Clinical Cancer Research Bridging the Lab and the Clinic in Cancer Medicine
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 Gure, A. O.
Right arrow Articles by Altorki, N. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gure, A. O.
Right arrow Articles by Altorki, N. K.
Clinical Cancer Research Vol. 11, 8055-8062, November 15, 2005
© 2005 American Association for Cancer Research

Imaging, Diagnosis, Prognosis

Cancer-Testis Genes Are Coordinately Expressed and Are Markers of Poor Outcome in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Ali O. Gure1, Ramon Chua1, Barbara Williamson1, Mithat Gonen2, Cathy A. Ferrera3, Sacha Gnjatic1, Gerd Ritter1, Andrew J.G. Simpson1, Yao-T. Chen4, Lloyd J. Old1 and Nasser K. Altorki3

Authors' Affiliations: 1 Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, 2 Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Departments of 3 Cardiothoracic Surgery and 4 Pathology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York

Requests for reprints: Ali O. Gure, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10021. Phone: 212-746-6450; Fax: 212-746-4483; E-mail: agure{at}med.cornell.edu.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Patients and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Purpose: Cancer-testis genes mapping to the X chromosome have common expression patterns and show similar responses to modulators of epigenetic mechanisms. We asked whether cancer-testis gene expression occurred coordinately, and whether it correlated with variables of disease and clinical outcome of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Experimental Design: Tumors from 523 NSCLC patients undergoing surgery were evaluated for the expression of nine cancer-testis genes (NY-ESO-1, LAGE-1, MAGE-A1, MAGE-A3, MAGE-A4, MAGE-A10, CT7/MAGE-C1, SSX2, and SSX4) by semiquantitative PCR. Clinical data available for 447 patients were used to correlate cancer-testis expression to variables of disease and clinical outcome.

Results: At least one cancer-testis gene was expressed by 90% of squamous carcinoma, 62% of bronchioloalveolar cancer, and 67% of adenocarcinoma samples. Statistically significant coexpression was observed for 34 of the 36 possible cancer-testis combinations. Cancer-testis gene expression, either cumulatively or individually, showed significant associations with male sex, smoking history, advanced tumor, nodal and pathologic stages, pleural invasion, and the absence of ground glass opacity. Cox regression analysis revealed the expression of NY-ESO-1 and MAGE-A3 as markers of poor prognosis, independent of confounding variables for adenocarcinoma of the lung.

Conclusions: Cancer-testis genes are coordinately expressed in NSCLC, and their expression is associated with advanced disease and poor outcome.

Cancer-testis gene expression is observed at different frequencies in all tumors regardless of tissue of origin. Of the 40 or so cancer-testis genes/gene families, more than half map to chromosome X (http://www.cancerimmunity.org/CTdatabase/). These X chromosome cancer-testis genes (CT-X) and BAGE genes that map to juxtacentromeric regions are typically multigene families that have arisen through chromosomal duplications. Most cancer-testis genes have been initially identified through immunologic assays (1). In normal tissues, CT-X genes are consistently expressed in spermatogonia, oogonia, and the trophoblast cells (1). In testicular germ cells, the expression of most CT-X genes decrease as cells enter meiosis (2), and regain genomic methylation (3, 4), coinciding with the loss of both Suv39h2 expression and H4 hyperacetylation (5, 6). Cancer-testis genes mapping to somatic chromosomes, on the other hand, tend to have fewer homologues and can be expressed in meiotic gametes (7–9). Based on these differences and the common epigenetic mechanisms associated with the regulation of their expression, it has been proposed that CT-X genes might constitute a distinct group (10).

Ectopic hypomethylation of genomic DNA has been associated with CT-X gene expression and the demethylation of critical CpG residues within their promoter regions (11). All CT-X genes that are expressed in tumors or testis can be induced in vitro by DNA demethylation or by inhibitors of histone deacetylation (1). Despite the evidence suggesting that CT-X genes share common epigenetic regulatory mechanisms, the evidence regarding CT-X coexpression and whether CT-X expression associates with clinical variables of disease and outcome is inconclusive.

