Clinical Cancer Research The Future of Cancer Research: Science and Patient Impact
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
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burke, L.
Right arrow Articles by Harris, C. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Burke, L.
Right arrow Articles by Harris, C. C.
Clinical Cancer Research Vol. 11, 232-241, January 2005
© 2005 American Association for Cancer Research

Imaging, Diagnosis, Prognosis

Prognostic Implications of Molecular and Immunohistochemical Profiles of the Rb and p53 Cell Cycle Regulatory Pathways in Primary Non–Small Cell Lung Carcinoma

Louise Burke1, Douglas B. Flieder2, Donald G. Guinee3, Elizabeth Brambilla4, Andrew N. Freedman5, William P. Bennett9, Raymond T. Jones10, Andrew Borkowski10, Neil A. Caporaso6, Marian Fleming11, Victor Trastek12, Peter Pairolero13, Henry Tazelaar14, David Midthun15, James R. Jett15, Lance A. Liotta7, William D. Travis16 and Curtis C. Harris8

1 Department of Pathology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland; 2 Department of Pathology, New York Hospital/Cornell University Medical College, New York, New York; 3 Department of Pathology, Virginia Mason Clinic, Seattle, Washington; 4 Service de Pathologie Cellulaire, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble, Grenoble, France; 5 Applied Research Branch, Cancer Surveillance Research Program; 6 Genetic Epidemiology Branch; 7 Laboratory of Pathology; and 8 Laboratory of Human Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; 9 Division of Human Genetics, City of Hope National Medical Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, California; 10 Department of Pathology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; 11 Orrington, Maine; 12 Department of Thoracic Surgery, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Scottsdale, Arizona; Departments of 13 Thoracic Surgery and 14 Pathology and 15 Thoracic Disease Division, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; and 16 Department of Pulmonary and Mediastinal Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, District of Columbia

Requests for reprints: Curtis C. Harris, Laboratory of Human Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Building 37, Room 3068, Bethesda, MD 20892-4255. Phone: 301-496-2048; Fax: 301-496-0497; E-mail: Curtis_Harris{at}nih.gov.


   ABSTRACT
Top
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Purpose: Many studies have highlighted the aberrant expression and prognostic significance of individual proteins in either the Rb (particularly cyclin D1, p16INK4A, and pRb) or the p53 (p53 and p21Waf1) pathways in non–small cell lung cancer. We hypothesize that cumulative abnormalities within each and between these pathways would have significant prognostic potential regarding survival.

Experimental Design: Our study population consisted of 106 consecutive surgically resected cases of predominantly early-stage non–small cell lung cancer from the National Cancer Institute-Mayo Clinic series, and assessment of proteins involved both immunohistochemical (cyclin D1, p21Waf1, pRb, p16INK4A, and p53) and mutational analysis (p53) in relationship to staging and survival.

Results: Cyclin D1 overexpression was noted in 48% of the tumors, p16INK4A negative in 53%, pRb negative in 17%, p53 immunopositive in 50%, p53 mutation frequency in 48%, and p21Waf1 overexpression in 47%, none with prognostic significance. Cyclin D1 overexpression in pRb-negative tumors revealed a significantly worse prognosis with a mean survival of 2.3 years (P = 0.004). A simultaneous p53 mutation dramatically reduced the mean survival time to 0.9 years (P = 0.007). Cyclin D1 overexpression with either a p53 mutation or a p53 overexpression was also associated with a significantly poorer prognosis (P = 0.0033 and 0.0063, respectively).

Conclusions: Some cumulative abnormalities in the Rb and p53 pathways (e.g., cyclin D1 overexpression and p53 mutations) significantly cooperate to predict a poor prognosis; however, the complexity of the cell cycle protein interaction in any given tumor warrants caution in interpreting survival results when specific protein abnormalities are taken in isolation.

Key Words: G1 cyclins • p16INK4A • p21Waf1 • survival


   INTRODUCTION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), even in resectable and early-stage lesions, maintains a very poor 5-year survival (1, 2), and much work is now being focused on identifying factors with predictive potential to improve therapeutic strategies for these patients. Cell cycle control deregulation has been recognized as a common occurrence during carcinogenesis, with NSCLC being no exception. Many studies have highlighted the aberrant expression, due to genetic or epigenetic alterations, of at least one key control element in primary lung tumors (3–6), occasionally with prognostic significance (7). However, few studies have compared multiple molecular markers of the complex interaction among the cellular control elements and their prognostic implications.

Effective control by the cell cycle checkpoints ensures repair of damaged DNA before replication and prevents the maintenance of deleterious genetic abnormalities (8). It is not surprising, therefore, that abnormalities of the key proteins involved in the cell cycle and its control are among the most commonly altered in human cancers (9–11). Two major pathways involved in the cellular progression from G0-S phase include the Rb (Rb, cyclin D1, and p16INK4A) cell cycle pathway and the p53/p21Waf1 G1-S checkpoint arrest pathway. In the Rb pathway, the essential components include cyclin D1 complexed with cdk4/cdk6 (the enzymatically active complex capable of phosphorylating pRb), a specific cdk4 inhibitor such as p16INK4A, and pRb itself (12) that, on phosphorylation in mid-to-late G1, allows for cellular progression (13). The main effector protein of the p53 G1 checkpoint arrest pathway is the universal cell cycle cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, p21Waf1 (14, 15), , which inhibits kinase activity and subsequently pRb phosphorylation in situations of genetic damage (15, 16). pRb is a common denominator link between the two pathways, and cellular progression and ultimately tumor propagation can be achieved by deregulated pRb phosphorylation, genetic mutation, or functional inactivation with sequestration of the pRb gene product (13). In NSCLC, genetic mutation or loss of the Rb gene and gene product is uncommon but is more commonly seen in small cell lung cancer cases (3), whereas alterations of the phosphorylation status seem to play a more substantive role. Data strongly implicate at least the D-type cyclins and cyclin E in this phosphorylation activity (13, 17–20), and in keeping with clonal expansion, selective maintenance of abnormalities of these proteins would be advantageous to tumor progression (21).

