Antagonism of Tumoral Prolactin Receptor Promotes Autophagy-Related Cell Death

Therapeutic upregulation of macroautophagy in cancer cells provides an alternative mechanism forcell death. Prolactin (PRL) and its receptor (PRLR) are considered attractive therapeutic targets because of their roles as growth factors in tumor growth and progression. We utilized G129R, an antagonist peptide of PRL, to block activity of the tumoral PRL/PRLR axis, which resulted in inhibition of tumor growth in orthotopic models of human ovarian cancer. Prolonged treatment with G129R induced the accumulation of redundant autolysosomes in 3D cancer spheroids, leading to a type II programmed cell death. This inducible autophagy was a noncanonical beclin-1-independent pathway and was sustained by an astrocytic phosphoprotein (PEA-15) and protein kinase C zeta interactome. Lower levels of tumoral PRL/PRLR inclinical samples were associated with longer patient survival. Our findings provide an understanding of the mechanisms of tumor growth inhibition through targeting PRL/PRLR and may have clinical implications. © 2014 The Authors

Tumor classification: molecular analysis meets Aristotle

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, tumors have been classified by their morphologic appearances. Unfortunately, tumors with similar histologic features often follow different clinical courses or respond differently to chemotherapy. Limitations in the clinical utility of morphology-based tumor classifications have prompted a search for a new tumor classification based on molecular analysis. Gene expression array data and proteomic data from tumor samples will provide complex data that is unobtainable from morphologic examination alone. The growing question facing cancer researchers is, "How can we successfully integrate the molecular, morphologic and clinical characteristics of human cancer to produce a helpful tumor classification?" DISCUSSION: Current efforts to classify cancers based on molecular features ignore lessons learned from millennia of experience in biological classification. A tumor classification must include every type of tumor and must provide a unique place for each tumor within the classification. Groups within a classification inherit the properties of their ancestors and impart properties to their descendants. A classification was prepared grouping tumors according to their histogenetic development. The classification is simple (reducing the complexity of information received from the molecular analysis of tumors), comprehensive (providing a place for every tumor of man), and consistent with recent attempts to characterize tumors by cytogenetic and molecular features. The clinical and research value of this historical approach to tumor classification is discussed. SUMMARY: This manuscript reviews tumor classification and provides a new and comprehensive classification for neoplasia that preserves traditional nomenclature while incorporating information derived from the molecular analysis of tumors. The classification is provided as an open access XML document that can be used by cancer researchers to relate tumor classes with heterogeneous experimental and clinical tumor databases

Tumor response to radiotherapy is dependent on genotype-associated mechanisms in vitro and in vivo

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We have previously shown that in vitro radiosensitivity of human tumor cells segregate non-randomly into a limited number of groups. Each group associates with a specific genotype. However we have also shown that abrogation of a single gene (p21) in a human tumor cell unexpectedly sensitized xenograft tumors comprised of these cells to radiotherapy while not affecting in vitro cellular radiosensitivity. Therefore in vitro assays alone cannot predict tumor response to radiotherapy.</p> <p>In the current work, we measure in vitro radiosensitivity and in vivo response of their xenograft tumors in a series of human tumor lines that represent the range of radiosensitivity observed in human tumor cells. We also measure response of their xenograft tumors to different radiotherapy protocols. We reduce these data into a simple analytical structure that defines the relationship between tumor response and total dose based on two coefficients that are specific to tumor cell genotype, fraction size and total dose.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We assayed in vitro survival patterns in eight tumor cell lines that vary in cellular radiosensitivity and genotype. We also measured response of their xenograft tumors to four radiotherapy protocols: 8 × 2 Gy; 2 × 5Gy, 1 × 7.5 Gy and 1 × 15 Gy. We analyze these data to derive coefficients that describe both in vitro and in vivo responses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Response of xenografts comprised of human tumor cells to different radiotherapy protocols can be reduced to only two coefficients that represent 1) total cells killed as measured in vitro 2) additional response in vivo not predicted by cell killing. These coefficients segregate with specific genotypes including those most frequently observed in human tumors in the clinic. Coefficients that describe in vitro and in vivo mechanisms can predict tumor response to any radiation protocol based on tumor cell genotype, fraction-size and total dose.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We establish an analytical structure that predicts tumor response to radiotherapy based on coefficients that represent in vitro and in vivo responses. Both coefficients are dependent on tumor cell genotype and fraction-size. We identify a novel previously unreported mechanism that sensitizes tumors in vivo; this sensitization varies with tumor cell genotype and fraction size.</p

Genetic analysis of multifocal superficial urothelial cancers by array-based comparative genomic hybridisation

The purpose of this study was to investigate the accumulation of genetic alterations during metachronous and/or synchronous development of multifocal low-grade superficial urothelial tumours in the same patient, by using array-based comparative genomic hybridisation (array-CGH) and FGFR mutation analysis. We analysed 24 tumours (pTa-1 G1-2) from five patients. We had previously identified a clonal relationship among the tumours of each patient by microsatellite analysis. This time, unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis revealed that the tumours from each patient were clustered together independently of the tumours from the other patients. All of the tumours from a single patient showed a set of 2–7 identical regional or whole-arm chromosomal changes. In addition, several individual alterations were also found. Cladistic diagrams revealed that the accumulation of genetic alterations could not be explained by a linear model, and the existence of a hypothetical precursor cell was assumed in four patients. In some cases, FGFR mutation seemed to occur later during multifocal tumour development. Taken together, these findings suggest that low-grade superficial urothelial tumours accumulate minor genetic alterations during multifocal development, although these tumours are genetically stable

Modern classification of neoplasms: reconciling differences between morphologic and molecular approaches

BACKGROUND: For over 150 years, pathologists have relied on histomorphology to classify and diagnose neoplasms. Their success has been stunning, permitting the accurate diagnosis of thousands of different types of neoplasms using only a microscope and a trained eye. In the past two decades, cancer genomics has challenged the supremacy of histomorphology by identifying genetic alterations shared by morphologically diverse tumors and by finding genetic features that distinguish subgroups of morphologically homogeneous tumors. DISCUSSION: The Developmental Lineage Classification and Taxonomy of Neoplasms groups neoplasms by their embryologic origin. The putative value of this classification is based on the expectation that tumors of a common developmental lineage will share common metabolic pathways and common responses to drugs that target these pathways. The purpose of this manuscript is to show that grouping tumors according to their developmental lineage can reconcile certain fundamental discrepancies resulting from morphologic and molecular approaches to neoplasm classification. In this study, six issues in tumor classification are described that exemplify the growing rift between morphologic and molecular approaches to tumor classification: 1) the morphologic separation between epithelial and non-epithelial tumors; 2) the grouping of tumors based on shared cellular functions; 3) the distinction between germ cell tumors and pluripotent tumors of non-germ cell origin; 4) the distinction between tumors that have lost their differentiation and tumors that arise from uncommitted stem cells; 5) the molecular properties shared by morphologically disparate tumors that have a common developmental lineage, and 6) the problem of re-classifying morphologically identical but clinically distinct subsets of tumors. The discussion of these issues in the context of describing different methods of tumor classification is intended to underscore the clinical value of a robust tumor classification. SUMMARY: A classification of neoplasms should guide the rational design and selection of a new generation of cancer medications targeted to metabolic pathways. Without a scientifically sound neoplasm classification, biological measurements on individual tumor samples cannot be generalized to class-related tumors, and constitutive properties common to a class of tumors cannot be distinguished from uninformative data in complex and chaotic biological systems. This paper discusses the importance of biological classification and examines several different approaches to the specific problem of tumor classification