Ovarian cancer (OC) is the fifth cancer death cause in women worldwide. The malignant nature of this disease stems from its unique dissemination pattern. Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) has been reported in OC and downregulation of Epithelial cadherin (E-cadherin) is a hallmark of this process. However, findings on the relationship between E-cadherin levels and OC progression, dissemination and aggressiveness are controversial. In this study, the evaluation of E-cadherin expression in an OC tissue microarray revealed its prognostic value to discriminate between advanced- and early-stage tumors, as well as serous tumors from other histologies. Moreover, E-cadherin, Neural cadherin (N-cadherin), cytokeratins and vimentin expression was assessed in TOV-112, SKOV-3, OAW-42 and OV-90 OC cell lines grown in monolayers and under anchorage-independent conditions to mimic ovarian tumor cell dissemination, and results were associated with cell aggressiveness. According to these EMT-related markers, cell lines were classified as mesenchymal (M; TOV-112), intermediate mesenchymal (IM; SKOV-3), intermediate epithelial (IE; OAW-42) and epithelial (E; OV-90). M- and IM-cells depicted the highest migration capacity when grown in monolayers, and aggregates derived from M- and IM-cell lines showed lower cell death, higher adhesion to extracellular matrices and higher invasion capacity than E- and IE-aggregates. The analysis of E-cadherin, N-cadherin, cytokeratin 19 and vimentin mRNA levels in 20 advanced-stage high-grade serous human OC ascites showed an IM phenotype in all cases, characterized by higher proportions of N- to E-cadherin and vimentin to cytokeratin 19. In particular, higher E-cadherin mRNA levels were associated with cancer antigen 125 levels more than 500 U/mL and platinum-free intervals less than 6 months. Altogether, E-cadherin expression levels were found relevant for the assessment of OC progression and aggressiveness.
Progression to hormone‐independent growth leading to endocrine therapy resistance occurs in a high proportion of patients with estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) and progesterone receptors (PR) positive breast cancer. We and others have previously shown that estrogen‐ and progestin‐induced tumor growth requires ERα and PR interaction at their target genes. Here, we show that fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2)‐induces cell proliferation and tumor growth through hormone‐independent ERα and PR activation and their interaction at the MYC enhancer and proximal promoter. MYC inhibitors, antiestrogens or antiprogestins reverted FGF2‐induced effects. LC–MS/MS identified 700 canonical proteins recruited to MYC regulatory sequences after FGF2 stimulation, 397 of which required active ERα (ERα‐dependent). We identified ERα‐dependent proteins regulating transcription that, after FGF2 treatment, were recruited to the enhancer as well as proteins involved in transcription initiation that were recruited to the proximal promoter. Also, among the ERα‐dependent and independent proteins detected at both sites, PR isoforms A and B as well as the novel protein product PRBΔ4 were found. PRBΔ4 lacks the hormone‐binding domain and was able to induce reporter gene expression from estrogen‐regulated elements and to increase cell proliferation when cells were stimulated with FGF2 but not by progestins. Analysis of the Cancer Genome Atlas data set revealed that PRBΔ4 expression is associated with worse overall survival in luminal breast cancer patients. This discovery provides a new mechanism by which growth factor signaling can engage nonclassical hormone receptor isoforms such as PRBΔ4, which interacts with growth‐factor activated ERα and PR to stimulate MYC gene expression and hence progression to endocrine resistance.
