Efficacy of Wnt-1 monoclonal antibody in sarcoma cells

BACKGROUND: Sarcomas are one of the most refractory diseases among malignant tumors. More effective therapies based on an increased understanding of the molecular biology of sarcomas are needed as current forms of therapy remain inadequate. Recently, it has been reported that Wnt-1/β-catenin signaling inhibits apoptosis in several cancers. In this study, we investigated the efficacy of a monoclonal anti-Wnt-1 antibody in sarcoma cells. METHODS: We treated cell lines A-204, SJSA-1, and fresh primary cultures of lung metastasis of sarcoma with a monoclonal anti-Wnt-1 antibody. Wnt-1 siRNA treatment was carried out in A-204. We assessed cell death using Crystal Violet staining. Apoptosis induction was estimated by flow cytometry analysis (Annexin V and PI staining). Cell signaling changes were determined by western blotting analysis. RESULTS: We detected Wnt-1 expression in all tissue samples and cell lines. Significant apoptosis induction was found in monoclonal anti-Wnt-1 antibody treated cells compared to control monoclonal antibody treated cells (p < 0.02). Similarly, we observed increased apoptosis in Wnt-1 siRNA treated cells. Blockade of Wnt-1 signaling in both experiments was confirmed by analyzing intracellular levels of Dishevelled-3 and of cytosolic β-catenin. Furthermore, the monoclonal anti-Wnt-1 antibody also induced cell death in fresh primary cultures of metastatic sarcoma in which Wnt-1 signaling was active. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that Wnt-1 blockade by either monoclonal antibody or siRNA induces cell death in sarcoma cells. These data suggest that Wnt-1 may be a novel therapeutic target for the treatment of a subset of sarcoma cells in which Wnt-1/β-catenin signaling is active

Personalized medicine in psoriasis: developing a genomic classifier to predict histological response to Alefacept

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Alefacept treatment is highly effective in a select group patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and is an ideal candidate to develop systems to predict who will respond to therapy. A clinical trial of 22 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis treated with alefacept was conducted in 2002-2003, as a mechanism of action study. Patients were classified as responders or non-responders to alefacept based on histological criteria. Results of the original mechanism of action study have been published. Peripheral blood was collected at the start of this clinical trial, and a prior analysis demonstrated that gene expression in PBMCs differed between responders and non-responders, however, the analysis performed could not be used to predict response.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Microarray data from PBMCs of 16 of these patients was analyzed to generate a treatment response classifier. We used a discriminant analysis method that performs sample classification from gene expression data, via "nearest shrunken centroid method". Centroids are the average gene expression for each gene in each class divided by the within-class standard deviation for that gene.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A disease response classifier using 23 genes was created to accurately predict response to alefacept (12.3% error rate). While the genes in this classifier should be considered as a group, some of the individual genes are of great interest, for example, cAMP response element modulator (CREM), v-MAF avian musculoaponeurotic fibrosarcoma oncogene family (MAFF), chloride intracellular channel protein 1 (CLIC1, also called NCC27), NLR family, pyrin domain-containing 1 (NLRP1), and CCL5 (chemokine, cc motif, ligand 5, also called regulated upon activation, normally T expressed, and presumably secreted/RANTES).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although this study is small, and based on analysis of existing microarray data, we demonstrate that a treatment response classifier for alefacept can be created using gene expression of PBMCs in psoriasis. This preliminary study may provide a useful tool to predict response of psoriatic patients to alefacept.</p

Does Applicability Domain Exist in Microarray-Based Genomic Research?

