Sun Choo1,2, Ping Wang3, Robert Newbury4,5, William Roberts1,2, Jing Yang1,3. 1. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, California. 2. Peckham Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Rady Children's Hospital San Diego, San Diego, California. 3. Department of Pharmacology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California. 4. Department of Pathology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California. 5. Department of Pathology, Rady Children's Hospital San Diego, San Diego, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ewing sarcoma is a cancer of bone and soft tissue. Despite aggressive treatment, survival remains poor, particularly in patients with metastatic disease. Failure to treat Ewing sarcoma is due to the lack of understanding of the molecular pathways that regulate metastasis. In addition, no molecular prognostic markers have been identified for Ewing sarcoma to risk stratify patients. PROCEDURE: Ewing sarcoma patients were divided into high or low Twist1 gene expression and survival curves were generated using the R2 microarray-based Genomic Analysis platform (http://r2.amc.nl). Tumors from Ewing sarcoma patients were also evaluated for TWIST1 expression by immunohistochemistry. Ewing sarcoma xenografts were established to evaluate the role of TWIST1 in metastasis. The effects of Twist1 on migration and invasion were evaluated using migration and invasion assays in A673 and RDES cells. RESULTS: Twist1 expression was a negative prognostic marker for overall survival in a public Ewing sarcoma patient data set based on Twist1 mRNA levels and in patient tumor samples based on Twist1 immunohistochemistry. TWIST1 is detected in significantly higher percentage of patients with metastatic diseases than localized disease. Using Ewing sarcoma tumor xenografts in mice, we found that suppressing TWIST1 levels suppressed metastasis without affecting primary tumor development. Knockdown of Twist1 inhibited the migration and invasion capability, while overexpression of Twist1 promoted migration and invasion in Ewing sarcoma cells. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that TWIST1 promotes metastasis in Ewing sarcoma and could be used as a prognostic marker for treatment stratification; however, further validation is required in a larger cohort of patients.
BACKGROUND:Ewing sarcoma is a cancer of bone and soft tissue. Despite aggressive treatment, survival remains poor, particularly in patients with metastatic disease. Failure to treat Ewing sarcoma is due to the lack of understanding of the molecular pathways that regulate metastasis. In addition, no molecular prognostic markers have been identified for Ewing sarcoma to risk stratify patients. PROCEDURE: Ewing sarcomapatients were divided into high or low Twist1 gene expression and survival curves were generated using the R2 microarray-based Genomic Analysis platform (http://r2.amc.nl). Tumors from Ewing sarcomapatients were also evaluated for TWIST1 expression by immunohistochemistry. Ewing sarcoma xenografts were established to evaluate the role of TWIST1 in metastasis. The effects of Twist1 on migration and invasion were evaluated using migration and invasion assays in A673 and RDES cells. RESULTS:Twist1 expression was a negative prognostic marker for overall survival in a public Ewing sarcomapatient data set based on Twist1 mRNA levels and in patienttumor samples based on Twist1 immunohistochemistry. TWIST1 is detected in significantly higher percentage of patients with metastatic diseases than localized disease. Using Ewing sarcoma tumor xenografts in mice, we found that suppressing TWIST1 levels suppressed metastasis without affecting primary tumor development. Knockdown of Twist1 inhibited the migration and invasion capability, while overexpression of Twist1 promoted migration and invasion in Ewing sarcoma cells. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that TWIST1 promotes metastasis in Ewing sarcoma and could be used as a prognostic marker for treatment stratification; however, further validation is required in a larger cohort of patients.
Authors: Abdelkader Selmi; Maud de Saint-Jean; Anne-Catherine Jallas; Elisabeth Garin; Michael D Hogarty; Jean Bénard; Alain Puisieux; Aurélien Marabelle; Sandrine Valsesia-Wittmann Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: Mark A Eckert; Thinzar M Lwin; Andrew T Chang; Jihoon Kim; Etienne Danis; Lucila Ohno-Machado; Jing Yang Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Richard Gorlick; Katherine Janeway; Stephen Lessnick; R Lor Randall; Neyssa Marina Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Nathalie Gaspar; Douglas S Hawkins; Uta Dirksen; Ian J Lewis; Stefano Ferrari; Marie-Cecile Le Deley; Heinrich Kovar; Robert Grimer; Jeremy Whelan; Line Claude; Olivier Delattre; Michael Paulussen; Piero Picci; Kirsten Sundby Hall; Hendrik van den Berg; Ruth Ladenstein; Jean Michon; Lars Hjorth; Ian Judson; Roberto Luksch; Mark L Bernstein; Perrine Marec-Bérard; Bernadette Brennan; Alan W Craft; Richard B Womer; Heribert Juergens; Odile Oberlin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jing Yang; Sendurai A Mani; Joana Liu Donaher; Sridhar Ramaswamy; Raphael A Itzykson; Christophe Come; Pierre Savagner; Inna Gitelman; Andrea Richardson; Robert A Weinberg Journal: Cell Date: 2004-06-25 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Cornelia von Levetzow; Xiaohua Jiang; Ynnez Gwye; Gregor von Levetzow; Long Hung; Aaron Cooper; Jessie Hao-Ru Hsu; Elizabeth R Lawlor Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-04-29 Impact factor: 3.240