RYBP Inhibits Progression and Metastasis of Lung Cancer by Suppressing EGFR Signaling and Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition

Lung cancer (LC) is a common lethal malignancy with rapid progression and metastasis, and Ring1 and YY1 binding protein (RYBP) has been shown to suppress cell growth in human cancers. This study aimed to investigate the role of RYBP in LC progression and metastasis. In this study, a total of 149 LC patients were recruited, and the clinical stage of their tumors, metastasis status, survival time, presence of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, and RYBP expression levels were measured. RYBP silencing and overexpression were experimentally performed in LC cell lines and in nude mice, and the expressions of genes in EGFR-related signaling pathways and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) were detected. The results showed that RYBP was downregulated in LC compared with adjacent normal tissues, and low RYBP expression was associated with a more severe clinical stage, high mortality, high metastasis risk, and poor survival. Cell proliferation and xenograft growth were inhibited by RYBP overexpression, whereas proliferation and xenograft growth were accelerated by RYBP silencing. EGFR and phosphorylated-EGFR levels were upregulated when RYBP was silenced, whereas EGFR, p-EGFR, p-AKT, and p-ERK were downregulated when RYBP was overexpressed. Low RYBP expression was related to a high metastasis risk, and metastasized tumors showed low RYBP levels. Cell migration and invasion were promoted by silencing RYBP but were inhibited by overexpressed RYBP. In addition, the EMT marker vimentin showed diminished expression, and E-cadherin was promoted by the overexpression of RYBP. In conclusion, our data suggest that RYBP suppresses cell proliferation and LC progression by impeding the EGFR-ERK and EGFR-AKT signaling pathways and thereby inhibiting cell migration and invasion and LC metastasis through the suppression of EMT

Network Meta-Analysis of Erlotinib, Gefitinib, Afatinib and Icotinib in Patients with Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Harboring EGFR Mutations

<div><p>Background</p><p>Several EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) including erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib are currently available as treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who harbor EGFR mutations. However, no head to head trials between these TKIs in mutated populations have been reported, which provides room for indirect and integrated comparisons.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We searched electronic databases for eligible literatures. Pooled data on objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) were calculated. Appropriate networks for different outcomes were established to incorporate all evidences. Multiple-treatments comparisons (MTCs) based on Bayesian network integrated the efficacy and specific toxicities of all included treatments.</p><p>Results</p><p>Twelve phase III RCTs that investigated EGFR-TKIs involving 1821 participants with EGFR mutation were included. For mutant patients, the weighted pooled ORR and 1-year PFS of EGFR-TKIs were significant superior to that of standard chemotherapy (ORR: 66.6% vs. 30.9%, OR 5.46, 95%CI 3.59 to 8.30, <i>P</i><0.00001; 1-year PFS: 42.9% vs. 9.7%, OR 7.83, 95%CI 4.50 to 13.61; <i>P</i><0.00001) through direct meta-analysis. In the network meta-analyses, no statistically significant differences in efficacy were found between these four TKIs with respect to all outcome measures. Trend analyses of rank probabilities revealed that the cumulative probabilities of being the most efficacious treatments were (ORR, 1-year PFS, 1-year OS, 2-year OS): erlotinib (51%, 38%, 14%, 19%), gefitinib (1%, 6%, 5%, 16%), afatinib (29%, 27%, 30%, 27%) and icotinib (19%, 29%, NA, NA), respectively. However, afatinib and erlotinib showed significant severer rash and diarrhea compared with gefitinib and icotinib.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>The current study indicated that erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib shared equivalent efficacy but presented different efficacy-toxicity pattern for EGFR-mutated patients. Erlotinib and afatinib revealed potentially better efficacy but significant higher toxicities compared with gefitinib and icotinib.</p></div

Rank probabilities of each TKI for different outcomes based on network 1.

<p>CT, chemotherapy (not specific); PEM, pemetrexed;</p

Distribution of probabilities of each agent being ranked the first place based on network 1.

<p>A & C were classified by drugs; B & D were classified by outcomes.</p

Direct meta-analyses of efficacy.

<p>a. objective response rate; b. 1-year progression free survival; c, 1-year overall survival; d, 2-year overall survival.</p

Multiple treatment comparison for efficacy based on network 1.

<p>CT, chemotherapy (not specific); PEM, pemetrexed;</p

Pooled Weighted Outcomes and Direct Meta-Analysis.

<p>CI, confidence interval; ORR, objective response rate; PFS, progression free survival; OS, overall survival.</p

Network established for multiple treatment comparisons.

<p>Solid lines between drugs represented the existence of direct comparisons. PEM, pemetrexed; * Second-line studies.</p

Profile summarizing the trial flow.

<p>Profile summarizing the trial flow.</p