| Literature DB >> 32468445 |
Amit Nair1, Nicola Ingram2, Eldo T Verghese2, Imeshi Wijetunga2, Alexander F Markham2, Judy Wyatt3, K Rajendra Prasad4, P Louise Coletta2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The current treatment outcomes in cholangiocarcinoma are poor with cure afforded only by surgical extirpation. The efficacy of targeting the tumoural endothelial marker CD105 in cholangiocarcinoma, as a basis for potential microbubble-based treatment, is unknown and was explored here.Entities:
Keywords: Bile duct cancer; Biliary tract cancer; CD105; Endoglin; Microbubble; Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32468445 PMCID: PMC7581571 DOI: 10.1007/s13402-020-00530-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cell Oncol (Dordr) ISSN: 2211-3428 Impact factor: 6.730
Baseline patient characteristics
| Median age (range) in years | 57.6 (33–81) | |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 31 | 57.4 |
| Female | 23 | 42.6 |
| Surgical procedure | ||
| Left trisectionectomy (Segments 2,3,4,5,8,±1) & bile duct excision | 18 | 33 |
| Left hemihepatectomy (Segments 2,3,4,±1) & bile duct excision | 7 | 13 |
| Right trisectionectomy (Segments 4,5,6,7,8,±1) & bile duct excision | 19 | 35 |
| Right hemihepatectomy (Segments 5,6,7,8,±1) & bile duct excision | 7 | 13 |
| Orthotopic Liver Transplant | 2 | 4 |
| Bile duct excision alone | 1 | 2 |
| Median Tumour size (range) in mm | 30 (10–75) | |
| Tumour differentiation (grade) | ||
| Well (G1) | 27 | 50 |
| Moderate (G2) | 19 | 35.2 |
| Poor (G3) | 8 | 14.8 |
| Microscopic vascular invasion | 33 | 61.1 |
| Perineural infiltration | 48 | 88.9 |
| Tumour stage | ||
| T1 | 2 | 3.7 |
| T2 | 29 | 53.7 |
| T3 | 19 | 35.2 |
| T4 | 4 | 7.4 |
| Nodal stage | ||
| N0 | 25 | 46.3 |
| N1 | 21 | 38.9 |
| N2 | 8 | 14.8 |
| AJCC Stage (7th edition) | ||
| I | 0 | 0 |
| II | 15 | 27.8 |
| IIIA | 8 | 14.8 |
| IIIB | 21 | 38.9 |
| IVA | 2 | 3.7 |
| IVB | 8 | 14.8 |
| Resection margin | ||
| R0 (clear) | 21 | 38.9 |
| R1 (involved) | 33 | 61.1 |
| Local recurrence | 5 | 9.3 |
Fig. 1Tumoural CD105 expression correlates to that of the pan-endothelial marker CD31 in CCA and is associated with poorer disease prognosis, but is also present in normal liver parenchyma. (a). Consecutive tumour sections showing CD31 (top) and CD105 (bottom) expression patterns. (b) MVD expression profiles of CD31 and CD105 in all examined tumour sections (top), with fair correlation observed between the two markers (bottom; Spearman r = 0.51, p < 0.0001) (c) Positivity is observed in portal tracts (short arrows) and liver sinusoidal cells (long arrows) and for both CD31 (top) and CD105 (bottom). (d) Kaplan-Meier curves highlighting a significant difference in overall survival between patient groups at MVD cut-offs for both endothelial markers as denoted (top CD31; p = 0.042, and bottom CD105; p = 0.002, log-rank tests). Tables below graphs indicate numbers at risk at corresponding time points
Comparison of MVD scores of CD31 and CD105 against clinicopathological patient variables
| Age (years) at diagnosis | < 58 | 27 | 50 | 44 (31–59) | 0.482 | 20 (14–30) | 0.203 |
| > 58 | 27 | 50 | 46 (40–64) | 24 (17–33) | |||
| Gender | Male | 31 | 57 | 42 (23–55) | 0.062 | 21 (17–31) | 0.871 |
| Female | 23 | 43 | 54 (40–64) | 22 (14–31) | |||
| Tumour size (mm) | < 30 | 24 | 46 | 43 (35–59) | 0.912 | 21 (17–31) | 0.955 |
| > 30 | 28 | 54 | 45 (37–64) | 24 (14–32) | |||
| Histological grade | Grade 1 | 27 | 50 | 53 (40–65) | 0.050 | 21 (17–30) | 0.676 |
| Grade 2/3 | 27 | 50 | 41 (23–54) | 22 (9–32) | |||
| Microscopic vascular invasion | Yes | 33 | 65 | 44 (34–67) | 0.454 | 24 (16–32) | 0.664 |
| No | 18 | 35 | 43 (35–54) | 21 (18–28) | |||
| Nodal metastases | Yes | 29 | 54 | 48 (38–69) | 0.138 | 19 (16–32) | 0.391 |
| No | 25 | 46 | 41 (29–58) | 24 (18–31) | |||
| T Stage (AJCC 7th ed) | T1/T2 | 31 | 57 | 45 (23–64) | 0.687 | 21 (17–32) | 0.857 |
| T3/T4 | 23 | 43 | 45 (40–61) | 23 (14–30) | |||
| Resection Margins | R0 (negative) | 21 | 39 | 50 (41–62) | 0.245 | 22(17–32) | 0.797 |
| R1 (positive) | 33 | 61 | 41 (35–63) | 21 (14–31) | |||
| Local recurrence | Yes | 5 | 9 | 35 (14–39) | 0.008 | 25 (15–28) | 0.825 |
| No | 49 | 91 | 48 (39–64) | 20 (15–32) | |||
| Metastasis | Yes | 25 | 46 | 42 (22–63) | 0.212 | 24 (18–29) | 0.762 |
