Shaun D Fouse1, Jean L Nakamura, C David James, Susan Chang, Joseph F Costello. 1. Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Tumor Research Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California (S.D.F., C.D.J., S.C., J.F.C); Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, California (J.L.N.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) contains a population of cells that exhibit stem cell phenotypes. These cancer stem cells (CSCs) may be a source of therapeutic resistance, although support for this important concept is limited. METHODS: We determined whether early-passage GBM CSCs respond differently than patient-matched, genotypically similar non-CSCs to clinically relevant single or serial doses of temozolomide (TMZ), radiation therapy (XRT), or alternating TMZ treatment and XRT, which is the standard of care for GBM patients. RESULTS: Despite the phenotypic differences, including the presence of stem cell markers and formation of intracranial tumors, the CSCs and matched non-CSCs were equally resistant to TMZ in a majority of patients, using 2 independent assays. TMZ response was consistent with methylated O(6)-DNA methylguanine-methyltransferase (MGMT) and MGMT protein levels in both culture types. In contrast, CSCs were unexpectedly more responsive to XRT compared with matched non-CSCs from 2 patients despite having relatively equal resistance to TMZ. However, for the majority of culture pairs from individual patients, responses in CSCs were indistinguishable from non-CSC cultures. CONCLUSIONS: In our patient-matched primary cultures, response to TMZ was tightly linked to the individual tumor's MGMT status and independent of their phenotypic differences. TMZ and XRT together revealed no additive benefit compared with monotherapy for either culture type, in contrast to the notion that the CSC population is more resistant to XRT. If the tumor cell response in vitro mirrors therapeutic response in larger patient cohorts, these rapid assays in primary cultures could allow -empirical selection of efficacious therapeutic agents on a patient-specific basis.
BACKGROUND:Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) contains a population of cells that exhibit stem cell phenotypes. These cancer stem cells (CSCs) may be a source of therapeutic resistance, although support for this important concept is limited. METHODS: We determined whether early-passage GBM CSCs respond differently than patient-matched, genotypically similar non-CSCs to clinically relevant single or serial doses of temozolomide (TMZ), radiation therapy (XRT), or alternating TMZ treatment and XRT, which is the standard of care for GBM patients. RESULTS: Despite the phenotypic differences, including the presence of stem cell markers and formation of intracranial tumors, the CSCs and matched non-CSCs were equally resistant to TMZ in a majority of patients, using 2 independent assays. TMZ response was consistent with methylated O(6)-DNA methylguanine-methyltransferase (MGMT) and MGMT protein levels in both culture types. In contrast, CSCs were unexpectedly more responsive to XRT compared with matched non-CSCs from 2 patients despite having relatively equal resistance to TMZ. However, for the majority of culture pairs from individual patients, responses in CSCs were indistinguishable from non-CSC cultures. CONCLUSIONS: In our patient-matched primary cultures, response to TMZ was tightly linked to the individual tumor's MGMT status and independent of their phenotypic differences. TMZ and XRT together revealed no additive benefit compared with monotherapy for either culture type, in contrast to the notion that the CSC population is more resistant to XRT. If the tumor cell response in vitro mirrors therapeutic response in larger patient cohorts, these rapid assays in primary cultures could allow -empirical selection of efficacious therapeutic agents on a patient-specific basis.
Entities:
Keywords:
cancer stem cell; glioblastoma multiforme; radiation response
Authors: Krista A Van Nifterik; Jaap Van den Berg; Ben J Slotman; M Vincent M Lafleur; Peter Sminia; Lukas J A Stalpers Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: M L Rosenblum; M Gerosa; D V Dougherty; C Reese; G R Barger; R L Davis; V A Levin; C B Wilson Journal: Lancet Date: 1982-04-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Vincent A Barvaux; Malcolm Ranson; Robert Brown; R Stanley McElhinney; T Brian H McMurry; Geoffrey P Margison Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Robin G Lerner; Stefan Grossauer; Banafsheh Kadkhodaei; Ian Meyers; Maxim Sidorov; Katharina Koeck; Rintaro Hashizume; Tomoko Ozawa; Joanna J Phillips; Mitchel S Berger; Theodore Nicolaides; C David James; Claudia K Petritsch Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Andrew Mancini; Ana Xavier-Magalhães; Wendy S Woods; Kien-Thiet Nguyen; Alexandra M Amen; Josie L Hayes; Christof Fellmann; Michael Gapinske; Andrew M McKinney; Chibo Hong; Lindsey E Jones; Kyle M Walsh; Robert J A Bell; Jennifer A Doudna; Bruno M Costa; Jun S Song; Pablo Perez-Pinera; Joseph F Costello Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Daniel V Brown; Paul M Daniel; Giovanna M D'Abaco; Andrew Gogos; Wayne Ng; Andrew P Morokoff; Theo Mantamadiotis Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2015-03-20
Authors: Aleksei A Stepanenko; Svitlana V Andreieva; Kateryna V Korets; Dmytro O Mykytenko; Vladimir P Baklaushev; Nataliya L Huleyuk; Oksana A Kovalova; Kateryna V Kotsarenko; Vladimir P Chekhonin; Yegor S Vassetzky; Stanislav S Avdieiev; Vladimir V Dmitrenko Journal: Cancer Cell Int Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 5.722