Cyclin D1 (G1-phase cyclin) abnormalities are a common occurrence in human carcinomas, including NSCLC (3, 4, 6, 11, 22). This protein functions as a growth factor sensor (23) as well as being involved in cell growth and proliferation (24)(25). Its stimulatory role has also been speculated from the presence of protein overexpression in many tumors, including NSCLC by a variety of mechanisms [e.g., gene amplification, chromosomal rearrangement, or as yet undefined (11, 22, 26–28)], and the sometimes significant association of it with proliferation indices such as Ki-67 (29) and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (6). Its oncogenic potential has been shown in vitro (30, 31), , and its possible oncogenic role in vivo is deduced from identifying alterations in human tumors, including NSCLC (22). Indeed, it has been proposed that one of the mechanisms by which NSCLC evaded cell cycle controls was by the abnormal expression of cyclin D1 (32). However, analysis of cyclin D1 in isolation does not allow us to categorically document its exact effect in carcinogenesis, as confounding data exist on its effect on cellular growth. Cyclin D1 overexpression can cause cell cycle arrest (33) and induce apoptosis (34). Pagano et al. (35) showed that the down-regulation of cyclin D1 was necessary to start DNA replication, and Han et al. (36) reported that stable high expression of exogenous cyclin D1 markedly inhibited, rather than enhanced, the growth of breast cancer cell lines. Therefore, it seems the timing and amount is just as important as the presence of overexpression. Cyclin D1 cooperation with other proteins also cannot be understated, because it can be an effector of either growth suppression or growth progression. For instance, it has been shown that cyclin D1 and p21Waf1 together are involved in the normal p53 growth suppression pathway (33, 37). Therefore, given the varied roles of cyclin D1 and its complex interaction with other proteins, it is not surprising that isolated cyclin D1 correlations gave such varied results and further emphasized the need for complete pathway analysis to fully understand the malignant potency of any given tumor.

The directional mechanism of the cdk4 molecule, complexed to cyclin D1 and to its substrate pRb, is a major effector pathway for this cyclin D1 protein (20). Indeed, all of the cyclin-dependent inhibitors play major roles in maintaining tight cellular control. The main G1-phase cyclin-dependent inhibitors of interest to this study that impinge on the Rb pathway are the cyclin-dependent kinase-selective inhibitor p16INK4A and a universal inhibitor such as p21Waf1. p16INK4A, a selective cdk4/cdk6 inhibitor, has an intimate association with cyclin D1/cdk4 and pRb (38). p16INK4A can control and also seems to be under pRb regulatory control itself. In cells in which pRb was constitutively inactive (phosphorylated), p16INK4A expression increased with consequent cdk4 inhibition and shutdown of G1 kinase activity (38). This underlies the identification of a reciprocal arrangement between these proteins often seen in NSCLC (39–41). Therefore, loss of p16INK4A allows for continued, uncontrolled tumor proliferation and is an abnormality that is found quite often in NSCLC (3, 4, 40–42) . p53 is a prominent growth suppressor and is commonly mutated in diverse tumor types (9). p21Waf1 is the main intermediary of the wild-type, p53-induced checkpoint control (14), and the wild-type p53 tumor suppressor gene (14) directly regulates its gene expression. p21Waf1 inhibits growth when levels are increased because it not only functions as a potent universal inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases (15, 43), including the cyclin D1 cdk4/cdk6 but also directly inhibits proliferating cell nuclear antigen-dependent DNA replication (44). Thus, by increasing the amount of p21Waf1, p53 indirectly inhibits pRb phosphorylation and achieves growth arrest. However, growth arrest may also involve cyclin D1, as discussed previously, a known growth promoter, further increasing the complexity of the protein interactions in any one pathway.

The cell cycle control of the G0-S phase involves a complex interplay of various cell proteins. To date, many studies have looked at individual or small numbers of components within this cell cycle phase, including those of the two major cellular control pathways. Some have found synergistic relationships among protein abnormalities and survival of their patients. However, the interrelationship between the proteins within each pathway and between both pathways is necessary to fully understand the mechanisms at play in any given tumor. We addressed both the Rb and the p53 pathways in our analysis of 106 cases of NSCLC and addressed the significance of abnormalities in one or both pathways in tumor development together with survival data, where the underlying hypothesis is that abnormalities or accumulations of abnormalities may have prognostic potential.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Sample Population Details. The study population consisted of 106 consecutive surgically resected cases of primary NSCLC collected from the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) between 1991 and 1992. These cases were collected in a prospective fashion by selection criteria that included all cases where patients went to thoracic surgery for removal of lung tumor and nontumor tissue that could be saved in frozen samples and where blood could be drawn for research studies. All patients were thought to be resectable before the operation, and the large majority was completely resected at the time of operation. Some were found to have a metastatic lesion in another lobe (stage IV) at the time of operation and had this metastatic lesion resected. No induction therapy was done on any patient, and surgery was done by one of three Mayo Clinic thoracic surgeons. No patient had received previous chemotherapy or radiation therapy before diagnosis and entry into this study. The patients signed a consent form to participate in the study according to an approved Mayo Clinic institutional review board research protocol and they completed an extensive interview conducted by a nurse practitioner for detailed personal, family, and exposure history, including occupational and smoking history. Deaths due to operative complications were excluded. The follow-up period extended to 6.1 years, with a mean survival time of 3.3 years. The study cohort consisted of 63 males and 43 females. The average age for males and females combined was 65.4 years. Of the 106 cases, 101 (95%) had a present or prior history of smoking. As the study population consisted of surgically resected tumors, the majority of cases were in the stage I category. The tumor staging was based on the tumor-node-metastasis and staging classification of 1989 (45) and remains comparable with the new WHO criteria classification of 1999 (46). The assigned stage categories were as follows: stage I, 52 cases; stage II, 19 cases; stage IIIa, 25 cases; stage IIIb, four cases; and stage IV, three cases. In total, there were 29 squamous cell carcinomas (SQCC), 55 adenocarcinomas, and 22 large cell carcinomas (LCC). For the purpose of this study, three cases of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma were included in the adenocarcinoma category and two tumors with more than one component (i.e., adenosquamous) were classified according to the predominant histologic component (i.e., adenocarcinoma).

Immunohistochemical Analysis. All immunohistochemical assays were carried out on 10% formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections cut to 5-µm thickness. Immunohistochemical staining for cyclin D1 used antigen retrieval in Antigen Retrieval CITRA solution (Biogenex, San Ramon, CA). The immunostaining using the mouse monoclonal antibody clone, DCS-6 [cyclin D1 (Ab-3), Oncogene Science, Inc., Boston, MA], was done on the Ventana automated immunostainer (Ventana Corp., Tucson, AZ) using specified procedures and reagents. The primary antibody, at a dilution of 1:40, was incubated for 32 minutes, and the streptavidin-biotin complex immunoperoxidase detection system was used. The chromogenic substance for the immunoperoxidase was 3,3'-diaminobenzidine tetrachloride, and the counterstain used was 1% methyl green (Becton Dickinson, San Jose, CA). Formalin-fixed sections of a murine tumor explant grown from human cornea epithelial cells with transfected cyclin D1 were used as the positive control tissue. Negative controls involved immunohistochemical staining of all sample tissue sections and tumor explant tissues, with buffer replacing the primary antibody.

