|
|||||
|
|
||||||
Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.1101 on September 11 2006 © 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology. RRM1 Modulated In Vitro and In Vivo Efficacy of Gemcitabine and Platinum in NonSmall-Cell Lung Cancer
From the Program and Division of Thoracic Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL Address reprint requests to Gerold Bepler, MD, PhD, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, MRC-4W, Room 4046, 12902 Magnolia Dr, Tampa, FL 33612-9497; e-mail: beplerg{at}moffitt.usf.edu
PURPOSE: RRM1 encodes the regulatory subunit of ribonucleotide reductase and is a molecular target of gemcitabine. Previous studies showed increased RRM1 expression on continuous exposure of cell lines to gemcitabine and suggested improved survival for patients with low as opposed to high tumoral RRM1 expression when treated with gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy. However, the principal hypothesis that intratumoral levels of gene expression are associated with disease response has not been addressed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We constructed genetically modified lung cancer cell lines with increased and decreased RRM1 expression to investigate the in vitro 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) for gemcitabine, cisplatin, and carboplatin. A prospective phase II clinical trial in patients with locally advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer was conducted with pretreatment tumor collection for determination of RRM1 and ERCC1 expression by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. The levels of gene expression were correlated with tumor response after two cycles of gemcitabine and carboplatin. RESULTS: In cell lines with a genetically engineered 15-fold RRM1 expression range, the gemcitabine IC50 had a 100-fold range, and the cisplatin and carboplatin IC50 had a two-fold range. They were highest in constructs with high RRM1 expression. In the prospective clinical trial, RRM1 expression was significantly (P = .002) and inversely correlated (r = 0.498) with disease response. ERCC1 expression showed a similar trend (P = .099). CONCLUSION: The results strongly suggest that tumoral RRM1 expression is a major predictor of disease response to gemcitabine/platinum chemotherapy. ERCC1 expression is predictive of response albeit to a lesser degree.
The principal chemotherapeutic agents used for treatment of patients with nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are platinum analogs, taxanes, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine. Response rates in patients with advanced stages of the disease to dual agent therapy, the current standard of care, are 17% to 37%; the median overall survival is 6.7 to 11.3 months, the 1-year survival rate is 31% to 46%, and the 2-year survival rate is 9% to 21%.1-7 After patients experienced treatment failure of initial therapy, response to further systemic treatment is approximately 10% for single agents.8-10 Thus, resistance to systemic therapy does not appear to be an all-or-none phenomenon, but rather a function of molecular characteristics of individual tumors. In fact, specific molecular characteristics highly associated with tumor response to a class of therapeutic agents used in NSCLC, epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, has recently been reported.11-13 The RRM1 gene encodes the regulatory subunit of ribonucleotide reductase, an essential enzyme that catalyzes the reduction of ribonucleoside diphosphates to the corresponding deoxyribonucleotides.14-17 It is the molecular target of gemcitabine (2',2'-difluorodeoxycytidine), an antimetabolite with activity in several malignancies including NSCLC.18-20 Earlier work had suggested that patients with low as compared with high levels of tumoral RRM1 expression had improved survival when treated with gemcitabine-based therapy.21 In addition, continuous exposure of lung cancer cell lines to increasing amounts of gemcitabine resulted in increased RRM1 expression.20 However, the principal hypothesis for these investigations (ie, intratumoral levels of RRM1 expression are associated with disease response) has not been addressed.
Generation of RRM1-Modified Stable Lung Cancer Cell Lines H23siR1 was generated by stable transfection of NCI-H23 with a pSUPER-siRRM1 construct. To generate this construct, the pSUPER-GFP/neo vector (OligoEngine, Seattle, WA) was digested with BgIII and HindII and the annealed oligonucleotides (5'-GATCCCCGACGCTAGAGCGGTCTTATTTCAAGAGAATAAGACCGCTCTAGCGTCTTTTTGGAAA-3'and 5'-AGCTTTTCCAAAAAGACGCTAGAGCGGTCTTATTCTCTTGAAATAAGACCGCTCTAGCGTCGGG-3') were ligated into the vector. The 19-nucleotide RRM1 target sequences are underlined. The H23siCt cell line was generated with the targeting sequence GCTAATAGCGCGGAGTCTT, which has no similarity to any known gene. H23-R1 is a stable RRM1 overexpressing cell line, and H23-Ct is its corresponding control. Both were generated by transfection with full-length RRM1 cDNA cloned into the expression plasmid pCMV-Tag2 (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA) as previously described.22 The level of RRM1 expression in these cell lines was assessed at the RNA level by real-time quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using custom-designed and validated primers and probes and at the protein level by Western blot analysis.23
In Vitro Drug Testing To determine drug-induced in vitro apoptosis, 3x105 cells/well were seeded in six well plates and allowed to attach overnight. Chemotherapeutic agents were added to the culture at the indicated concentrations. After 2, 4, and 6 hours of treatment, annexin V labeling of the cells was performed as recommended by the manufacturer (BD Pharmingen, San Diego, CA). The percentage of labeled cells was determined by flow cytometry (FACScalibur, Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ).
