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. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS 39216. 2. Department of Biological Sciences, Marshall University, Huntington, WV 25755. 3. Department of Neuroscience, Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Marshall University, Huntington, WV 25705. 4. Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Salerno, Italy. 5. Department of Data Science, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS 39216. 6. Department of Anatomy and Pathology, Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Marshall University, Huntington, WV 25705. 7. Department of BioMolecular Sciences, National Center for Natural Products Research, University of Mississippi, University, MS; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center Cancer Institute, Jackson, MS 39216. Electronic address: pclaudio@olemiss.edu.
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.
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 GBMpatients treated with standard of care. METHODS: Forty-one GBMpatients (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. GBMcancer 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Authors: Antonella Sistigu; Martina Musella; Claudia Galassi; Ilio Vitale; Ruggero De Maria Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 7.561
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