Literature DB >> 28199863

Analysis of Chemopredictive Assay for Targeting Cancer Stem Cells in Glioblastoma Patients.

Candace M Howard1, Jagan Valluri2, Anthony Alberico3, Terrence Julien3, Rida Mazagri3, Robert Marsh3, Hoyt Alastair3, Antonio Cortese4, Michael Griswold5, Wanmei Wang5, Krista Denning6, Linda Brown6, Pier Paolo Claudio7.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The prognosis of glioblastoma (GBM) treated with standard-of-care maximal surgical resection and concurrent adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ)/radiotherapy remains very poor (less than 15 months). GBMs have been found to contain a small population of cancer stem cells (CSCs) that contribute to tumor propagation, maintenance, and treatment resistance. The highly invasive nature of high-grade gliomas and their inherent resistance to therapy lead to very high rates of recurrence. For these reasons, not all patients with similar diagnoses respond to the same chemotherapy, schedule, or dose. Administration of ineffective anticancer therapy is not only costly but more importantly burdens the patient with unnecessary toxicity and selects for the development of resistant cancer cell clones. We have developed a drug response assay (ChemoID) that identifies the most effective chemotherapy against CSCs and bulk of tumor cells from of a panel of potential treatments, offering great promise for individualized cancer management. Providing the treating physician with drug response information on a panel of approved drugs will aid in personalized therapy selections of the most effective chemotherapy for individual patients, thereby improving outcomes. A prospective study was conducted evaluating the use of the ChemoID drug response assay in GBM patients treated with standard of care.
METHODS: Forty-one GBM patients (mean age 54 years, 59% male), all eligible for a surgical biopsy, were enrolled in an Institutional Review Board-approved protocol, and fresh tissue samples were collected for drug sensitivity testing. Patients were all treated with standard-of-care TMZ plus radiation with or without maximal surgery, depending on the status of the disease. Patients were prospectively monitored for tumor response, time to recurrence, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Odds ratio (OR) associations of 12-month recurrence, PFS, and OS outcomes were estimated for CSC, bulk tumor, and combined assay responses for the standard-of-care TMZ treatment; sensitivities/specificities, areas under the curve (AUCs), and risk reclassification components were examined.
RESULTS: Median follow-up was 8 months (range 3-49 months). For every 5% increase in in vitro CSC cell kill by TMZ, 12-month patient response (nonrecurrence of cancer) increased two-fold, OR=2.2 (P=.016). Similar but somewhat less supported associations with the bulk tumor test were seen, OR=2.75 (P=.07) for each 5% bulk tumor cell kill by TMZ. Combining CSC and bulk tumor assay results in a single model yielded a statistically supported CSC association, OR=2.36 (P=.036), but a much attenuated remaining bulk tumor association, OR=1.46 (P=.472). AUCs and [sensitivity/specificity] at optimal outpoints (>40% CSC cell kill and >55% bulk tumor cell kill) were AUC=0.989 [sensitivity=100/specificity=97], 0.972 [100/89], and 0.989 [100/97] for the CSC only, bulk tumor only, and combined models, respectively. Risk categorization of patients was improved by 11% when using the CSC test in conjunction with the bulk test (risk reclassification nonevent net reclassification improvement [NRI] and overall NRI=0.111, P=.030). Median recurrence time was 20 months for patients with a positive (>40% cell kill) CSC test versus only 3 months for those with a negative CSC test, whereas median recurrence time was 13 months versus 4 months for patients with a positive (>55% cell kill) bulk test versus negative. Similar favorable results for the CSC test were observed for PFS and OS outcomes. Panel results across 14 potential other treatments indicated that 34/41 (83%) potentially more optimal alternative therapies may have been chosen using CSC results, whereas 27/41 (66%) alternative therapies may have been chosen using bulk tumor results.
CONCLUSIONS: The ChemoID CSC drug response assay has the potential to increase the accuracy of bulk tumor assays to help guide individualized chemotherapy choices. GBM cancer recurrence may occur quickly if the CSC test has a low in vitro cell kill rate even if the bulk tumor test cell kill rate is high. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID: 28199863      PMCID: PMC5310181          DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2017.01.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Oncol        ISSN: 1936-5233            Impact factor:   4.243


  43 in total

1.  NCCN adult brain tumor practice guidelines.

Authors: 
Journal:  Oncology (Williston Park)       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 2.990

2.  Embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma: adjuvant and ex vivo assay-directed chemotherapy.

Authors:  Karen S Ballard; Sean S Tedjarati; William R Robinson; Howard D Homesley; Erin L Thurston
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.437

Review 3.  Survival in glioblastoma: a review on the impact of treatment modalities.

Authors:  P D Delgado-López; E M Corrales-García
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 3.405

4.  Consistency of in vitro chemoresponse assay results and population clinical response rates among women with endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Warner K Huh; Michael Cibull; Holly H Gallion; Christine M Gan; Scott Richard; David E Cohn
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 3.437

Review 5.  Response assessment in neuro-oncology (a report of the RANO group): assessment of outcome in trials of diffuse low-grade gliomas.

