Lin, Li

Tissue regeneration is a process by which the remaining cells of an injured organ regrow to offset the missed cells. This field is relatively a new discipline that has been a focus of intense research by clinicians, surgeons, and scientists for decades. It constitutes the cornerstone of tissue engineering, creation of artificial organs, and generation and utilization of therapeutic stem cells to undergo transformation to different types of mature cells. Many medical experts, scientists, biologists, and bioengineers have dedicated their efforts to deeply comprehend the process of liver regeneration, striving for harnessing it to invent new therapies for liver failure. Liver regeneration after partial hepatectomy in rodents has been extensively studied by researchers for many years. It is divided into three important distinctive phases including (a) Initiation or priming phase which includes an overexpression of specific genes to prepare the liver cells for replication, (b) Proliferation phase in which the liver cells undergo a series of cycles of cell division and expansion and finally, (c) termination phase which acts as brake to stop the regenerative process and prevent the liver tissue overgrowth. These events are well controlled by cytokines, growth factors, and signaling pathways. In this review, we describe the function, embryology, and anatomy of human liver, discuss the molecular basis of liver regeneration, elucidate the hepatocyte and cholangiocyte lineages mediating this process, explain the role of hepatic progenitor cells and elaborate the developmental signaling pathways and regulatory molecules required to procure a complete restoration of hepatic lobule. This article is categorized under: Adult Stem Cells, Tissue Renewal, and Regeneration > Regeneration Signaling Pathways > Global Signaling Mechanisms Gene Expression and Transcriptional Hierarchies > Cellular Differentiation

Abstract Background: Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) trials serve to inform design and selection of agents for larger adjuvant endocrine trials. The neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitor (AI) trial ACOSOG Z1031 randomized the treatment of postmenopausal women with ER rich (Allred 6-8) clinical stage 2/3 breast cancer to either EXE, ANA and LET. The results are therefore of interest in the context of new data that compares these AIs in the adjuvant setting. The opportunity to develop predictive biomarker tests for NET sensitivity was also a key study objective in order guide future selection of patients for inclusion in studies that compare NET versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT). The value of a baseline PAM50 intrinsic subtype test for NET patient selection was therefore an embedded objective of the study. Methods: Of the 374 women who began study treatment on Z1031, pretreatment biopsy specimen for central IHC testing for ER and Ki67 was available on 304 patients. The PAM50 intrinsic subtype test (PMCID: 2667820) could be conducted on 170 baseline samples. The Preoperative Endocrine Prognostic Index (PEPI) an approach to predicting long term outcomes based on pathological stage and surgical specimen ER and Ki67 status was also conducted because patients with a PEPI of zero (T1/2 N0, ER+, Ki67<=2.7%) have been found to have an excellent long term prognosis and therefore unlikely to benefit from chemotherapy (PMCID: 255670). Results: The degree of Ki67 suppression, the absolute level of Ki67 in the surgical specimen and the PEPI results were not significantly different by treatment arm (Kruskal-Wallis tests p >0.05). Thirty Percent (95%CI: 19.6-42.9%) of women with pre-AI LumA subtype and 12% (95%CI: 6.4-20.0%) of women with pre-AI LumB subtype had a PEPI of zero predicting excellent prognosis. Multivariate logistic modeling found that the likelihood of a PEPI score of zero is 3.2 fold higher (95%CI: 1.43 7.12) among 66 women with a pre-AI LumA subtype compared to 100 women with a pre-AI LumB subtype. Additional baseline variables (clinical T and N stage, HER2 status, pre-AI Ki-67 level (< = 10% vs. >10%) were not found to modify the chance of a PEPI of zero. Baseline PAM50 Subtype versus PEPI Conclusion: The results of Z1031 show no differences in clinical or biologic response between LET, EXE, and ANA in the neoadjuvant setting; predicting that no difference in efficacy will be seen between these agents in adjuvant studies. Pre-AI LumA versus LumB status, defined by the PAM50 subtype, identifies patients who are more likely to be in the most favorable PEPI score following neoadjuvant AI therapy. Patients with pretreatment LumA status may, therefore, not be suitable for a randomized trial of NET versus NCT since approximately one third of these patients may be able to avoid chemotherapy altogether. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr S1-2.