The p16INK4A immunostaining used the polyclonal antibody p16INK4A C-20 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz,CA) at a dilution of 1:200. Endogenous peroxidase activity was blocked with H2O2 in H2O (0.3%) for 5 minutes. Suppression of nonspecific immunostaining was achieved using an incubation step with low-fat milk 2% in H2O for 30 minutes. After overnight incubation at 4°C with the primary antibody, slides were washed in PBS and then exposed to the biotinylated secondary, donkey anti-rabbit antibody at a dilution of 1:1,000 (The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME) for 1 hour at room temperature. The chromogenic substrate for the peroxidase solution was 0.05% 3,3'-diaminobenzidine tetrahydrochloride/0.03% H2O2/10 mmol/L imidazole on 0.05 mol/L Tris buffer (pH 7.6). The slides were counterstained with Harris hematoxylin. Normal rabbit immunoglobulin G, at the same concentration as the primary antibody, served as a negative control.

pRb immunohistochemical analysis was also carried out by hand and used the rabbit polyclonal Rb C-15 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology) antibody at a dilution of 1:2,000. This antibody recognizes both the phosphorylated and the nonphosphorylated pRb110 protein. The methodology used was as described for the p16INK4A assay, with the exception of the addition of microwave antigen retrieval in citrate buffer for 2 x 5 minutes (pH 6) before the incubation with the primary antibody. The staining methods and results of the immunohistochemical analyses on these tumor cases for p21Waf1 and p53 have been described previously (47, 48). The p21Waf1 and p53 antibodies used were the EA10 monoclonal antibody (1:50, Oncogene Science) and the DO-7 monoclonal antibody (1:50, DAKO Corp., Carpinteria, CA), respectively.

Criteria for Evaluating Immunohistochemical Stains. All immunostained slides for cyclin D1, pRb, p16INK4A, and p21Waf1 were evaluated by at least two pathologists: cyclin D1 (L.B. and W.P.B.), pRb and p16INK4A (D.B.F. and E.B.), and p21Waf1 (R.T.J., A.B., and W.P.B.). Immunohistochemical analysis for p53 was described previously (48). Any differences in initial independent evaluations were resolved at a multiheaded scope and a consensus reached. The following criteria were used to assess distribution and intensity of positive tumor cell staining, whereas nuclear coloration was recognized as the primary standard for demonstrating a positive reaction (Supplemental Figs. 1, 2, and 3)

Distribution. Absent tumor cell staining was scored as 0, <10% of positive tumor cells staining were scored as 1, 10% to 50% of cells staining were scored as 2, 50% to 90% of cells staining were scored as 3, and >90% cells staining were scored as 4.

Intensity. Absent staining in tumor cells was scored as 0, equivocal was scored as 1, clearly positive was scored as 2, and strong positive staining was scored as 3.

For cyclin D1, p53, and p21Waf1, the results for intensity and distribution were summed and a "score" assigned as follows: sum of 0, no staining (score 0); sum of 1 to 3, slight staining (score 1); sum of 4 to 5, moderate staining (score 2); and sum of 6 to 7, marked staining (score 3). Overexpression for each of these three antibodies was assigned when a score of 2 to 3 was achieved. For pRb and p16INK4A, the results for distribution alone were used and positive staining was assigned to the percentage of nuclei staining positively with the antibody (4, 42). For each assay, a distribution value of 0 to 1 (negative or <10% of cells staining positively) was taken as negative, with all other cellular distributions regarded as positive.

Statistical Analysis. Statistical analysis was carried out using the SPSS Statistical Program version 9.0 for Windows. Associations between each of these proteins with clinical, pathologic, epidemiologic, and survival data were explored and assessed using the {chi}2 and Fisher Exact tests depending on the cellular frequencies observed in 2 x 2 tables.

Associations were considered statistically significant if two-tailed P < 0.05. Kaplan-Maier curves were used to estimate survival probability as a function of time, and patient survival differences were analyzed by the log-rank test. Death from tumor was regarded as a censored event. As this study is an ongoing research project, the results were analyzed in relation to previous data for other genetic markers and protein analyses studied, including genetic polymorphisms (48–50), transforming growth factor-ß (47), and allelic deletion analysis of FHIT gene (51) and p53 (48, 52).


   RESULTS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Results of Individual Assays and Univariate Analysis: Cyclin D1 Immunohistochemical Analysis. Statistical analyses for 105 of 106 cases were available: one case lacked an identifiable tumor on the pertinent immunohistochemical slide. In total, 50 of 105 (48%) cases displayed D1 overexpression (score 2–3). This percentage approximately correlated to >10% of tumor cell nuclei staining positively (4). In the univariate analysis exploring relationships to clinicopathologic variables, no significant associations to cyclin D1 levels were identified in relation to gender, family history of any cancer, smoking history, tumor grade, tumor size, or necrosis. Although overexpression was identified in all tumor stages, a statistically significant association between higher-stage tumors (stages III and IV) and cyclin D1 overexpression was found (P = 0.02). Stage I and II tumors combined were more likely to have negative levels of cyclin D1 overexpression. When you compare stage I versus stage II versus stage III and IV combined, statistical significance is maintained (P = 0.06). However, statistical significance was not identified when stage I was compared with all other stages combined (P = 0.2). Although not statistically significant, an interesting trend regarding tumor histology was seen with cyclin D1 overexpression occurring more commonly in SQCC (see Table 1). Significant relationships to the presence of genetic polymorphisms (CYP1A1, CYP2E1, and GSTM1), immunohistochemical analyses for CerbB2, and proliferation index Ki-67 or to apoptotic pathway proteins were not identified. Cyclin D1 levels did not show any significant association to affiliated immunohistochemical assays for proteins such as transforming growth factor-ßRII and p27 or to allelic deletion of the FHIT gene or Ras mutations. Cyclin D1 levels were not associated with p53 immunopositive assays or mutation. Of the 92 analyzed cases, we noted that there was a bias toward cyclin D1 overexpression in 10 of 15 cases with a G:C to T:A p53 mutation (P = 0.2; Table 2). For all cases with no or other mutations, the tendency favored low levels of cyclin D1 protein overexpression. A statistically significant association was not seen with the other component of the p53 G1-S cell cycle checkpoint pathway (i.e., p21Waf1; P = 0.2). On analyzing the relationship between cyclin D1 and other pRb pathway proteins, it was found that the majority of cases with immunopositive cyclin D1 were also positive for pRb [84 of 102 (82%)]. Only 7 of 18 cases negative for pRb displayed cyclin D1 overexpression. No significant associations between cyclin D1 expression and pRb (P = 0.4) or p16INK4A (P = 0.5) were found.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1 Relationship of histologic subtypes with aberrant expr0ession of cell cycle proteins

