| Literature DB >> 21730982 |
K Iida1, K Nakayama, M T Rahman, M Rahman, M Ishikawa, A Katagiri, S Yeasmin, Y Otsuki, H Kobayashi, S Nakayama, K Miyazaki.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the patterns of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) overexpression, EGFR gene amplification, and the presence of activating mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of this gene in squamous cell carcinomas and adenocarcinomas/adenosquamous carcinomas of the uterine cervix.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21730982 PMCID: PMC3172895 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.222
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Figure 1(A) Immunoreactivity of EGFR in cervical cancer tissues. Intense immunoreactivity is present in the cytoplasm of cervical squamous carcinoma cells (upper left panel). (B) A cervical adenocarcinoma case with negative staining for EGFR (upper right panel). (C) Dual-colour fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) demonstrates amplification of the EGFR gene in cervical cancer. FISH analysis showing a homogeneously stained region in a tumour with gene amplification.
The relationship between (A) EGFR expression and (B) EGFR gene amplification and cervical carcinoma histological subtype
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| SCC | 37 (62%) | 22 (38%) | <0.0001 |
| AC/ASC | 51(98%) | 1(2%) | |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||
| SCC | 53 (90%) | 6 (10%) | <0.05 |
| AC/ASC | 52(100%) | 0 (0%) | |
Abbreviations: AC=adenocarcinoma; ASC=adenosquamous carcinoma; EGFR=epidermal growth factor receptor; SCC=squamous cell carcinoma.
Figure 2(A, B) Kaplan–Meier survival curve in 78 patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma with respect to EGFR protein expression or gene amplification. The EGFR gene amplification significantly correlated with shorter overall survival (P=0.001). The EGFR protein expression did not correlate with shorter overall survival in patients with cervical carcinomas.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors in patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| >60 years old | 29 | 8.7 | 1.1–69.2 | 0.041 | 3.9 | 0.3–48.1 | 0.287 |
| <60 years old | 30 | ||||||
|
| |||||||
| I, II | 37 | 8.1 | 1.7–39.0 | 0.009 | 2.7 | 0.4–20.0 | 0.329 |
| III, IV | 22 | ||||||
|
| |||||||
| Amplification | 6 | 10 | 2.6–38.4 | 0.001 | 6.4 | 1.5–27.0 | 0.011 |
| Normal | 53 | ||||||
Abbreviations: CI=confidence interval; EGFR=epidermal growth factor receptor; FIGO=International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; FISH=fluorescence in situ hybridisation.
Figure 3Biofunctional effects of EGFR inactivation on different cervical cancer cell lines. (A) Dual-colour fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH)-validated amplification of the EGFR gene in cervical cancer cell lines. The FISH analysis showing a homogeneously stained region in CaSki cells with gene amplification. (B) Western blot indicates the protein level of EGFR in each cell line. (C) Each cell line was treated with 10 μmol l–1 AG1478 to inhibit EGFR function, and cell viability was measured with an MTT assay 98 h later. An equal amount of DMSO was used as a control. *P<0.05 vs Hela P3.
Figure 4Validation of anti-EGFR therapy in a mouse xenograft cervical cancer model. Athymic nude mice were injected subcutaneously with ME180 or Hela cells. After 2 weeks, each mouse was treated with a placebo or AG1478 at a dose of 10 μg/treatment/week for 5 weeks. (A) Appearance of the subcutaneous tumours. (B) The mice injected with AG1478 developed significantly smaller subcutaneous xenograft tumours than those carrying placebo-treated cells of the EGFR-amplified cell line ME180. (C) There were no differences in subcutaneous xenograft tumour weights between the AG1478-treated group and control groups transplanted with Hela cells containing wild-type, nonamplified, EGFR. *P<0.05 vs control.