| Literature DB >> 26928703 |
Giuseppe Roscilli1,2, Claudia De Vitis3,4, Fabiana Fosca Ferrara5, Alessia Noto6,7, Emanuela Cherubini8, Alberto Ricci9,10, Salvatore Mariotta11,12, Enrico Giarnieri13,14, Maria Rosaria Giovagnoli15,16, Maria Rosaria Torrisi17,18, Francesca Bergantino19, Susan Costantini20, Francesca Fenizia21, Matilde Lambiase22, Luigi Aurisicchio23, Nicola Normanno24, Gennaro Ciliberto25, Rita Mancini26,27.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths and Malignant Pleural Effusion (MPE) is a frequent complication. Current therapies suffer from lack of efficacy in a great percentage of cases, especially when cancer is diagnosed at a late stage. Moreover patients' responses vary and the outcome is unpredictable. Therefore, the identification of patients who will benefit most of chemotherapy treatment is important for accurate prognostication and better outcome. In this study, using malignant pleural effusions (MPE) from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, we established a collection of patient-derived Adenocarcinoma cultures which were characterized for their sensitivity to chemotherapeutic drugs used in the clinical practice.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26928703 PMCID: PMC4772534 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-016-0816-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Mutations identified in MPE primary cultures
| KRAS | EGFR | PIK3CA | BRAF | MET | TP53 | STK11 | In vivo | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exon19del | T790 M | ||||||||
| PE d/10 | 46 % | No | |||||||
| PE e/10 | 87.9 % | 31.6 % | Yes | ||||||
| PE b/11 | 53.5 % | Yes | |||||||
| PE g/11 | Yes | ||||||||
| PE h/11 | 43.1 % | No | |||||||
| PE i/11 | 37.2 % | 100 % | Yes | ||||||
| PE n/11 | Yes | ||||||||
| PE o/11 | 98.8 % | 54.2 % | 100 % | No | |||||
| PE p/11 | 100 % | 17.2 % | 100 % | No | |||||
| PE r/11 | 47 % | No | |||||||
| PE s/11 | 42 % | 15 % | 14.3 % | Yes | |||||
| PE u/11 | 49 % | 11.3 % | Yes | ||||||
| PE v/11 | 57 % | Yes | |||||||
| PE z/11 | Yes | ||||||||
| PE b/12 | 100 % | 49.1 % | 100 % | Yes | |||||
| PE f/13 | No | ||||||||
* nonsense mutation
Fig. 1Sensitivity of primary cultured MPE tumor cells to gefitinib and erlotinib
Fig. 2The 2573 mutated genes were categorized into enriched categories according to BIOCARTA (a) and KEGG (b) pathway analysis
Comparison of Mutations identified in MPE primary cultures and PDX
| KRAS | EGFR | PIK3CA | BRAF | MET | TP53 | STK11 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exon19del | T790 M | |||||||
| PE e/10 | 87.9 % | 31.6 % | ||||||
| PE e/10 | 50.4 % | 49.2 % | 44.5 % | |||||
| PE b/11 | 53.5 % | |||||||
| PE b/11 | 100 % | 15.2 % | 97.6 % | |||||
| PE g/11 | ||||||||
| PE g/11 | 75.5 % | 49.5 % | 77.7 % | |||||
| PE i/11 | 37.2 % | 100 % | ||||||
| PE i/11 | 29.4 % | 100 % | ||||||
| PE n/11 (p3) | ||||||||
| PE n/11 | 27 % | 100 % | ||||||
| PE s/11 | 42 % | 15 % | 14.3 % | |||||
| PE s/11 | 100 % | 15.8 % | 94.7 % | |||||
| PE u/11 | 49 % | 11.3 % | ||||||
| PE u/11 | 92 % | 11.8 % | 100 % | |||||
| PE v/11 | 57 % | |||||||
| PE v/11 | 87.5 % | 93.5 % | ||||||
| PE z/11 (p4) | ||||||||
| PE z/11 | 100 % | 14.2 % | 98.8 % | |||||
| PE b/12 | 100 % | 49.1 % | 100 % | |||||
| PE b/12 | 65.7 % | 49 % | 63 % | |||||
* nonsense mutation
Fig. 3Sensitivity of primary cultured MPE tumor cells to chemotherapeutic drugs
Fig. 4Sensitivity heat map of PE primary cultures treated with single chemotherapeutic agent
Fig. 5In vitro evaluation of cisplatin and gemcitabine co-treatment and determination of Combination Index (CI) for PE r/11. a Dose-Effect curve and b Combination Index plot obtained by CalcuSyn software
In vitro determination of Combination Index (CI) of cisplatin combined with gemcitabine, or vinorelbine or taxotere
| MPE culture | Cisplatin combination | CI |
|---|---|---|
| PE g/11 | Vinorelbine | 1 |
| Gemcitabine | 1 | |
| Docetaxel | 1 | |
| PE n/11 | Vinorelbine | >1 |
| Gemcitabine | >1 | |
| Docetaxel | >1 | |
| PE p/11 | Vinorelbine | >1 |
| Gemcitabine | >1 | |
| Docetaxel | <1 | |
| PE r/11 | Vinorelbine | <1 |
| Gemcitabine | <1 | |
| Docetaxel | <1 | |
| PE s/11 | Vinorelbine | <1 |
| Gemcitabine | <1 | |
| Docetaxel | <1 | |
| PE u/11 | Vinorelbine | <1 |
| Gemcitabine | <1 | |
| Docetaxel | 1 |
Available patient data on response to drug treatment
| Patient | Primary | 1st line therapy | 1st line response | 1st line response | 2nd line therapy | 2nd line response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | PE g/11 | Cis + Vin | PR | SD | Erlotinib | PD |
| #2 | PE n/11 | Cis + Vin | PD | |||
| #3 | PE p/11 | Cis + Gem | SD | SD | Pemetrexed | PD |
| #4 | PE r/11 | Cis + Gem + Beva | PR | |||
| #5 | PE s/11 | Cis + Taxotere | PR | |||
| #6 | PE u/11 | Cis + Gem + Beva | PR |
Clinical response: PD progression disease, SD stable disease, PR partial regression, CR complete