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2 Relationship of p53 mutations with aberrant expression of cell cycle proteins

 
pRb Immunohistochemical Analysis. Statistical analysis for 103 of 106 cases was evaluated. Seventeen percent of the cases were immunonegative (loss of protein expression) for pRb. The majority of cases, 85 of 103 (83%), were pRb positive. Statistically significant associations of pRb expression to the following clinicopathologic variables were not identified in the initial univariate analysis: gender, age, smoking history, family history of cancer or any history of cancer in first-degree relatives, and tumor stage. Although not statistically significant, it does seem that pRb negative was more commonly associated with poorly differentiated tumors, because 14 of 18 cases clustered within this latter category, whereas the four remaining cases were classified as moderately differentiated lesions (P = 0.4; trend test, P = 0.25). A significant association with histology was identified. As illustrated in Tables 1 and 3, tumors were more likely to be pRb positive than negative, with negative being more significantly associated with LCC (P = 0.05) and pRb positive significantly associated with SQCC (P = 0.02).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3 pRb immunohistochemical analysis according to the histologic subtype of NSCLC

 
p16INK4A Immunohistochemical Analysis. Immunohistochemical analysis of 96 cases revealed a p16INK4A immunonegative rate of 53% (51 of 96 cases). Positive staining of >10% of the cells was observed in 47% (45 of 96) of the cases. The latter staining was heterogeneous with 10% to 90% of the cells stained positively. On univariate analysis, there was no significant association with CerbB2, p27Kip1, or transforming growth factor-ßRII immunopositive, FHIT loss of heterozygosity, or Ras mutations. There was no relationship to gender, tumor necrosis, or smoking history. In the analyzed genetic polymorphisms, a significant association with CYP1A1 was noted (P= 0.04). p16INK4A-positive cases were more likely to be CYP1A1 mutant or at-risk heterozygotes, whereas p16INK4A-negative cases were normal for CYP1A1. There was no significant association to the other genetic polymorphisms examined (i.e., GST or CYP1E1). In relation to a positive history for lung or other cancers, these patients were more often p16INK4A negative (P = 0.03 and 0.005, respectively). A significant association between p16INK4A and a family history of lung cancer was not identified. As illustrated in Table 1, and although not statistically significant, there was an increased frequency of p16INK4A negative in adenocarcinoma. Regarding tumor grade and differentiation, p16INK4A negative was seen more often in higher-grade tumors (grades 3 and 4; P = 0.02). There was, however, no significant association with tumor stage. There was no association to pRb, nor was there a reciprocal arrangement between these two proteins. In addition, there was no significant association with cyclin D1 (P = 0.5), p21Waf1 (P = 0.1), p53 mutations (P = 0.7) or p53 immunopositive (P = 0.5), nor was there any significant association with the presence of G:C to T:A mutations (P=0.9).

p21Waf1 Immunohistochemical Analysis. The results of this assay have been published previously (47). However, for the purposes of this study, stratification of immunohistochemical results was changed to mirror p53 and cyclin D1. In total, 106 cases were analyzed, and of those cases, 59 (56%) were negative for p21Waf1 overexpression, whereas 47 (44%) cases were considered positive for overexpression. In the univariate analysis, there was no significant association with p53 protein, cyclin D1, p16INK4A, or pRb. In addition, there was no significant association with smoking history, apoptotic tertiles, bax score, bcl2 (P = 0.06), CerbB2, transforming growth factor, transforming growth factor-ßRII, genetic polymorphisms (CYP1A1, GSTM1, or CYP2E1), FHIT loss of heterozygosity, Ki-67, or Ras. There was a significant association seen with p27 (P = 0.05). There is no significant association with stage, grade of the tumor, or histology. Interestingly, p21Waf1 levels negative for overexpression were significantly associated with larger tumor volume (P = 0.01). p21Waf1 overexpression was also significantly associated with males rather than with females. In addition, there was no significant association with p53 missense mutations (P = 0.3; Table 2).

p53 Mutation and Protein Immunohistochemical Analysis. The results of this assay have been published previously (48). There was a significant correlation between the highest level of p53 immunohistochemical staining (score 3) and p53 missense mutations in exons 5 to 8 (P < 0.001). A total of 45 mutations were identified in the cases analyzed. p53 immunohistochemical data of negative (score 0–1) versus overexpression (score 2–3) revealed that there were 52 (50%) and 54 (50%) cases, respectively. In the univariate analysis, significant relationships of this protein with cyclin D1 (P = 0.2), p21Waf1 (P = 0.4), p16INK4A (P = 0.5), and pRb (P = 0.3) were not identified as outlined previously. p53 protein analysis was not significantly related to tumor volume (P = 0.5) or histology (P= 0.2). The p53 protein score, however, does seem to be significantly associated with stage (P = 0.038, Fisher's exact test). In stage I lesions, there was an equal preponderance of p53-positive and p53-negative expression cases [26 of 52 (50%) in each category]. In stage II tumors, the majority was p53 positive [14 of 18 (78%) cases]. In stage III and IV combined, 12 of 33 (36%) cases show p53 protein overexpression, with 21 of 33 (67%) cases maintaining levels considered negative for overexpression by immunohistochemistry (P = 0.02). In both stage I and II lesions, p53 tended to be overexpressed [40 of 70 (57%) versus 30 of 70 (43%)], whereas stage III and IV lesions favored p53 levels negative for overexpression as indicated above (P = 0.05). An association between p53 immunohistochemical analysis and tumor grade was noted. p53 overexpression was significantly associated with high-grade tumors (P = 0.04).

Rb Pathway Protein Abnormalities (cyclin D1, p16INK4A, and pRb). In each of the univariate analyses, there was no statistically significant association between any two proteins of the Rb pathway (i.e., cyclin D1, pRb, and p16INK4A); however, we observed an interrelationship of all three proteins. The analysis of 94 cases is highlighted (Supplemental Table 1).

Tumor abnormalities of all proteins were assessed as follows: only 3% (3 of 94) of the cases had an abnormality of all three proteins within the pathway, with cyclin D1 overexpression, and the losses of pRb and p16INK4A proteins. Thirty-two percent (30 of 94) of the cases had an abnormality of two proteins within the pathway, and in this subset of 30 cases, 70% (21 of 30) of the cases contained a concurrent abnormality of both cyclin D1 and p16INK4A. In 48% (45 of 94) of the cases, there was an abnormality of one protein only, the most common being p16INK4A (47%, 21 of 45) followed by cyclin D1 (44%, 20 of 45). Only 17% (16 of 94) of the cases did not contain an abnormality of any of the three main proteins of the pRb pathway.

p53 Pathway Abnormalities (p53 and p21Waf1). There is no association of either p53 (P = 0.5) or p21Waf1 (P = 0.55) alone with survival. In the 105 cases immunohistochemically analyzed, 52 of 105 (50%) cases showed p53 overexpression, with p21Waf1 overexpression in 25 of 105 (24%).

Relationship of Rb Pathway Abnormalities with the p53 Pathway. It was also of interest to look at the relationship of abnormalities of the Rb pathway with the presence or absence of p53 mutations in 83 tumors in which simultaneous results were available (Supplemental Table 2). Abnormalities of only the Rb pathway were seen in 37 of 83 (45%) cases, whereas 8 of 83 (10%) cases harbored only a p53 mutation. Only 7 of 83 (8%) cases of NSCLC analyzed failed to show an abnormality of either the Rb or p53 pathway, whereas in 31 of 83 (37%) cases there was a concurrent abnormality of both pathways highlighting their cooperation in NSCLC development.

