| Literature DB >> 24454858 |
Rossella Terragni1, Andrea Casadei Gardini2, Silvia Sabattini3, Giuliano Bettini3, Dino Amadori2, Chiara Talamonti3, Massimo Vignoli4, Laura Capelli2, Jimmy H Saunders5, Marianna Ricci5, Marianna Ricci5, Paola Ulivi5, Paola Ulivi5.
Abstract
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR or HER-1) and its analog c-erbB-2 (HER-2) are protein tyrosine kinases correlated with prognosis and response to therapy in a variety of human cancers. KRAS mediates the transduction of signals between EGFR and the nucleus, and its mutation has been identified as a predictor of resistance to anti-EGFR drugs. In human oncology, the importance of the EGFR/HER-2/KRAS signalling pathway in gastric cancer is well established, and HER-2 testing is required before initiating therapy. Conversely, this pathway has never been investigated in canine gastric tumours. A total of 19 canine gastric epithelial neoplasms (5 adenomas and 14 carcinomas) were retrospectively evaluated for EGFR/HER-2 immunohistochemical expression and KRAS mutational status. Five (35.7%) carcinomas were classified as intestinal-type and 9 (64.3%) as diffuse-type. EGFR was overexpressed (≥ 1+) in 8 (42.1%) cases and HER-2 (3+) in 11 (57.9%) cases, regardless of tumour location or biological behaviour. The percentage of EGFR-positive tumours was significantly higher in the intestinal-type (80%) than in the diffuse-type (11.1%, p = 0.023). KRAS gene was wild type in 18 cases, whereas one mucinous carcinoma harboured a point mutation at codon 12 (G12R). EGFR and HER-2 may be promising prognostic and therapeutic targets in canine gastric epithelial neoplasms. The potential presence of KRAS mutation should be taken into account as a possible mechanism of drug resistance. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the role of dog as a model for human gastric cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24454858 PMCID: PMC3893207 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085388
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Animal details and tumor characteristics in 19 cases of canine gastric epithelial neoplasms.
| Case | Breed | Age,yrs | Sex | Tumor location | Type of sample | Histological diagnosis | TNM Stage | EGFRscore | HER-2score | KRAS gene analysis |
| 1 | Shih-tzu | 8 | M | Pyloric antrum | Surgical | Tubular adenoma | N/A | 0 | 2+ | Wild type |
| 2 | Shih-tzu | 10 | MC | Pyloric antrum | Surgical | Papillary adenoma | N/A | 3+ | 3+ | Wild type |
| 3 | Crossbreed | 7 | M | Pyloric antrum | Surgical | Tubulopapillary adenoma | N/A | 0 | 3+ | Wild type |
| 4 | Crossbreed | 13 | M | Pyloric antrum | Surgical | Tubulopapillary adenoma | N/A | 2+ | 3+ | Wild type |
| 5 | Crossbreed | 16 | FS | Cardia | Endoscopic biopsy | Tubulopapillary adenoma | N/A | 1+ | 2+ | Wild type |
| 6 | Boxer | 3 | M | Pyloric antrum | Surgical | In situ carcinoma within tubulopapillary adenoma | TisN0M0/Stage 0 | 1+ | 3+ | Wild type |
| 7 | Italian Hound | 8 | F | Pyloric antrum | Post mortem | Tubular adenocarcinoma | T3NxM1/Stage IV | 1+ | 3+ | Wild type |
| 8 | Chow-Chow | 12 | M | Lesser curvature | Post mortem | Tubular adenocarcinoma | T3N1M0/Stage IIIA | 3+ | 3+ | Wild type |
| 9 | Crossbreed | 7 | FS | – | Endoscopic biopsy | Papillary adenocarcinoma | T1NxM0 | 0 | 2+ | Wild type |