Authors:  M J van den Bent; J S Wefel; D Schiff; M J B Taphoorn; K Jaeckle; L Junck; T Armstrong; A Choucair; A D Waldman; T Gorlia; M Chamberlain; B G Baumert; M A Vogelbaum; D R Macdonald; D A Reardon; P Y Wen; S M Chang; A H Jacobs
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 41.316

6.  Flow cytometry analysis of neural differentiation markers expression in human glioblastomas may predict their response to chemotherapy.

Authors:  Vladimir Balik; Peter Mirossay; Peter Bohus; Igor Sulla; Ladislav Mirossay; Marek Sarissky
Journal:  Cell Mol Neurobiol       Date:  2009-03-14       Impact factor: 5.046

Review 7.  Molecular mechanisms for tumour resistance to chemotherapy.

Authors:  Shu-Ting Pan; Zhi-Ling Li; Zhi-Xu He; Jia-Xuan Qiu; Shu-Feng Zhou
Journal:  Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.557

8.  Chemo-predictive assay for targeting cancer stem-like cells in patients affected by brain tumors.

Authors:  Sarah E Mathis; Anthony Alberico; Rounak Nande; Walter Neto; Logan Lawrence; Danielle R McCallister; James Denvir; Gerrit A Kimmey; Mark Mogul; Gerard Oakley; Krista L Denning; Thomas Dougherty; Jagan V Valluri; Pier Paolo Claudio
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  IDH1 mutations are present in the majority of common adult gliomas but rare in primary glioblastomas.

Authors:  Koichi Ichimura; Danita M Pearson; Sylvia Kocialkowski; L Magnus Bäcklund; Raymond Chan; David T W Jones; V Peter Collins
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 10.  Advances in the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

Authors:  Brett J Theeler; Mark R Gilbert
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 8.775

View more
  13 in total

1.  New Advances and Challenges of Targeting Cancer Stem Cells.

Authors:  Nurmaa K Dashzeveg; Rokana Taftaf; Erika K Ramos; Luke Torre-Healy; Anastasia Chumakova; Daniel J Silver; Tyler J Alban; Maksim Sinyuk; Praveena S Thiagarajan; Awad M Jarrar; Soumya M Turaga; Caner Saygin; Erin Mulkearns-Hubert; Masahiro Hitomi; Jeremy N Rich; Stanton L Gerson; Justin D Lathia; Huiping Liu
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 12.701

Review 2.  The Clinical Impact of Cancer Stem Cells.

Authors:  Justin Lathia; Huiping Liu; Daniela Matei
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-12-17

Review 3.  Cancer stem cell mobilization and therapeutic targeting of the 5T4 oncofetal antigen.

Authors:  Richard Harrop; Eric O'Neill; Peter L Stern
Journal:  Ther Adv Vaccines Immunother       Date:  2019-01-25

4.  All-trans retinoic acid therapy induces asymmetric division of glioma stem cells from the U87MG cell line.

Authors:  Ruizhi Wang; Chongxiao Liu
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 2.967

Review 5.  DNA hypermethylation in disease: mechanisms and clinical relevance.

Authors:  Melanie Ehrlich
Journal:  Epigenetics       Date:  2019-07-08       Impact factor: 4.528

Review 6.  Benefits of functional assays in personalized cancer medicine: more than just a proof-of-concept.

Authors:  Christophe Bounaix Morand du Puch; Mathieu Vanderstraete; Stéphanie Giraud; Christophe Lautrette; Niki Christou; Muriel Mathonnet
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2021-09-21       Impact factor: 11.556

7.  Prospective prediction of clinical drug response in high-grade gliomas using an ex vivo 3D cell culture assay.

Authors:  Stephen Shuford; Lindsay Lipinski; Ajay Abad; Ashley M Smith; Melissa Rayner; Lauren O'Donnell; Jeremy Stuart; Laszlo L Mechtler; Andrew J Fabiano; Jeff Edenfield; Charles Kanos; Stephen Gardner; Philip Hodge; Michael Lynn; Nicholas A Butowski; Seunggu J Han; Navid Redjal; Howland E Crosswell; Cecile Rose T Vibat; Lillia Holmes; Matthew Gevaert; Robert A Fenstermaker; Teresa M DesRochers
Journal:  Neurooncol Adv       Date:  2021-05-07

8.  Cancer Stem Cell Chemotherapeutics Assay for Prospective Treatment of Recurrent Glioblastoma and Progressive Anaplastic Glioma: A Single-Institution Case Series.

Authors:  Tulika Ranjan; Candace M Howard; Alexander Yu; Linda Xu; Khaled Aziz; David Jho; Jodi Leonardo; Muhammad A Hameed; Stephen M Karlovits; Rodney E Wegner; Russell Fuhrer; Seth T Lirette; Krista L Denning; Jagan Valluri; Pier Paolo Claudio
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2020-03-17       Impact factor: 4.243

Review 9.  Tuning Cancer Fate: Tumor Microenvironment's Role in Cancer Stem Cell Quiescence and Reawakening.

Authors:  Antonella Sistigu; Martina Musella; Claudia Galassi; Ilio Vitale; Ruggero De Maria
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 7.561

10.  Clinical relevance of cancer stem cell chemotherapeutic assay for recurrent ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Candace M Howard; Nadim Bou Zgheib; Stephen Bush; Timothy DeEulis; Antonio Cortese; Antonio Mollo; Seth T Lirette; Krista Denning; Jagan Valluri; Pier Paolo Claudio
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2020-08-28       Impact factor: 4.243

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.