Rb and p53 Pathway Analysis in Relation to Survival. With the knowledge from the above results that Rb and p53 pathway abnormalities are critical in this series, we hypothesized that their identification alone or in specific combinations may be able to predict patient survival. Interesting and somewhat complex results emerged, our contention that multiple proteins of the cell cycle need to be examined concurrently to more accurately assess and understand the complexity of their interactions and their influence on survival.

Abnormalities of each of the Rb pathway proteins, cyclin D1, pRb, and p16INK4A, in isolation were not associated with a poorer survival (P = 0.1, 0.3, and 0.4, respectively). Abnormalities of the p53 pathway proteins analyzed here (i.e., p53 and p21Waf1) in isolation were also not associated with a poorer survival (P = 0.5 and 0.6, respectively). However, what revealed possible prognostic markers and therapeutic targets were specific combinations of protein abnormalities that gave statistically significant results with survival time.

Analysis of the Rb pathway proteins revealed the following results. Survival analysis of various combinations of pRb and p16INK4A abnormalities did not identify any significant combination with prognostic potential (P = 0.3). In addition, although we did identify cases with a concurrent abnormality of cyclin D1 and p16INK4A, survival analysis with various combinations of cyclin D1 and p16INK4A abnormalities did not identify any significant associations/prognostic potential (P = 0.7). However, the specific combination of pRb negative and cyclin D1 protein overexpression was significantly associated with a poor survival in these patients (P = 0.004; Fig. 1). All seven patients in this group were dead by 4.7 years, with a mean survival time of 2.3 years and a median survival of 1.6 years. All other combinations of pRb and cyclin D1 had a mean survival of 4.1 years, with a median survival of 6.1 years. Knowing that abnormalities of both Rb and p53 pathways occurred in several (37%) patients, we addressed the significance on survival of a concurrent p53 mutation in these cases. The survival time of this cohort group of seven patients was significantly worse. In three of the seven patients who also concurrently contained a p53 mutation, the mean survival time decreased to 0.9 years, with a median of 0.8 years, and all three patients were dead by 1.4 years after diagnosis. With all other combinations, the mean survival time was 4.0 years (P = 0.007; Fig. 2). This relationship was also maintained when analyzed with p53 immunohistochemical analysis (P = 0.006).



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1 Poor survival associated with overexpression of cyclin D1 and pRb negative. Pos, positive for overexpression; Neg, negative for overexpression.

 


View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2 Poorest survival associated with overexpression of cyclin D1, pRb negative, and concurrent p53 mutation.

 
Neither p53 mutation nor abnormal p53 immunohistochemical expression is significantly associated with poorer survival (P = 0.8 and 0.5, respectively), nor is p21Waf1 analysis (P = 0.6). However, when we consider abnormalities involving the two pathways coincidentally, some interesting results emerged. In any variation of the Rb pathway abnormalities (taking all three proteins analyzed into consideration), the presence or absence of a p53 mutation did not make a significant difference on survival. However, examination of the combination of a p53 overexpression/mutation with that of cyclin D1 overexpression and pRb negative alone, as discussed previously, was associated with a significant effect on survival (Fig. 2). However, looking at individual protein relationships, interesting results emerged. There was no significant association with survival in those cases containing a p53 mutation in association with p16INK4A or pRb negative (P = 0.6 and 0.9, respectively). However, the presence of p53 overexpression or a p53 mutation in association with cyclin D1 overexpression displayed a significant relationship with survival (P = 0.004 and 0.003; Figs. 3 and 4, respectively). For instance, in the subgroup of patients with overexpression for p53 and cyclin D1, the mean survival was 2.8 years, whereas that for all other combinations of the proteins was 4.3 years. With a p53 mutation, the cyclin D1 overexpression group did significantly worse, with a mean survival of 2.6 versus 4.9 years for those cases with negative cyclin D1 overexpression). Although p21Waf1 is the effector molecule of wild-type p53 function and occasionally in conjunction with cyclin D1, we analyzed the cyclin D1 results to see if p21Waf1 displayed any effect. There was no significant relationship between p21Waf1 protein levels and cyclin D1 and survival (P= 0.1).



View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3 Poor survival associated with overexpression of cyclin D1 and concurrent p53 immunopositive.

 


View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4 Poor survival associated with overexpression of cyclin D1 and concurrent p53 mutation.

 

   DISCUSSION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
p53 and Rb genes and their pathways involving the G1-S phase transition are commonly affected genes in lung cancer (3, 4, 9) , and our study supports this observation as only 7 of 83 (8%) cases in our series of NSCLC failed to show an abnormality of either pathway. Conceptually, however, these data also raise the possibility that other mechanisms important in a few NSCLC cases exist. Forty-five percent and 10% of cases showed an abnormality of the pRb and p53 pathways, respectively, whereas 31 of 83 (37%) cases harbored a concurrent abnormality of both pathways. Only 16 of 94 (17%) cases had no abnormality of the Rb pathway, a finding somewhat similar to that of Geradts et al. (53) and Betticher et al. (54). Geradts et al. categorized their NSCLC cases into four categories based on the analysis of three proteins (pRb, p16, and p53). Twenty-one percent of tumors were normal for all three proteins, 30% were abnormal for pRb or p16 and normal for p53, 20% were normal for pRb or p16 and abnormal for p53, and 28% of tumors showed an abnormality in both pathways (53). Betticher et al. meanwhile showed that only ~10% of cases had no detected abnormality of the Rb pathway in his series (54). In our analysis of the relevant proteins, cyclin D1 overexpression was identified in 47.6%, with loss of p16 and pRb in 53% and 17%, respectively, somewhat similar to other studies (4, 5, 29, 40, 41, 53–58) HREF="#B5">. p21 was overexpressed in 44% of cases with p53 overexpression in 50% of cases and a total of 45 mutations identified within the tumor series, again somewhat similar to that already documented using standard methodologies (53, 56, 58–62) HREF="#B56">.

The exact role played by each of the proteins analyzed in tumor development in our series is not easy to define. Cyclin D1 seems to be not only involved in tumor growth initiation, as it was overexpressed in 40% of stage I and II tumors, but also significantly involved in the continued growth of tumors, as cyclin D1 overexpression was more common in higher-stage lesions (P = 0.02). The exact method by which cyclin D1 exerts its effect cannot be ascertained from our results, as there was no association identified between it and the proliferation index Ki-67 immunolabeling or to the apoptotic indices examined. However, we do know that cyclin D1 can exert its tumorigenic affect through other mechanisms, such as failure of DNA repair (35), etc., and these factors may be at play here. Cyclin D1 immunopositive showed a bias toward tumors of the squamous cell histologic subtype, and interestingly, there was a bias toward cyclin D1 overexpression in cases with a G:C to T:A transversion (P=0.2), although a significant association with any of the smoking variables analyzed was not identified.

