Bast, Robert C

Background Poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors exhibit promising activity against ovarian cancers, but their efficacy can be limited by acquired drug resistance. This study explores the role of autophagy in regulating the sensitivity of ovarian cancer cells to PARP inhibitors. Methods Induction of autophagy was detected by punctate LC3 fluorescence staining, LC3I to LC3II conversion on Western blot analysis, and electron microscopy. Enhanced growth inhibition and apoptosis were observed when PARP inhibitors were used with hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine (CQ), or LYS05 to block the hydrolysis of proteins and lipids in autophagosomes or with small interfering RNA against ATG5 or ATG7 to prevent the formation of autophagosomes. The preclinical efficacy of the combination of CQ and olaparib was evaluated with a patient‐derived xenograft (PDX) and the OVCAR8 human ovarian cancer cell line. Results Four PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib) induced autophagy in a panel of ovarian cancer cells. Inhibition of autophagy with CQ enhanced the sensitivity of ovarian cancer cells to PARP inhibitors. In vivo, olaparib and CQ produced additive growth inhibition in OVCAR8 xenografts and a PDX. Olaparib inhibited PARP activity, and this led to increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) and an accumulation of γ‐H2AX. Inhibition of autophagy also increased ROS and γ‐H2AX and enhanced the effect of olaparib on both entities. Treatment with olaparib increased phosphorylation of ATM and PTEN while decreasing the phosphorylation of AKT and mTOR and inducing autophagy. Conclusions PARP inhibitor–induced autophagy provides an adaptive mechanism of resistance to PARP inhibitors in cancer cells with wild‐type BRCA, and a combination of PARP inhibitors with CQ or other autophagy inhibitors could improve outcomes for patients with ovarian cancer.

Purpose To provide recommendations on the appropriate use of breast tumor biomarker assay results to guide decisions on systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer. Methods A literature search and prospectively defined study selection identified systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective–retrospective studies, and prospective comparative observational studies published from 2006 through September 2014. Results The literature search revealed 17 articles that met criteria for further review: 11 studies reporting discordances between primary tumors and metastases in expression of hormone receptors or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), one RCT that addressed the use of a biomarker to decide whether to change or continue a treatment regimen, and five prospective–retrospective studies that evaluated the clinical utility of biomarkers. Recommendations In patients with accessible metastases, biopsy for confirmation of disease process and retesting of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status should be offered, but evidence is lacking to determine whether changing anticancer treatment on the basis of change in receptor status affects clinical outcomes. With discordance of results between primary and metastatic tissues, the Panel consensus is to use preferentially the estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status of the metastasis to direct therapy if supported by the clinical scenario and patient's goals for care. Carcinoembryonic antigen, cancer antigen 15-3, and cancer antigen 27-29 may be used as adjunctive assessments, but not alone, to contribute to decisions regarding therapy. Recommendations for tumor rebiopsy and use of circulating tumor markers are based on clinical experience and Panel informal consensus in the absence of studies designed to evaluate the clinical utility of the markers. As such, it is also reasonable for clinicians to not use these markers as adjunctive assessments.

AbstractBackground: Updated National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for the use of tumor markers in the clinic have been developed.Methods: Published reports relevant to use of tumor markers for 5 cancer sites—testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian—were critically reviewed.Results: For testicular cancer, α-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotropin, and lactate dehydrogenase are recommended for diagnosis/case finding, staging, prognosis determination, recurrence detection, and therapy monitoring. α-Fetoprotein is also recommended for differential diagnosis of nonseminomatous and seminomatous germ cell tumors. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is not recommended for prostate cancer screening, but may be used for detecting disease recurrence and monitoring therapy. Free PSA measurement data are useful for distinguishing malignant from benign prostatic disease when total PSA is <10 μg/L. In colorectal cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen is recommended (with some caveats) for prognosis determination, postoperative surveillance, and therapy monitoring in advanced disease. Fecal occult blood testing may be used for screening asymptomatic adults 50 years or older. For breast cancer, estrogen and progesterone receptors are mandatory for predicting response to hormone therapy, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 measurement is mandatory for predicting response to trastuzumab, and urokinase plasminogen activator/plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 may be used for determining prognosis in lymph node–negative patients. CA15-3/BR27–29 or carcinoembryonic antigen may be used for therapy monitoring in advanced disease. CA125 is recommended (with transvaginal ultrasound) for early detection of ovarian cancer in women at high risk for this disease. CA125 is also recommended for differential diagnosis of suspicious pelvic masses in postmenopausal women, as well as for detection of recurrence, monitoring of therapy, and determination of prognosis in women with ovarian cancer.Conclusions: Implementation of these recommendations should encourage optimal use of tumor markers.