In this study, we analyzed tumors from 523 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients for the expression of nine CT-X genes. We show coordinate expression among all CT-X genes tested. In 447 patients for whom clinical data were available, we evaluated the association of CT-X expression with variables of disease and outcome. CT-X expression was found to be sporadically associated with advanced disease and other variables that indicate worse prognosis in all major histologic types of NSCLC. In addition, Cox regression analysis revealed that expression of NY-ESO-1 and MAGE-A3 were independent markers of worse outcome in adenocarcinomas of the lung. CT-X expression was not found to affect outcome in squamous carcinomas, bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, or adenocarcinoma with bronchioloalveolar features.


   Patients and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Patients and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Patients. A total of 523 patients undergoing curative surgical resection for primary NSCLC at the Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, from 1991 to July 2004, were included in this study. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Weill Medical College of Cornell University.

Expression analysis. Tumor tissues were obtained during surgery. Following gross dissection, tissues were immediately frozen on dry ice. Total RNA was prepared following homogenization by the guanidium isothiocyanade method followed by CsCl gradient centrifugation. Alternatively, the Ribopure kit (Ambion, Austin, TX) was used according to manufacturer's instructions. Remaining tumor tissue was maintained either frozen or in RNAlater (Ambion). Total RNA (2 µg) was reverse-transcribed with 200 units Moloney murine leukemia virus reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA), according to the manufacturer's instructions, in the presence of 2 µg random hexamers (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA), 20 units RNaseOUT (Invitrogen), and 5 mmol/L DTT in a total volume of 20 µL. Each reverse transcription reaction was done in the presence or absence of Moloney murine leukemia virus-RTase to test for contamination. For individual PCR reactions, 250 ng of cDNA were amplified with gene-specific oligonucleotides (2 ng per 25 µL reaction) in the presence of 1 unit AmpliTaq Gold (Applied Biosystems) and 5 µmol/L of each deoxynucleotidetriphosphates (Applied Biosystems). Gene-specific primers used to amplify individual CT-X transcripts are shown in Supplementary Table S1. The integrity of cDNA obtained was tested by amplification of p53 transcripts (p53-F, 5'-TACTCCCCTGCCCTCAACAAG; p53-R, 5'-CTCAGGCGGCTCATAGGG). For semiquantitative PCR analysis, reverse transcription-PCR products were categorized after separation on ethidium bromide–stained agarose gels as either –, +/–, +, ++, or +++, reflecting the intensity of the product when compared with a standardized testis sample (Fig. 1). Real-time reverse transcription-PCR analysis (ABI Prism, Applied Biosciences) of a representative number of tumor RNA suggested the different intensities corresponded to ~0.1-1 fg (+/–), 1-5 fg (+), 5-100 fg (++), and <100 fg (+++) of transcript per 2 µg of mRNA (12). Expression levels of <5 fg (–, +/–, +) were classified as low (CT-X[low]), and those with >5 fg (++ and +++) as high (CT-X[high]).



View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Semiquantitative RT-PCR. Examples of reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) reactions resulting in different quantities of products (– to +++). Tumor samples are indicated by numbers. T, testis. Control amplifications without reverse transcriptase (RT –). p53 amplification was done to ensure RNA integrity. The larger p53 band in lanes without RT is due to amplification of contaminating genomic DNA.

 
Statistical analysis. To analyze coordinate cancer-testis gene expression, the frequency of the expression of a given cancer-testis in a tumor sample expressing a second cancer-testis gene was compared with the frequency observed among all tumors. Additionally, expression data was analyzed as a categorical value where the strength of coexpression was represented by {kappa} (13). The strength of coexpression is proportionate to {kappa}, with higher values corresponding to more frequent coexpression. {kappa}s can range from –1.0 to 1.0. Values of >0 indicate agreement better than chance. For example, {kappa} = 0.5 means that the expression of two given CT-X genes occurs simultaneously 50% of the time over and above that expected by chance alone (14).