Clinical Trial
Disease Response Assessment
Gene Expression Analysis
Statistical Methods
We used a modified MTT assay to assess the impact of RRM1 expression on therapeutic efficacy of gemcitabine and platinum analogs in vitro. H23, originating from a lung adenocarcinoma, was used as the parent cell line.27 H23-R1 had a 2.5- to 3.5-fold increased RRM1 expression compared with H23.22 H23siR1 had a five-fold reduced RRM1 expression. The expression levels of RRM1 and control genes were determined by real-time quantitative RT-PCR and Western blotting. The expression of RRM2, the catalytic ribonucleotide reductase subunit, was unaffected. The sensitivity of these cell lines to gemcitabine, cisplatin, and carboplatin was compared with transfected control cell lines (H23-Ct and H23siCt). The results are summarized in Table 1. Increased RRM1 expression resulted in resistance to gemcitabine (Fig 1). The gemcitabine IC50 of H23-R1 was eight-fold higher than the IC50 of H23-Ct. Reduced RRM1 expression increased sensitivity to gemcitabine (Fig 1). The gemcitabine IC50 of H23siR1 was 10-fold lower than the IC50 of H23siCt. The response of the parental cell line (H23) to gemcitabine was similar to the response of H23-Ct and H23siCt. There was a similar relationship between RRM1 expression and cytotoxicity response to cisplatin (Fig 1 and Table 1) and carboplatin albeit to a lesser degree. H23-R1 was 1.2- to 1.5-fold more resistant and H23siR1 was 1.1- to 1.3-fold more sensitive to platinum analogs than the corresponding control cell lines.
Annexin V labeling was used to assess the proportion of apoptotic cells after drug exposure. We found an inverse relationship between drug-induced cell death and RRM1 expression (Fig 2), which is consistent with the results obtained in the MTS assay. The proportion of cells labeled after 6 hours of treatment with 250 nmol/L gemcitabine was 6.6 to 6.9% in control cell lines, 2.6% in H23-R1, and 15.2% in H23siR1. Cisplatin exposure for 6 hours at 200 nmol/L yielded 14.5% to 15.1% apoptotic cells in H23-Ct and H23siCt, 5.5% apoptotic cells in H23-R1, and 19.0% apoptotic cells in H23siR1.
To prospectively address the hypothesis that intratumoral RRM1 expression is predictive of response to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy, we conducted a clinical trial in patients with locally advanced NSCLC. Tumor sampling for determination of gene expression before therapy was required in all patients. They were treated with two cycles of gemcitabine and carboplatin (IndGC). Unidimensional tumor measurements were obtained before and after chemotherapy, and disease response was recorded as the percent change after treatment compared with before treatment and also categorized as CR, PR, SD, and progressive disease according to RECIST. Between November 2003 and January 2006, 40 eligible patients were enrolled, and the required tumor biopsies were obtained from all. Three patients withdrew consent before initiation of therapy because they desired treatment closer to home. In 28 patients, the biopsies were done to obtain tissue for molecular studies only; in nine patients, they were also used to establish a diagnosis. In one patient, a pneumothorax developed that required chest tube placement. In two patients tumor collection did not yield sufficient material for gene expression analysis. From the remaining 35 patients, between 30 and 4,500 tumor cells were collected by LCM. All 35 patients completed IndGC, and disease response ranged from a 9% increase to a 100% decrease in tumor diameters. Twenty patients had SD, fourteen had PR, and one had CR. The patients' ages ranged from 47 to 87 years; 17 were women; 18 had stage IIIA, 16 had stage IIIB, and one had stage IIB disease; 11 had squamous cell carcinoma, 11 had adenocarcinoma, and 13 had large cell carcinoma or unspecified NSCLC. Two patients had been life-time never smokers, 20 had quit smoking for 1 to 46 years, and 13 were current smokers.
