Previous studies have found that tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) promote cancer progression. We previously reported that TAMs promote prostate cancer metastasis via activation of the CCL2–CCR2 axis. The CCR4 (receptor of CCL17 and CCL22) expression level in breast cancer was reported to be associated with lung metastasis. The aim of this study was to elucidate the role of CCR2 and CCR4 in prostate cancer progression. CCR2 and CCR4 were expressed in human prostate cancer cell lines and prostate cancer tissues. In vitro co-culture of prostate cancer cells and macrophages resulted in increased CCL2 and CCR2 levels in prostate cancer cells. The addition of CCL2 induced CCL22 and CCR4 production in prostate cancer cells. The migration and invasion of prostate cancer cells via enhanced phosphorylation of Akt were promoted by CCL17 and CCL22. CCR4 may be a potential candidate for molecular-targeted therapy.

Understanding the mechanism of lymph node metastasis, a poor prognostic sign for prostate cancer, and the further dissemination of the disease is important to develop novel treatment strategies. Recent studies have reported that C‐C chemokine receptor 7 (CCR7), whose ligand is CCL21, is abundantly expressed in lymph node metastasis and promotes cancer progression. Tumor necrosis factor‐α (TNF‐α) is chronically produced at low levels within the tumor microenvironment. The aim of this study was to determine whether TNF‐α promotes prostate cancer dissemination from metastatic lymph nodes through activation of the CCL21/CCR7 axis. First, human prostate cancer cells were determined to express both TNF‐α and CCR7. Second, low concentrations of TNF‐α were confirmed to induce CCR7 in prostate cancer cells through phosphorylation of ERK. Finally, CCL21 was found to promote the migration of prostate cancer cells through phosphorylation of the protein kinase p38. Our results suggest that TNF‐α leads to the induction of CCR7 expression and that the CCL21/CCR7 axis might increase the metastatic potential of prostate cancer cells in lymph node metastasis.

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is regarded as the most sensitive biomarker for prostate cancer. Although androgen/androgen receptor (AR) signaling promotes prostate cancer progression, suppression of AR signaling induces chemokine (CC motif) ligand 2 (CCL2), which enables prostate cancer cells to gain metastatic potential. AR-controlled PSA alone may be an unreliable biomarker for patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy. Therefore, we investigated the validity of CCL2 as a complementary biomarker to PSA for prostate cancer. Our in vitro approach of enriching for prostate cancer cells with higher migration potential showed that CCL2 activated cellular migration. Importantly, we found that CCL2 levels were significantly different between men (n = 379) with and without prostate cancer. Patients with CCL2 ≥ 320 pg/mL had worse overall survival and prostate cancer -specific survival than those with CCL2 < 320 pg/mL. A novel risk classification was developed according to the risk factors CCL2 ≥ 320 pg/mL and PSA ≥ 100 ng/mL, and scores of 2, 1, and 0 were defined as poor, intermediate, and good risk, respectively, and clearly distinguished patient outcomes. CCL2 may serve as a novel biomarker for prostate cancer. The novel risk classification based on combining CCL2 and PSA is more reliable than using either alone.

Understanding the mechanism of chemoresistance and disease progression in patients with prostate cancer is important for developing novel treatment strategies. In particular, developing resistance to cabazitaxel is a major challenge in patients with docetaxel‐resistant and castration‐resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) because cabazitaxel is often administered as a last resort. However, the mechanism by which cabazitaxel resistance develops is still unclear. C‐C motif chemokine ligands (CCL) were shown to contribute to the castration resistance of prostate cancer cells via an autocrine mechanism. Therefore, we focused on CCL as key factors of chemoresistance in prostate cancer cells. We previously established a cabazitaxel‐resistant cell line, DU145‐TxR/CxR, from a previously established paclitaxel‐resistant cell line, DU145‐TxR. cDNA microarray analysis revealed that the expression of CCL2 was upregulated in both DU145‐TxR and DU145‐TxR/CxR cells compared with DU145 cells. The secreted CCL2 protein level in DU145‐TxR and DU145‐TxR/CxR cells was also higher than in parental DU145 cells. The stimulation of DU145 cells with CCL2 increased the proliferation rate under treatments with cabazitaxel, and a CCR2 (a specific receptor of CCL2) antagonist suppressed the proliferation of DU145‐TxR and DU145‐TxR/CxR cells under treatments of cabazitaxel. The CCL2‐CCR2 axis decreased apoptosis through the inhibition of caspase‐3 and poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase (PARP). CCL2 is apparently a key contributor to cabazitaxel resistance in prostate cancer cells. Inhibition of the CCL2‐CCR2 axis may be a potential therapeutic strategy against chemoresistant CRPC in combination with cabazitaxel.

Once castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) become resistant for cabazitaxel treatment, the patients are obliged to best supportive care. Therefore, the elucidation of the mechanism of the cabazitaxel-resistance and the conquest are important themes to improve the prognosis of the patients. Then we tried to establish cabazitaxel-resistant CRPC cell lines and characterized them. We established two cabazitaxel-resistant cell lines, PC-3-TxR/CxR and DU145-TxR/CxR from PC-3-TxR and DU145-TxR cell lines previously we established. PC-3-TxR/CxR and DU145-TxR/CxR cells became resistant for cabazitaxel by 11.8-fold and 4.4-fold, respectively. The TxR/CxR cells showed cabazitaxel-resistant using SCID mice in vivo. Although expression of multi-drug resistance gene 1 (MDR1) was up-regulated in DU145-TxR compared with DU145 cells, it was not up-regulated in DU145-TxR/CxR cells any more. In contrast, expression of MDR1 gene was up-regulated in PC-3-TxR compared with PC-3 cells and it was further up-regulated in PC-3-TxR/CxR compared with PC-3-TxR cells. Comparison of cDNA microarray between PC-3-TxR and PC-3-TxR/CxR cells or between DU145-TxR and DU145-TxR/CxR cells revealed that many genes were up-regulated or down-regulated. Finally, knockdown of MDR1 recovered the sensitivity to cabazitaxel not only in PC-3-TxR/CxR cells but also DU145-TxR/CxR cells. Together, regulation of MDR1 gene is important for conquest of the cabazitaxel-resistance.