Obada T Alhalabi1, Michael N C Fletcher2, Thomas Hielscher3, Tobias Kessler4,5, Tolga Lokumcu1, Ulrich Baumgartner6,7, Elena Wittmann1, Silja Schlue1, Mona Göttmann1, Shaman Rahman1, Ling Hai8, Lea Hansen-Palmus1, Laura Puccio1, Ichiro Nakano9, Christel Herold-Mende10, Bryan W Day6,7, Wolfgang Wick5, Felix Sahm11, Emma Phillips1, Violaine Goidts1. 1. Brain Tumor Translational Targets, DKFZ Junior Group, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Division of Molecular Genetics, Heidelberg Center for Personalized Oncology, German Cancer Research Consortium, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Division of Biostatistics (C060), German Cancer Research Center, DE. 4. Department of Neurology and Neurooncology Program; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Clinical Cooperation Unit Neurooncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Cell and Molecular Biology Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Sid Faithfull Brain Cancer Laboratory, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 7. School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 8. Junior Research Group Bioinformatics and Omics Data Analytics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 9. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA. 10. Department of Neurosurgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 11. Department of Neuropathology, Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma is the most common primary malignancy of the central nervous system with a dismal prognosis. Genomic signatures classify isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH)-wildtype glioblastoma into three subtypes: proneural, mesenchymal, and classical. Dasatinib, an inhibitor of proto-oncogene kinase Src (SRC), is one of many therapeutics which, despite promising preclinical results, have failed to improve overall survival in glioblastoma patients in clinical trials. We examined whether glioblastoma subtypes differ in their response to dasatinib and could hence be evaluated for patient enrichment strategies in clinical trials. METHODS: We carried out in silico analyses on glioblastoma gene expression (TCGA) and single-cell RNA-Seq data. In addition, in vitro experiments using glioblastoma stem-like cells (GSCs) derived from primary patient tumors were performed, with complementary gene expression profiling and immunohistochemistry analysis of tumor samples. RESULTS: Patients with the mesenchymal subtype of glioblastoma showed higher SRC pathway activation based on gene expression profiling. Accordingly, mesenchymal GSCs were more sensitive to SRC inhibition by dasatinib compared to proneural and classical GSCs. Notably, SRC phosphorylation status did not predict response to dasatinib treatment. Furthermore, serpin peptidase inhibitor clade H member 1 (SERPINH1), a collagen-related heat-shock protein associated with cancer progression, was shown to correlate with dasatinib response and with the mesenchymal subtype. CONCLUSION: This work highlights further molecular-based patient selection strategies in clinical trials and suggests the mesenchymal subtype as well as SERPINH1 to be associated with response to dasatinib. Our findings indicate that stratification based on gene expression subtyping should be considered in future dasatinib trials.
BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma is the most common primary malignancy of the central nervous system with a dismal prognosis. Genomic signatures classify isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH)-wildtype glioblastoma into three subtypes: proneural, mesenchymal, and classical. Dasatinib, an inhibitor of proto-oncogene kinase Src (SRC), is one of many therapeutics which, despite promising preclinical results, have failed to improve overall survival in glioblastoma patients in clinical trials. We examined whether glioblastoma subtypes differ in their response to dasatinib and could hence be evaluated for patient enrichment strategies in clinical trials. METHODS: We carried out in silico analyses on glioblastoma gene expression (TCGA) and single-cell RNA-Seq data. In addition, in vitro experiments using glioblastoma stem-like cells (GSCs) derived from primary patient tumors were performed, with complementary gene expression profiling and immunohistochemistry analysis of tumor samples. RESULTS: Patients with the mesenchymal subtype of glioblastoma showed higher SRC pathway activation based on gene expression profiling. Accordingly, mesenchymal GSCs were more sensitive to SRC inhibition by dasatinib compared to proneural and classical GSCs. Notably, SRC phosphorylation status did not predict response to dasatinib treatment. Furthermore, serpin peptidase inhibitor clade H member 1 (SERPINH1), a collagen-related heat-shock protein associated with cancer progression, was shown to correlate with dasatinib response and with the mesenchymal subtype. CONCLUSION: This work highlights further molecular-based patient selection strategies in clinical trials and suggests the mesenchymal subtype as well as SERPINH1 to be associated with response to dasatinib. Our findings indicate that stratification based on gene expression subtyping should be considered in future dasatinib trials.
