INTRODUCTION: Heat shock protein (HSP) 90, a viable target for cancer treatment, mediates the maturation and stabilization of client oncoproteins. HSP90 inhibitors (HSP90i) are potentially active in a variety of tumors, but therapeutic benefit is confirmed in only a small subset. We explored potential biomarkers across multiple studies of HSP90i in advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Archived tumor specimens from patients treated with HSP90i in 7 different phase I/II trials at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were identified. Tumor tissue was tested using immunohistochemistry; estrogen, progesterone, and androgen receptors ≥ 1% positive and < 1% negative; HSP90 and HSP70: 0, 1 + negative, and 2+, 3 + positive; phosphatase and tensin homolog: 0 negative, 1 reduced, and 2 positive; HER2: 0, 1 + negative, 2 + equivocal, 3 + positive; and epidermal growth factor receptor: 0 negative, and 1+, 2+, 3 + positive. The expression of the biomarker panel was correlated with clinical benefit (CB) (defined by overall response [ORR] or CB by the "8-week" scan) using Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Adequate tissue was available for 51 of 158 patients (32%), including 10 different solid tumors. Of these, 71% (36 of 51) and 51% (26 of 51) patients met the criteria to assess CB by best ORR or by the "8-week scan" assessment, respectively. Breast was the most frequent tumor. The mean duration of HSP90i therapy was 55 days (range, 16-411 days). There were 16 responses (4 partial response; 12 stable disease); 13 of 16 responses strongly correlated with HER2-positive status (P = .001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest HER2 as a sensitive client and perhaps the only effective biomarker for sensitivity to these HSP90i.
INTRODUCTION:Heat shock protein (HSP) 90, a viable target for cancer treatment, mediates the maturation and stabilization of client oncoproteins. HSP90 inhibitors (HSP90i) are potentially active in a variety of tumors, but therapeutic benefit is confirmed in only a small subset. We explored potential biomarkers across multiple studies of HSP90i in advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Archived tumor specimens from patients treated with HSP90i in 7 different phase I/II trials at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were identified. Tumor tissue was tested using immunohistochemistry; estrogen, progesterone, and androgen receptors ≥ 1% positive and < 1% negative; HSP90 and HSP70: 0, 1 + negative, and 2+, 3 + positive; phosphatase and tensin homolog: 0 negative, 1 reduced, and 2 positive; HER2: 0, 1 + negative, 2 + equivocal, 3 + positive; and epidermal growth factor receptor: 0 negative, and 1+, 2+, 3 + positive. The expression of the biomarker panel was correlated with clinical benefit (CB) (defined by overall response [ORR] or CB by the "8-week" scan) using Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Adequate tissue was available for 51 of 158 patients (32%), including 10 different solid tumors. Of these, 71% (36 of 51) and 51% (26 of 51) patients met the criteria to assess CB by best ORR or by the "8-week scan" assessment, respectively. Breast was the most frequent tumor. The mean duration of HSP90i therapy was 55 days (range, 16-411 days). There were 16 responses (4 partial response; 12 stable disease); 13 of 16 responses strongly correlated with HER2-positive status (P = .001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest HER2 as a sensitive client and perhaps the only effective biomarker for sensitivity to these HSP90i.
Authors: Udai Banerji; Anne O'Donnell; Michelle Scurr; Simon Pacey; Sarah Stapleton; Yasmin Asad; Laura Simmons; Alison Maloney; Florence Raynaud; Maeli Campbell; Michael Walton; Sunil Lakhani; Stanley Kaye; Paul Workman; Ian Judson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Elah Pick; Yuval Kluger; Jennifer M Giltnane; Christopher Moeder; Robert L Camp; David L Rimm; Harriet M Kluger Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2007-04-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Arun Rajan; Ronan J Kelly; Jane B Trepel; Yeong Sang Kim; Sylvia V Alarcon; Shivaani Kummar; Martin Gutierrez; Sonja Crandon; Wadih M Zein; Lokesh Jain; Baskar Mannargudi; William D Figg; Brett E Houk; Michael Shnaidman; Nicoletta Brega; Giuseppe Giaccone Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: David B Solit; S Percy Ivy; Catherine Kopil; Rachel Sikorski; Michael J Morris; Susan F Slovin; W Kevin Kelly; Anthony DeLaCruz; Tracy Curley; Glenn Heller; Steven Larson; Lawrence Schwartz; Merrill J Egorin; Neal Rosen; Howard I Scher Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-03-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Komal Jhaveri; Stefan O Ochiana; Mark Ps Dunphy; John F Gerecitano; Adriana D Corben; Radu I Peter; Yelena Y Janjigian; Erica M Gomes-DaGama; John Koren; Shanu Modi; Gabriela Chiosis Journal: Expert Opin Investig Drugs Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 6.206
Authors: S Chandarlapaty; M Scaltriti; P Angelini; Q Ye; M Guzman; C A Hudis; L Norton; D B Solit; J Arribas; J Baselga; N Rosen Journal: Oncogene Date: 2009-10-26 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Tony Taldone; Tai Wang; Anna Rodina; Naga Vara Kishore Pillarsetty; Chander S Digwal; Sahil Sharma; Pengrong Yan; Suhasini Joshi; Piyusha P Pagare; Alexander Bolaender; Gail J Roboz; Monica L Guzman; Gabriela Chiosis Journal: Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 10.005
Authors: Jihong Xu; Pei-Jung Wu; Deepa Sampath; Vinay K Puduvalli; Tzung-Huei Lai; Pratibha Sharma; Alessandro Canella; Alessandra M Welker; Christine E Beattie; J Brad Elder; Michelle Easley; Russell Lonser; Naduparambil K Jacob; Maciej Pietrzak; Cynthia M Timmers; Frederick Lang Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2022-05-02 Impact factor: 13.801
Authors: John F Darby; Lewis R Vidler; Peter J Simpson; Bissan Al-Lazikani; Stephen J Matthews; Swee Y Sharp; Laurence H Pearl; Swen Hoelder; Paul Workman Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 4.379