To evaluate whether cancer-testis gene expression was related to sex, smoking status, tumor size, pleural invasion, disease stage, and other clinical variables, univariate analysis using the Wilcoxon rank sum test (or t test) and Fisher's exact test (or {chi}2 test) were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The effect of cancer-testis gene expression on survival was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences between two groups were compared using the log-rank test. All survival curves were calculated from the date of surgery. All statistical analyses were two sided with a 5% type I error rate and were computed using SAS (version 9.0) software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Covariates with P < 0.05 by univariate analysis were subjected to multivariate analysis. Cox regression analysis was done to assess the effects of CT-X expression on survival while controlling for confounding clinical covariates.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Patients and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Frequency of X chromosome cancer-testis genes in non–small cell lung cancer. A total of 523 cases of NSCLC were typed for CT-X expression. The comparative level of CT-X expression was estimated by semiquantitative PCR and recorded as +/–, +, ++, and +++ based on the intensity of the amplification product (Fig. 1). Among tumors tested, 377 (72.1%) expressed at least one of the nine CT-X genes tested. The most frequently observed CT-X was MAGE-A3, present in 55.2% of samples followed by MAGE-A1 (46.3%), MAGE-A4 (34.7%), LAGE-1 (32.1%), MAGE-A10 (27.2%), NY-ESO-1 (26.6%), MAGE-C1/CT7 (18.8%), SSX4 (13.5%), and SSX2 (9.6%; Table 1). The expression frequency of CT-X genes showed striking differences between histologic subtypes. Sixty-two percent (59 of 95) of the bronchioloalveolar carcinoma cases (including adenocarcinomas with bronchioloalveolar features) expressed at least one CT-X gene. This frequency was 67% (148 of 221) for adenocarcinomas and 90% (87 of 97) for squamous cell carcinomas; the frequency in the latter group being significantly different than in that of the other two (P < 0.0001). This difference was preserved when the frequency of only tumors of the different histologic types expressing high levels of CT-X genes (CT-X[high]) were compared.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Frequency of CT-X gene expression in NSCLC

 
X chromosome cancer-testis gene expression is coordinated. Of the NY-ESO-1 positive tumors, 64% also expressed LAGE-1, which is twice the frequency of 32% expected if the expression of these genes were independent events. Similarly, the possibility of finding any one of the nine CT-X genes expressed in a tumor with a second CT-X gene was consistently and significantly higher than expected (Table 2). Coexpression of CT-X genes was tested using {kappa}, a statistical measure that indicates the degree of coexpression above that expected due to chance. When applied to NY-ESO-1 and LAGE-1 expression, {kappa} statistics result in a value of 0.43, indicating coexpression is 43% above that expected by chance (P < 0.0001). Only 2 of the 36 CT-X combinations showed no statistically significant coexpression (SSX4 and LAGE-1, and SSX4 and CT7/MAGE-C1). However, these coexpression rates are still higher than expected, and their {kappa} values are similar to those of the other CT-X combinations analyzed. Overall, our results conclusively show coordinate expression of all nine CT-X genes in NSCLC.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Coexpression of CT-X genes in NSCLC

 
Associations of X chromosome cancer-testis expression with prognostic indicators in non–small cell lung cancer. The patient characteristics of this series are shown in Table 3. Univariate analyses confirmed associations between overall survival and tumor stage, nodal stage, metastasis stage, and pathologic stage. We then investigated the possible correlation between CT-X expression and these clinical variables (Table 4). "Any CT-X" included patients whose tumors expressed at least one CT-X gene. In addition, tumors with high levels of CT-X expression (CT-X[high]), as judged by semiquantitative PCR, were compared with tumors with no or low cancer-testis expression (CT-X[low]). Clinical associations of CT-X expression were studied either as a group (Any CT-X), or individually. CT-X expression generally correlated with larger tumor size, presence of pleural invasion, a lack of ground glass opacity, and advanced-stage disease, by univariate analysis. Any CT-X expression was found to be associated with male sex (P = 0.02) and advanced tumor stage (P = 0.04). In addition, high level expression of any CT-X gene (Any-CT[high]) associated with male sex (P = 0.0009), smoking history (P = 0.003), larger tumors (>3 cm; P = 0.0005), tumor stage (P = 0.004), the presence of pleural invasion (P = 0.009), and the absence of ground glass opacity (P = 0.014). Expression of individual cancer-testis genes showed similar trends (Supplementary Table S2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Demographics and clinical characteristics

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. CT-X expression and clinical characteristics

 
When the patients were stratified according to histology similar associations were observed. These correlations included those listed above, but in addition, CT-X expression was found to be associated with later nodal and pathologic stages in all histologic groups. Statistically significant associations are shown in Supplementary Table S3. CT-X gene expression consistently associated with advanced disease or indicators of worse outcome except for SSX2 expression in adenocarcinomas, which was more frequent among nonsmokers.

