
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Human Cancer Biology |
1 Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina; 2 Biosciences Division, SRI International, Menlo Park, California; and 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Requests for reprints: Murat O. Arcasoy, Divisions of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, DUMC Box 3912, Durham, NC 27710. Phone: 919-668-6309; Fax: 919-681-6160; E-mail: arcas001{at}mc.duke.edu
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Experimental Design: Twenty-one patients received an i.v. infusion of the hypoxia marker pimonidazole hydrochloride before multiple tumor biopsies. Contiguous sections from 74 biopsies were analyzed by immunohistochemistry for EPOR and erythropoietin expression and pimonidazole binding.
Results: EPOR expression was present in tumor cells in 97% of the biopsies. Coexpression of erythropoietin was observed in 90% of biopsies. Erythropoietin and pimonidazole adduct staining did not always colocalize within tumors, but there was a significant positive correlation between levels of microregional erythropoietin expression and pimonidazole binding.
Conclusions: The coexpression of erythropoietin and EPOR in tumor cells suggests that erythropoietin may potentially function as an autocrine or paracrine factor in head and neck cancer. The expression of the hypoxia-inducible protein erythropoietin in tumor cells correlates with levels of tumor hypoxia.
Key Words: cytokine receptor oxygen regulation pimonidazole squamous cell carcinoma
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The recombinant form of human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) has been widely used in clinical practice for the prevention or treatment of anemia associated with cancer and chemoradiation therapy (13). The benefits and safety of rHuEPO in anemic cancer patients leading to increased hemoglobin levels, decreased RBC transfusions, and improved quality of life have been documented in several large studies (1416) as well as in a randomized, placebo-controlled study that showed a trend in overall survival favoring rHuEPO (17). In patients with head and neck cancer receiving chemotherapy, rHuEPO improved hemoglobin levels and reduced transfusion requirements (1820). Previous studies have explored the incorporation of rHuEPO in curative treatment regimens to improve outcome of head and neck cancer patients. Aretrospective clinical study found that rHuEPO administration during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy may improve tumor control and survival (21), consistent with the findings of several preclinical studies where erythropoietin was shown to modulate tumor hypoxia and increase radiation sensitivity in various animal models of human cancer (2224). However, a recent double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter trial found poorer locoregional progression-free survival in rHuEPO-treated patients with head and neck cancer compared with placebo despite correction of anemia (25). The latter prospective study was specifically designed to investigate the effect of rHuEPO on outcome for patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy only. It was noted, however, that the adverse outcomes may be associated with the study design that allowed higher than recommended increases in hemoglobin in erythropoietin-treated patients (26). It was also speculated that underlying biological factors, such as potential direct effects of erythropoietin on tumors, may underlie the unexpected, unfavorable clinical results observed in the erythropoietin arm (25).
A series of recent studies from our laboratories and others have reported EPOR expression in various types of malignant human tumors and continuous cancer cell lines, including breast cancer (2730), melanoma (31), renal cell carcinoma (32), gastric cancer (33), pediatric tumors (34), and uterine and ovarian carcinomas (35). In breast cancer cells and squamous cell carcinomas of the uterine cervix, coexpression of EPOR and its ligand erythropoietin was detected in primary tumors, suggesting that erythropoietin-EPOR may potentially play a role as an autocrine or paracrine growth factor in some malignancies (29, 36). In our studies of erythropoietin-EPOR expression and its biology in human cancer, we explored the expression of erythropoietin and EPOR protein in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck using immunohistochemistry. Furthermore, we tested the hypothesis that the expression of erythropoietin, an oxygen-regulated protein, in malignant head and neck tumors may be associated with the presence of tumor hypoxia, a factor that is associated with tumor aggressiveness, treatment resistance, and poor prognosis insquamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (3740).