Constructing an accurate predictive model for clinical decision-making on the basis of a relatively small number of tumor samples with high-dimensional microarray data remains a very challenging problem. The validity of such models has been seriously questioned due to their failure in clinical validation using independent samples. Besides the statistical issues such as selection bias, some studies further implied the probable reason was improper sample selection that did not resemble the genomic space defined by the training population. Assuming that predictions would be more reliable for interpolation than extrapolation, we set to investigate the impact of applicability domain (AD) on model performance in microarray-based genomic research by evaluating and comparing model performance for samples with different extrapolation degrees. We found that the issue of applicability domain may not exist in microarray-based genomic research for clinical applications. Therefore, it is not practicable to improve model validity based on applicability domain

Functional genomic analysis of drug sensitivity pathways to guide adjuvant strategies in breast cancer

The widespread introduction of high throughput RNA interference screening technology has revealed tumour drug sensitivity pathways to common cytotoxics such as paclitaxel, doxorubicin and 5-fluorouracil, targeted agents such as trastuzumab and inhibitors of AKT and Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) as well as endocrine therapies such as tamoxifen. Given the limited power of microarray signatures to predict therapeutic response in associative studies of small clinical trial cohorts, the use of functional genomic data combined with expression or sequence analysis of genes and microRNAs implicated in drug response in human tumours may provide a more robust method to guide adjuvant treatment strategies in breast cancer that are transferable across different expression platforms and patient cohorts

A phase II study of sequential neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus doxorubicin followed by gemcitabine plus cisplatin in patients with operable breast cancer: prediction of response using molecular profiling

This study examined the pathological complete response (pCR) rate and safety of sequential gemcitabine-based combinations in breast cancer. We also examined gene expression profiles from tumour biopsies to identify biomarkers predictive of response. Indian women with large or locally advanced breast cancer received 4 cycles of gemcitabine 1200 mg m−2 plus doxorubicin 60 mg m−2 (Gem+Dox), then 4 cycles of gemcitabine 1000 mg m−2 plus cisplatin 70 mg m−2 (Gem+Cis), and surgery. Three alternate dosing sequences were used during cycle 1 to examine dynamic changes in molecular profiles. Of 65 women treated, 13 (24.5% of 53 patients with surgery) had a pCR and 22 (33.8%) had a complete clinical response. Patients administered Gem d1, 8 and Dox d2 in cycle 1 (20 of 65) reported more toxicities, with G3/4 neutropenic infection/febrile neutropenia (7 of 20) as the most common cycle-1 event. Four drug-related deaths occurred. In 46 of 65 patients, 10-fold cross validated supervised analyses identified gene expression patterns that predicted with ⩾73% accuracy (1) clinical complete response after eight cycles, (2) overall clinical complete response, and (3) pCR. This regimen shows strong activity. Patients receiving Gem d1, 8 and Dox d2 experienced unacceptable toxicity, whereas patients on other sequences had manageable safety profiles. Gene expression patterns may predict benefit from gemcitabine-containing neoadjuvant therapy

The effect of the stromal component of breast tumours on prediction of clinical outcome using gene expression microarray analysis

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the cellular composition of biopsies on the error rates of multigene predictors of response of breast tumours to neoadjuvant adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Core biopsies were taken from primary breast tumours of 43 patients prior to AC, and subsequent clinical response was recorded. Post-chemotherapy (day 21) samples were available for 16 of these samples. Frozen sections of each core were used to estimate the proportion of invasive cancer and other tissue components at three levels. Transcriptional profiling was performed using a cDNA array containing 4,600 elements. RESULTS: Twenty-three (53%) patients demonstrated a 'good' and 20 (47%) a 'poor' clinical response. The percentage invasive tumour in core biopsies collected from these patients varied markedly. Despite this, agglomerative clustering of sample expression profiles showed that almost all biopsies from the same tumour aggregated as nearest neighbours. SAM (significance analysis of microarrays) regression analysis identified 144 genes which distinguished high- and low-percentage invasive tumour biopsies at a false discovery rate of not more than 5%. The misclassification error of prediction of clinical response using microarray data from pre-treatment biopsies (on leave-one-out cross-validation) was 28%. When prediction was performed on subsets of samples which were more homogeneous in their proportions of malignant and stromal cells, the misclassification error was considerably lower (8%–13%, p < 0.05 on permutation). CONCLUSION: The non-tumour content of breast cancer samples has a significant effect on gene expression profiles. Consideration of this factor improves accuracy of response prediction by expression array profiling. Future gene expression array prediction studies should be planned taking this into account