| Literature DB >> 28850564 |
Maeva Dufies1,2, Sandy Giuliano1,2, Julien Viotti3, Delphine Borchiellini4, Linsay S Cooley5, Damien Ambrosetti6, Mélanie Guyot1, Papa Diogop Ndiaye1, Julien Parola1, Audrey Claren1,4, Renaud Schiappa3, Jocelyn Gal3, Antoine Frangeul4, Arnaud Jacquel7, Ophélie Cassuto4, Renaud Grépin2, Patrick Auberger7, Andréas Bikfalvi5, Gérard Milano4, Bernard Escudier8, Nathalie Rioux-Leclercq9, Camillo Porta10, Sylvie Negrier11, Emmanuel Chamorey3, Jean-Marc Ferrero4, Gilles Pagès1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sunitinib is one of the first-line standard treatments for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) with a median time to progression shorter than 1 year. The objective is to discover predictive markers of response to adapt the treatment at diagnosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28850564 PMCID: PMC5625677 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.276
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Characteristics of the patients included in the study
| Number of patients | 54 | 45 | 31 |
| Gender | |||
| Female | 10 (18.52%) | 12 (26.67%) | 7 (22.58%) |
| Male | 44 (81.48%) | 33 (73.33%) | 24 (77.42%) |
| Fuhrman grade | |||
| 1 | 1 (1.85%) | 1 (2.22%) | |
| 2 | 11 (20.37%) | 9 (20%) | 11 (35.48%) |
| 3 | 23 (42.59%) | 17 (37.78%) | 8 (25.8%) |
| 4 | 12 (22.22%) | 11 (24.44%) | 1 (3.22%) |
| NA | 7 (12.96%) | 7 (15.56%) | 11 (35.48%) |
| pT | |||
| 1 | 10 (18.52%) | 8 (17.78%) | 4 (12.9%) |
| 2 | 12 (22.22%) | 7 (15.56%) | 7 (22.58%) |
| ⩾3 | 25 (46.30%) | 22 (48.89%) | 20 (64.52%) |
| NA | 7 (12.96%) | 8 (17.78%) | |
| pN | |||
| 0 | 17 (31.48%) | 21 (67.74%) | |
| 1 | 2 (3.7%) | 1 (3.22%) | |
| 2 | 4 (7.4%) | 6 (19.35%) | |
| NA | 31 (57.41%) | 45 (100%) | 3 (9.68%) |
| Metastatic from the diagnosis | 21 (38.39%) | 16 (35.56%) | 11 (35.48%) |
| Time from diagnosis to treatment | |||
| <1 yr | 27 (50%) | 26 (57.78%) | 14 (45.16%) |
| ⩾1 yr | 27 (50%) | 19 (42.22%) | 17 (54.84%) |
| Number of metastatic sites | |||
| 1 | 27 (50%) | 22 (48.89%) | 11 (35.48%) |
| 2 | 17 (31.48%) | 13 (28.89%) | 6 (19.35%) |
| ⩾3 | 10 (18.52%) | 10 (22.22%) | 14 (45.16%) |
| Risk factor (MSKCC) | |||
| Good | 18 (43.90%) | 6 (14.29%) | 7 (22.58%) |
| Intermediate | 15 (36.59%) | 13 (30.95%) | 5 (16.13%) |
| Bad | 8 (19.51%) | 23 (54.76%) | 19 (61.29%) |
| NA | 13 | 3 | |
| Median follow-up (month) | 27.7 (23.4–34.4) | 24 (23.1–26.2) | 39.4 (28.9–50.6) |
| CXCL7 | |||
| Average (ng ml−1) | 264.02 (139.3–485.2) | 283.8 (148–381) | 286.57 (171.8–490) |
| <250 ng ml−1 | 22 (40.74%) | 9 (20%) | 9 (29.03%) |
| ⩾250 ng ml−1 | 32 (59.26%) | 36 (80%) | 22 (70.97%) |
Abbreviation: MSKCC=Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre.
Figure 1Relationship between plasmatic levels of CXCL7 and PFS of ccRCC patients treated with sunitinib in prospective and retrospective cohort. (A and B) Kaplan–Meier analysis of PFS of patients with ccRCC treated with sunitinib. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from patient subgroups with plasmatic level for CXCL7 at the diagnosis that were less or greater than a cut-off value of 250 ng ml−1, for SUVEGIL and TORAVA trials—prospective analysis (A) or for retrospective analysis (B). Statistical significance (P value) and the time of the median disease free are indicated.
Clinical and biological parameters and multivariate analysis of patients
| Biological parameter | <250 ng ml−1 | 1 | 0.030 |
| CXCL7 | >250 ng ml−1 | 0.341 (0.126–0.923) | |
| Clinical parameters | Good | 1 | |
| MSKCC score | Intermediate | 1.37 (0.472–3.979) | 0.55 |
| Bad | 3.13 (0.993–9.865) | 0.04 |
Abbreviations: MSKCC=Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre; PFS=progression-free survival.
Multivariate analysis between CXCL7, MSKCC score and PFS.
Figure 2Relationship between plasmatic levels of CXCL7 and PFS of ccRCC patients treated with bevacizumab+INF in prospective cohort. Kaplan–Meier analysis of PFS of patients with ccRCC treated with bevacizumab+INF. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from patient subgroups with plasmatic level for CXCL7 at the diagnosis that were less or greater than a cut-off value of 250 ng ml−1, for TORAVA trial—prospective analysis. Statistical significance (P value) and the time of the median disease free are indicated. NR=not reached.
Figure 3Correlation between tumour (mRNA) and plasmatic (protein) CXCL7 levels. (A and B) The plasmatic levels of CXCL7 in healthy donors or ccRCC patients were determined by ELISA. (C) The plasmatic and tumour levels of CXCL7 were determined respectively by ELISA and by qPCR. The CC between the two values was calculated. (D) The intra-tumour CXCL7 mRNA levels (7 ccRCC patients), neutrophils (N, LCN2 and ELANE mRNA), M1 macrophages (M1, iNOS and IL1β mRNA) and M2 macrophages (M2, ARG1 and MRC1 mRNA) were determined by qPCR. The CC between each value is indicated. (E) Recapitulative schema: during tumour initiation, the amount of CXCL7-producing cells (neutrophils and M1 macrophages) is more important in the blood stream than in the tumour. Hence, CXCL7 amounts are greater in the blood than in the tumour. Then, the anti-tumour response is linked to an attraction of monocytes to the tumour were they polarised towards M1 macrophages. As tumour cells also express CXCL7, neutrophils are attracted to the tumours. During the tumour development phase, monocytes are polarised towards M2 macrophages that produced CXCL7 in addition to those produced by tumour cells. Attraction of CXCL7-producing cells to the tumour creates an exhaustion of the cytokines in the plasma and an overproduction in the tumour. *P<0.05.