Elise C. Kohn

The microenvironment of the tumour–host interface

Throughout the entire process of cancer aetiology, progression and metastasis, the microenvironment of the local host tissue can be an active participant. Invasion occurs within a tumour–host microecology, where stroma and tumour cells exchange enzymes and cytokines that modify the local extracellular matrix, stimulate migration, and promote proliferation and survival. A new class of cancer therapies that targets this pathological communication interface between tumour cells and host cells is currently under development.

Clinical proteomics: translating benchside promise into bedside reality

The ultimate goal of proteomics is to characterize the information flow through protein networks. This information can be a cause, or a consequence, of disease processes. Clinical proteomics is an exciting new subdiscipline of proteomics that involves the application of proteomic technologies at the bedside, and cancer, in particular, is a model disease for studying such applications. Here, we describe proteomic technologies that are being developed to detect cancer earlier, to discover the next generation of targets and imaging biomarkers, and finally to tailor the therapy to the patient.

Combination Targeted Therapy With Sorafenib and Bevacizumab Results in Enhanced Toxicity and Antitumor Activity

PURPOSE Sorafenib inhibits Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody targeted against VEGF. We hypothesized that the complementary inhibition of VEGF signaling would have synergistic therapeutic effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients had advanced solid tumors, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1, and good end-organ function. A phase I dose-escalation trial of sorafenib and bevacizumab was initiated at below-recommended single-agent doses because of possible overlapping toxicity: sorafenib 200 mg orally twice daily and bevacizumab intravenously at 5 mg/kg (dose level [DL] 1) or 10 mg/kg (DL2) every 2 weeks. Additional patients were enrolled at the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). RESULTS Thirty-nine patients were treated. DL1 was the MTD and administered in cohort 2 (N = 27). Dose-limiting toxicity in DL2 was grade 3 proteinuria and thrombocytopenia. Adverse events included hypertension, hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, transaminitis, and fatigue. Partial responses (PRs) were seen in six (43%) of 13 patients with ovarian cancer (response duration range, 4 to 22+ months) and one of three patients with renal cell cancer (response duration, 14 months). PR or disease stabilization >or= 4 months (median, 6 months; range, 4 to 22+ months) was seen in 22 (59%) of 37 assessable patients. The majority (74%) required sorafenib dose reduction to 200 mg/d at a median of four cycles (range, one to 12 cycles). CONCLUSION Combination therapy with sorafenib and bevacizumab has promising clinical activity, especially in patients with ovarian cancer. The rapidity and frequency of sorafenib dose reductions indicates that sorafenib at 200 mg twice daily with bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks may not be tolerable long term, and alternate sorafenib dosing schedules should be explored.

Proteomic analysis and identification of new biomarkers and therapeutic targets for invasive ovarian cancer

Epithelial ovarian cancer kills almost 16 000 women each year in part due to late stage of presentation and lack of reliable biomarkers for disease detection. CA‐125, the currently accepted serum marker, alone lacks the sensitivity for early stage diagnosis, as only 50% of early stage cases are detected with this marker. Although more early stage cases may be detected by lysophosphatidic acid, this marker is also elevated in other cancers. One major objective of the NCI‐FDA Tissue Proteomics Initiative has been to combine the technique of laser capture microdissection (LCM) of epithelial tumor cells in human tissue specimens with two‐dimensional gel electrophoresis (2‐D PAGE) to identify proteins that may serve as invasive ovarian cancer‐specific biomarkers for early detection and/or new therapeutic targets. We performed 2‐D PAGE on lysates from five microdissected ovarian tumors (three invasive ovarian cancers and two noninvasive, low malignant potential (LMP) ovarian tumors). We then compared silver stained 2‐D gels created from microdissected lysates with SYPRO‐Ruby stained 2‐D PAGE profiles of the patient‐matched undissected bulk tumor lysates from all five patients. Twenty‐three proteins were consistently differentially expressed between both the LMP and three invasive ovarian tumors in the limited study set. Thirteen were uniquely present in all three of the invasive ovarian cancer cases and absent or underexpressed in the two LMP cases. Ten were uniquely present in the LMP cases but absent or underexpressed in all invasive ovarian cancer cases. Credentialing and preliminary target validation of the mass spectrometry identified proteins cut from the Ruby‐red stained gels was performed by LCM coupled Western blot and reverse‐phase array technology in a study set of six cases (the aforementioned five cases used in the 2‐D PAGE profiling component of the study plus one additional LMP case). The analysis revealed that the 52 kDa FK506 binding protein, Rho G‐protein dissociation inhibitor (RhoGDI), and glyoxalase I are found to be uniquely overexpressed in invasive human ovarian cancer when compared to the LMP form of this cancer. The direct comparison of LCM generated proteomic profiles of invasive vs. LMP ovarian cancer may more directly generate important markers for early detection and/or therapeutic targets unique to the invasive phenotype.