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
Immunohistochemical Staining. Immunostaining for erythropoietin and EPOR was carried out on contiguous sections using procedures described previously with some modifications (29). The primary antibodies were monoclonal anti-erythropoietin (mAb-287, 1:25 dilution) from R&D Systems (Minneapolis, MN) and polyclonal anti-EPOR (C-20, 1:50 dilution) from Santa Cruz Biotechnology (Santa Cruz, CA). EPOR expression was confirmed using a second monoclonal anti-EPOR (mh2er 16.5.1, 1:50 dilution) generously provided by Genetics Institute (Cambridge, MA). Negative controls from which primary antibodies were omitted from the staining procedure were free of nonspecific background staining. The sections were deparaffinized in Hemo-D, rehydrated in graded alcohols, and subjected to endogenous peroxidase block in 3% H2O2. For EPOR immunostaining, antigen retrieval was carried out by boiling the sections in antigen retrieval solution (Innovex Biosciences, Richmond, CA), whereas sections for erythropoietin immunostaining were boiled in 10% citrate buffer for antigen retrieval. This was followed by blocking with 5% donkey serum (Jackson Immunoresearch Labs, West Grove, PA). Slides were incubated with anti-erythropoietin or anti-EPOR antibodies overnight at 4°C and then washed and incubated with either biotinylated donkey anti-mouse (1:1,000) or anti-rabbit (1:2,000) secondary antibodies (Jackson Immunoresearch Labs) at 37°C for 25 minutes followed by another incubation for 25 minutes with avidin-biotin peroxidase complex (ABC Kit, Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA). Finally, the sections were developed with diaminobenzidine tetrahydrochloride chromogen and counterstained with hematoxylin. Sections contiguous to those stained for erythropoietin and EPOR were stained for pimonidazole binding using a mouse monoclonal antibody against pimonidazole adducts (clone 4.3.11.3, 70 µg/mL, IgG1, diluted 1:50) as described in detail previously (41).
Semiquantitative Analysis of Erythropoietin, EPOR Staining, and Tumor Hypoxia. Immunohistochemistry results were evaluated by two pathologists (K.A. and Z.A.H.) in a blinded fashion, and differences between the two investigators were resolved by consensus. Cytoplasmic or membrane staining for erythropoietin and EPOR were considered positive. Immunohistochemical detection of tumor hypoxia using immunostaining for pimonidazole binding has been described previously (4244). To assess the percentage of tumor cells staining for erythropoietin, EPOR, or pimonidazole adducts, the entire tumor section (regardless of the number of fields) was examined at low magnification (x25-50) without taking into account areas of acellularity, necrosis, and stroma. For assessment of erythropoietin and EPOR expression, we also evaluated the intensity of thestaining in tumor cells. The percentage of tumor cells that exhibited no erythropoietin or EPOR staining (intensity score =0) or weak (score = 1), moderate (score = 2), or intense (score = 3) staining was determined by microscopic examination at higher magnification (x100-200). The semiquantitative immunoreactivity score was derived from the product of the percentage of tumor cells staining for erythropoietin or EPOR and the intensity score of that staining using the formula: Weighed staining intensity =
Intensity score x Percentage of cells. The maximum weighed staining intensity score was 300, and the expression data was presented as means ± SE, except for tumors 1, 2 and 5, which had only two biopsies available. The intensity of pimonidazole binding was not factored as discussed previously (44). Although the extent of 2-nitroimidazole immunostaining measures the extent of oxygen tensions
10 mm Hg, the intensity of immunostaining is affected by pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors besides hypoxia. Microregional comparison of erythropoietin expression and tumor hypoxia in tumor fields was carried out at higher magnification (x100-200) for each biopsy on a section-by-section basis to assess individual microscopic fields with respect to (a) overlap, (b) no overlap, and (c) a mix of overlap and no overlap with pimonidazole immunostaining (44).
