Normalization of prostate specific antigen in patients treated with intensity modulated radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer

Background

The purpose of this study was to determine the expected time to prostate specific antigen (PSA) normalization with or without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation (NAAD) therapy after treatment with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Methods

A retrospective cohort research design was used. A total of 133 patients with clinical stage T1c to T3b prostate cancer (2002 AJCC staging) treated in a community setting between January 2002 and July 2005 were reviewed for time to PSA normalization using 1 ng/mL and 2 ng/mL as criteria. All patients received IMRT as part of their management. Times to PSA normalization were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Significance was assessed at p < 0.05.

Results

Fifty-six of the 133 patients received NAAD (42.1%). Thirty-one patients (23.8%) received radiation to a limited pelvic field followed by an IMRT boost, while 99 patients received IMRT alone (76.2%). The times to serum PSA normalization < 2 ng/mL when treated with or without NAAD were 298 ± 24 and 302 ± 33 days (mean ± SEM), respectively (p > 0.05), and 303 ± 24 and 405 ± 46 days, respectively, for PSA < 1 ng/mL (p < 0.05). Stage T1 and T2 tumors had significantly increased time to PSA normalization < 1 ng/mL in comparison to Stage T3 tumors. Also, higher Gleason scores were significantly correlated with a faster time to PSA normalization < 1 ng/mL.

Conclusions

Use of NAAD in conjunction with IMRT leads to a significantly shortened time to normalization of serum PSA < 1 ng/mL in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Effect of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor class in the treatment of head and neck cancer with concurrent radiochemotherapy in vivo

PURPOSE

To optimally integrate epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors into the clinical treatment of head and neck cancer, two important questions must be answered: (a) does EGFR inhibition add to the effects of radiochemotherapy, and (b) if so, which method of inhibiting EGFR is superior (an EGFR antibody versus a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor)? We designed an in vivo study to address these questions.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Nude mice with UMSCC-1 head and neck cancer xenografts received either single, double, or triple agent therapy with an EGFR inhibitor (either cetuximab or gefitinib), gemcitabine, and/or radiation for 3 weeks. Tumor volumes and animal weights were measured for up to 15 weeks. Immunoblotting and immunofluorescent staining were done on tumors treated with either cetuximab or gefitinib alone.

RESULTS

The addition of an EGFR inhibitor significantly delayed the tumor volume doubling time, from a median of 40 days with radiochemotherapy (gemcitabine and radiation) alone, to 106 days with cetuximab and 66 days with gefitinib (both P < 0.005). Cetuximab resulted in significantly less weight loss than gefitinib. Immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescent staining of tumors show that although levels of phosphorylated AKT and extracellular signal-regulated kinase were decreased similarly in response to cetuximab or gefitinib, cetuximab caused prolonged suppression of pEGFR, pSTAT3, and Bcl(XL) compared with gefitinib.

CONCLUSIONS

EGFR inhibition, particularly with cetuximab, improves the effectiveness of radiochemotherapy in this model of head and neck cancer. The correlation of response with prolonged suppression of EGFR, STAT3, and Bcl(XL) offers the possibility that these may be candidate biomarkers for response.

Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated Down-regulates Phospho-Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase 1/2 via Activation of MKP-1 in Response to Radiation

Ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) kinase plays a crucial role in the cellular response to DNA damage and in radiation resistance. Although much effort has focused on the relationship between ATM and other nuclear signal transducers, little is known about interactions between ATM and mitogenic signaling pathways. In this study, we show a novel relationship between ATM kinase and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2), a key mitogenic stimulator. Activation of ATM by radiation down-regulates phospho-ERK1/2 and its downstream signaling via increased expression of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase MKP-1 in both cell culture and tumor models. This dephosphorylation of ERK1/2 is independent of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activity and is associated with radioresistance. These findings show a new function for ATM in the control of mitogenic pathways affecting cell signaling and emphasize the key role of ATM in coordinating the cellular response to DNA damage.

Role of epidermal growth factor receptor degradation in gemcitabine-mediated cytotoxicity

We have recently reported that treatment with gemcitabine, a potent chemotherapeutic agent and radiation sensitizer, stimulates phosphorylation of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Because phosphorylation of EGFR is known to precede receptor degradation, we hypothesized that gemcitabine treatment may also result in EGFR degradation. In two human head and neck cancer cell lines, UMSCC-1 and UMSCC-6, we demonstrated an approximately 80% decrease in total EGFR levels at 72 h after a 2-h treatment with 1 muM gemcitabine. Neither cisplatin nor 5-fluorouracil, which are used to treat head and neck cancer, caused EGFR degradation. EGFR downregulation did not occur at the level of transcription, as assessed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), but instead occurred via phosphorylation and ubiquitination of the receptor along a proteosome/lysosome-mediated pathway. Inhibition of EGFR degradation, by either pretreatment with the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib or by exposure to the proteosome/lysosome inhibitor MG132, significantly reduced gemcitabine-induced cell death. These results suggest that EGFR degradation may be a novel mechanism for gemcitabine-mediated cell death. These findings also indicate that caution should be exercised when combining gemcitabine with agents that may prevent EGFR degradation, such as EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors administered in a suboptimal sequence or proteosome inhibitors.

Synergistic effects of gemcitabine and gefitinib in the treatment of head and neck carcinoma

Although the combination of gemcitabine and radiation produces a high frequency of complete responses in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer, substantial toxicity suggests that an improvement in the therapeutic index is required. The purpose of this study was to determine if gefitinib could improve the efficacy of gemcitabine and if drug schedule is important. We hypothesized that gemcitabine followed by gefitinib would be superior to the opposite order because of both cell cycle and growth factor signaling interactions. Using UMSCC-1 cells in vitro, we confirmed that gefitinib arrested cells in G(1) and suppressed phospho-epidermal growth factor receptor (p(Y845)EGFR) and that gemcitabine arrested cells in S phase and stimulated p(Y845)EGFR. The schedule of gemcitabine followed by gefitinib caused arrest of cells in S phase. Gefitinib suppressed gemcitabine-mediated p(Y845)EGFR stimulation. This schedule caused decreased p(S473)AKT, increased poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase cleavage, and increased apoptosis compared with gemcitabine alone. The schedule of gefitinib followed by gemcitabine also caused suppression of p(Y845)EGFR but arrested cells in G(1). This schedule in which gefitinib was used first was associated with stable levels of p(S473)AKT and minimal poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase cleavage and apoptosis. These results were reflected in experiments in nude mice bearing UMSCC-1 xenografts, in which there was greater tumor regression and apoptosis when animals received gemcitabine followed by gefitinib during the first week of therapy. These findings suggest that the schedule of gemcitabine followed by gefitinib may increase the therapeutic index over gemcitabine alone and, combined with clinical data, encourage exploration of combination of gemcitabine, EGFR inhibitors, and radiation.