Abstract Purpose: Advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis with long-term survival in less than 30% of patients. When the disease is detected in stage I, more than 90% of patients can be cured by conventional therapy. Screening for early-stage disease with individual serum tumor markers, such as CA125, is limited by the fact that no single marker is up-regulated and shed in adequate amounts by all ovarian cancers. Consequently, use of multiple markers in combination might detect a larger fraction of early-stage ovarian cancers. Experimental Design: To identify potential candidates for novel markers, we have used Affymetrix human genome arrays (U95 series) to analyze differences in gene expression of 41,441 known genes and expressed sequence tags between five pools of normal ovarian surface epithelial cells (OSE) and 42 epithelial ovarian cancers of different stages, grades, and histotypes. Recursive descent partition analysis (RDPA) was performed with 102 probe sets representing 86 genes that were up-regulated at least 3-fold in epithelial ovarian cancers when compared with normal OSE. In addition, a panel of 11 genes known to encode potential tumor markers [mucin 1, transmembrane (MUC1), mucin 16 (CA125), mesothelin, WAP four-disulfide core domain 2 (HE4), kallikrein 6, kallikrein 10, matrix metalloproteinase 2, prostasin, osteopontin, tetranectin, and inhibin] were similarly analyzed. Results: The 3-fold up-regulated genes were examined and four genes [Notch homologue 3 (NOTCH3), E2F transcription factor 3 (E2F3), GTPase activating protein (RACGAP1), and hematological and neurological expressed 1 (HN1)] distinguished all tumor samples from normal OSE. The 3-fold up-regulated genes were analyzed using RDPA, and the combination of elevated claudin 3 (CLDN3) and elevated vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) distinguished the cancers from normal OSE. The 11 known markers were analyzed using RDPA, and a combination of HE4, CA125, and MUC1 expression could distinguish tumor from normal specimens. Expression at the mRNA level in the candidate markers was examined via semiquantitative reverse transcription-PCR and was found to correlate well with the array data. Immunohistochemistry was performed to identify expression of the genes at the protein level in 158 ovarian cancers of different histotypes. A combination of CLDN3, CA125, and MUC1 stained 157 (99.4%) of 158 cancers, and all of the tumors were detected with a combination of CLDN3, CA125, MUC1, and VEGF. Conclusions: Our data are consistent with the possibility that a limited number of markers in combination might identify >99% of epithelial ovarian cancers despite the heterogeneity of the disease.

Abstract Purpose: Epithelial ovarian cancers are thought to arise from flattened epithelial cells that cover the ovarian surface or that line inclusion cysts. During malignant transformation, different histotypes arise that resemble epithelial cells from normal fallopian tube, endometrium, and intestine. This study compares gene expression in serous, endometrioid, clear cell, and mucinous ovarian cancers with that in the normal tissues that they resemble. Experimental Design: Expression of 63,000 probe sets was measured in 50 ovarian cancers, in 5 pools of normal ovarian epithelial brushings, and in mucosal scrapings from 4 normal fallopian tube, 5 endometrium, and 4 colon specimens. Using rank-sum analysis, genes whose expressions best differentiated the ovarian cancer histotypes and normal ovarian epithelium were used to determine whether a correlation based on gene expression existed between ovarian cancer histotypes and the normal tissues they resemble. Results: When compared with normal ovarian epithelial brushings, alterations in serous tumors correlated with those in normal fallopian tube (P = 0.0042) but not in other normal tissues. Similarly, mucinous cancers correlated with those in normal colonic mucosa (P = 0.0003), and both endometrioid and clear cell histotypes correlated with changes in normal endometrium (P = 0.0172 and 0.0002, respectively). Mucinous cancers displayed the greatest number of alterations in gene expression when compared with normal ovarian epithelial cells. Conclusion: Studies at a molecular level show distinct expression profiles of different histologies of ovarian cancer and support the long-held belief that histotypes of ovarian cancers come to resemble normal fallopian tube, endometrial, and colonic epithelium. Several potential molecular markers for mucinous ovarian cancers have been identified.

Abstract A group of investigators met at a Specialized Programs of Research Excellence Workshop to discuss key issues in the translation of biomarker discovery to the development of useful laboratory tests for cancer care. Development and approval of several new markers and technologies have provided informative examples that include more specific markers for prostate cancer, more sensitive tests for ovarian cancer, more objective analysis of tissue architecture and an earlier indication of response to treatment in breast cancer. Although there is no clear paradigm for biomarker development, several principles are clear. Marker development should be driven by clinical needs, including early cancer detection, accurate pretreatment staging, and prediction of response to treatment, as well as monitoring disease progression and response to therapy. Development of a national repository that uses carefully preserved, well-annotated tissue specimens will facilitate new marker development. Reference standards will be an essential component of this process. Both hospital-based and commercial laboratories can play a role in developing biomarkers from discovery to test validation. Partnering of academe and industry should occur throughout the process of biomarker development. The National Cancer Institute is in a unique position to bring together academe, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration to (a) define clinical needs for biomarkers by tumor type, (b) establish analytic and clinical paradigms for biomarker development, (c) discuss ways in which markers from different companies might be evaluated in combination, (d) establish computational methods to combine data from multiple biomarkers, (e) share information regarding promising markers developed in National Cancer Institute–supported programs, and (f) exchange data regarding new platforms and techniques that can accelerate marker development.

Abstract Purpose: Women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer are routinely treated with platinum-paclitaxel chemotherapy following cytoreductive surgery, yet only ∼20% achieve long-term disease-free survival. We hypothesized that differences in gene expression before treatment could distinguish patients with short versus long time to recurrence after administration of platinum-paclitaxel combination chemotherapy. Experimental Design: To test this hypothesis, gene expression profiling of 79 primary surgically resected tumors from women with advanced-stage, high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer was done using cDNA microarrays containing 30,721 genes. Supervised learning algorithms were applied in an effort to develop a binary classifier that could discriminate women at risk for early (≤21 months) versus late (>21 months) relapse after initial chemotherapy. Results: A 14-gene predictive model was developed using a set of training samples (n = 51) and subsequently tested using an independent set of test samples (n = 28). This model correctly predicted the outcome of 24 of the 28 test samples (86% accuracy) with 95% positive predictive value for early relapse. Conclusions: Predictive markers for early recurrence can be identified for platinum-paclitaxel combination chemotherapy in primary ovarian carcinoma. The proposed 14-gene model requires further validation.