Jan Nyrop Jakobsen1, Eric Santoni-Rugiu2, Jesper Ravn3, Jens Benn Sørensen4. 1. Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: jan.nyrop.jakobsen@rh.regionh.dk. 2. Department of Pathology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prognostic and predictive biomarkers are increasingly used to customise the treatment of patients with solid tumours. Intra- and inter-tumour heterogeneous distribution of biomarker expression is a potential confounder for the use of biomarkers, as small biopsies may not necessarily truly reflect the pattern of biomarker expression. It may also be an important factor in chemo resistance, as tumours with heterogeneous biomarker expression may potentially harbour chemo resistant tumour clones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Immunohistochemical evaluation of the expression of excision repair cross complementation group 1 (ERCC1), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), class III-β-tubulin (TUBB-3), thymidylate synthase (TS), Ki-67 and ribonucleotide reductase M1 (RRM1) was performed in 15 separate areas in each of six small microscopically completely resected adenocarcinomas of the lung in order to elucidate any heterogeneous distribution. RESULTS: Clinically relevant biomarker heterogeneity with respect to the expression of EGFR, ERCC1, RRM1, TUBB-3 and Ki-67 was observed in four (66%), four (66%), one (16%), three (50%) and five (83%) out of six tumours, respectively. Thus, heterogeneity could potentially allocate these tumours erroneously into high or low expressers by chance alone, according to previously reported cut-off values. In contrast, TS was almost completely homogenously distributed. CONCLUSION: Most biomarkers examined, except for TS, showed clinically significant intratumour heterogeneity in 33-87% of tumours examined. This heterogeneity may influence results in studies investigating the therapeutic impact of predictive biomarkers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
BACKGROUND: Prognostic and predictive biomarkers are increasingly used to customise the treatment of patients with solid tumours. Intra- and inter-tumour heterogeneous distribution of biomarker expression is a potential confounder for the use of biomarkers, as small biopsies may not necessarily truly reflect the pattern of biomarker expression. It may also be an important factor in chemo resistance, as tumours with heterogeneous biomarker expression may potentially harbour chemo resistant tumour clones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Immunohistochemical evaluation of the expression of excision repair cross complementation group 1 (ERCC1), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), class III-β-tubulin (TUBB-3), thymidylate synthase (TS), Ki-67 and ribonucleotide reductase M1 (RRM1) was performed in 15 separate areas in each of six small microscopically completely resected adenocarcinomas of the lung in order to elucidate any heterogeneous distribution. RESULTS: Clinically relevant biomarker heterogeneity with respect to the expression of EGFR, ERCC1, RRM1, TUBB-3 and Ki-67 was observed in four (66%), four (66%), one (16%), three (50%) and five (83%) out of six tumours, respectively. Thus, heterogeneity could potentially allocate these tumours erroneously into high or low expressers by chance alone, according to previously reported cut-off values. In contrast, TS was almost completely homogenously distributed. CONCLUSION: Most biomarkers examined, except for TS, showed clinically significant intratumour heterogeneity in 33-87% of tumours examined. This heterogeneity may influence results in studies investigating the therapeutic impact of predictive biomarkers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Authors: T A Bogush; E A Dudko; A N Grishanina; V T Zarkua; E A Bogush; A A Basharina; B E Polotsky; S A Tjulandin; M M Davydov; M I Davydov Journal: Dokl Biochem Biophys Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 0.788
Authors: T A Bogush; E A Dudko; A V Semakov; E A Bogush; A S Tjulandina; V T Zarkua; S A Tjulandin; M I Davydov Journal: Dokl Biochem Biophys Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 0.788
Authors: E Alegre; J P Fusco; P Restituto; D Salas-Benito; M E Rodríguez-Ruiz; M P Andueza; M J Pajares; A Patiño-García; R Pio; M D Lozano; A Gúrpide; J M Lopez-Picazo; I Gil-Bazo; J L Perez-Gracia; A Gonzalez Journal: Tumour Biol Date: 2016-07-29
Authors: T A Bogush; E A Dudko; M V Rodionova; E A Bogush; V J Kirsanov; V V Rodionov; I K Vorotnikov Journal: Dokl Biochem Biophys Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 0.788
Authors: A Lafuente-Sanchis; Á Zúñiga; J M Galbis; A Cremades; M Estors; N J Martínez-Hernández; J Carretero Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 3.405