Loss of pRb function in NSCLC is uncommon, and our rate of loss of 17% is in line with the 6.5% to 60% range of many other studies reviewed (4, 5, 53, 55, 56, 58–60), with the highest rate of loss being identified in a study of advanced lung cancer cases (stage IIIA-IV inclusive; ref. 61). An increase of pRb-negative cases within the poorly differentiated category was noted. In addition, pRb negativity was statistically more associated with the LCC histologic subtype, as noted previously (55), a subtype of carcinoma that is associated with a poorer survival.

In keeping with the functional redundancy between Rb and p16, we noted a higher rate of p16 negativity. Interestingly, p16 negativity was associated with a history of cancer other than that of lung, and in those cases in which there was mutant or heterozygote CYP1A1, p16 was maintained. p16 negativity was more commonly seen in cases without this genetic polymorphism, indicating that maintenance of p16 was advantageous for the preserving some control within the cell cycle framework. p16 negativity from other studies was particularly in the adenocarcinoma histologic subtype (41). In addition, p16 was more often negative than positive in adenocarcinoma and LCC than in SQCC, although this result did not reach statistical significance and p16 showed no particular association to the presence of a G:C to T:A smoking-induced transversions (65). Although we did not observe a statistically significant reciprocal arrangement between pRb and p16 abnormalities in any histologic subtype, as seen in other studies (5, 39–41), we did observe that simultaneous loss of both of these proteins only occurred in 8 of 95 (7%) cases. On analyzing further the reciprocal arrangement observed in other studies, many but not all of the studies showed a p16-negative rate higher in SQCCs than in adenocarcinomas, a finding that was contrary to our findings (5, 40, 41, 64, 69). Indeed, Kelley et al. (39) and Geradts et al. (66) both showed that not all tumors exhibit this reciprocal arrangement as did our study; indeed, Leversha et al. (64) also showed that the strong inverse correlation between pRb and p16 expression seen in SQCCs was essentially absent in adenocarcinoma (64). Interestingly, our study cohort consisted predominantly of adenocarcinoma (55 versus 29).

In the pRb pathway itself, the most common pathway abnormality in our series is that of p16 loss, followed by cyclin D1 overexpression and lastly by pRb loss. It is also interesting to document that only three (3%) cases contained an abnormality of all three proteins, suggesting that it is functionally and biologically redundant to affect all proteins within this same area of the cell cycle. There was no association between survival and any of the individual protein abnormalities in this study.

A concurrent abnormality of two proteins, however, within the same pathway was observed. In 25% of cases, we had a concurrent abnormality of both p16 and cyclin D1 protein, an abnormality that did not have a significant affect on survival. Concurrent abnormality, however, between cyclin D1 and pRb did significantly affect patient survival. Negative for pRb in association with cyclin D1 overexpression, although only seen in seven cases, significantly predicted a poor survival for patients harboring this abnormality (P = 0.004; mean survival 2.3 years, median 1.6 years compared with 4.1 and 6.1 years, respectively, for all other combinations), mirroring results identified in another study whereby two or three abnormalities of proteins analyzed displayed a significantly poorer prognosis (cyclin D1, p21Waf1, and pRb analyzed; ref. 60). In our study, cyclin D1 overexpression is associated with higher-stage tumors and pRb loss is more often seen in poorly differentiated tumors. Some authors, but not all, view Rb binding as dispensable for the oncogenic function of cyclin D1 (30); indeed, Hinds et al. (19), in an earlier article, were of the view that cyclin D1 overexpression itself could result in a profound depression of pRb leading to the conclusion that this protein combination is biologically sustainable within any tumor. When a p53 mutation is also associated with this combination, the negative effect on survival is even more dramatic, with all three patients dying within 1 year. This combination is particularly interesting given that a recent study by Gregorc et al. (61) showed that abnormalities of p53 and pRb were not associated with any survival difference in any combination; however, our additional investigation of this relationship in the presence of cyclin D1 overexpression with demonstration of a survival difference further highlights the complex nature of these protein interactions.

The effect of a p53 mutation is also significant when associated with an abnormality of cyclin D1 of itself, a finding observed in 31 of 83 cases. Cyclin D1 overexpression associated with a p53 mutation or p53 protein overexpression was associated with a poorer survival in this group of patients in contrast with all other combinations of these proteins (P = 0.0033 and 0.004, respectively). This is not surprising because p53 overexpression was associated more with higher-grade lesions.

We have shown that both abnormalities of the Rb and the p53 pathway play substantial roles in the development of NSCLC; however, we have also shown that cumulative abnormalities affecting more than one protein within the same pathway or from a different pathway may have significant effects on patient survival. Because the numbers analyzed in these subsets are small, caution is needed in their interpretation. These results, especially when noted that the significant survival differences were not maintained when all proteins of both pathways were analyzed in conjunction with one another, highlight the complexity of the interrelationships of these proteins at this critical phase of the cell cycle, a finding similar to that observed also by Geradts et al. in their analysis of Rb, p16, p53, and 3pLOH (53). These results raise the element of caution in overinterpreting survival results when specific protein abnormalities are taken in isolation.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Catherine Cronin for article preparation, Ricardo V. Dreyfuss (Bethesda, MD) for expert photomicrography, Dorothea Dudek for editorial assistance, and Karen MacPherson for bibliographic assistance.


   FOOTNOTES
 
The cost 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.

Note: Supplementary data for this are available at Clinical Cancer Research Online (http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org)

Received 4/27/04; revised 9/30/04; accepted 10/12/04.