RRM1 expression ranged from 0.18 to 129.3. We found a significant (P = .002) inverse correlation (r = 0.498, Spearman correlation coefficient) between RRM1 expression and the magnitude of disease response (Fig 3). When grouping patients into those with response (CR/PR) and without response (SD), RRM1 expression was significantly associated with response (P = .03,
Gemcitabine is activated in cells by nucleoside kinases to gemcitabine diphosphate (dFdCDP) and gemcitabine triphosphate (dFdCTP). The cytotoxic effect of gemcitabine has been attributed to a combination of two actions that lead to inhibition of DNA synthesis and subsequent apoptosis. First, gemcitabine diphosphate inhibits ribonucleotide reductase, which is responsible for catalyzing the reactions that generate the deoxynucleotides required for DNA synthesis and repair. Then, gemcitabine triphosphate competes with dCTP for incorporation into DNA during replication, which results in a termination of chain elongation. Gemcitabine efficacy is thought to be a function of proteins involved in activation, metabolism, and transport of the drug. Deoxycytidine kinase is required for phosphorylation of gemcitabine to its active metabolite, and low levels have been associated with drug resistance.28 High levels of cytidine deaminase inactivate gemcitabine and confer resistance to the drug.29 Equilibration-sensitive nucleoside transporter 1 facilitates intracellular gemcitabine update, and deficiency has been associated with drug resistance.30 Finally 5' nucleotidase dephosphorylates dFdCMP thus antagonizing the production of active dFdCTP. High levels of this enzyme have been found in gemcitabine resistant cell lines; and in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia receiving gemcitabine, high 5NT expression was associated with poor survival. A recent report suggested that gemcitabine resistance, generated in vitro through exposure of two NSCLC cell lines (H358 and H460) to increasing concentrations of the drug, was primarily a function of increased expression of RRM1.20 These data were confirmed in a subcutaneous murine colon tumor model (Colon 26) where gemcitabine resistance had been generated through prolonged gemcitabine exposure and serial transplantation.31 However, induction of drug resistance through continuous exposure results in alterations in multiple genes as demonstrated by these authors. Thus, our results in genetically modified lung cancer cell lines are the first to demonstrate directly that RRM1 is a major cellular determinant of cytotoxic efficacy of gemcitabine. In addition our data demonstrate that RRM1 is a minor determinant of platinum efficacy. We confirmed these in vitro data by demonstrating a statistically significant inverse correlation between the magnitude of change in tumor diameter and RRM1 expression in patients with NSCLC that received gemcitabine and carboplatin as first-line therapy. In addition, we found a similar but less striking relationship between ERCC1 expression and tumor response. Although previous retrospective studies had suggested this relationship for both molecules by demonstrating better patient survival in those having low RRM1 or ERCC1 expression as compared with high levels of expression if treated with gemcitabine and platinum,21,32 a direct and prospective demonstration had not been performed. Thus, our results strongly support the primary study hypothesis that RRM1 expression is predictive of response to treatment with gemcitabine. In summary, the cumulative body of indirect and direct in vitro data and murine and human investigations provide convincing support for RRM1 as the major determinant of gemcitabine efficacy. Several issues should be addressed to facilitate implementation of RRM1 gene expression analysis into patient management. First, it is important to verify our prospective clinical results in a second prospective treatment trial and to assess if RRM1 and ERCC1 expression are similar among a wider spectrum of disease stages. Second, for clinical management of patients a categorization with defined cutoff levels for RRM1 and perhaps ERCC1 would be desirable to obtain clear positive and negative predictive values. For instance, our data suggest that none of the patients with RRM1 expression above 10 achieved a PR (0 of 11; positive predictive value for resistance, 1.0), while 15 of 24 patients with levels below 10 had an objective disease response (positive predictive value for sensitivity, 0.6). Third, the general feasibility of performing core needle biopsies of patients' tumors with immediate freezing, LCM, and subsequent sophisticated gene expression analysis appears limited given the required infrastructure. Thus, the development of a more generally applicable methodology based on technology familiar to clinical laboratories and pathologists, such as immunocytochemistry, is desirable. Fourth, it is likely that other molecular characteristics of tumor cells and the host significantly impact the RRM1-affected treatment response. It is thus important to further elucidate specific molecular features and pathways that modulate therapeutic efficacy to the agents used for lung cancer therapy.
Although all authors completed the disclosure declaration, the following authors or their immediate family members 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. For a detailed description of the disclosure categories, or for more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to the Author Disclosure Declaration and the Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest section in Information for Contributors.
Dollar Amount Codes (A) <$10,000 (B) $10,000-99,999 (C)
published online ahead of print at www.jco.org on September 11, 2006. Supported by Grants No. R01 CA102726 and R21 CA106616 from the National Cancer Institute. Terms in blue are defined in the glossary, found at the end of this article and online at www.jco.org. Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.