Statistical Analyses. The analyses were done using GraphPad Prism version 3.0 for Windows software. The relationships among tumor hypoxia, erythropoietin-EPOR expression,and other variables were examined by two-tailed Spearman's rank correlation analysis and when appropriate using Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and Dunn multiple comparisons post hoc test. P < 0.05 was considered significant.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
Relationship between Erythropoietin Expression and Pimonidazole Binding. The physiologic expression of erythropoietin in the kidneys is under the control of an oxygen-sensing mechanism. To test the hypothesis that in vivo tumor hypoxia and erythropoietin expression may be coupled in squamous carcinoma cells, we compared the microregional pattern and the extent of erythropoietin expression and hypoxia in tumor biopsies using contiguous tissue sections. In 4 of 74 biopsies, neither erythropoietin expression nor pimonidazole binding was present. Figure 2 illustrates representative immunostaining patterns for erythropoietin (A, C, E, G, and I) and pimonidazole adducts (B, D, F, H, and J) in contiguous sections. Figure 2A and C shows two tumors exhibiting erythropoietin immunoreactivity overlapping with regions of pimonidazole binding in the contiguous sections in Fig. 2B and D, respectively. Although this pattern of pimonidazole and erythropoietin overlap suggests that erythropoietin may serve as an endogenous hypoxia marker, the overlap pattern was observed in only 19% (13 of 70) of the biopsies. The most common pattern of hypoxia and erythropoietin expression was observed in 36 (51%) biopsies in which a mixture of overlap and no overlap of erythropoietin and hypoxia occurred in the same biopsy (Table 2). An example of this pattern is illustrated in Fig. 2E and F in which an area of overlap for erythropoietin staining and pimonidazole binding is adjacent to a hypoxic tumor zone with pimonidazole binding that does not exhibit erythropoietin immunoreactivity. A third pattern of erythropoietin expression and pimonidazole binding was characterized by staining for pimonidazole adducts in tumor zones different from those for erythropoietin staining, observed in 21 of 70 (30%) biopsies. In 6 of these biopsy sections, lack of overlap was attributable to expression of erythropoietin in the absence of pimonidazole binding (Fig. 2, compare G and H). In 2 biopsy sections, the lack of overlap was due to presence of tumor hypoxia and the absence of erythropoietin expression (Fig. 2, compare I and J). In the remaining 13 biopsies, both erythropoietin staining and pimonidazole binding were observed but without any regions of overlap.
Quantitative comparisons between microregional erythropoietin expression and tumor hypoxia were done initially on a tumor-by-tumor basis (Fig. 3). The percentage fraction of tumor area staining positive for erythropoietin protein and pimonidazole binding was assessed for each biopsy section and the mean values for each tumor were calculated (Table 2). The data were organized in ascending order of tumor hypoxia. Hypoxia was present in all but three tumors. Areas immunostained for erythropoietin were measurable in all tumors with a wide range from 1.5% to 86%. On a tumor-by-tumor basis, there was a significant positive correlation between erythropoietin expression and pimonidazole binding as shown in Fig. 4A (P < 0.001). Figure 4B illustrates the results of the analysis on a biopsy-by-biopsy basis, demonstrating that the correlation between erythropoietin expression and hypoxia was weaker but remained significant (P < 0.002). In contrast to the correlation between pimonidazole binding and erythropoietin, there was no correlation between pimonidazole binding and EPOR expression (P > 0.2, Spearman rank correlation). We also compared the levels of pimonidazole binding to the mean weighed staining intensity erythropoietin score that was determined for each tumor. The weighed staining intensity score (Table 1) takes into account notonly the percentage of tumor cells that exhibit staining but also the intensity of erythropoietin staining in the tumor cells. There was a significant positive correlation between pimonidazole binding and the erythropoietin expression score (r = 0.678, P < 0.002, Spearman rank correlation). Figure 4C illustrates the results of comparisons of the extent of pimonidazole binding in tumor biopsies stratified into absent, low, moderate, or high erythropoietin expression groups according to the erythropoietin expression scores. Tumor biopsies with moderate or high erythropoietin scores showed significantly higher pimonidazole binding compared with tumors with low erythropoietin scores or no erythropoietin expression (P < 0.01).