   REFERENCES
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Travis WD, Travis LB, Devesa SS. Lung cancer. Cancer 1995;75:191–202.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Mountain CF. Revisions in the international system for staging lung cancer. Chest 1997;111:1710–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Yokota J, Kohno T. Molecular footprints of human lung cancer progression. Cancer Sci 2004;95:197–204.[Medline]
  4. Brambilla E, Gazzeri S, Moro D, Lantuejoul S, Veyrenc S, Brambilla C. Alterations of Rb pathway (Rb-p16INK4-cyclin D1) in preinvasive bronchial lesions. Clin Cancer Res 1999;5:243–50.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Kratzke RA, Greatens TM, Rubins JB, et al. Rb and p16INK4a expression in resected non-small cell lung tumors. Cancer Res 1996;56:3415–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Caputi M, Groeger AM, Esposito V, et al. Prognostic role of cyclin D1 in lung cancer. Relationship to proliferating cell nuclear antigen. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 1999;20:746–50.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Huang CI, Taki T, Higashiyama M, Kohno N, Miyake M. p16 protein expression is associated with a poor prognosis in squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. Br J Cancer 2000;82:374–80.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Hartwell LH, Kastan MB. Cell cycle control and cancer. Science 1994;266:1821–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Hollstein M, Sidransky D, Vogelstein B, Harris CC. p53 mutations in human cancers. Science 1991;253:49–53.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Mitsudomi T, Hamajima N, Ogawa M, Takahashi T. Prognostic significance of p53 alterations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:4055–63.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Bartkova J, Lukas J, Strauss M, Bartek J. Cyclin D1 oncoprotein aberrantly accumulates in malignancies of diverse histogenesis. Oncogene 1995;10:775–8.[Medline]
  12. Sherr CJ. G1 phase progression: cycling on cue. Cell 1994;79:551–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Weinberg RA. The retinoblastoma protein and cell cycle control. Cell 1995;81:323–30.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. El-Deiry WS, Tokino T, Velculescu VE, et al. WAF1, a potential mediator of p53 tumor suppression. Cell 1993;75:817–25.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Xiong Y, Hannon GJ, Zhang H, Casso D, Kobayashi R, Beach D. p21 is a universal inhibitor of cyclin kinases. Nature 1993;366:701–4.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. El-Deiry WS, Harper JW, O'Connor PM, et al. WAF1/CIP1 is induced in p53-mediated G1 arrest and apoptosis. Cancer Res 1994;54:1169–74.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Dowdy SF, Hinds PW, Louie K, Reed SI, Arnold A, Weinberg RA. Physical interaction of the retinoblastoma protein with human D cyclins. Cell 1993;73:499–511.[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Xiao ZX, Ginsberg D, Ewen M, Livingston DM. Regulation of the retinoblastoma protein-related protein p107 by G1 cyclin-associated kinases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1996;93:4633–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Hinds PW, Mittnacht S, Dulic V, Arnold A, Reed SI, Weinberg RA. Regulation of retinoblastoma protein functions by ectopic expression of human cyclins. Cell 1992;70:993–1006.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Kato J, Matsushime H, Hiebert SW, Ewen ME, Sherr CJ. Direct binding of cyclin D to the retinoblastoma gene product (pRb) and pRb phosphorylation by the cyclin D-dependent kinase CDK4. Genes Dev 1993;7:331–42.[Free Full Text]
  21. Nowell PC. The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. Science 1976;194:23–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Betticher DC, Heighway J, Hasleton PS, et al. Prognostic significance of CCND1 (cyclin D1) overexpression in primary resected non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 1996;73:294–300.[Medline]
  23. Sewing A, Burger C, Brusselbach S, Schalk C, Lucibello FC, Muller R. Human cyclin D1 encodes a labile nuclear protein whose synthesis is directly induced by growth factors and suppressed by cyclic AMP. J Cell Sci 1993;104:545–55.[Abstract]
  24. Quelle DE, Ashmun RA, Shurtleff SA, et al. Overexpression of mouse D-type cyclins accelerates G1 phase in rodent fibroblasts. Genes Dev 1993;7:1559–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Baldin V, Lukas J, Marcote MJ, Pagano M, Draetta G. Cyclin D1 is a nuclear protein required for cell cycle progression in G1. Genes Dev 1993;7:812–21.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Rosenberg CL, Kim HG, Shows TB, Kronenberg HM, Arnold A. Rearrangement and overexpression of D11S287E, a candidate oncogene on chromosome 11q13 in benign parathyroid tumors. Oncogene 1991;6:449–53.[Medline]
  27. Arnold A, Motokura T, Bloom T, et al. The putative oncogene PRAD1 encodes a novel cyclin. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 1991;56:93–7.[Medline]
  28. Bartkova J, Lukas J, Muller H, Lutzhoft D, Strauss M, Bartek J. Cyclin D1 protein expression and function in human breast cancer. Int J Cancer 1994;57:353–61.[Medline]
  29. Mate JL, Ariza A, Aracil C, et al. Cyclin D1 overexpression in non-small cell lung carcinoma: correlation with Ki67 labelling index and poor cytoplasmic differentiation. J Pathol 1996;180:395–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Hinds PW, Dowdy SF, Eaton EN, Arnold A, Weinberg RA. Function of a human cyclin gene as an oncogene. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994;91:709–13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Lovec H, Sewing A, Lucibello FC, Muller R, Moroy T. Oncogenic activity of cyclin D1 revealed through cooperation with Ha-ras: link between cell cycle control and malignant transformation. Oncogene 1994;9:323–6.[Medline]
  32. Schauer IE, Siriwardana S, Langan TA, Sclafani RA. Cyclin D1 overexpression vs. retinoblastoma inactivation: implications for growth control evasion in non-small cell and small cell lung cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994;91:7827–31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Del Sal G, Murphy M, Ruaro E, Lazarevic D, Levine AJ, Schneider C. Cyclin D1 and p21/waf1 are both involved in p53 growth suppression. Oncogene 1996;12:177–85.[Medline]
  34. Freeman RS, Estus S, Johnson EM Jr. Analysis of cell cycle-related gene expression in postmitotic neurons: selective induction of cyclin D1 during programmed cell death. Neuron 1994;12:343–55.[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Pagano M, Theodoras AM, Tam SW, Draetta GF. Cyclin D1-mediated inhibition of repair and replicative DNA synthesis in human fibroblasts. Genes Dev 1994;8:1627–39.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Han EK, Sgambato A, Jiang W, et al. Stable overexpression of cyclin D1 in a human mammary epithelial cell line prolongs the S-phase and inhibits growth. Oncogene 1995;10:953–61.[Medline]
  37. Chen X, Bargonetti J, Prives C. p53, through p21 (WAF1/CIP1), induces cyclin D1 synthesis. Cancer Res 1995;55:4257–63.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Serrano M, Hannon GJ, Beach D. A new regulatory motif in cell-cycle control causing specific inhibition of cyclin D/CDK4. Nature 1993;366:704–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  39. Kelley MJ, Nakagawa K, Steinberg SM, Mulshine JL, Kamb A, Johnson BE. Differential inactivation of CDKN2 and Rb protein in non-small-cell and small-cell lung cancer cell lines. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:756–61.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Sakaguchi M, Fujii Y, Hirabayashi H, et al. Inversely correlated expression of p16 and Rb protein in non-small cell lung cancers: an immunohistochemical study. Int J Cancer 1996;65:442–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  41. Kashiwabara K, Oyama T, Sano T, Fukuda T, Nakajima T. Correlation between methylation status of the p16/CDKN2 gene and the expression of p16 and Rb proteins in primary non-small cell lung cancers. Int J Cancer 1998;79:215–20.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Gazzeri S, Gouyer V, Vour'ch C, Brambilla C, Brambilla E. Mechanisms of p16INK4A inactivation in non small-cell lung cancers. Oncogene 1998;16:497–504.[CrossRef][Medline]
