Morris JS, Ayers GD: Effect of celecoxib on capecitabine-induced hand-foot syndrome and antitumor activity. Oncology (Huntingt) 16 : 31 -37, 2002 (suppl 14)

38. Sonis ST, O'Donnell KE, Popat R, et al: The relationship between mucosal cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) expression and experimental radiation-induced mucositis. Oral Oncol 40 : 170 -176, 2004[CrossRef][Medline]

Submitted December 14, 2004; accepted February 21, 2005.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
M. A. Pantaleo, M. Nannini, A. Maleddu, S. Fanti, C. Nanni, S. Boschi, F. Lodi, G. Nicoletti, L. Landuzzi, P. L. Lollini, et al.
Experimental results and related clinical implications of PET detection of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFr) in cancer
Ann. Onc., October 7, 2008; (2008) mdn625v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
C M West, L Joseph, and S Bhana
Epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapy
Br. J. Radiol., October 1, 2008; 81(Special_Issue_1): S36 - S44.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
M. Eiblmaier, L. A. Meyer, M. A. Watson, P. M. Fracasso, L. J. Pike, and C. J. Anderson
Correlating EGFR Expression with Receptor-Binding Properties and Internalization of 64Cu-DOTA-Cetuximab in 5 Cervical Cancer Cell Lines
J. Nucl. Med., September 1, 2008; 49(9): 1472 - 1479.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
S. Choi, D. Sano, M. Cheung, M. Zhao, S. A. Jasser, A. J. Ryan, L. Mao, W.-T. Chen, A. K. El-Naggar, and J. N. Myers
Vandetanib Inhibits Growth of Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma in an Orthotopic Nude Mouse Model
Clin. Cancer Res., August 15, 2008; 14(16): 5081 - 5089.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
R. Bianco, R. Rosa, V. Damiano, G. Daniele, T. Gelardi, S. Garofalo, V. Tarallo, S. De Falco, D. Melisi, R. Benelli, et al.
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-1 Contributes to Resistance to Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Drugs in Human Cancer Cells
Clin. Cancer Res., August 15, 2008; 14(16): 5069 - 5080.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
A. Pessino, S. Artale, S. Sciallero, A. Guglielmi, G. Fornarini, I.C. Andreotti, S. Mammoliti, D. Comandini, F. Caprioni, E. Bennicelli, et al.
First-line single-agent cetuximab in patients with advanced colorectal cancer
Ann. Onc., April 1, 2008; 19(4): 711 - 716.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
F. Graziano, A. Ruzzo, F. Loupakis, E. Canestrari, D. Santini, V. Catalano, R. Bisonni, U. Torresi, I. Floriani, G. Schiavon, et al.
Pharmacogenetic Profiling for Cetuximab Plus Irinotecan Therapy in Patients With Refractory Advanced Colorectal Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol., March 20, 2008; 26(9): 1427 - 1434.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Res.Home page
M. Jhawer, S. Goel, A. J. Wilson, C. Montagna, Y.-H. Ling, D.-S. Byun, S. Nasser, D. Arango, J. Shin, L. Klampfer, et al.
PIK3CA Mutation/PTEN Expression Status Predicts Response of Colon Cancer Cells to the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitor Cetuximab
Cancer Res., March 15, 2008; 68(6): 1953 - 1961.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
A. Lievre, J.-B. Bachet, V. Boige, A. Cayre, D. Le Corre, E. Buc, M. Ychou, O. Bouche, B. Landi, C. Louvet, et al.
KRAS Mutations As an Independent Prognostic Factor in Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer Treated With Cetuximab
J. Clin. Oncol., January 20, 2008; 26(3): 374 - 379.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
W. A. Messersmith and M. Hidalgo
Panitumumab, a Monoclonal Anti Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Antibody in Colorectal Cancer: Another One or the One?
Clin. Cancer Res., August 15, 2007; 13(16): 4664 - 4666.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
V. Damiano, R. Caputo, S. Garofalo, R. Bianco, R. Rosa, G. Merola, T. Gelardi, L. Racioppi, G. Fontanini, S. De Placido, et al.
TLR9 agonist acts by different mechanisms synergizing with bevacizumab in sensitive and cetuximab-resistant colon cancer xenografts
PNAS, July 24, 2007; 104(30): 12468 - 12473.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Cancer ResHome page
J. Tabernero
The Role of VEGF and EGFR Inhibition: Implications for Combining Anti-VEGF and Anti-EGFR Agents
Mol. Cancer Res., March 1, 2007; 5(3): 203 - 220.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
H.-J. Lenz, E. Van Cutsem, S. Khambata-Ford, R. J. Mayer, P. Gold, P. Stella, B. Mirtsching, A. L. Cohn, A. W. Pippas, N. Azarnia, et al.
Multicenter Phase II and Translational Study of Cetuximab in Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma Refractory to Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin, and Fluoropyrimidines
J. Clin. Oncol., October 20, 2006; 24(30): 4914 - 4921.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
E. Van Cutsem
Progress With Biological Agents in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Leads to Many Challenges
J. Clin. Oncol., July 20, 2006; 24(21): 3325 - 3327.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The OncologistHome page
S. Ramalingam and A. B. Sandler
Salvage therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: factors influencing treatment selection.
Oncologist, June 1, 2006; 11(6): 655 - 665.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
B. Vincenzi, D. Santini, A. Russo, M. Silletta, M. Gavasci, F. Battistoni, G. Di Cuonzo, L. Rocci, N. Gebbia, and G. Tonini
Angiogenesis modifications related with cetuximab plus irinotecan as anticancer treatment in advanced colorectal cancer patients
Ann. Onc., May 1, 2006; 17(5): 835 - 841.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]