Zhenqiu Liu1, Jessica A Beach2, Hasmik Agadjanian3, Dongyu Jia3, Paul-Joseph Aspuria3, Beth Y Karlan4, Sandra Orsulic5. 1. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Research Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Graduate Program in Biomedical Science and Translational Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Women's Cancer Program, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Women's Cancer Program, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Women's Cancer Program, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Women's Cancer Program, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: Sandra.Orsulic@cshs.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is associated with poor survival but it is unknown if poor outcome is due to the intrinsic biology of unresectable tumors or insufficient surgical effort resulting in residual tumor-sustaining clones. Our objective was to identify the potential molecular pathway(s) and cell type(s) that may be responsible for suboptimal surgical resection. METHODS: By comparing gene expression in optimally and suboptimally cytoreduced patients, we identified a gene network associated with suboptimal cytoreduction and explored the biological processes and cell types associated with this gene network. RESULTS: We show that primary tumors from suboptimally cytoreduced patients express molecular signatures that are typically present in a distinct molecular subtype of EOC characterized by increased stromal activation and lymphovascular invasion. Similar molecular pathways are present in EOC metastases, suggesting that primary tumors in suboptimally cytoreduced patients are biologically similar to metastatic tumors. We demonstrate that the suboptimal cytoreduction network genes are enriched in reactive tumor stroma cells rather than malignant tumor cells. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the success of cytoreductive surgery is dictated by tumor biology, such as extensive stromal reaction and increased invasiveness, which may hinder surgical resection and ultimately lead to poor survival.
OBJECTIVE: Suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is associated with poor survival but it is unknown if poor outcome is due to the intrinsic biology of unresectable tumors or insufficient surgical effort resulting in residual tumor-sustaining clones. Our objective was to identify the potential molecular pathway(s) and cell type(s) that may be responsible for suboptimal surgical resection. METHODS: By comparing gene expression in optimally and suboptimally cytoreduced patients, we identified a gene network associated with suboptimal cytoreduction and explored the biological processes and cell types associated with this gene network. RESULTS: We show that primary tumors from suboptimally cytoreduced patients express molecular signatures that are typically present in a distinct molecular subtype of EOC characterized by increased stromal activation and lymphovascular invasion. Similar molecular pathways are present in EOC metastases, suggesting that primary tumors in suboptimally cytoreduced patients are biologically similar to metastatic tumors. We demonstrate that the suboptimal cytoreduction network genes are enriched in reactive tumor stroma cells rather than malignant tumor cells. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the success of cytoreductive surgery is dictated by tumor biology, such as extensive stromal reaction and increased invasiveness, which may hinder surgical resection and ultimately lead to poor survival.
Authors: Paul Shannon; Andrew Markiel; Owen Ozier; Nitin S Baliga; Jonathan T Wang; Daniel Ramage; Nada Amin; Benno Schwikowski; Trey Ideker Journal: Genome Res Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Lisa Ryner; Yinghui Guan; Ron Firestein; Yuanyuan Xiao; Younjeong Choi; Christina Rabe; Shan Lu; Eloisa Fuentes; Ling-Yuh Huw; Mark R Lackner; Ling Fu; Lukas C Amler; Carlos Bais; Yulei Wang Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Natalia Rodriguez Gómez-Hidalgo; Bertha Alejandra Martinez-Cannon; Alpa M Nick; Karen H Lu; Anil K Sood; Robert L Coleman; Pedro T Ramirez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Allison E Axtell; Margaret H Lee; Robert E Bristow; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Steven Raman; John P Weaver; Mojan Gabbay; Michael Ngo; Scott Lentz; Ilana Cass; Andrew J Li; Beth Y Karlan; Christine H Holschneider Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Roel G W Verhaak; Pablo Tamayo; Ji-Yeon Yang; Diana Hubbard; Hailei Zhang; Chad J Creighton; Sian Fereday; Michael Lawrence; Scott L Carter; Craig H Mermel; Aleksandar D Kostic; Dariush Etemadmoghadam; Gordon Saksena; Kristian Cibulskis; Sekhar Duraisamy; Keren Levanon; Carrie Sougnez; Aviad Tsherniak; Sebastian Gomez; Robert Onofrio; Stacey Gabriel; Lynda Chin; Nianxiang Zhang; Paul T Spellman; Yiqun Zhang; Rehan Akbani; Katherine A Hoadley; Ari Kahn; Martin Köbel; David Huntsman; Robert A Soslow; Anna Defazio; Michael J Birrer; Joe W Gray; John N Weinstein; David D Bowtell; Ronny Drapkin; Jill P Mesirov; Gad Getz; Douglas A Levine; Matthew Meyerson Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2012-12-21 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Markus Riester; Wei Wei; Levi Waldron; Aedin C Culhane; Lorenzo Trippa; Esther Oliva; Sung-Hoon Kim; Franziska Michor; Curtis Huttenhower; Giovanni Parmigiani; Michael J Birrer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Katharine K Brieger; Siri Peterson; Alice W Lee; Bhramar Mukherjee; Kelly M Bakulski; Aliya Alimujiang; Hoda Anton-Culver; Michael S Anglesio; Elisa V Bandera; Andrew Berchuck; David D L Bowtell; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Kathleen R Cho; Daniel W Cramer; Anna DeFazio; Jennifer A Doherty; Renée T Fortner; Dale W Garsed; Simon A Gayther; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Ellen L Goode; Marc T Goodman; Holly R Harris; Estrid Høgdall; David G Huntsman; Hui Shen; Allan Jensen; Sharon E Johnatty; Susan J Jordan; Susanne K Kjaer; Jolanta Kupryjanczyk; Diether Lambrechts; Karen McLean; Usha Menon; Francesmary Modugno; Kirsten Moysich; Roberta Ness; Susan J Ramus; Jean Richardson; Harvey Risch; Mary Anne Rossing; Britton Trabert; Nicolas Wentzensen; Argyrios Ziogas; Kathryn L Terry; Anna H Wu; Gillian E Hanley; Paul Pharoah; Penelope M Webb; Malcolm C Pike; Celeste Leigh Pearce Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Chen Wang; Sebastian M Armasu; Kimberly R Kalli; Matthew J Maurer; Ethan P Heinzen; Gary L Keeney; William A Cliby; Ann L Oberg; Scott H Kaufmann; Ellen L Goode Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Benjamin B Albright; Karen A Monuszko; Samantha J Kaplan; Brittany A Davidson; Haley A Moss; Allan B Huang; Alexander Melamed; Jason D Wright; Laura J Havrilesky; Rebecca A Previs Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 10.693
Authors: Allison L Hunt; Nicholas W Bateman; Waleed Barakat; Sasha Makohon-Moore; Brian L Hood; Kelly A Conrads; Ming Zhou; Valerie Calvert; Mariaelena Pierobon; Jeremy Loffredo; Tracy J Litzi; Julie Oliver; Dave Mitchell; Glenn Gist; Christine Rojas; Brian Blanton; Emma L Robinson; Kunle Odunsi; Anil K Sood; Yovanni Casablanca; Kathleen M Darcy; Craig D Shriver; Emanuel F Petricoin; Uma N M Rao; G Larry Maxwell; Thomas P Conrads Journal: iScience Date: 2021-06-21