| 10 | Italian Griffon | 12 | F | – | Post mortem | Tubulopapillary adenocarcinoma | T2NxM1/Stage IV | 1+ | 3+ | Wild type |
| 11 | Boxer | 9 | M | Gastric fundus | Post mortem | Mucinous/signet-ring cell carcinoma | T3N1M0/Stage IIIA | 0 | 2+ | Wild type |
| 12 | Boxer | 10 | M | Gastric fundus | Surgical | Mucinous/signet-ring cell carcinoma | T4N1MX/Stage IV | 0 | 3+ | Mut G12R |
| 13 | Pyrenean Mountain Dog | 10 | F | Lesser curvature | Endoscopic biopsy | Mucinous/signet-ring cell carcinoma | T1N0M0/Stage IA | 0 | 3+ | Wild type |
| 14 | German Shepherd | 10 | F | Pyloric antrum | Endoscopic biopsy | Mucinous/signet-ring cell carcinoma | T1N1M0/Stage IB | 0 | 3+ | Wild type |
| 15 | Dalmatian | 10 | F | Lesser curvature | Surgical | Mucinous/signet-ring cell carcinoma | T4N1M0/Stage IV | 1+ | 3+ | Wild type |
| 16 | Golden Retriever | 8 | M | Lesser curvature | Surgical | Mucinous/signet-ring cell carcinoma | T2N0M0/Stage IB | 0 | 2+ | Wild type |
| 17 | Shar Pei | 6 | M | Pyloric antrum | Endoscopic biopsy | Mucinous/signet-ring cell carcinoma | T1N1M0/Stage IB | 0 | 2+ | Wild type |
| 18 | Bouvier des Flandres | 9 | M | Lesser curvature | Endoscopic biopsy | Mucinous/signet-ring cell carcinoma | T1NxM0 | 0 | 2+ | Wild type |
| 19 | Crossbreed | 10 | M | Lesser curvature | Endoscopic biopsy | Undifferentiated carcinoma | N/A | 0 | – | Wild type |
N/A, not applicable;
TNM staging system for gastric carcinomas according to the classification of the American Joint Commission on Cancer11.
Figure 1EGFR and HER-2 immunohistochemistry of canine samples.
(A). Dog, stomach. Signet ring cell carcinoma (case No. 15). EGFR immunohistochemistry. Faint and partial membrane labelling of the neoplastic cells (1+). Haematoxylin counterstain. 200x. (B) Dog, stomach. Papillary adenoma (case No. 2). EGFR immunohistochemistry. Strong and complete membrane labeling of the neoplastic cells (3+). Haematoxylin counterstain. 100x. (C) Dog, stomach. Tubulopapillary adenoma (case No. 4). HER-2 immunohistochemistry. Moderate basolateral membrane labeling of the neoplastic cells (2+). Haematoxylin counterstain. 200x. (D) Dog, stomach. In situ tubulopapillary carcinoma (case No. 6). HER-2 immunohistochemistry. Strong and complete membrane labeling of the neoplastic cells (3+). Haematoxylin counterstain. 200x. (E) Dog, stomach, fundus. EGFR immunohistochemistry. Negative labeling of the mucosal epithelium. Faint granular cytoplasmic positivity of the parietal cells. Haematoxylin counterstain. 200x. (F) Dog, stomach, pyloric antrum. HER-2 immunohistochemistry. Scattered foci of faint basolateral positivity. Haematoxylin counterstain. 200x.
Association between EGFR/HER-2 status and clinical pathological parameters in 19 canine gastric epithelial neoplasms.
| Parameter | EGFR ≥1+( | P | HER-2 3+ ( | P |
|
| ns | ns | ||
|
| 4/12 | 6/11 | ||
|
| 4/7 | 5/7 | ||
|
| ns | ns | ||
|
| 2/9 | 3/9 | ||
|
| 6/10 | 8/9 | ||
|
| ns | ns | ||
|
| 2/6 | 4/7 | ||
|
| 4/8 | 6/8 | ||
|
| ns | ns | ||
|
| 3/5 | 3/5 | ||
|
| 5/14 | 8/13 | ||
|
| 0.023 | ns | ||
|
| 4/5 | 4/5 | ||
|
| 1/9 | 4/8 | ||
|
| ns | ns | ||
|
| 3/4 | 4/4 | ||
|
| 1/6 | 3/6 |
Figure 2KRAS analysis.
Mutation analysis performed by direct sequencing on wild type (A) and mutated (B) samples. Arrows indicate the point mutation.