X chromosome cancer-testis gene expression is an independent prognostic indicator in non–small cell lung cancer. The expression of CT-X was then compared with patient survival in various histologic groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that CT-X expression conferred worse survival primarily in patients with adenocarcinomas (Table 5; Fig. 2). "Any CT-X[high]" patients had worse survival when compared with "Any CT-X[low]" patients with adenocarcinoma (P = 0.06). CT-X expression had no effect on the survival of patients with bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, adenocarcinoma with bronchioloalveolar characteristics, or for squamous cell carcinoma. When individually analyzed, the expression of NY-ESO-1, MAGE-A1, SSX2, and high levels of MAGE-A3 was found to be associated with shorter survival in adenocarcinoma. When stratified according to stage, CT-X expression was associated with worse survival at all stages. Examples for MAGE-A3, NY-ESO-1, and SSX2 are shown in Fig. 3.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5. Cox proportional hazards model for CT expression in adenocarcinoma of the lung

 


View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Survival of patients with NSCLC stratified according to CT-X expression. Distributions were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Tick marks represent the time of last follow-up for patients who remained alive. A, patients with adenocarcinoma with high level CT-X expression (Any CT group) had shorter survival than patients with no or low CT-X expression (P = 0.06). CT-X expression did not influence survival for patients with (B) bronchioloalveolar carcinoma or adenocarcinoma with bronchioloalveolar features (P = 0.7) or (C) squamous cell carcinoma (P = 0.8).

 


View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Survival of patients with NSCLC stratified according to CT-X expression and pathologic stage. Distributions were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Tick marks represent the time of last follow-up for patients who remained alive. Representative series. A, high-level MAGE-A3 expression in adenocarcinoma patients of stage I (P = 0.04). B, high level NY-ESO-1 expression in adenocarcinoma patients of stage II (P = 0.02). C, SSX2 expression in patients with adenocarcinoma of stage III (P = 0.05).

 
Cox regression analysis was done to assess whether CT-X expression was prognostic of survival independent of confounding criteria, including stage, histology, and adjuvant therapy (Table 5). This revealed that high level expression of NY-ESO-1 or MAGE-A3 were predictors of worse outcome in adenocarcinoma independent of confounding factors.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
The evaluation a large series of patients has made it possible to perform a rigorous analysis of CT-X expression and also to conduct correlative studies using multivariate analysis with greater reliability. We show that all the CT-X genes examined are expressed in a coordinate manner in NSCLC. Previous studies have argued both for and against coexpression (15–18). Such discrepancies might have been due to smaller sample sizes or due to the heterogeneous expression of CT-X genes within tumors, which might lead to false negative results in as many as 30% of samples, especially in immunohistochemical analyses (19). To avoid such caveats, this study was conducted with a very large sample size. We chose reverse transcription-PCR–based analysis due to its high sensitivity and because we could prepare total RNA from samples that were large enough to reflect CT-X gene expression in case the genes were heterogeneously expressed in the tumor tissues evaluated.

The best documented epigenetic aberrations in tumors, regardless of tissue of origin, are genome-wide hypomethylation, region-specific hypermethylation, and loss of imprinting (20–23). Ectopic methylation has been associated with larger tumors, extensive disease, and ultimately poor prognosis (24–30). Current data suggests that the transcriptional regulation of all CT-X genes is governed by common epigenetic mechanisms (1). CT-X genes have in common a TATA-less promoter, which is heavily methylated and thus silent in normal tissues. Their expression is associated with genome wide hypomethylation, and they can be up-regulated by DNA methyl transferase inhibitors, histone deacetylase inhibitors, or by the absence of histone methyl transferase G9a (11, 31–35). Genome-wide hypomethylation has been shown to increase progressively in parallel to advanced grade in breast, ovarian, cervical, and neural cancers (26–30) and has been associated with lung cancer progression (36). Therefore, it is not surprising that CT-X gene expression has also been reported to be associated with less-differentiated, higher-grade tumors; later stages of cancer; and worse outcome (37–50). In fact, MAGE-A3, MAGE-A10, and MAGE-A1 promoters were shown to undergo progressive demethylation in gastric cancer parallel to disease progression (43).