Combination cediranib and olaparib versus olaparib alone for women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: a randomised phase 2 study

BACKGROUND Olaparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and cediranib is an anti-angiogenic agent with activity against VEGF receptor (VEGFR) 1, VEGFR2, and VEGFR3. Both oral agents have antitumour activity in women with recurrent ovarian cancer, and their combination was active and had manageable toxicities in a phase 1 trial. We investigated whether this combination could improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared with olaparib monotherapy in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. METHODS In our randomised, open-label, phase 2 study, we recruited women (aged ≥18 years) who had measurable platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, or those with deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutations from nine participating US academic medical centres. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to permuted blocks, stratified by germline BRCA status and previous anti-angiogenic therapy, to receive olaparib capsules 400 mg twice daily or the combination at the recommended phase 2 dose of cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib capsules 200 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The phase 2 trial is no longer accruing patients. An interim analysis was conducted in November, 2013, after 50% of expected events had occurred and efficacy results were unmasked. The primary analysis was performed on March 31, 2014, after 47 events (66% of those expected). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01116648. FINDINGS Between Oct 26, 2011, and June 3, 2013, we randomly allocated 46 women to receive olaparib alone and 44 to receive the combination of olaparib and cediranib. Median PFS was 17·7 months (95% CI 14·7-not reached) for the women treated with cediranib plus olaparib compared with 9·0 months (95% CI 5·7-16·5) for those treated with olaparib monotherapy (hazard ratio 0·42, 95% CI 0·23-0·76; p=0·005). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common with combination therapy than with monotherapy, including fatigue (12 patients in the cediranib plus olaparib group vs five patients in the olaparib monotherapy group), diarrhoea (ten vs none), and hypertension (18 vs none). INTERPRETATION Cediranib plus olaparib seems to improve PFS in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, and warrants study in a phase 3 trial. The side-effect profile suggests such investigations should include assessments of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes to understand the effects of a continuing oral regimen with that of intermittent chemotherapy. FUNDING American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (3 U01 CA062490-16S2); Intramural Program of the Center for Cancer Research; and the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, NIH.

What's in the ‘BAG’? – a functional domain analysis of the BAG-family proteins

Bcl-2-associated athanogene (BAG)-family proteins are BAG domain-containing proteins that interact with the heat shock proteins 70, both constitutive Hsc70 and inducible Hsp70. BAG-family proteins bind through the BAG domain to the ATPase domain of Hsc70/Hsp70. The BAG domain, approximately 110 amino acids in length, is a conserved region at the carboxyl terminus and consists of three anti-parallel alpha helices based on X-ray crystallography and NMR studies. The second and third alpha-helices of the BAG domain interact with the ATP-binding pocket of Hsc70/Hsp70. Currently, six human BAG proteins have been reported, four of which have been shown to functionally bind Hsc70/Hsp70. BAG-family proteins regulate chaperone protein activities through their interaction with Hsc70/Hsp70. Over-expression of BAG-family proteins is found in several cancers and has been demonstrated in the laboratory to enhance cell survival and proliferation. The anti-apoptotic activities of BAG-family proteins may be dependent on their interactions with Hsc70/Hsp70 and/or binding to Bcl-2. Both BAG-1 and BAG-3/CAIR-1 interact with Bcl-2 and have been shown to have a supra-additive anti-apoptotic effect with Bcl-2. Several N-terminal domains or motifs have been identified in BAG-family proteins as well. These domains enable BAG-family proteins to partner with other proteins and potentially alter the activity of those target proteins by recruiting Hsc70/Hsp70. BAG-family proteins participate in a wide variety of cellular processes including cell survival (stress response), proliferation, migration and apoptosis.