  43. Harper JW, Adami GR, Wei N, Keyomarsi K, Elledge SJ. The p21 cdk-interacting protein Cip1 is a potent inhibitor of G1 cyclin-dependent kinases. Cell 1993;75:805–16.[CrossRef][Medline]
  44. Waga S, Hannon GJ, Beach D, Stillman B. The p21 inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases controls DNA replication by interaction with PCNA. Nature 1994;369:574–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  45. Speissel B, Behrs OH, Hermanek P, et al. International Union AgainstCancer. TNM atlas. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1989. p.134–44.
  46. Travis WD, Corrin B, Shimosato Y, Brambilla E. The histological typing of lung and pleural tumors. WHO/IASLC classification of lung and pleural tumours. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1999.
  47. Bennett WP, El Deiry WS, Rush WL, et al. p21waf1/cip1 and transforming growth factor ß1 protein expression correlate with survival in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 1998;4:1499–506.[Abstract]
  48. Guinee DG, Travis WD, Trivers GE, et al. Gender comparisons in human lung cancer: analysis of p53 mutations, anti-p53 serum antibodies and C-erbB-2 expression. Carcinogenesis 1995;16:993–1002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Przygodzki RM, Bennett WP, Guinee DG Jr, et al. p53 mutation spectrum in relation to GSTM1, CYP1A1 and CYP2E1 in surgically treated patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Pharmacogenetics 1998;8:503–11.[Medline]
  50. Fleming MV, Guinee DG Jr, Chu WS, et al. Bcl-2 immunohistochemistry in a surgical series of non-small cell lung cancer patients. Hum Pathol 1998;29:60–4.[CrossRef][Medline]
  51. Burke L, Khan MA, Freedman AN, et al. Allelic deletion analysis of the FHIT gene predicts poor survival in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res 1998;58:2533–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Nicholson SA, Okby NT, Khan MA, et al. Alterations of p14ARF, p53, and p73 genes involved in the E2F-1-mediated apoptotic pathways in non-small cell lung carcinoma. Cancer Res 2001;61:5636–43.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Geradts J, Fong KM, Zimmerman PV, Maynard R, Minna JD. Correlation of abnormal RB, p16ink4a, and p53 expression with 3p loss of heterozygosity, other genetic abnormalities, and clinical features in 103 primary non-small cell lung cancers. Clin Cancer Res 1999;5:791–800.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Betticher DC, White GR, Vonlanthen S, et al. G1 control gene status is frequently altered in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Cancer 1997;74:556–62.[CrossRef][Medline]
  55. Reissmann PT, Koga H, Takahashi R, et al. Inactivation of the retinoblastoma susceptibility gene in non-small-cell lung cancer. The Lung Cancer Study Group. Oncogene 1993;8:1913–9.[Medline]
  56. Xu HJ, Cagle PT, Hu SX, Li J, Benedict WF. Altered retinoblastoma and p53 protein status in non-small cell carcinoma of the lung: potential synergistic effects on prognosis. Clin Cancer Res 1996;2:1169–76.[Abstract]
  57. Nishio M, Koshikawa T, Yatabe Y, et al. Prognostic significance of cyclin D1 and retinoblastoma expression in combination with p53 abnormalities in primary, resected non-small cell lung cancers. Clin Cancer Res 1997;3:1051–8.[Abstract]
  58. Hommura F, Dosaka-Akita H, Kinoshita I, et al. Predictive value of expression of p16INK4A, retinoblastoma and p53 proteins for theprognosis of non-small-cell lung cancers. Br J Cancer 1999;81:696–701.[CrossRef][Medline]
  59. Lee YC, Chang YL, Luh SP, Lee JM, Chen JS. Significance of p53 and Rb protein expression in surgically treated non-small cell lung cancers. Ann Thorac Surg 1999;68:343–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Saitoh G, Sugio K, Ishida T, Sugimachi K. Prognostic significance of p21waf1, cyclin D1 and retinoblastoma expression detected by immunohistochemistry in non-small cell lung cancer. Oncol Rep 2001;8:737–43.[Medline]
  61. Gregorc V, Darwish S, Ludovini V, et al. The clinical relevance of Bcl-2, Rb and p53 expression in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2003;42:275–81.[CrossRef][Medline]
  62. Wang XW, Greenblatt MS, Harris CC. Molecular genetics of lung cancer. In: Martinet Y, Hirsch FR, Martinet N, Vignaud J-M, Mulshine JL, editors. The respiratory pharmacology and pharmacotherapy. Basel (Switzerland): Birkhauser; 1998. p. 117–27.
  63. Xu HJ, Quinlan DC, Davidson AG, et al. Altered retinoblastoma protein expression and prognosis in early-stage non-small-cell lung carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:695–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. Leversha MA, Fielding P, Watson S, Gosney JR, Field JK. Expression of p53, pRB, and p16 in lung tumours: a validation study on tissue microarrays. J Pathol 2003;200:610–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  65. Hernandez-Boussard TM, Hainaut P. A specific spectrum of p53 mutations in lung cancer from smokers: review of mutations compiledin the IARC p53 database. Environ Health Perspect 1998;106:385–91.[Medline]
  66. Geradts J, Kratzke RA, Niehans GA, Lincoln CE. Immunohistochemical detection of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2/multiple tumor suppressor gene 1 (CDKN2/MTS1) product p16INK4A in archival human solid tumors: correlation with retinoblastoma protein expression. Cancer Res 1995;55:6006–11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  67. Nakagawa K, Conrad NK, Williams JP, Johnson BE, Kelley MJ. Mechanism of inactivation of CDKN2 and MTS2 in non-small cell lung cancer and association with advanced stage. Oncogene 1995;11:1843–51.[Medline]
  68. Kinoshita I, Dosaka-Akita H, Mishina T, et al. Altered p16INK4 and retinoblastoma protein status in non-small cell lung cancer: potential synergistic effect with altered p53 protein on proliferative activity. Cancer Res 1996;56:5557–62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  69. Taga S, Osaki T, Ohgami A, et al. Prognostic value of the immunohistochemical detection of p16INK4 expression in nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Cancer 1997;80:389–95.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ThoraxHome page
S Mohamed, K Yasufuku, T Nakajima, K Hiroshima, R Kubo, A Iyoda, S Yoshida, M Suzuki, Y Sekine, K Shibuya, et al.
Analysis of cell cycle-related proteins in mediastinal lymph nodes of patients with N2-NSCLC obtained by EBUS-TBNA: relevance to chemotherapy response
Thorax, July 1, 2008; 63(7): 642 - 647.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CarcinogenesisHome page
A. G. Schwartz, G. M. Prysak, C. H. Bock, and M. L. Cote
The molecular epidemiology of lung cancer
Carcinogenesis, March 1, 2007; 28(3): 507 - 518.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Clin. Pathol.Home page
C-Q Zhu, W Shih, C-H Ling, and M-S Tsao
Immunohistochemical markers of prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer: a review and proposal for a multiphase approach to marker evaluation.
J. Clin. Pathol., August 1, 2006; 59(8): 790 - 800.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
B. J. Boersma, T. M. Howe, J. E. Goodman, H. G. Yfantis, D. H. Lee, S. J. Chanock, and S. Ambs
Association of Breast Cancer Outcome With Status of p53 and MDM2 SNP309.
J Natl Cancer Inst, July 5, 2006; 98(13): 911 - 919.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]