Authors: Evanthia Galanis; S Keith Anderson; Erin L Twohy; Xiomara W Carrero; Jesse G Dixon; David Dinh Tran; Suriya A Jeyapalan; Daniel M Anderson; Timothy J Kaufmann; Ryan W Feathers; Caterina Giannini; Jan C Buckner; Panos Z Anastasiadis; David Schiff Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andrea H Bild; Guang Yao; Jeffrey T Chang; Quanli Wang; Anil Potti; Dawn Chasse; Mary-Beth Joshi; David Harpole; Johnathan M Lancaster; Andrew Berchuck; John A Olson; Jeffrey R Marks; Holly K Dressman; Mike West; Joseph R Nevins Journal: Nature Date: 2005-11-06 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Qianghu Wang; Baoli Hu; Xin Hu; Hoon Kim; Massimo Squatrito; Lisa Scarpace; Ana C deCarvalho; Sali Lyu; Pengping Li; Yan Li; Floris Barthel; Hee Jin Cho; Yu-Hsi Lin; Nikunj Satani; Emmanuel Martinez-Ledesma; Siyuan Zheng; Edward Chang; Charles-Etienne Gabriel Sauvé; Adriana Olar; Zheng D Lan; Gaetano Finocchiaro; Joanna J Phillips; Mitchel S Berger; Konrad R Gabrusiewicz; Guocan Wang; Eskil Eskilsson; Jian Hu; Tom Mikkelsen; Ronald A DePinho; Florian Muller; Amy B Heimberger; Erik P Sulman; Do-Hyun Nam; Roel G W Verhaak Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Aravind Subramanian; Pablo Tamayo; Vamsi K Mootha; Sayan Mukherjee; Benjamin L Ebert; Michael A Gillette; Amanda Paulovich; Scott L Pomeroy; Todd R Golub; Eric S Lander; Jill P Mesirov Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-09-30 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Antje Wick; Tobias Kessler; Michael Platten; Christoph Meisner; Michael Bamberg; Ulrich Herrlinger; Jörg Felsberg; Astrid Weyerbrock; Kirsten Papsdorf; Joachim P Steinbach; Michael Sabel; Jan Vesper; Jürgen Debus; Jürgen Meixensberger; Ralf Ketter; Caroline Hertler; Regine Mayer-Steinacker; Sarah Weisang; Hanna Bölting; David Reuss; Guido Reifenberger; Felix Sahm; Andreas von Deimling; Michael Weller; Wolfgang Wick Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Wolfgang Wick; Susan Dettmer; Anne Berberich; Tobias Kessler; Irini Karapanagiotou-Schenkel; Antje Wick; Frank Winkler; Elke Pfaff; Benedikt Brors; Jürgen Debus; Andreas Unterberg; Martin Bendszus; Christel Herold-Mende; Andreas Eisenmenger; Andreas von Deimling; David T W Jones; Stefan M Pfister; Felix Sahm; Michael Platten Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: G Marziali; M Signore; M Buccarelli; S Grande; A Palma; M Biffoni; A Rosi; Q G D'Alessandris; M Martini; L M Larocca; R De Maria; R Pallini; L Ricci-Vitiani Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Maria Stella Carro; Wei Keat Lim; Mariano Javier Alvarez; Robert J Bollo; Xudong Zhao; Evan Y Snyder; Erik P Sulman; Sandrine L Anne; Fiona Doetsch; Howard Colman; Anna Lasorella; Ken Aldape; Andrea Califano; Antonio Iavarone Journal: Nature Date: 2009-12-23 Impact factor: 49.962