Rapid protein display profiling of cancer progression directly from human tissue using a protein biochip

The complicated, changing pattern of protein expression should contain important information about the pathologic process taking place in the cells of actual tissue. Utilization of this information for the selection of druggable targets could be possible if a means existed to rapidly analyze and display changes in protein expression in defined microscopic cellular subpopulations. As a demonstration of feasibility, we show the generation of sensitive, rapid, and reproducible molecular weight protein profiles of patient‐matched normal, premalignant, malignant, and metastatic microdissected cell populations from stained human esophageal, prostate, breast, ovary, colon, and hepatic tissue sections through the application of an affinity‐based biochip. Reproducible, discriminatory protein biomarker profiles can be obtained from as few as 25 cells in less than 5 min from dissection to the generation of the protein fingerprint. Furthermore, these protein pattern profiles reveal reproducible changes in expression as cells undergo malignant transformation, and are discriminatory for different tumor types. Consistent protein changes were identified in the microdissected cells from patient‐matched tumor and normal epithelium from eight out of eight different malignant esophageal tissue sets and three out of three malignant prostate tissue sets. A means to rapidly generate a display of expressed proteins from microscopic cellular populations sampled from tissue could be an important enabling technology for pharmacoproteomics, molecular pathology, drug intervention strategies, therapeutic assessment of drug entities, disease diagnosis, toxicity, and gene therapy monitoring. Drug Dev. Res. 49:34–42, 2000. Published 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Phase I study of taxol and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with refractory ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE To increase the taxol dose beyond the current standard dose intensity of 175 mg/m2 per 21 days in patients with refractory ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Fifteen patients who had platinum-refractory or recurrent advanced-stage ovarian cancer were treated with taxol in a phase I trial and were given granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). Taxol was administered at doses of 170, 200, 250, and 300 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. G-CSF was given as a daily subcutaneous injection that started 24 hours after the completion of the taxol infusion. RESULTS Four patients required either taxol dose reduction or delay. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was peripheral neuropathy, and it occurred at 300 mg/m2. This toxicity was manifested clinically as a stocking-and-glove sensory disturbance that primarily affected proprioception, and was associated with objective changes on nerve conduction studies in affected individuals. Mucositis was rarely observed. Substantial myelosuppression was observed, but was not dose-limiting. Five of 14 assessable patients experienced an objective response to therapy, with another five individuals who experienced a 30% to 45% reduction in tumor mass. CONCLUSION Taxol can be safely administered in doses up to 250 mg/m2 with G-CSF support, which may make it possible to study taxol dose intensification.

PARP Inhibitors for BRCA1/2 mutation-associated and BRCA-like malignancies

Poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) have shown promising activity in patients with BRCA1/2 mutation-associated (BRCA1/2(MUT+)) ovarian and breast cancers. Accumulating evidence suggests that PARPi may have a wider application in the treatment of sporadic high-grade serous ovarian cancer, and cancers defective in DNA repair pathways, such as prostate, endometrial, and pancreatic cancers. Several PARPis are currently in phase 1/2 clinical investigation, with registration trials now being designed. Olaparib, one of the most studied PARPis, has demonstrated activity in BRCA1/2(MUT+) and BRCA-like sporadic ovarian and breast cancers, and looks promising in prostate and pancreatic cancers. Understanding more about the molecular abnormalities involved in BRCA-like tumors, exploring novel therapeutic trial strategies and drug combinations, and defining potential predictive biomarkers, is critical to rapidly advancing the field of PARPi therapy and improve clinical outcomes.

The MAPK pathway across different malignancies: A new perspective

The mitogen‐activated protein kinase/extracellular signal‐regulated (MAPK/ERK) pathway is activated by upstream genomic events and/or activation of multiple signaling events in which information coalesces at this important nodal pathway point. This pathway is tightly regulated under normal conditions by phosphatases and bidirectional communication with other pathways, like the protein kinase B/mammalian target of rapamycin (AKT/m‐TOR) pathway. Recent evidence indicates that the MAPK/ERK signaling node can function as a tumor suppressor as well as the more common pro‐oncogenic signal. The effect that predominates depends on the intensity of the signal and the context or tissue in which the signal is aberrantly activated. Genomic profiling of tumors has revealed common mutations in MAPK/ERK pathway components, such as v‐raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF). Currently approved for the treatment of melanoma, inhibitors of BRAF kinase are being studied alone and in combination with inhibitors of the MAPK and other pathways to optimize the treatment of many tumor types. Therapies targeted toward MAPK/ERK components have various response rates when used in different solid tumors, such as colorectal cancer and ovarian cancer. Understanding the differential nature of activation of the MAPK/ERK pathway in each tumor type is critical in developing single and combination regimens, because different tumors have unique mechanisms of primary and secondary signaling and subsequent sensitivity to drugs. Cancer 2014;120:3446–3456.