| No | 29 | 54 | 48 (40–62) | 20 (12–33) | |||
| Progressive disease | Yes | 27 | 50 | 42 (23–61) | 0.100 | 24 (18–30) | 0.510 |
| No | 27 | 50 | 49 (40–64) | 20 (11–34) |
Mann-Whitney U tests used for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test for dichotomous data. Local recurrence defined as recurrent disease in surgical bed. Progressive disease indicating local recurrence and/or metastasis (MVD: Micro-vessel density, IQR: Inter-quartile range)
Univariate (Log -rank tests) and multivariate (Cox Regression) analysis of factors predictive of survival
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OS | DFS | OS | DFS | |||||||||
| Variable | n | Median survival in months | HR (95% CI) | Median survival in months | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||||
| CD31 MVD | < 68 | 44 | 31.4 | 2.2 (1.0–4.9) | 0.042 | 31.2 | 1.8 (0.7–4.5) | 0.212 | 0.2 (0.03–1.5) | 0.132 | ||
| > 68 | 10 | 16.7 | 18.3 | |||||||||
| CD105 MVD | < 31 | 13 | 31.4 | 3.2 (1.5–6.8) | 0.002 | 23.1 | 1.7 (0.6–4.6) | 0.292 | 12.5 (1.9–79.9) | 0.007 | ||
| > 31 | 40 | 12.2 | 13.6 | |||||||||
| Nodal metastasis | Yes | 29 | 21.7 | 0.085 | 17.3 | 0.634 | ||||||
| No | 25 | 32.6 | 31.2 | |||||||||
| Tumour size | < 48 mm | 40 | 32.0 | 4.1 (1.6–10.6) | 0.002 | 23.2 | 3.3 (1.2–9.5) | 0.019 | 5.0 (1.9–13.4) | 0.001 | 2.6 (0.9–7.7) | 0.071 |
| > 48 mm | 12 | 12.7 | 11.2 | |||||||||
| Tumour stage | T1/T2 | 31 | 31.4 | 0.277 | 31.2 | 0.530 | ||||||
| T3/T4 | 23 | 23.8 | 18.7 | |||||||||
| Tumour grade | Grade 1 | 27 | 25.9 | 0.220 | 23.2 | 0.556 | ||||||
| Grade 2/3 | 27 | 24.6 | 18.7 | |||||||||
| Vascular invasion | Yes | 33 | 24.6 | 0.177 | 18.3 | 0.650 | ||||||
| No | 18 | 32.0 | 32.9 | |||||||||
| Resection margin | Positive | 33 | 23.7 | 0.203 | 18.3 | 0.032 | 2.1 (0.9–5.2) | 0.080 | ||||
| Negative | 21 | 37.0 | 51.2 | |||||||||
| AJCC stage | II | 15 | 37.3 | 0.116 | 32.9 | 0.504 | ||||||
| III/IV | 39 | 22.8 | 18.3 | |||||||||
| Local Recurrence | Yes | 5 | 33.9 | 0.568 | N/A | |||||||
| No | 49 | 23.8 | ||||||||||
| Metastasis | Yes | 25 | 24.6 | 0.154 | N/A | |||||||
| No | 29 | 33.9 | ||||||||||
Factors significant on univariate analysis entered into the Cox Regression model. OS: overall survival, DFS: disease-free survival, HR: Hazard ratio, CI: Confidence interval, MVD: micro-vessel density
Fig. 2CD105 is expressed on the surface of murine SVR endothelial cells whereas CD105 functionalized MBs bind SVR cells under conditions simulating capillary flow. (a) Immunofluorescence images showing surface expression of CD105 on SVR cells (top left CD105 expression, top right DAPI nuclear staining, bottom right composite image and bottom left phase contrast image). (b) Images from flow assay experiments using CD105-MBs (top) and isotype control-MBs (bottom). Long arrows denote bound MBs (in contact with cellular membrane), whereas unbound MBs are free standing (short arrow). (c) Graphical representation of flow assay results showing significantly higher binding of SVR cells to CD105-functionalised MBs in comparison to isotype-control-MBs, at an antibody concentration of 0.1 μg/ml (*p = 0.016) Data expressed as median with interquartile range (n = 5 runs; Mann-Whitney U test)
Fig. 3In vivo US imaging of cholangiocarcinoma xenografts with CD105-MBs reveals significant binding totumour endothelium. (a) US imaging of a TFK-1 xenograft following administration of MBs bound to CD105 antibodies (green signal), indicative of both flowing and bound MBs (top left), and following application of destructive US pulse showing only flowing MBs (top right). Similarly shown are signals observed with isotype-control antibody bound MBs before (bottom left) and after (bottom right) destructive US pulse. (b) Images demonstrating the difference in molecular signal intensity prior to and after (left and right respectively of vertical red line) application of destructive US pulse, for CD105-MBs (top) and isotype-control MBs (bottom). (c) A significant difference in subtracted molecular signal (representative of the degree of binding to tumour endothelium) is observed between CD105-MBs and its isotype control when xenografts are subjected to a destructive US pulse (TFK-1 p = 0.028 [n = 6] and EGI-1 p = 0.043 [n = 4]; Wilcoxon sign rank tests). (d) Xenograft section showing abundance of CD105 vessels (arrow) at tumour periphery