We found significant correlations between CT-X expression and larger tumors, pleural invasion, later stages of disease, and also male sex and a history of smoking. Moreover, multivariate analysis showed CT-X expression to be a marker of worse outcome independent of the known clinical prognostic indicators. We observed that high-level CT-X expression was even more closely related to later stages and worse disease outcome. This is similar to previous reports (37, 50, 51) and is likely to reflect more severe hypomethylation in these cancers. However, we have not tested for genome-wide hypomethylation in tumor tissues and therefore can not conclude whether these are indeed parallel events. Although our observations are limited to CT-X genes, the expression of two other cancer-testis genes, SCP-1 on chromosome 1 and PRAME that maps to chromosome 22, have been associated with worse survival in ovarian cancers and neuroblastoma, respectively, suggesting that cancer-testis genes located on somatic chromosomes might also show similar clinical associations (52, 53). Although CT-X expression could be a passive bystander in a more hypomethylated genome, recent evidence suggests these genes can have antiapoptotic qualities, thus conferring a survival advantage to some tumors (54, 55).

Although the expression of a number of CT-X genes did not reach the statistical significance to qualify as markers of worse outcome in this study, hazard ratios for most CT-X genes in adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma were >1, suggesting an association between the expression of almost all CT-X genes with worse prognosis.

In this series, squamous cell carcinomas were found to express all CT-X genes at significantly higher rates then adenocarcinoma and bronchioloalveolar carcinomas. In other studies, CT-X expression frequency has also been shown to be higher in squamous cell carcinomas of the lung, bladder, and esophagus compared with tumors of other histologic types in the same organs (50, 56, 57). Whether this directly reflects the degree of hypomethylation in these tumors is not known; however, squamous and spindle carcinoma of the skin have been shown to have more extensive hypomethylation compared with papilloma (58). The fact that expression of CT-X genes should associate with particular tumor types suggests that the underlying mechanisms controlling CT-X gene expression are complex and vary among tumor types. In this context, both aberrant CpG hypermethylation and imprinting defects have been shown to be tumor type specific (23, 59).

Most CT-X antigens are immunogenic, and their use as therapeutic cancer vaccines is being systematically evaluated (60–63). The DNA methyltransferase inhibitor 5-aza-2' deoxycytidine (Desitabine) and various histone deacetylase inhibitors, including trichostain A, SAHA, and valproic acid, have been used as part of chemotherapy protocols, primarily to reverse hypermethylation of tumor suppressor gene promoters, and have been shown to be beneficial in hematologic and solid tumors (64–67). These drugs, if capable of inducing CT-X expression in vivo, could increase patient eligibility and treatment effectiveness in CT-X-targeted immunotherapy. Our results suggest that as tumors progress, the level and number of CT-X genes they express are likely to increase. This in turn suggests a potentially important therapeutic role for CT-X-based cancer vaccines in the management of later stages of malignancy. Because there is strong coexpression among CT-X genes, a multi-CT-X targeting strategy would be predicted to be most effective. Moreover, it could be argued that CT-X antigen immunization might be beneficial even to patients with CT-X -negative tumors, as an induced anti-CT-X immune response might prevent the emergence of CT-X expressing tumor cells, thus halting or slowing tumor progression.


   Footnotes
 
Grant support: Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research.

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.

