Literature DB >> 24916694

Differences in the transcriptional response to fulvestrant and estrogen deprivation in ER-positive breast cancer.

Neill Patani1, Anita K Dunbier2, Helen Anderson3, Zara Ghazoui4, Ricardo Ribas3, Elizabeth Anderson5, Qiong Gao3, Roger A'hern6, Alan Mackay3, Justin Lindemann7, Robert Wellings7, Jill Walker7, Irene Kuter8, Lesley-Ann Martin3, Mitch Dowsett9.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Endocrine therapies include aromatase inhibitors and the selective estrogen receptor (ER) downregulator fulvestrant. This study aimed to determine whether the reported efficacy of fulvestrant over anastrozole, and high- over low-dose fulvestrant, reflect distinct transcriptional responses. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: Global gene expression profiles from ERα-positive breast carcinomas before and during presurgical treatment with fulvestrant (n = 22) or anastrozole (n = 81), and corresponding in vitro models, were compared. Transcripts responding differently to fulvestrant and estrogen deprivation were identified and integrated using Gene Ontology, pathway and network analyses to evaluate their potential significance.
RESULTS: The overall transcriptional response to fulvestrant and estrogen deprivation was correlated (r = 0.61 in presurgical studies, r = 0.87 in vitro), involving downregulation of estrogen-regulated and proliferation-associated genes. The transcriptional response to fulvestrant was of greater magnitude than estrogen deprivation (slope = 0.62 in presurgical studies, slope = 0.63 in vitro). Comparative analyses identified 28 genes and 40 Gene Ontology categories affected differentially by fulvestrant. Seventeen fulvestrant-specific genes, including CAV1/2, SNAI2, and NRP1, associated with ERα, androgen receptor (AR), and TP53, in a network regulating cell cycle, death, survival, and tumor morphology. Eighteen genes responding differently to fulvestrant specifically predicted antiproliferative response to fulvestrant, but not anastrozole. Transcriptional effects of low-dose fulvestrant correlated with high-dose treatment, but were of lower magnitude (ratio = 0.29).
CONCLUSIONS: The transcriptional response to fulvestrant has much in common with estrogen deprivation, but is stronger with distinctions potentially attributable to arrest of estrogen-independent ERα activity and involvement of AR signaling. Genes responding differently to fulvestrant may have predictive utility. These data are consistent with the clinical efficacy of fulvestrant versus anastrozole and higher dosing regimens. ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24916694      PMCID: PMC4119788          DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1378

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  44 in total

1.  Identity of an estrogen membrane receptor coupled to a G protein in human breast cancer cells.

Authors:  P Thomas; Y Pang; E J Filardo; J Dong
Journal:  Endocrinology       Date:  2004-11-11       Impact factor: 4.736

2.  Double-blind, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer progressing on prior endocrine therapy: results of a North American trial.

Authors:  C K Osborne; J Pippen; S E Jones; L M Parker; M Ellis; S Come; S Z Gertler; J T May; G Burton; I Dimery; A Webster; C Morris; R Elledge; A Buzdar
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-08-15       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg for the first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer: follow-up analysis from the randomized 'FIRST' study.

Authors:  John F R Robertson; Justin P O Lindemann; Antonio Llombart-Cussac; Janusz Rolski; David Feltl; John Dewar; Laura Emerson; Andrew Dean; Matthew J Ellis
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2012-10-13       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Neuropilin-1 is expressed by breast cancer stem-like cells and is linked to NF-κB activation and tumor sphere formation.

Authors:  Yelena Glinka; Nada Mohammed; Venkateswaran Subramaniam; Serge Jothy; Gérald J Prud'homme
Journal:  Biochem Biophys Res Commun       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 3.575

Review 5.  The unfolding stories of GPR30, a new membrane-bound estrogen receptor.

Authors:  Marcello Maggiolini; Didier Picard
Journal:  J Endocrinol       Date:  2009-09-18       Impact factor: 4.286

6.  A potent specific pure antiestrogen with clinical potential.

Authors:  A E Wakeling; M Dukes; J Bowler
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1991-08-01       Impact factor: 12.701

7.  Activation of the estrogen receptor through phosphorylation by mitogen-activated protein kinase.

Authors:  S Kato; H Endoh; Y Masuhiro; T Kitamoto; S Uchiyama; H Sasaki; S Masushige; Y Gotoh; E Nishida; H Kawashima; D Metzger; P Chambon
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-12-01       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Combination anastrozole and fulvestrant in metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Rita S Mehta; William E Barlow; Kathy S Albain; Ted A Vandenberg; Shaker R Dakhil; Nagendra R Tirumali; Danika L Lew; Daniel F Hayes; Julie R Gralow; Robert B Livingston; Gabriel N Hortobagyi
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 9.  The role of caveolin-1 in human breast cancer.

