Prarthana Gopinath1, Sridevi Veluswami2, Gopal Gopisetty3, Shirley Sundersingh4, Swaminathan Rajaraman5, Rajkumar Thangarajan1. 1. Department of Molecular Oncology, Cancer Institute WIA, Chennai, 600036, Tamil Nadu, India. 2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute WIA, Chennai, 600036, Tamil Nadu, India. sri04devi@yahoo.co.in. 3. Department of Molecular Oncology, Cancer Institute WIA, Chennai, 600036, Tamil Nadu, India. ggopisetty@gmail.com. 4. Department of Oncopatholology, Cancer Institute WIA, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Cancer Registry, Cancer Institute WIA, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic response predictors like age, nodal status, and tumor grade and markers, like ER/PR, HER2, and Ki67, are not reliable in predicting the response to a specific form of chemotherapy. The current study aims to identify and validate reliable markers that can predict pathological complete response (pCR) in fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC)-based neoadjuvant therapy with (NACT/RT) and without concurrent radiation (NACT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tandem mass tag (TMT) quantitative liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was used to identify differentially expressed proteins from core needle breast biopsy between pCR (n = 4) and no-pCR (n = 4). Immunoblotting of shortlisted proteins with the tissue lysates confirmed the differential expression of the markers. Further, immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections of treatment-naive core needle biopsies. In the NACT, 29 pCR and 130 no-pCR and in NACT/RT, 32 pCR and 71 no-pCR were used. RESULTS: 733 and 807 proteins were identified in NACT and NACT/RT groups, respectively. Ten proteins were shortlisted for validation as potential pCR-predictive markers. THBS1, TNC, and DCN were significantly overexpressed in no-pCR in both the groups. In NACT, CPA3 was significantly upregulated in the no-pCR. In NACT/RT, HnRNPAB was significantly upregulated and HMGB1 significantly downregulated in the no-pCR. HMGB1 was the only marker to show prognostic significance. CONCLUSION: Quantitative proteomics followed by IHC identified and validated potential biomarkers for predicting patient response to therapy. These markers can be used, following larger-scale validation, in combination with routine histological analysis providing vital indications of treatment response.
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic response predictors like age, nodal status, and tumor grade and markers, like ER/PR, HER2, and Ki67, are not reliable in predicting the response to a specific form of chemotherapy. The current study aims to identify and validate reliable markers that can predict pathological complete response (pCR) in fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC)-based neoadjuvant therapy with (NACT/RT) and without concurrent radiation (NACT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tandem mass tag (TMT) quantitative liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was used to identify differentially expressed proteins from core needle breast biopsy between pCR (n = 4) and no-pCR (n = 4). Immunoblotting of shortlisted proteins with the tissue lysates confirmed the differential expression of the markers. Further, immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections of treatment-naive core needle biopsies. In the NACT, 29 pCR and 130 no-pCR and in NACT/RT, 32 pCR and 71 no-pCR were used. RESULTS: 733 and 807 proteins were identified in NACT and NACT/RT groups, respectively. Ten proteins were shortlisted for validation as potential pCR-predictive markers. THBS1, TNC, and DCN were significantly overexpressed in no-pCR in both the groups. In NACT, CPA3 was significantly upregulated in the no-pCR. In NACT/RT, HnRNPAB was significantly upregulated and HMGB1 significantly downregulated in the no-pCR. HMGB1 was the only marker to show prognostic significance. CONCLUSION: Quantitative proteomics followed by IHC identified and validated potential biomarkers for predicting patient response to therapy. These markers can be used, following larger-scale validation, in combination with routine histological analysis providing vital indications of treatment response.
Authors: Sven Baumann; Uta Ceglarek; Georg Martin Fiedler; Jan Lembcke; Alexander Leichtle; Joachim Thiery Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2005-04-21 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Miguel Martín; Alvaro Rodríguez-Lescure; Amparo Ruiz; Emilio Alba; Lourdes Calvo; Manuel Ruiz-Borrego; Blanca Munárriz; César A Rodríguez; Carmen Crespo; Enrique de Alava; José Antonio López García-Asenjo; María Dolores Guitián; Sergio Almenar; Jesús Fernando González-Palacios; Francisco Vera; José Palacios; Manuel Ramos; Jose Manuel Gracia Marco; Ana Lluch; Isabel Alvarez; Miguel Angel Seguí; José Ignacio Mayordomo; Antonio Antón; José Manuel Baena; Arrate Plazaola; Alfonso Modolell; Amadeu Pelegrí; Jose Ramón Mel; Enrique Aranda; Encarna Adrover; José Valero Alvarez; José Luis García Puche; Pedro Sánchez-Rovira; Sonia Gonzalez; José Manuel López-Vega Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Umesh Das; K C Lakshmaiah; K Govind Babu; T M Suresh; D Lokanatha; Linu Jacob; Suresh Babu Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 4.553