PURPOSE: Cisplatin and radiation therapy remain the current standard for treating locally advanced SCCHN. Novel treatment approaches are needed, especially in patients with human papilloma virus (HPV)-negative disease who have worse outcomes despite multimodality therapy. METHODS: Using our institutional review board approved database, we obtained twenty oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) tissue samples: ten p16 positive, ten p16-negative. Because p16 expression is strongly associated with HPV positivity in oropharyngeal SCC, p16 status was used as a marker of HPV. We subsequently analyzed, via immunohistochemistry, heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) protein levels. Using HPV-positive and HPV-negative SCC cell lines, we compared baseline HSP90 expression levels and the effect of the HSP90 inhibitor ganetespib on viability and apoptosis. Clonogenic survival of HPV-negative cells treated with ganetespib, radiation therapy, and/or cisplatin was then investigated. We characterize the effects of ganetespib on proteins that are thought to drive DNA damage resistance in HPV-negative cells. RESULTS: HSP90 expression was significantly higher in p16-negative compared with p16-positive samples (p = 0.016) and in HPV-negative cell lines compared with positive cells. Ganetespib increased cytotoxicity and induced apoptosis in HPV-negative more than positive cells. Adding ganetespib to cisplatin and/or radiation therapy in HPV-negative cells further decreased clonogenic survival. Finally, ganetespib downregulated expressions of EGFR, ERK, AKT, p53, and HIF-1α. CONCLUSIONS: Ganetespib inhibited HPV-negative SCCHN viability and potentiated cell kill when combined with cisplatin or radiation therapy in vitro. With HSP90 expression higher in HPV-negative cells and in p16-negative patients, further exploration of the clinical activity of HSP90 inhibitors in SCCHN is warranted.
PURPOSE:Cisplatin and radiation therapy remain the current standard for treating locally advanced SCCHN. Novel treatment approaches are needed, especially in patients with human papilloma virus (HPV)-negative disease who have worse outcomes despite multimodality therapy. METHODS: Using our institutional review board approved database, we obtained twenty oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) tissue samples: ten p16 positive, ten p16-negative. Because p16 expression is strongly associated with HPV positivity in oropharyngeal SCC, p16 status was used as a marker of HPV. We subsequently analyzed, via immunohistochemistry, heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) protein levels. Using HPV-positive and HPV-negative SCC cell lines, we compared baseline HSP90 expression levels and the effect of the HSP90 inhibitor ganetespib on viability and apoptosis. Clonogenic survival of HPV-negative cells treated with ganetespib, radiation therapy, and/or cisplatin was then investigated. We characterize the effects of ganetespib on proteins that are thought to drive DNA damage resistance in HPV-negative cells. RESULTS:HSP90 expression was significantly higher in p16-negative compared with p16-positive samples (p = 0.016) and in HPV-negative cell lines compared with positive cells. Ganetespib increased cytotoxicity and induced apoptosis in HPV-negative more than positive cells. Adding ganetespib to cisplatin and/or radiation therapy in HPV-negative cells further decreased clonogenic survival. Finally, ganetespib downregulated expressions of EGFR, ERK, AKT, p53, and HIF-1α. CONCLUSIONS:Ganetespib inhibited HPV-negative SCCHN viability and potentiated cell kill when combined with cisplatin or radiation therapy in vitro. With HSP90 expression higher in HPV-negative cells and in p16-negative patients, further exploration of the clinical activity of HSP90 inhibitors in SCCHN is warranted.
Authors: Ayanda M Magwenyane; Samuel C Ugbaja; Daniel G Amoako; Anou M Somboro; Rene B Khan; Hezekiel M Kumalo Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: Sivarajan T Chettiar; Reem Malek; Anvesh Annadanam; Katriana M Nugent; Yoshinori Kato; Hailun Wang; Jessica A Cades; Kekoa Taparra; Zineb Belcaid; Matthew Ballew; Sarah Manmiller; David Proia; Michael Lim; Robert A Anders; Joseph M Herman; Phuoc T Tran Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Cesar Tovar; Amanda L Patchett; Vitna Kim; Richard Wilson; Jocelyn Darby; A Bruce Lyons; Gregory M Woods Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nils H Nicolay; Ramon Lopez Perez; Alexander Rühle; Thuy Trinh; Sonevisay Sisombath; Klaus-Josef Weber; Anthony D Ho; Jürgen Debus; Rainer Saffrich; Peter E Huber Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 4.379