Authors:  Neill Patani; Lesley-Ann Martin; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Mitch Dowsett
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-09-08       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  The antiestrogen ICI 182780 disrupts estrogen receptor nucleocytoplasmic shuttling.

Authors:  S Dauvois; R White; M G Parker
Journal:  J Cell Sci       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 5.285

View more
  10 in total

1.  PI3K inhibition results in enhanced estrogen receptor function and dependence in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Ana Bosch; Zhiqiang Li; Anna Bergamaschi; Haley Ellis; Eneda Toska; Aleix Prat; Jessica J Tao; Daniel E Spratt; Nerissa T Viola-Villegas; Pau Castel; Gerard Minuesa; Natasha Morse; Jordi Rodón; Yasir Ibrahim; Javier Cortes; Jose Perez-Garcia; Patricia Galvan; Judit Grueso; Marta Guzman; John A Katzenellenbogen; Michael Kharas; Jason S Lewis; Maura Dickler; Violeta Serra; Neal Rosen; Sarat Chandarlapaty; Maurizio Scaltriti; José Baselga
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 17.956

2.  AMPK Activation by Metformin Promotes Survival of Dormant ER+ Breast Cancer Cells.

Authors:  Riley A Hampsch; Jason D Wells; Nicole A Traphagen; Charlotte F McCleery; Jennifer L Fields; Kevin Shee; Lloye M Dillon; Darcy B Pooler; Lionel D Lewis; Eugene Demidenko; Yina H Huang; Jonathan D Marotti; Abigail E Goen; William B Kinlaw; Todd W Miller
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2020-04-22       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 3.  Family Matters: Collaboration and Conflict Among the Steroid Receptors Raises a Need for Group Therapy.

Authors:  Matthew J Sikora
Journal:  Endocrinology       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 4.736

Review 4.  Accurate prediction of response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer patients: current and future biomarkers.

Authors:  Cigdem Selli; J Michael Dixon; Andrew H Sims
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 6.466

5.  Molecular changes during extended neoadjuvant letrozole treatment of breast cancer: distinguishing acquired resistance from dormant tumours.

Authors:  Cigdem Selli; Arran K Turnbull; Dominic A Pearce; Ang Li; Anu Fernando; Jimi Wills; Lorna Renshaw; Jeremy S Thomas; J Michael Dixon; Andrew H Sims
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 6.466

6.  Increased Expression of Interleukin-1 Receptor Characterizes Anti-estrogen-Resistant ALDH+ Breast Cancer Stem Cells.

Authors:  Aida Sarmiento-Castro; Eva Caamaño-Gutiérrez; Andrew H Sims; Nathan J Hull; Mark I James; Angélica Santiago-Gómez; Rachel Eyre; Christopher Clark; Martha E Brown; Michael D Brooks; Max S Wicha; Sacha J Howell; Robert B Clarke; Bruno M Simões
Journal:  Stem Cell Reports       Date:  2020-07-23       Impact factor: 7.765

7.  Distinct mechanisms of resistance to fulvestrant treatment dictate level of ER independence and selective response to CDK inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Kamila Kaminska; Nina Akrap; Ana Bosch; Gabriella Honeth; Johan Staaf; Carla L Alves; Anna Ehinger; Anna Ebbesson; Ingrid Hedenfalk; Lukas Beumers; Srinivas Veerla; Katja Harbst; Sidse Ehmsen; Signe Borgquist; Åke Borg; Alejandro Pérez-Fidalgo; Henrik J Ditzel
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2021-02-18       Impact factor: 6.466

8.  Molecular changes in premenopausal oestrogen receptor-positive primary breast cancer in Vietnamese women after oophorectomy.

Authors:  Ben P Haynes; Ophira Ginsburg; Qiong Gao; Elizabeth Folkerd; Maria Afentakis; Le Hong Quang; Pham Thi Han; Pham Hong Khoa; Nguyen Van Dinh; Ta Van To; Mark Clemons; Ian E Smith; Mitch Dowsett
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2017-11-27

9.  Molecular profiling of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancers from patients treated with neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in the CARMINA 02 trial (UCBG-0609).

Authors:  Xu Liang; Adrien Briaux; Véronique Becette; Camille Benoist; Anais Boulai; Walid Chemlali; Anne Schnitzler; Sylvain Baulande; Sofia Rivera; Marie-Ange Mouret-Reynier; Laurence Venat Bouvet; Thibaut De La Motte Rouge; Jérôme Lemonnier; Florence Lerebours; Céline Callens
Journal:  J Hematol Oncol       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 17.388

Review 10.  Endogenous and Therapeutic Estrogens: Maestro Conductors of the Microenvironment of ER+ Breast Cancers.

Authors:  Linda A Schuler; Fern E Murdoch
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-07-24       Impact factor: 6.639

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.