Clinical association of CXCR4 in primary tumor of papillary thyroid cancer and response to iodine-131 treatment

CXCR4/CXCL12 blockade therapy; a new horizon in TNBC therapy

The only subtype of breast cancer (BC) without specific therapy is triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), which represents 15-20% of incidence cases of BC. TNBC encompasses transformed and nonmalignant cells, including cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAF), endothelial vasculature, and tumor-infiltrating cells. These nonmalignant cells, soluble factors (e.g., cytokines), and the extracellular matrix (ECM) form the tumor microenvironment (TME). The TME is made up of these nonmalignant cells, ECM, and soluble components, including cytokines. Direct cell-to-cell contact and soluble substances like cytokines (e.g., chemokines) may facilitate interaction between cancer cells and the surrounding TME. Through growth-promoting cytokines, TME not only enables the development of cancer but also confers therapy resistance. New treatment targets will probably be suggested by comprehending the processes behind tumor development and progression as well as the functions of chemokines in TNBC. In this light, several investigations have shown the pivotal function of the C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 12 (CXCL12 or SDF-1) axis and chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4) in the pathophysiology of TNBC. This review provides an overview of the CXCR4/CXCL12 axis' function in TNBC development, metastasis, angiogenesis, and treatment resistance. A synopsis of current literature on targeting the CXCR4/CXCL12 axis for treating and managing TNBC has also been provided.

Epigenetic regulation of CXCR4 signaling in cancer pathogenesis and progression

Signaling involving chemokine receptor CXCR4 and its ligand SDF-1/CXL12 has been investigated for many years for its possible role in cancer progression and pathogenesis. Evidence emerging from clinical studies in recent years has further established diagnostic as well as prognostic importance of CXCR4 signaling. CXCR4 and SDF-1 are routinely reported to be elevated in tumors, distant metastases, which correlates with poor survival of patients. These findings have kindled interest in the mechanisms that regulate CXCR4/SDF-1 expression. Of note, there is a particular interest in the epigenetic regulation of CXCR4 signaling that may be responsible for upregulated CXCR4 in primary as well as metastatic cancers. This review first lists the clinical evidence supporting CXCR4 signaling as putative cancer diagnostic and/or prognostic biomarker, followed by a discussion on reported epigenetic mechanisms that affect CXCR4 expression. These mechanisms include regulation by non-coding RNAs, such as, microRNAs, long non-coding RNAs and circular RNAs. Additionally, we also discuss the regulation of CXCR4 expression through methylation and acetylation. Better understanding and appreciation of epigenetic regulation of CXCR4 signaling can invariably lead to identification of novel therapeutic targets as well as therapies to regulate this oncogenic signaling.

Comparative evaluation of somatostatin and CXCR4 receptor expression in different types of thyroid carcinoma using well-characterised monoclonal antibodies

Background

Papillary and follicular thyroid carcinomas can be treated surgically and with radioiodine therapy, whereas therapeutic options for advanced stage IV medullary and for anaplastic tumours are limited. Recently, somatostatin receptors (SSTs) and the chemokine receptor CXCR4 have been evaluated for the treatment of thyroid carcinomas, however, with contradictory results.

Methods

The expression of the five SSTs and of CXCR4 was assessed in 90 samples from 56 patients with follicular, papillary, medullary, or anaplastic thyroid carcinoma by means of immunohistochemistry using well-characterised monoclonal antibodies. The stainings were evaluated using the Immunoreactivity Score (IRS) and correlated to clinical data. In order to further substantiate the immunohistochemistry results, in serial sections of a subset of the samples receptor expression was additionally examined at the mRNA level using qRT-PCR.

Results

Overall, SST and CXCR4 protein expression was low in all four entities. In single cases, however, very high IRS values for SST2 and CXCR4 were observed. SST2 was the most frequently expressed receptor, found in 38% of cases, followed by SST5 and SST4, found in 14 and 9% of tumours, respectively. SST1 and SST3 could not be detected to any significant extent. CXCR4 was present in 12.5% of medullary and 25% of anaplastic carcinomas. Expression SST3, SST4, SST5 and CXCR4 was positively correlated with expression of the proliferation marker Ki-67. Additionally, a negative interrelationship between SST4 or SST5 expression and patient survival and a positive association between SST3 expression and tumour diameter were observed. qRT-PCR revealed a similar receptor expression pattern to that seen at the protein level. However, probably due to the low overall expression, no correlation was found for the SSTs or the CXCR4 between the IRS and the mRNA values.

Conclusions

SST- or CXCR4-based diagnostics or therapy in thyroid carcinomas should not be considered in general but may be feasible in single cases with high levels of expression of these receptors.