Potential use of COX-2–aromatase inhibitor combinations in breast cancer

Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) is overexpressed in several epithelial tumours, including breast cancer. Cyclooxygenase-2-positive tumours tend to be larger, higher grade, node-positive and HER-2/neu-positive. High COX-2 expression is associated with poor prognosis. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition reduces the incidence of tumours in animal models, inhibits the development of invasive cancer in colorectal cancer and reduces the frequency of polyps in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). These effects may be as a result of increased apoptosis, reduced angiogenesis and/or proliferation. Studies of COX-2 inhibitors in breast cancer are underway both alone and in combination with other agents. There is evidence to suggest that combining COX-2 inhibitors with aromatase inhibitors, growth factor receptor blockers, or chemo- or radiotherapy may be particularly effective. Preliminary results from combination therapy with celecoxib and exemestane in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer showed that the combination increased the time to recurrence. Up to 80% of ductal carcinomas in situ (DCISs) express COX-2, therefore COX-2 inhibition may be of particular use in this situation. Cyclooxygenase-2 expression correlates strongly with expression of HER-2/neu. As aromatase inhibitors appear particularly effective in patients with HER-2/neu-positive tumours, the combination of aromatase inhibitors and COX-2 inhibitors may be particularly useful in both DCIS and invasive cancer

Reduction in the risk of human breast cancer by selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic and laboratory investigations suggest that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have chemopreventive effects against breast cancer due to their activity against cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), the rate-limiting enzyme of the prostaglandin cascade. METHODS: We conducted a case control study of breast cancer designed to compare effects of selective and non-selective COX-2 inhibitors. A total of 323 incident breast cancer patients were ascertained from the James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, during 2003–2004 and compared with 649 cancer free controls matched to the cases at a 2:1 ratio on age, race, and county of residence. Data on the past and current use of prescription and over the counter medications and breast cancer risk factors were ascertained using a standardized risk factor questionnaire. Effects of COX-2 inhibiting agents were quantified by calculating odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Results showed significant risk reductions for selective COX-2 inhibitors as a group (OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.14–0.59), regular aspirin (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.26–0.94), and ibuprofen or naproxen (0.36, 95% CI = 0.18–0.72). Acetaminophen, a compound with negligible COX-2 activity and low dose aspirin (81 mg) produced no significant change in the risk of breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Selective COX-2 inhibitors (celecoxib and rofecoxib) were only recently approved for use in 1999, and rofecoxib (Vioxx) was withdrawn from the marketplace in 2004. Nevertheless, even in the short window of exposure to these compounds, the selective COX-2 inhibitors produced a significant (71%) reduction in the risk of breast cancer, underscoring their strong potential for breast cancer chemoprevention

Expression of COX-2, NF-κB-p65, NF-κB-p50 and IKKα in malignant and adjacent normal human colorectal tissue

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Mechanisms underlying the growth inhibitory effects of the cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib in human breast cancer cells

INTRODUCTION: Inhibitors of cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 are being extensively studied as anticancer agents. In the present study we evaluated the mechanisms by which a highly selective COX-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, affects tumor growth of two differentially invasive human breast cancer cell lines. METHODS: MDA-MB-231 (highly invasive) and MDA-MB-468 (moderately invasive) cell lines were treated with varying concentrations of celecoxib in vitro, and the effects of this agent on cell growth and angiogenesis were monitored by evaluating cell proliferation, apoptosis, cell cycle arrest, and vasculogenic mimicry. The in vitro results of MDA-MB-231 cell line were further confirmed in vivo in a mouse xenograft model. RESULTS: The highly invasive MDA-MB-231 cells express higher levels of COX-2 than do the less invasive MDA-MB-468 cells. Celecoxib treatment inhibited COX-2 activity, indicated by prostaglandin E(2 )secretion, and caused significant growth arrest in both breast cancer cell lines. In the highly invasive MDA-MB-231 cells, the mechanism of celecoxib-induced growth arrest was by induction of apoptosis, associated with reduced activation of protein kinase B/Akt, and subsequent activation of caspases 3 and 7. In the less invasive MDA-MB-468 cells, growth arrest was a consequence of cell cycle arrest at the G(0)/G(1 )checkpoint. Celecoxib-induced growth inhibition was reversed by addition of exogenous prostaglandin E(2 )in MDA-MB-468 cells but not in MDA-MB-231 cells. Furthermore, MDA-MB-468 cells formed significantly fewer extracellular matrix associated microvascular channels in vitro than did the high COX-2 expressing MDA-MB-231 cells. Celecoxib treatment not only inhibited cell growth and vascular channel formation but also reduced vascular endothelial growth factor levels. The in vitro findings corroborated in vivo data from a mouse xenograft model in which daily administration of celecoxib significantly reduced tumor growth of MDA-MB-231 cells, which was associated with reduced vascularization and increased necrosis in the tumor mass. CONCLUSION: The disparate molecular mechanisms of celecoxib-induced growth inhibition in human breast cancer cells depends upon the level of COX-2 expression and the invasive potential of the cell lines examined. Data suggest a role for COX-2 not only in the growth of cancer cells but also in activating the angiogenic pathway through regulating levels of vascular endothelial growth factor

GP88 (PC-Cell Derived Growth Factor, progranulin) stimulates proliferation and confers letrozole resistance to aromatase overexpressing breast cancer cells