Purpose: Preclinical data suggest that antiprogestins inhibit the growth of luminal breast carcinomas that express higher levels of progesterone receptor isoform A (PRA) than isoform B (PRB). Thus, we designed a pre-surgical window of opportunity trial to determine the therapeutic effects of mifepristone in patients with breast cancer based on their high PRA/PRB isoform ratio (MIPRA; NCT02651844). Patients and Methods: Twenty patients with luminal breast carcinomas with PRA/PRB>1.5 (determined by western blots), and PR ≥50%, naive from previous treatment, were included for mifepristone treatment (200 mg/day p.o.; 14 days). Core needle biopsies (CNB) and surgical samples were formalin-fixed for immunohistochemical studies, while others were snap-frozen to perform RNA-Seq, proteomics, and/or western blot studies. Plasma mifepristone levels were determined using mass spectrometry. The primary endpoint was the comparison of Ki67 expression pre- and post-treatment. Results: A 49.62% decrease in Ki67 staining was observed in all surgical specimens compared to baseline (p=0.0003). Using the prespecified response parameter (30% relative reduction), we identified 14/20 responders. Mifepristone induced an increase in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, a decrease in hormone receptor and pSer118ER expression, and an increase in calregulin, p21, p15, and activated caspase3 expression. RNA-Seq and proteomics studies identified downregulated pathways related to cell proliferation and upregulated pathways related to immune bioprocesses and extracellular matrix remodeling. Conclusions: Our results support the use of mifepristone in patients with luminal breast cancer with high PRA/PRB ratios. The combined effects of mifepristone and estrogen receptor modulators warrant clinical evaluation to improve endocrine treatment responsiveness in these patients.
Progesterone receptors (PR) are prognostic and predictive biomarkers in hormone‐dependent cancers. Two main PR isoforms have been described, PRB and PRA, that differ only in that PRB has 164 extra N‐terminal amino acids. It has been reported that several antibodies empirically exclusively recognize PRA in formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded (FFPE) tissues. To confirm these findings, we used human breast cancer xenograft models, T47D‐YA and ‐YB cells expressing PRA or PRB, respectively, MDA‐MB‐231 cells modified to synthesize PRB, and MDA‐MB‐231/iPRAB cells which can bi‐inducibly express either PRA or PRB. Cells were injected into immunocompromised mice to generate tumours exclusively expressing PRA or PRB. PR isoform expression was verified using immunoblots. FFPE samples from the same tumours were studied by immunohistochemistry using H‐190, clone 636, clone 16, and Ab‐6 anti‐PR antibodies, the latter exclusively recognizing PRB. Except for Ab‐6, all antibodies displayed a similar staining pattern. Our results indicate that clones 16, 636, and the H‐190 antibody recognize both PR isoforms. They point to the need for more stringency in evaluating the true specificity of purported PRA‐specific antibodies as the PRA/PRB ratio may have prognostic and predictive value in breast cancer.
Progesterone receptors (PRs) ligands are being tested in luminal breast cancer. There are mainly two PR isoforms, PRA and PRB, and their ratio (PRA/PRB) may be predictive of antiprogestin response. Our aim was to investigate: the impact of the PR isoform ratio on metastatic behaviour, the PR isoform ratio in paired primary tumours and lymph node metastases (LNM) and, the effect of antiprogestin/progestins on metastatic growth. Using murine and human metastatic models, we demonstrated that tumours with PRB > PRA (PRB‐H) have a higher proliferation index but less metastatic ability than those with PRA > PRB (PRA‐H). Antiprogestins and progestins inhibited metastatic burden in PRA‐H and PRB‐H models, respectively. In breast cancer samples, LNM retained the same PRA/PRB ratio as their matched primary tumours. Moreover, PRA‐H LNM expressed higher total PR levels than the primary tumours. The expression of NDRG1, a metastasis suppressor protein, was higher in PRB‐H compared to PRA‐H tumours and was inversely regulated by antiprogestins/progestins. The binding of the corepressor SMRT at the progesterone responsive elements of the NDRG1 regulatory sequences, together with PRA, impeded its expression in PRA‐H cells. Antiprogestins modulate the interplay between SMRT and AIB1 recruitment in PRA‐H or PRB‐H contexts regulating NDRG1 expression and thus, metastasis. In conclusion, we provide a mechanistic interpretation to explain the differential role of PR isoforms in metastatic growth and highlight the therapeutic benefit of using antiprogestins in PRA‐H tumours. The therapeutic effect of progestins in PRB‐H tumours is suggested.
