Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on Ki-67 and PCNA labeling indices for esophageal squamous cell carcinomas

Inhibition of miR-22 enhanced the efficacy of icotinib plus pemetrexed in a rat model of non-small cell lung cancer

Objective(s):

To investigate the role of miR-22 in the efficacy of combined icotinib (BPI-2009H) and pemetrexed (LY-231514) on tumor growth and apoptosis in rats with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Materials and Methods:

Rats were injected with HCC827 cells, which were transfected with anti-miR-22, followed by the treatment of BPI-2009H and/or LY-231514. MTT assay was used to detect the inhibition rate of HCC827 cells. qRT-PCR was performed to examine miR-22 expression in HCC827 cells and lung tumor tissues. Moreover, immunohistochemistry and Western blotting were performed to detect the related-molecule expressions, while TUNEL staining was used to observe cell apoptosis of lung tumor tissues.

Results:

MiR-22 expression was decreased in HCC827 cells after the treatment of BPI-2009H or LY-231514 in a dose-dependent manner. Both BPI-2009H and LY-231514 increased the inhibition rate of HCC827 cells, which was enhanced by anti-miR-22 with decreased IC50 values. Furthermore, the decreased expression of miR-22 was found after the treatment of BPI-2009H or/and LY-231514 in lung tumor tissues. In addition, the expressions of PCNA, Ki67, and Bcl-2 were reduced, but Bax and Caspase-3 were increased in treated rats, typically in those rats treated with the combination of anti-miR-22, BPI-2009H, and LY-231514.

Conclusion:

Inhibition of miR-22 could enhance the efficacy of icotinib combined with pemetrexed in rats with NSCLC, providing a new perspective for NSCLC therapy.

The rationale of combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy - Joint action of Castor and Pollux

This article aims to review the rationale behind the combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Theoretical concepts describing the principles of the joint effects of chemoradiotherapy are reviewed. Preclinical and clinical evidence are collected and summarised demonstrating the co-operation between the two modalities which form the mainstay of the treatment of most solid tumours. Initially, the evolution of chemoradiotherapy was mostly empirically driven which is true for both, the early studies and the experimental investigations, rather than relying on scientific rationale. To date, the revised Steel's model proposes five mechanisms, spatial cooperation, cytotoxic enhancement, biological co-operation, temporary modulation and normal tissue protection to describe the interaction between radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Chemoradiotherapy has become the standard modality for most patients with locally advanced solid tumours due to better control of loco-regional disease and prolonged survival. Gradually, molecular prediction of efficacy is integrated such as MGMT status for combining temozolomide with radiotherapy in glioblastoma. As molecular targeted drugs are ready to be taken into triple combinations with chemoradiotherapy it is crucial to have a good understanding of the mechanisms of chemoradiotherapy for the rational development of future combinations.

Immunohistochemichal expression of biomarkers: a comparative study between diagnostic bronchial biopsies and surgical specimens of non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The increasing use of biomarkers as molecular determinants of responsiveness to conventional chemotherapy or molecular targeted therapy has raised the question of the reliability and reproducibility of their evaluation in bronchial biopsies as compared with corresponding resected surgical specimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Immunohistochemical expression of five markers related to signal transduction [epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), phospho-Akt], cell proliferation (Ki-67), DNA repair [excision repair cross-complementing (ERCC)1] and cellular 'immortality' [human telomerase catalytic component (hTERT)], was assessed in 41 patients with operable non-small-cell lung cancer in both bronchial biopsies and whole surgical specimens.

RESULTS

High correlation coefficients were observed between the expression of ERCC1, hTERT and Ki-67 in the biopsies and the surgical specimens [0.83 (P < 0.0001); 0.55 (P < 0.001) and 0.64 (P < 0.0001), respectively]. On the other hand, biomarker expression in biopsy was less correlated with the expression in the whole tissue sample for the markers of signal response and transduction [0.24 (P = 0.17) and 0.29 (P = 0.09) for EGFR and phospho-Akt, respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate a lack of association in the expression of important biomarkers between lung biopsies and corresponding resected tumors, with discordance rates ranging between 9% and 41%. Although these results need to be further validated in larger cohorts, they indicate that the evaluation of the expression of biomarkers in bronchial biopsies can be misleading.

Impact of simultaneous assay, the PCNA, cyclinD1, and DNA content with specimens before and after preoperative radiotherapy on prognosis of esophageal cancer-possible incorporation into clinical TNM staging system

AIM: The aim of the present study is to use immunohisto-chemical methods to investigate the clinical implications of tumor markers in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and evaluate their impact on prognosis.

METHODS: From November 1990 to December 1996, 47 patients were treated with preoperative radiation followed by radical esophagectomy. All patients were confirmed pathologically as suffering from squamous cell carcinoma. Immunohistochemical stain was done for PCNA, cyclinD1 protein expression and DNA content analyzed by image cytometry. Kaplan-Meier method for single prognostic factor and log-rank test was used to test the significant difference. Cox stepwise regression model and prognosis index model were used for survival analysis with multiple prognostic factors.

RESULTS: Radio-pathological change, T stage and N stage, as the traditional prognostic factors had statistical difference in 3-, 5- and 10-year survival rates. While, tumor cell proliferating marked PCNA, cyclinD1 and DNA content served as independent prognostic factors of esophageal carcinoma. There was definitely an identity between the single and multiple factor analyses. PI was more accurate to evaluate the prognosis of esophageal carcinoma.

CONCLUSION: It is possible that tumor cell proliferating marked PCNA, cyclinD1 and DNA content would become the endpoints for evaluating the prognosis of esophageal carcinoma.

Use of oesophagogastroscopy to assess the response of oesophageal carcinoma to neoadjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

Approximately 25 per cent of patients with oesophageal cancer who undergo neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy have no evidence of tumour in the resected specimen (complete pathological response). Those who do not respond have a poor 5-year survival compared with complete responders, regardless of whether or not they undergo surgery. Selecting for surgery only those who have a response to neoadjuvant therapy has the potential to improve overall survival as well as to rationalize the management of non-responders. This study assessed the accuracy of oesophagogastroscopy in this setting.

METHODS

A prospective database of 804 patients undergoing oesophageal resection for carcinoma was reviewed. Endoscopic assessment of the response to neoadjuvant therapy in 100 consecutive patients was compared with the pathological assessment of response. The survival for each level of response was compared.

RESULTS

At endoscopy 30 patients were considered to have had a complete response. This was confirmed pathologically in 15 patients. Survival was improved in those with a pathologically confirmed complete response (3-year survival rate 62.4 (s.e. 12.9) per cent) compared with non-responders (16.3 (s.e. 6.6) per cent). Those with microscopic residual disease also had an improved 3-year survival rate (46.3 (s.e. 12.2) per cent); however, oesophagogastroscopy failed to identify this subset.

CONCLUSION

Oesophagogastroscopy may be useful in the assessment of tumour response to neoadjuvant therapy. However, owing to its poor accuracy patients should not be excluded from further therapeutic intervention on the basis of this assessment alone.