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Aromatase inhibitors (AI) that inhibit breast cancer cell growth by blocking estrogen synthesis have become the treatment of choice for post-menopausal women with estrogen receptor positive (ER⁺) breast cancer. However, some patients display de novo or acquired resistance to AI. Interactions between estrogen and growth factor signaling pathways have been identified in estrogen-responsive cells as one possible reason for acquisition of resistance. Our laboratory has characterized an autocrine growth factor overexpressed in invasive ductal carcinoma named PC-Cell Derived Growth Factor (GP88), also known as progranulin. In the present study, we investigated the role GP88 on the acquisition of resistance to letrozole in ER⁺breast cancer cells</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used two aromatase overexpressing human breast cancer cell lines MCF-7-CA cells and AC1 cells and their letrozole resistant counterparts as study models. Effect of stimulating or inhibiting GP88 expression on proliferation, anchorage-independent growth, survival and letrozole responsiveness was examined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>GP88 induced cell proliferation and conferred letrozole resistance in a time- and dose-dependent fashion. Conversely, naturally letrozole resistant breast cancer cells displayed a 10-fold increase in GP88 expression when compared to letrozole sensitive cells. GP88 overexpression, or exogenous addition blocked the inhibitory effect of letrozole on proliferation, and stimulated survival and soft agar colony formation. In letrozole resistant cells, silencing GP88 by siRNA inhibited cell proliferation and restored their sensitivity to letrozole.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings provide information on the role of an alternate growth and survival factor on the acquisition of aromatase inhibitor resistance in ER⁺breast cancer.</p

Expression of oestrogen receptors, ERα, ERβ, and ERβ variants, in endometrial cancers and evidence that prostaglandin F may play a role in regulating expression of ERα

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Endometrial cancer is the most common gynaecological malignancy; risk factors include exposure to oestrogens and high body mass index. Expression of enzymes involved in biosynthesis of oestrogens and prostaglandins (PG) is often higher in endometrial cancers when compared with levels detected in normal endometrium. Oestrogens bind one of two receptors (ERα and ERβ) encoded by separate genes. The full-length receptors function as ligand-activated transcription factors; splice variant isoforms of ERβ lacking a ligand-binding domain have also been described. PGs act in an autocrine or paracrine manner by binding to specific G-protein coupled receptors.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We compared expression of ERs, progesterone receptor (PR) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in stage 1 endometrial adenocarcinomas graded as well (G1), moderately (G2) or poorly (G3) differentiated (n ≥ 10 each group) using qRTPCR, single and double immunohistochemistry. We used endometrial adenocarcinoma cell lines to investigate the impact of PGF2α on expression of ERs and PR.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Full length ERβ (ERβ1) and two ERβ variants (ERβ2, ERβ5) were expressed in endometrial cancers regardless of grade and the proteins were immunolocalised to the nuclei of cells in both epithelial and stromal compartments. Immunoexpression of COX-2 was most intense in cells that were ERα^neg/low. Expression of PR in endometrial adenocarcinoma (Ishikawa) cell lines and tissues broadly paralleled that of ERα. Treatment of adenocarcinoma cells with PGF2α reduced expression of ERα but had no impact on ERβ1. Cells incubated with PGF2α were unable to increase expression of PR mRNA when they were incubated with E2.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We have demonstrated that ERβ5 protein is expressed in stage 1 endometrial adenocarcinomas. Expression of three ERβ variants, including the full-length protein is not grade-dependent and most cells in poorly differentiated cancers are ERβ^pos/ERα^neg. We found evidence of a link between COX-2, its product PGF2α, and expression of ERα and PR that sheds new light on the cross talk between steroid and PG signalling pathways in this disease.</p

In situ aromatase expression in primary tumor is associated with estrogen receptor expression but is not predictive of response to endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>New, third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have proven comparable or superior to the anti-estrogen tamoxifen for treatment of estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR) positive breast cancer. AIs suppress total body and intratumoral estrogen levels. It is unclear whether <it>in situ </it>carcinoma cell aromatization is the primary source of estrogen production for tumor growth and whether the aromatase expression is predictive of response to endocrine therapy. Due to methodological difficulties in the determination of the aromatase protein, COX-2, an enzyme involved in the synthesis of aromatase, has been suggested as a surrogate marker for aromatase expression.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Primary tumor material was retrospectively collected from 88 patients who participated in a randomized clinical trial comparing the AI letrozole to the anti-estrogen tamoxifen for first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer. Semi-quantitative immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis was performed for ER, PR, COX-2 and aromatase using Tissue Microarrays (TMAs). Aromatase was also analyzed using whole sections (WS). Kappa analysis was applied to compare association of protein expression levels. Univariate Wilcoxon analysis and the Cox-analysis were performed to evaluate time to progression (TTP) in relation to marker expression.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Aromatase expression was associated with ER, but not with PR or COX-2 expression in carcinoma cells. Measurements of aromatase in WS were not comparable to results from TMAs. Expression of COX-2 and aromatase did not predict response to endocrine therapy. Aromatase in combination with high PR expression may select letrozole treated patients with a longer TTP.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>TMAs are not suitable for IHC analysis of <it>in situ </it>aromatase expression and we did not find COX-2 expression in carcinoma cells to be a surrogate marker for aromatase. <it>In situ </it>aromatase expression in tumor cells is associated with ER expression and may thus point towards good prognosis. Aromatase expression in cancer cells is not predictive of response to endocrine therapy, indicating that <it>in situ </it>estrogen synthesis may not be the major source of intratumoral estrogen. However, aromatase expression in combination with high PR expression may select letrozole treated patients with longer TTP.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Sub-study of trial P025 for advanced breast cancer.</p