58 research outputs found

    Epigenetics in Prostate Cancer

    Get PDF
    Prostate cancer (PC) is the most commonly diagnosed nonskin malignancy and the second most common cause of cancer death among men in the United States. Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequences. Two common epigenetic mechanisms, DNA methylation and histone modification, have demonstrated critical roles in prostate cancer growth and metastasis. DNA hypermethylation of cytosine-guanine (CpG) rich sequence islands within gene promoter regions is widespread during neoplastic transformation of prostate cells, suggesting that treatment-induced restoration of a “normal” epigenome could be clinically beneficial. Histone modification leads to altered tumor gene function by changing chromosome structure and the level of gene transcription. The reversibility of epigenetic aberrations and restoration of tumor suppression gene function have made them attractive targets for prostate cancer treatment with modulators that demethylate DNA and inhibit histone deacetylases

    IL‐4 induces proliferation in prostate cancer PC3 cells under nutrient‐depletion stress through the activation of the JNK‐pathway and survivin up‐regulation

    Full text link
    Interleukin (IL)‐4 plays a critical role in the regulation of immune responses and has been detected at high levels in the tumor microenvironment of cancer patients where it correlates with the grade of malignancy. The direct effect of IL‐4 on cancer cells has been associated with increased cell survival; however, its role in cancer cell proliferation and related mechanisms is still unclear. Here it was shown that in a nutrient‐depleted environment, IL‐4 induces proliferation in prostate cancer PC3 cells. In these cells, under nutrient‐depletion stress, IL‐4 activates mitogen‐activated protein kinases (MAPKs), including Erk, p38, and JNK. Using MAP‐signaling‐specific inhibitors, it was shown that IL‐4‐induced proliferation is mediated by JNK activation. In fact, JNK‐inhibitor‐V (JNKi‐V) stunted IL‐4‐mediated cell proliferation. Furthermore, it was found that IL‐4 induces survivin up‐regulation in nutrient‐depleted cancer cells. Using survivin‐short‐hairpin‐RNAs (shRNAs), it was demonstrated that in this milieu survivin expression above a threshold limit is critical to the mechanism of IL‐4‐mediated proliferation. In addition, the significance of survivin up‐regulation in a stressed environment was assessed in prostate cancer mouse xenografts. It was found that survivin knockdown decreases tumor progression in correlation with cancer cell proliferation. Furthermore, under nutrient depletion stress, IL ‐4 could induce proliferation in cancer cells from multiple origins: MDA‐MB‐231 (breast), A253 (head and neck), and SKOV‐3 (ovarian). Overall, these findings suggest that in a tumor microenvironment under stress conditions, IL‐4 triggers a simultaneous activation of the JNK‐pathway and the up‐regulation of survivin turning on a cancer proliferation mechanism. J. Cell. Biochem. 113: 1569–1580, 2012. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90542/1/24025_ftp.pd

    Mismatch repair deficiency in metastatic prostate cancer: Response to PD-1 blockade and standard therapies.

    No full text
    BACKGROUND:While response rates to anti-PD1 therapy are low in unselected metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients, those with inactivating mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes (i.e. MMR deficiency; MMRd) or microsatellite instability (MSI) are thought likely to respond favorably. To date, there is limited published data on this biologically distinct and clinically relevant subgroup's natural history and response to treatment. METHODS:We retrospectively identified patients at two academic institutions who had MMRd/MSI-high metastatic prostate cancer (PC). Clinical and pathologic characteristics at the time of diagnosis as well as response to standard therapies and immune checkpoint therapy were abstracted. Descriptive statistics, including PSA50 response (≥50% decline in PSA from baseline) and clinical/radiographic progression free survival (PFS), are reported. RESULTS:27 men with MMRd and/or MSI-high metastatic PC were identified. 13 (48%) men had M1 disease at diagnosis and 19 of 24 (79%) men that underwent prostate biopsy had a Gleason score ≥8. Median overall survival from time of metastasis was not reached (95% CI: 33.6-NR mos) after a median follow up of 33.6 mos (95% CI: 23.8-50.5 mos). Seventeen men received pembrolizumab, of which 15 had PSA response data available. PSA50 responses to pembrolizumab occurred in 8 (53%) men. Median PFS was not reached (95% CI: 1.87-NR mos) and the estimated PFS at 6 months was 64.1% (95% CI: 33.7%-83.4%). Of those who achieved a PSA50 response, 7 (87.5%) remain on treatment without evidence of progression at a median follow up of 12 months (range 3-20 months). CONCLUSIONS:MMRd PC is associated with high Gleason score and advanced disease at presentation. Response rates to standard therapies are comparable to those reported in unselected patients and response rate to checkpoint blockade is high. Our study is limited by small sample size, and more research is needed to identify additional factors that may predict response to immunotherapy

    The impact of BRAF mutation status on clinical outcomes with anti- PD- 1 monotherapy versus combination ipilimumab/nivolumab in treatment- naïve advanced stage melanoma

    Full text link
    Nearly half of all metastatic melanoma patients possess the BRAF V600 mutation. Several therapies are approved for advanced stage melanoma, but it is unclear if there is a differential outcome to various immunotherapy regimens based on BRAF mutation status. We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of metastatic or unresectable melanoma patients who were treated with combination ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) or anti- PD- 1 monotherapy, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab, as first- line treatment. 235 previously untreated patients were identified in our study. Our univariate analysis showed no statistical difference in progression- free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with ipi/nivo versus anti- PD- 1 monotherapy in the BRAF V600 mutant cohort, but there was improved PFS [HR: 0.48, 95% CI, 0.28- 0.80] and OS [HR: 0.50, 95% CI, 0.26- 0.96] with ipi/nivo compared to anti- PD- 1 monotherapy in the BRAF WT group. After adjusting for known prognostic variables in our multivariable analysis, the BRAF WT cohort continued to show PFS and OS benefit with ipi/nivo compared to anti- PD- 1 monotherapy. Our single- institution analysis suggests ipi/nivo should be considered over anti- PD- 1 monotherapy as the initial immunotherapy regimen for metastatic melanoma patients regardless of BRAF mutation status, but possibly with greater benefit in BRAF WT.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167487/1/pcmr12944_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167487/2/pcmr12944.pd
    corecore