| Literature DB >> 34970481 |
Paul Takam Kamga1, Aurélie Swalduz2,3, Adrien Costantini1,4, Catherine Julié1,5, Jean-François Emile1,5, Maurice Pérol2, Virginie Avrillon3, Sandra Ortiz-Cuaran3, Pierre de Saintigny2,3, Etienne Giroux Leprieur1,4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Growing preclinical evidence has suggested that the Sonic hedgehog (Shh) pathway is involved in resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy for EGFR-mutated (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, little is known concerning the prognostic value of this pathway in this context.Entities:
Keywords: Sonic Hedgehog (Shh); biomarker; epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR); non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)
Year: 2021 PMID: 34970481 PMCID: PMC8712335 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.747692
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Demographic and clinical profile of the study cohort.
| Variable | Patients ( |
|---|---|
| Age | |
| Median [range] | 67 [35–90] |
| <67 | 37 (50%) |
| >67 | 37 (50%) |
| Gender | |
| Female | 59 (79.7%) |
| Male | 15 (20.3%) |
| Smokers | |
| Never | 49 (66.2%) |
| Former | 17 (23.0%) |
| Current | 6 (8.1%) |
| Unknown | 2 (2.7%) |
| Performance Status | |
| 0 | 17 (23.0%) |
| 1 | 44 (59.4%) |
| 2 | 8 (10.8%) |
| 3 | 1 (1.4%) |
| Unknown | 4 (5.4%) |
| Histology | |
| Adenocarcinoma | 71 (96.0%) |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 2 (2.7%) |
| Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma | 1 (1.3%) |
| Number of metastatic sites | |
| 0 | 4 (5.4%) |
| 1 | 21 (28.4%) |
| 2 | 13 (17.6%) |
| 3 | 9 (12.2%) |
| 4 | 9 (12.2%) |
| 5 | 6 (8.1%) |
| Unknown | 12 (16.2%) |
| CNS metastasis | 29 (39.2%) |
Figure 1Shh signaling expression and activation in EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients: (A) Shh concentration in plasma from patients at diagnostic (n = 61) as assessed by ELISA assays. (B) mRNA expression of Gli1 target genes in NSCLC; data are expressed as mean ± SEM of 14 patients analyzed in duplicate. (C) Representative, IHC of Gli1 in NSCLC (n = 14). (C, D) Expression of Shh in plasma from patients (14) according to Gli1 expression. *p < 0.05.
Figure 2Shh concentrations in plasma from patients at diagnosis according to patients’ characteristics: Patient samples analyzed for Shh expression were classified according to age, gender, smoking status, performance status at diagnosis, number of metastatic sites, central nervous system (CNS) metastasis, and EGFR mutation type. A Mann–Whitney test was used to analyze the differences between means. *p < 0.05.
Figure 3Pattern of plasmatic Shh concentration along the course of the disease: (A) Shh was analyzed in plasma collected from patients and classified according to (A) treatment response (responders vs. non-responders); (B, C) and treatment steps (diagnosis or base line, the first evaluation and the progression). A Mann–Whitney test was used to analyze the differences between means. *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.
Figure 4Patient’s survival according to Shh levels: Patient survivals were classified according to (A) Shh levels at diagnosis (Shhlow vs. ShhHigh) and (B) Shh levels at the first evaluation (Shhlow vs. ShhHigh).
Figure 5Shh concentrations in plasma from patients at diagnosis according to the presence of secondary mutations. (A) Patient samples analyzed for Shh expression at baseline were classified according to the progression mechanism observed at the time of the progression. (B) Association between Shh concentrations and the presence of T790M mutation at the time to the progression. (C) Shh concentration in plasma from patients according to the presence of a resistance mechanism. A Mann–Whitney test was used to analyze the differences between means. **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.