|
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We found expression of erythropoietin protein in the majority of primary head and neck cancers and investigated the hypothesis that erythropoietin expression in tumor cells may be associated with the presence of hypoxia, an indicator of poor outcome in some types of cancer (50). In patients with head and neck cancer, tumor hypoxia has been associated with aggressive course and resistance to radiation therapy (3739) and high levels of pimonidazole binding in hypoxic tumors have been associated with poor locoregional control (40). Hypoxia-inducible erythropoietin expression has been reported in nonrenal sites, including brain astrocytes (51), and the female genital tract where erythropoietin expression was also inducible by estrogen (12, 52). Our studies addressed the question of whether erythropoietin may serve as an endogenous hypoxia marker in head and neck tumors. We found that erythropoietin expression did not always colocalize with regional tumor hypoxia as determined by pimonidazole binding. However, there was a significant positive correlation between levels of erythropoietin expression and tumor hypoxia as determined by pimonidazole binding.
The findings of previous preclinical studies of erythropoietin-EPOR biology in cancer support the possibility that expression of erythropoietin and EPOR in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck is likely to be functionally significant. For instance, rHuEPO treatment of monolayer cultures of uterine cervix squamous carcinoma cells was associated with diminished cytotoxic effect and apoptosis induced by the chemotherapeutic agent cisplatin in vitro (36). In animal studies using xenografts of human female genital tract cancers, gastric choriocarcinomas or melanoma, it was shown that administration of inhibitors of erythropoietin-EPOR signaling resulted in significant antitumor effects, characterized by the destruction of xenografts as well as tumor vasculature (35, 53). In studies in our laboratory using a syngeneic breast cancer model, administration of erythropoietin-EPOR inhibitors resulted in significant tumor growth delay (29). Thus, a growing body of preclinical experimental evidence suggests that functional erythropoietin-EPOR signaling may represent an emerging therapeutic target in several different types of cancer.
A recent randomized study involving patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer treated with concomitant chemoradiotherapy did not find a significant effect of rHuEPO on progression-free or overall survival (20). Thus, further studies are required to determine whether EPOR expression in malignant head and neck tumors may have contributed to the reported unfavorable effect of systemic rHuEPO on treatment response and outcome in patients treated with radiation therapy alone (25). Irrespective of potential direct effects, if any, of exogenous rHuEPO in tumor cells, the coexpression of EPOR and its ligand erythropoietin in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck suggests that endogenous erythropoietin may play a role as a potential autocrine or paracrine growth factor in cancer cells. The expression of EPOR in tumor cells needs to be taken into consideration in the design of future clinical trials investigating the role of rHuEPO in head and neck cancer. Further preclinical studies investigating the biology of erythropoietin-EPOR signaling in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck are warranted.
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Received 7/13/04; revised 9/16/04; accepted 10/ 6/04.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
S. N. Hamadmad and R. J. Hohl Erythropoietin Stimulates Cancer Cell Migration and Activates RhoA Protein through a Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase/Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase-Dependent Mechanism J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., March 1, 2008; 324(3): 1227 - 1233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Saintigny, B. Besse, P. Callard, A.-C. Vergnaud, S. Czernichow, M. Colombat, P. Girard, P. Validire, J.-L. Breau, J.-F. Bernaudin, et al. Erythropoietin and Erythropoietin Receptor Coexpression Is Associated with Poor Survival in Stage I Non Small Cell Lung Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., August 15, 2007; 13(16): 4825 - 4831. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Kokhaei, A. O. Abdalla, L. Hansson, E. Mikaelsson, M. Kubbies, A. Haselbeck, H. Jernberg-Wiklund, H. Mellstedt, and A. Osterborg Expression of Erythropoietin Receptor and In vitro Functional Effects of Epoetins in B-Cell Malignancies Clin. Cancer Res., June 15, 2007; 13(12): 3536 - 3544. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Zeuner, M. Signore, D. Martinetti, M. Bartucci, C. Peschle, and R. De Maria Chemotherapy-Induced Thrombocytopenia Derives from the Selective Death of Megakaryocyte Progenitors and Can Be Rescued by Stem Cell Factor Cancer Res., May 15, 2007; 67(10): 4767 - 4773. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. M. Brown, P. Maxwell, A. N.J. Graham, A. Yakkundi, E. A. Dunlop, Z. Shi, P. G. Johnston, and T. R.J. Lappin Erythropoietin Receptor Expression in Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma: A Question of Antibody Specificity Stem Cells, March 1, 2007; 25(3): 718 - 722. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Leo, L.-C. Horn, C. Rauscher, B. Hentschel, A. Liebmann, G. Hildebrandt, and M. Hockel Expression of Erythropoietin and Erythropoietin Receptor in Cervical Cancer and Relationship to Survival, Hypoxia, and Apoptosis Clin. Cancer Res., December 1, 2006; 12(23): 6894 - 6900. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Henke, D. Mattern, M. Pepe, C. Bezay, C. Weissenberger, M. Werner, and F. Pajonk Do Erythropoietin Receptors on Cancer Cells Explain Unexpected Clinical Findings? J. Clin. Oncol., October 10, 2006; 24(29): 4708 - 4713. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Henke, A. Verma, G. Acs, S. Elliott, L. Busse, C. Spahr, and A. M. Sinclair Erythropoietin receptors on cancer cells: exciting perspectives, difficult to appreciate Blood, August 1, 2006; 108(3): 1107 - 1109. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. R. Laderoute, K. Amin, J. M. Calaoagan, M. Knapp, T. Le, J. Orduna, M. Foretz, and B. Viollet 5'-AMP-Activated Protein Kinase (AMPK) Is Induced by Low-Oxygen and Glucose Deprivation Conditions Found in Solid-Tumor Microenvironments. Mol. Cell. Biol., July 1, 2006; 26(14): 5336 - 5347. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Bohlius, J. Wilson, J. Seidenfeld, M. Piper, G. Schwarzer, J. Sandercock, S. Trelle, O. Weingart, S. Bayliss, B. Djulbegovic, et al. Recombinant human erythropoietins and cancer patients: updated meta-analysis of 57 studies including 9353 patients. J Natl Cancer Inst, May 17, 2006; 98(10): 708 - 714. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Elliott, L. Busse, M. B. Bass, H. Lu, I. Sarosi, A. M. Sinclair, C. Spahr, M. Um, G. Van, and C. G. Begley Anti-Epo receptor antibodies do not predict Epo receptor expression Blood, March 1, 2006; 107(5): 1892 - 1895. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. R. LaMontagne, J. Butler, D. J. Marshall, J. Tullai, Z. Gechtman, C. Hall, A. Meshaw, and F. X. Farrell Recombinant epoetins do not stimulate tumor growth in erythropoietin receptor-positive breast carcinoma models. Mol. Cancer Ther., February 1, 2006; 5(2): 347 - 355. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. E. Hardee, M. O. Arcasoy, K. L. Blackwell, J. P. Kirkpatrick, and M. W. Dewhirst Erythropoietin Biology in Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., January 15, 2006; 12(2): 332 - 339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. M. Erovic, M. Pelzmann, M. Ch. Grasl, J. Pammer, G. Kornek, W. Brannath, E. Selzer, and D. Thurnher Mcl-1, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-R2, and 14-3-3{sigma} Expression Might Predict Primary Response against Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy in Patients with Locally Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinomas of the Head and Neck Clin. Cancer Res., December 15, 2005; 11(24): 8632 - 8636. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. C. Winter, K. A. Shah, L. Campo, H. Turley, R. Leek, R. J. Corbridge, G. J. Cox, and A. L. Harris Relation of Erythropoietin and Erythropoietin Receptor Expression to Hypoxia and Anemia in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Clin. Cancer Res., November 1, 2005; 11(21): 7614 - 7620. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Maiese, F. Li, and Z. Z. Chong Erythropoietin and Cancer--Reply JAMA, April 20, 2005; 293(15): 1858 - 1859. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |