Necrosis related HIF-1α expression predicts prognosis in patients with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Hypoxia inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) plays an essential role in the adaptive response of cells to hypoxia and is associated with aggressive tumour behaviour. We have shown p27^kip1, which is generally reduced in endometrial cancer, to be re-expressed in hypoxic regions. This possibly contributes to survival of cancer cells. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of HIF-1α and p27^kipexpression in patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Expression levels of HIF-1α, CAIX, Glut-1, and p27^kip1were analyzed by immunohistochemistry. Percentage of positive cells, staining pattern (perinecrotic, diffuse, or mixed) and presence of necrosis were noted.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Necrosis was correlated with shortened disease free survival (DFS) (p <it>= </it>0.008) and overall survival (OS) (p <it>= </it>0.045). For DFS, perinecrotic HIF-1α expression was also prognostic (p <it>= </it>0.044). Moreover, high p27^kip1expression was an additional prognostic factor for these patients with perinecrotic HIF-1α expression. In multivariate Cox regression, perinecrotic HIF-expression emerged as an independent prognostic factor. Perinecrotic HIF-1α expression was significantly associated with CAIX and Glut-1 expression, pointing towards functional HIF-1.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer, necrosis and necrosis-related expression of HIF-1α are important prognostic factors. More aggressive adjuvant treatment might be necessary to improve the outcome of patients with these characteristics.</p

Angiogenesis is an independent prognostic factor in malignant mesothelioma

Angiogenesis is essential for tumour growth beyond 1 to 2 mm in diameter. The clinical relevance of angiogenesis, as assessed by microvessel density (MVD), is unclear in malignant mesothelioma (MM). Immunohistochemistry was performed on 104 archival, paraffin-embedded, surgically resected MM samples with an anti-CD34 monoclonal antibody, using the Streptavidin–biotin complex immunoperoxidase technique. 93 cases were suitable for microvessel quantification. MVD was obtained from 3 intratumoural hotspots, using a Chalkley eyepiece graticule at × 250 power. MVD was correlated with survival by Kaplan–Meier and log-rank analysis. A stepwise, multivariate Cox model was used to compare MVD with known prognostic factors and the EORTC and CALGB prognostic scoring systems. Overall median survival from the date of diagnosis was 5.0 months. Increasing MVD was a poor prognostic factor in univariate analysis (P = 0.02). Independent indicators of poor prognosis in multivariate analysis were non-epithelial cell type (P = 0.002), performance status > 0 (P = 0.003) and increasing MVD (P = 0.01). In multivariate Cox analysis, MVD contributed independently to the EORTC (P = 0.006), but not to the CALGB (P = 0.1), prognostic groups. Angiogenesis, as assessed by MVD, is a poor prognostic factor in MM, independent of other clinicopathological variables and the EORTC prognostic scoring system. Further work is required to assess the prognostic importance of angiogenic regulatory factors in this disease. http://www.bjcancer.com © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign  http://www.bjcancer.co

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Prospective neoadjuvant analysis of PET imaging and mechanisms of resistance to Trastuzumab shows role of HIF1 and autophagy

16siBACKGROUND: Although Trastuzumab has improved survival of HER2+ breast cancer patients, resistance to the agent pre-exists or develops through the course of therapy. Here we show that a specific metabolism and autophagy-related cancer cell phenotype relates to resistance of HER2+ breast cancer to Trastuzumab and chemotherapy. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with locally advanced primary breast cancer were prospectively scheduled to received one cycle of Trastuzumab followed by a new biopsy on day 21, followed by taxol/Trastuzumab chemotherapy for four cycles before surgery. FDG PET/CT scan was used to monitor tumour response. Tissue samples were immunohistochemically analysed for metabolism and autophagy markers. RESULTS: In pre-Trastuzumab biopsies, the LC3A+/HER2+ cell population was correlated with HIF1α expression (P=0.01), while GLUT1 and LC3B expression were correlated with Ki67 proliferation index (P=0.01 and P=0.01, respectively). FDG PET tumour dimensions before therapy were correlated with LC3B expression (P=0.005). Administration of Trastuzumab significantly reduced clinical and PET-detected tumour dimensions (P<0.01). An inverse association of tumour response with the percentage of cells expressing HIF1α at baseline was documented (P=0.01). Administration of Trastuzumab resulted in a decrease of the proliferation index (P=0.004), GLUT1 (P=0.04) and HER2 (P=0.01) expression. In contrast, the percentage of LC3A+/HER2+ cells was increased (P=0.01). High baseline HIF1α expression was the only parameter associated with poorer pathological response to preoperative chemotherapy (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As the HER2+/LC3A+ phenotype, which often overexpresses HIF1α, is a major subpopulation increasing after therapy with Trastuzumab, LC3A- and HIF1α-targeting therapies should be investigated for the augmentation of anti-HER2 therapy efficacy.noneopenKoukourakis, M.I; Giatromanolaki, A.; Bottini, A.; Cappelletti, M.R.; Zanotti, L.; Allevi, G.; Strina, C.; Ardine, M.; Milani, M.; Brugnoli, G.; Martinotti, M.; Ferrero, G.; Bertoni, R.; Ferrozzi, F.; Harris, A.L.; Generali, D.Koukourakis, M. I; Giatromanolaki, A.; Bottini, A.; Cappelletti, M. R.; Zanotti, L.; Allevi, G.; Strina, C.; Ardine, M.; Milani, M.; Brugnoli, G.; Martinotti, M.; Ferrero, G.; Bertoni, R.; Ferrozzi, F.; Harris, A. L.; Generali, Daniel