Maria I Toki1, Daniel E Carvajal-Hausdorf1, Mehmet Altan2, Joseph McLaughlin2, Brian Henick2, Kurt A Schalper3, Konstantinos N Syrigos4, David L Rimm5. 1. Department of Pathology, Yale University Medical School, New Haven, Connecticut. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University Medical School, New Haven, Connecticut. 3. Department of Pathology, Yale University Medical School, New Haven, Connecticut; Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University Medical School, New Haven, Connecticut. 4. Third Department of Medicine, University of Athens, School of Medicine, Sotiria General Hospital, Athens, Greece. 5. Department of Pathology, Yale University Medical School, New Haven, Connecticut; Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University Medical School, New Haven, Connecticut. Electronic address: david.rimm@yale.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: EGFR is a therapeutic target in NSCLC for EGFR-mutant patients. Proximity ligation assay (PLA) is a method to detect functional signaling associated protein complexes. Growth factor receptor bound protein 2 (GRB2) is an adaptor protein that binds to the phosphorylated residues of active EGFR. Interaction of EGFR and GRB2 correlates with active EGFR signaling and leads to activation of the MAPK/ERK pathway. METHODS: A PLA developed to detect EGFR-GRB2 interaction was measured by quantitative immunofluorescence using Automated Quantitative Analysis technology. EGFR pathway activation was assessed in patients with NSCLC with different mutation status along with overall EGFR expression. Additionally, the PLA to detect EGFR-GRB2 interaction was evaluated as a prognostic marker in two cohorts of patients with lung adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: The PLA to detect EGFR-GRB2 interaction was unrelated to overall EGFR expression or mutation in a series of patients with NSCLC with known mutation status. EGFR-mutant (p = 0.04) and EGFR/KRAS wild-type tumors (p = 0.0049) had significantly higher EGFR pathway activation compared with KRAS-mutant cases, with no significant difference shown between mutation sites. In two series of patients with lung adenocarcinoma, the PLA to detect EGFR-GRB2 interaction was independently associated with longer survival (hazard ratio = 0.46, 95% confidence interval: 0.2-0.78, p = 0.0085 and hazard ratio = 0.48, 95% confidence interval: 0.2-0.85, p = 0.017). Total EGFR protein expression alone was not correlated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: EGFR colocalization with GRB2 as assessed by PLA is not correlated with EGFR expression levels or mutation status, defining a patient group that may show EGFR pathway activation, as illustrated by its prognostic value. Future studies may determine whether this group is more likely to respond to EGFR-targeted therapies.
INTRODUCTION:EGFR is a therapeutic target in NSCLC for EGFR-mutant patients. Proximity ligation assay (PLA) is a method to detect functional signaling associated protein complexes. Growth factor receptor bound protein 2 (GRB2) is an adaptor protein that binds to the phosphorylated residues of active EGFR. Interaction of EGFR and GRB2 correlates with active EGFR signaling and leads to activation of the MAPK/ERK pathway. METHODS: A PLA developed to detect EGFR-GRB2 interaction was measured by quantitative immunofluorescence using Automated Quantitative Analysis technology. EGFR pathway activation was assessed in patients with NSCLC with different mutation status along with overall EGFR expression. Additionally, the PLA to detect EGFR-GRB2 interaction was evaluated as a prognostic marker in two cohorts of patients with lung adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: The PLA to detect EGFR-GRB2 interaction was unrelated to overall EGFR expression or mutation in a series of patients with NSCLC with known mutation status. EGFR-mutant (p = 0.04) and EGFR/KRAS wild-type tumors (p = 0.0049) had significantly higher EGFR pathway activation compared with KRAS-mutant cases, with no significant difference shown between mutation sites. In two series of patients with lung adenocarcinoma, the PLA to detect EGFR-GRB2 interaction was independently associated with longer survival (hazard ratio = 0.46, 95% confidence interval: 0.2-0.78, p = 0.0085 and hazard ratio = 0.48, 95% confidence interval: 0.2-0.85, p = 0.017). Total EGFR protein expression alone was not correlated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS:EGFR colocalization with GRB2 as assessed by PLA is not correlated with EGFR expression levels or mutation status, defining a patient group that may show EGFR pathway activation, as illustrated by its prognostic value. Future studies may determine whether this group is more likely to respond to EGFR-targeted therapies.
Authors: E J Lowenstein; R J Daly; A G Batzer; W Li; B Margolis; R Lammers; A Ullrich; E Y Skolnik; D Bar-Sagi; J Schlessinger Journal: Cell Date: 1992-08-07 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Matthew A Smith; Richard Hall; Kate Fisher; Scott M Haake; Farah Khalil; Matthew B Schabath; Vincent Vuaroqueaux; Heinz-Herbert Fiebig; Soner Altiok; Yian Ann Chen; Eric B Haura Journal: Sci Signal Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 8.192
Authors: David S Ettinger; Wallace Akerley; Hossein Borghaei; Andrew C Chang; Richard T Cheney; Lucian R Chirieac; Thomas A D'Amico; Todd L Demmy; Ramaswamy Govindan; Frederic W Grannis; Stefan C Grant; Leora Horn; Thierry M Jahan; Ritsuko Komaki; Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Mark G Kris; Lee M Krug; Rudy P Lackner; Inga T Lennes; Billy W Loo; Renato Martins; Gregory A Otterson; Jyoti D Patel; Mary C Pinder-Schenck; Katherine M Pisters; Karen Reckamp; Gregory J Riely; Eric Rohren; Theresa A Shapiro; Scott J Swanson; Kurt Tauer; Douglas E Wood; Stephen C Yang; Kristina Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2013-06-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Valsamo K Anagnostou; Konstantinos N Syrigos; Gerold Bepler; Robert J Homer; David L Rimm Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-12-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Maria I Toki; Nikita Mani; James W Smithy; Yuting Liu; Mehmet Altan; Brad Wasserman; Rasikh Tuktamyshov; Kurt Schalper; Konstantinos N Syrigos; David L Rimm Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Heidi M Haikala; Timothy Lopez; Jens Köhler; Pinar O Eser; Man Xu; Qing Zeng; Tyler J Teceno; Kenneth Ngo; Yutong Zhao; Elena V Ivanova; Arrien A Bertram; Brittaney A Leeper; Emily S Chambers; Anika E Adeni; Luke J Taus; Mari Kuraguchi; Paul T Kirschmeier; Channing Yu; Yoshinobu Shiose; Yasuki Kamai; Yang Qiu; Cloud P Paweletz; Prafulla C Gokhale; Pasi A Jänne Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 13.312
Authors: Brian S Henick; Franz Villarroel-Espindola; Ila Datar; Miguel F Sanmamed; Jovian Yu; Shruti Desai; Alice Li; Adam Aguirre-Ducler; Konstantinos Syrigos; David L Rimm; Lieping Chen; Roy S Herbst; Kurt A Schalper Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2022-07 Impact factor: 12.469
Authors: Matthew A Smith; Thomas Licata; Aliya Lakhani; Marileila Varella Garcia; Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus; Vincent Vuaroqueaux; Balazs Halmos; Alain C Borczuk; Y Ann Chen; Benjamin C Creelan; Theresa A Boyle; Eric B Haura Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 12.531