1. Kelly K, Crowley J, Bunn PA Jr, et al: Randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A Southwest Oncology Group trial. J Clin Oncol 19:3210-3218, 2001 2. Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, et al: Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 346:92-98, 2002 3. Kosmidis P, Mylonakis N, Nicolaides C, et al: Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus gemcitabine plus paclitaxel in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 20:3578-3585, 2002 4. Rosell R, Gatzemeier U, Betticher DC, et al: Phase III randomized trial comparing paclitaxel/carboplatin with paclitaxel/sicplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A cooperative multinational trial. Ann Oncol 13:1539-1549, 2002 5. Fossella F, Pereira JR, von Pawel J, et al: Randomized, multinational, phase III study of docetaxel plus platinum combinations versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: The TAX 326 study group. J Clin Oncol 21:1-9, 2003 6. Gridelli C, Gallo C, Shepherd FA, et al: Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine compared with cisplatin plus vinorelbine or cisplatin plus gemcitabine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase III trial of the Italian GEMVIN Investigators and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 21:3025-3034, 2003 7. Smit EF, van Meerbeeck JPAM, Lianes P, et al: Three-arm randomized study of two cisplatin-based regimens and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase III trial of the European Organization for Reserach and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Group - EORTC 08975. J Clin Oncol 21:3909-3917, 2003 8. Shepherd FA, Dancey J, Ramlau R, et al: Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus best supportive care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 18:2095-2103, 2000 9. Fossella FV, DeVore R, Kerr RN, et al: Randomized phase III trial of docetaxel versus vinorelbine or ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens: The TAX 320 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 18:2354-2362, 2000 10. Hanna N, Shepherd F, Fossella FV, et al: Randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 22:1589-1597, 2004 11. Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, et al: Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med 350:2129-2139, 2004 12. Paez JG, Janne PA, Lee JC, et al: EGFR mutations in lung cancer: Correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science 304:1497-1500, 2004 13. Tsao MS, Sakurada A, Cutz JC, et al: Erlotinib in lung cancer: Molecular and clinical predictors of outcome. N Engl J Med 353:133-144, 2005 14. Elledge SJ, Zhou Z, Allen JB: Ribonucleotide reductase: Regulation, regulation, regulation. Trends Biochem Sci 17:119-123, 1992[CrossRef][Medline] 15. Reichard P: From RNA to DNA, why so many ribonucleotide reductases? Science 260:1773-1777, 1993 16. Filatov D, Ingemarson R, Johansson E, et al: Mouse ribonucleotide reducatse: From genes to proteins. Biochem Soc Trans 23:903-905, 1995[Medline] 17. Stubbe J: Ribonucleotide reductases in the twenty-first century. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95:2723-2724, 1998 18. Johnson DH: Gemcitabine for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. Oncology 3:33-39, 2001 (suppl) 19. Bergman AM, Pinedo HM, Peters GJ: Determinants of resistance to 2',2'-difluorodeoxycytidine (gemcitabine). Drug Resist Updat 5:19-33, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 20. Davidson JD, Ma L, Flagella M, et al: An increase in the expression of ribonucleotide reductase large subunit 1 is associated with gemcitabine resistance in non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Cancer Res 64:3761-3766, 2004 21. Rosell R, Danenberg K, Alberola V, et al: Ribonucleotide reductase mRNA expression and survival in gemcitabine/cisplatin-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 10:1318-1325, 2004 22. Gautam A, Li ZR, Bepler G: RRM1-induced metastasis suppression through PTEN-regulated pathways. Oncogene 22:2135-2142, 2003[CrossRef][Medline] 23. Bepler G, Sharma S, Cantor A, et al: RRM1 and PTEN as prognostic parameters for overall and disease-free survival in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:1878-1885, 2004 24. National Comprehensive Cancer Network: Guidelines for NSCLC treatment. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/nscl.pdf 25. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al: New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205-216, 2000 26. Simon GR, Sharma S, Cantor A, et al: ERCC1 expression is a predictor of survival in resected patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Chest 127:978-983, 2005 27. Carney DN, Gazdar AF, Bepler G, et al: Establishment and identification of small cell lung cancer cell lines having classic and variant features. Cancer Res 45:2913-2923, 1985 28. Plunkett W, Huang P, Xu YZ, et al: Gemcitabine: Metabolism, mechanism of action, and self potentiation. Semin Oncol 22:3-10, 1995 (suppl 11)[Medline] 29. Eliopoulos N, Cournoyer D, Momparler RL: Drug resistance to 5-aza-2'deoxycytidine and 2,2'-difluorodeoxycytidine conferred by retroviral mediated transfer of human cytidine deaminase cDNA into murine cells. Cancer Chemotherapy Pharmacol 42:373-378, 1998 30. Rauchwerger DR, Firby PS, Hedley DW, et al: Equilibrative-sensitive nucleoside transporter and its role in gemcitabine sensitivity. Cancer Res 60:6075-6079, 2000 31. Bergman A, Eijk P, van Haperen V, et al: In vivo induction of resistance to gemcitabine results in increased expression of ribonucleotide reductase subunit M1 as a major determinant. Cancer Res 65:9510-9516, 2005 32. Lord RVN, Brabender J, Gandara D, et al: Low ERCC1 expression correlates with prolonged survival after cisplatin plus gemcitabine chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 8:2286-2291, 2002 Submitted February 8, 2006; accepted June 23, 2006.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
|