Carolin Muth1, Yvonne Rubner1, Sabine Semrau1, Paul-Friedrich Rühle1, Benjamin Frey1, Annedore Strnad1, Rolf Buslei2, Rainer Fietkau1, Udo S Gaipl3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 2. Department of Neuropathology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. udo.gaipl@uk-erlangen.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common and aggressive brain tumor. Despite improved multimodal therapies, the tumor recurs in most cases. Diverging patient survival suggests great tumor heterogeneity and different therapy responses. Danger signals such as high-mobility group box protein 1 (HMGB1), heat shock protein 70 (HSP70), and calreticulin (CRT) are biomarker candidates, due to their association with tumor progression versus induction of antitumor immune responses. Overexpression of these danger signals has been reported for various types of tumors; however, their role in GBM is still elusive. A direct comparison of their expression in the primary tumor versus the corresponding relapse is still lacking for most tumor entities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We therefore performed an expression analysis by immunohistochemistry of the danger signals HMGB1, HSP70, and CRT in primary tumors and the corresponding relapses of 9 patients with de novo GBM. RESULTS: HMGB1 was highly expressed in primary tumors with a significant reduction in the respective relapse. The extracellular HSP70 expression was significantly increased in the relapse compared to the primary tumor. CRT was generally highly expressed in the primary tumor, with a slight increase in the relapse. CONCLUSION: The combination of a decreased expression of HMGB1, an increased expression of extracellular HSP70, and an increased expression of CRT in the relapse seems to be beneficial for patient survival. HMGB1, extracellular HSP70, and CRT could be taken into concerted consideration as potential biomarkers for the prognosis of patients with GBM.
PURPOSE:Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common and aggressive brain tumor. Despite improved multimodal therapies, the tumor recurs in most cases. Diverging patient survival suggests great tumor heterogeneity and different therapy responses. Danger signals such as high-mobility group box protein 1 (HMGB1), heat shock protein 70 (HSP70), and calreticulin (CRT) are biomarker candidates, due to their association with tumor progression versus induction of antitumor immune responses. Overexpression of these danger signals has been reported for various types of tumors; however, their role in GBM is still elusive. A direct comparison of their expression in the primary tumor versus the corresponding relapse is still lacking for most tumor entities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We therefore performed an expression analysis by immunohistochemistry of the danger signals HMGB1, HSP70, and CRT in primary tumors and the corresponding relapses of 9 patients with de novo GBM. RESULTS:HMGB1 was highly expressed in primary tumors with a significant reduction in the respective relapse. The extracellular HSP70 expression was significantly increased in the relapse compared to the primary tumor. CRT was generally highly expressed in the primary tumor, with a slight increase in the relapse. CONCLUSION: The combination of a decreased expression of HMGB1, an increased expression of extracellular HSP70, and an increased expression of CRT in the relapse seems to be beneficial for patient survival. HMGB1, extracellular HSP70, and CRT could be taken into concerted consideration as potential biomarkers for the prognosis of patients with GBM.
Authors: Roger Stupp; Monika E Hegi; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Martin J B Taphoorn; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Anouk Allgeier; Barbara Fisher; Karl Belanger; Peter Hau; Alba A Brandes; Johanna Gijtenbeek; Christine Marosi; Charles J Vecht; Karima Mokhtari; Pieter Wesseling; Salvador Villa; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Thierry Gorlia; Michael Weller; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; René-Olivier Mirimanoff Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Karin Pfister; Jürgen Radons; Raymonde Busch; James G Tidball; Michael Pfeifer; Lutz Freitag; Horst-Jürgen Feldmann; Valeria Milani; Rolf Issels; Gabriele Multhoff Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J Hartmann; J Wölfelschneider; C Stache; R Buslei; A Derer; M Schwarz; T Bäuerle; R Fietkau; U S Gaipl; C Bert; A Hölsken; B Frey Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Johnathan G Lyon; Nassir Mokarram; Tarun Saxena; Sheridan L Carroll; Ravi V Bellamkonda Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 15.470
Authors: Michael Rückert; Lisa Deloch; Rainer Fietkau; Benjamin Frey; Markus Hecht; Udo S Gaipl Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jan C Peeken; Josefine Hesse; Bernhard Haller; Kerstin A Kessel; Fridtjof Nüsslin; Stephanie E Combs Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: C Leitzen; T Wilhelm-Buchstab; L C Schmeel; S Garbe; S Greschus; T Müdder; S Oberste-Beulmann; B Simon; H H Schild; H Schüller Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 3.621