| Literature DB >> 21847116 |
E Arriola1, I Cañadas, M Arumí-Uría, M Dómine, J A Lopez-Vilariño, O Arpí, M Salido, S Menéndez, E Grande, F R Hirsch, S Serrano, B Bellosillo, F Rojo, A Rovira, J Albanell.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) has poor prognosis and remains orphan from targeted therapy. MET is activated in several tumour types and may be a promising therapeutic target.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21847116 PMCID: PMC3171012 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.298
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Figure 1Hepatocyte growth factor activates MET and downstream molecules in mutant SCLC cell line and PHA-665752 inhibits these effects. Cells were serum starved for 24 h and then treated with PHA-665752 (0.05 μM) for 3 h and stimulated with HGF (40 ng/ml) during 15′. Whole cell lysates were purified, size separated by SDS–PAGE, transferred to a membrane and probed with various antibodies.
Figure 2PHA-665752 inhibits HGF-induced cellular effects in MET mutant SCLC cells. (A) The PHA-665752 inhibits HGF-induced cell proliferation in MET mutant SCLC cells. WT and MET mutant cells were treated for 72 h with HGF, PHA-665752 or HGF+PHA-665752. Cell number was assessed by the trypan blue exclusion method. (B) The PHA-665752 inhibits HGF-induced colony formation in MET mutant SCLC cells. The SCLC cells were cultured in medium containing 0.3% agar (as described in Material and Methods) in the presence of HGF and PHA for 21 days. (C) The PHA-665752 decreases cell invasion in MET mutant SCLC cells. Cells were grown in serum-free media and seeded into the inserts of 24-well (8 μm pore size) CHEMICON Invasion Chamber in the presence of PHA-665752 (0.5 μM). Inserts were placed into Falcon companion plates containing 10% FBS and 40 ng ml−1 HGF and incubated for 24 h. The number of invading cells on the underside of the membrane was determined using crystal violet staining.
Clinical characteristics of small cell lung cancer patients
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Median age (range) | 65 (41–85) |
|
| |
| Female | 9 (12%) |
| Male | 68 (88%) |
|
| |
| Never | 1 (1%) |
| Former | 22 (29%) |
| Current | 54 (70%) |
|
| |
| 0–1 | 48 (62%) |
| 2–3 | 13 (17%) |
| Unknown | 16 (21%) |
|
| |
| Limited | 32 (42%) |
| Extensive | 42 (54%) |
| Unknown | 3 (4%) |
Figure 3(A) MET and p-MET expression patterns in SCLC. (1–6) Different patterns of total MET expression in human SCLC (normal epithelia and tumour), assayed by immunohistochemistry. (7–12) Different patterns of p-MET (Y1349) expression in human SCLC. Negative expression observed in tumour 7. Strong expression of p-MET in scattered cells (tumour 8), focal (tumour 9) or diffuse (tumour 12). Intermediate or combined strong and intermediate expression patterns were observed in tumours 10 and 11, respectively. Diffuse: staining of a majority or all tumour cells; heterogeneous: presence of positive tumour areas while others negative. (B) Immunohistochemistry for MET and p-MET in consecutive tissue sections from FFPE lung cancer specimens. A NSCLC (control) sample with well-known levels of MET and p-MET was used in 3D4 and SP44 (MET) and 130H2 and D26 (p-MET) assays. In SCLC samples, same intensity and pattern of staining were observed for MET expression (tumours A and B) and for p-MET (tumours C and D).
Association between MET and p-MET expression and clinical variables
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||
| Female | 5 | 4 | 0.948 | 3 | 6 | 0.539 |
| Male | 37 | 31 | 30 | 38 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Previous/never | 16 | 8 | 0.253 | 8 | 16 | 0.453 |
| Current | 25 | 27 | 24 | 28 | ||
|
| ||||||
| 0–1 | 29 | 19 | 0.544 | 21 | 27 | 0.855 |
| 2–3 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 8 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Limited | 15 | 17 | 0.381 | 9 | 23 | 0.048 |
| Extensive | 24 | 18 | 21 | 21 | ||
Abbreviations: NEG=negative; p-MET=phosphorylated MET; POS=positive; PS=performance status.
Figure 4MET and p-MET overexpression threshold and prognostic significance in the cohort of SCLC patients. (A, B) The ROC was used to determine the optimal cutoff point for MET and p-MET expression. The MET and p-MET thresholds according to ROC data were 120 and 5, respectively. At these Hscore values, the sensitivity of the MET test was 57.1%, with a specificity of 62.7% for MET; and the sensitivity of p-MET assay was 46.3%, with a specificity of 85.7%. These scores were used to define overexpression. (C) Association between MET expression and overall survival. (D) Association between p-MET expression and overall survival. P-values were calculated using the log-rank test and survival curves by Kaplan–Meier analysis.
Cox multivariate model for overall survival
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| Stage (extensive | 2.96 (1.58–5.54) | 0.001 |
| p-MET overexpression (no | 1.93 (1.07–3.48) | 0.028 |
Abbreviations: CI=confidence interval; HR=hazard ratio.