Background: Different antiprogestins have been clinically evaluated in gynecological andbreast cancers. Mifepristone (MFP), as well as onapristone and telapristone acetate, showedpartial responses in breast cancer clinical trials. Preclinical data indicates that antiprogestinsinhibit cell proliferation of luminal breast carcinomas expressing higher levels of progesteronereceptor isoform A (PRA) than those of isoform B (PRB) evaluated by western blots (WB). Thus,we designed a pre-surgical window trial to determine the therapeutic effects of oral MFP oncell proliferation and on differential gene expression in 20 breast cancer patients selected bytheir high PRA/PRB isoform ratio.Methods. MIPRA is an open-label, one-arm, prospective interventional study (NCT02651844).We interviewed 140 naive breast cancer patients and 133 accepted to participate. Four coreultrasound-guided biopsies were performed, two were formalin-fixed for diagnosis, ER, PR,HER2, and Ki67 evaluation and two were snap-frozen for WB and molecular studies. Patientsthat met the inclusion criteria, with ER+, PRA/PRB>1.5 and total PR ≥50% determined by WBand immunohistochemistry (IHC), respectively, were included for MFP treatment. Plasma wasobtained before and after treatment for future studies. Patients were treated with oral MFP(200 mg/day) for 14 days before surgery which was performed on day 15. Clinical examinationwas performed at days 7 and 14 to register possible adverse effects and to measure tumorsize. During surgery, samples were formalin-fixed for IHC studies, and others were snap-frozenfor further molecular studies. One patient had a bilateral breast cancer, and both tumorsmatched with the inclusion criteria and were included. The primary endpoint was Ki67labeling, comparing diagnostic core needle biopsy to post-therapy surgical specimens.Considering previous studies performed with tamoxifen, we pre-specified that 30% of relativereduction in Ki67 would be considered as a positive response. Differences in Ki67 expressionwere quantitated by an expert pathologist counting at least ten 40x fields per slide. Theseresults are currently being validated by a second pathologist. One patient, with a core biopsywith less than 500 total cells, was excluded. Ongoing experiments include secondary and otherendpoints: comparison of apoptotic, proliferative and hormone receptor markers by IHC,measurement of MFP plasma levels and, RNAseq analysis in samples pre- and post-treatment. Ki67 changes from baseline were tested with paired Wilcoxon matched-pairssigned-rank test.Results: The median (range) Ki67 value of biopsies was 11.87% (2.70- 34.56) and for surgicalspecimens was 6.45% (0.48-23.77). A 45.67% of decrease in the median % Ki67 (41.63%comparing the arithmetic mean values and 50.83% comparing the geometric mean values) wasregistered in all surgical specimens compared to baseline (p= 0.003). Using the pre-specifiedresponse parameter (30% relative reduction in Ki67), we identified 15/20 (75%) responders.Considering only responsive tumors, a 49.87% decrease in the median % Ki67 (50.83%,arithmetic mean; 62.34% geometric mean) was observed (p<0.0001) between baseline andsurgical specimens. In those cases with the highest response, the decrease in Ki-67 wasaccompanied by a decrease in tumor volume (ultrasound measurements).Conclusion: Our results show that MFP treatment may be effective in patients showing a highPRA/PRB ratio. The magnitude of the inhibition was similar or higher to that reported fortamoxifen in ER+ breast cancer patients in short-term treatment studies. Ongoing analysis willdetermine if there are changes in other markers that may help to further define MFP-responsive patients. Citation Format: Andres Elia, Silvia I Vanzulli, Hugo Gass, Caroline A Lamb, Victoria T Fabris, Paula Martinez Vazquez, Javier Burruchaga, Eunice Spengler, Ines Caillet Bois, Alejandra Castets, Silvia Lovisi, Marcos Liguori, Gabriela Pataccini, M Florencia Abascal, Virginia Novaro, Gabriela Acosta Haab, Alfredo Molinolo, Paola Rojas, Claudia Lanari. Mipra, a window of opportunity study evaluating mifepristone treatment for postmenopausal breast cancer patients with higher levels of progesterone receptor isoform a than b [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS11-35.
<p>Mutations identified in RNA-Seq analysis. The data obtained in RNA-Seq studies were graphed using the Oviz-Bio tool (https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/48/W1/W415/5835823). Only driver breast cancer genes (99) were selected from the Intogene data base (https://www.intogen.org/download) and we found mutations in 19 driver genes after read depth filtering (DP >50). Of note is the missense mutation found in ESR1 in the M070 patient. Left, Percentage of samples with mutations. Color defines the type of mutations.</p>
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.