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

Received 6/ 2/05; revised 8/ 8/05; accepted 8/23/05.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Scanlan MJ, Gure AO, Jungbluth AA, Old LJ, Chen YT. Cancer/testis antigens: an expanding family of targets for cancer immunotherapy. Immunol Rev 2002;188:22–32.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Jungbluth AA, Busam KJ, Kolb D, et al. Expression of MAGE-antigens in normal tissues and cancer. Int J Cancer 2000;85:460–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Reik W, Dean W, Walter J. Epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development. Science 2001;293:1089–93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Marchal R, Chicheportiche A, Dutrillaux B, Bernardino-Sgherri J. DNA methylation in mouse gametogenesis. Cytogenet Genome Res 2004;105:316–24.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Sonnack V, Failing K, Bergmann M, Steger K. Expression of hyperacetylated histone H4 during normal and impaired human spermatogenesis. Andrologia 2002;34:384–90.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. O'Carroll D, Scherthan H, Peters AH, et al. Isolation and characterization of Suv39h2, a second histone H3 methyltransferase gene that displays testis-specific expression. Mol Cell Biol 2000;20:9423–33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Sage J, Martin L, Meuwissen R, Heyting C, Cuzin F, Rassoulzadegan M. Temporal and spatial control of the Sycp1 gene transcription in the mouse meiosis: regulatory elements active in the male are not sufficient for expression in the female gonad. Mech Dev 1999;80:29–39.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Kim E, Nishimura H, Baba T. Differential localization of ADAM1a and ADAM1b in the endoplasmic reticulum of testicular germ cells and on the surface of epididymal sperm. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2003;304:313–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Inoue N, Hess KD, Moreadith RW, et al. New gene family defined by MORC, a nuclear protein required for mouse spermatogenesis. Hum Mol Genet 1999;8:1201–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Koslowski M, Bell C, Seitz G, et al. Frequent nonrandom activation of germ-line genes in human cancer. Cancer Res 2004;64:5988–93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. De Smet C, Lurquin C, Lethe B, Martelange V, Boon T. DNA methylation is the primary silencing mechanism for a set of germ line- and tumor-specific genes with a CpG-rich promoter. Mol Cell Biol 1999;19:7327–35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Scanlan MJ, Simpson AJ, Old LJ. The cancer/testis genes: review, standardization, and commentary. Cancer Immun 2004;4:1.[Medline]
  13. Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley; 1990.
  14. Tooth LR, Ottenbacher KJ. The {kappa} statistic in rehabilitation research: an examination. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:1371–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Mashino K, Sadanaga N, Tanaka F, et al. Expression of multiple cancer-testis antigen genes in gastrointestinal and breast carcinomas. Br J Cancer 2001;85:713–20.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Odunsi K, Jungbluth AA, Stockert E, et al. NY-ESO-1 and LAGE-1 cancer-testis antigens are potential targets for immunotherapy in epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer Res 2003;63:6076–83.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Vaughan HA, Svobodova S, Macgregor D, et al. Immunohistochemical and molecular analysis of human melanomas for expression of the human cancer-testis antigens NY-ESO-1 and LAGE-1. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:8396–404.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Hoek K, Rimm DL, Williams KR, et al. Expression profiling reveals novel pathways in the transformation of melanocytes to melanomas. Cancer Res 2004;64:5270–82.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Akcakanat A, Kanda T, Koyama Y, et al. NY-ESO-1 expression and its serum immunoreactivity in esophageal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2004;54:95–100.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Feinberg AP, Vogelstein B. Hypomethylation distinguishes genes of some human cancers from their normal counterparts. Nature 1983;301:89–92.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Baylin SB, Herman JG, Graff JR, Vertino PM, Issa JP. Alterations in DNA methylation: a fundamental aspect of neoplasia. Adv Cancer Res 1998;72:141–96.[Medline]
  22. Ehrlich M. DNA methylation in cancer: too much, but also too little. Oncogene 2002;21:5400–13.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Feinberg AP, Tycko B. The history of cancer epigenetics. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:143–53.[Medline]
  24. Fruhwald MC. DNA methylation patterns in cancer: novel prognostic indicators? Am J Pharmacogenomics 2003;3:245–60.[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Tsou JA, Hagen JA, Carpenter CL, Laird-Offringa IA. DNA methylation analysis: a powerful new tool for lung cancer diagnosis. Oncogene 2002;21:5450–61.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Kim YI, Giuliano A, Hatch KD, et al. Global DNA hypomethylation increases progressively in cervical dysplasia and carcinoma. Cancer 1994;74:893–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Qu G, Dubeau L, Narayan A, Yu MC, Ehrlich M. Satellite DNA hypomethylation vs. overall genomic hypomethylation in ovarian epithelial tumors of different malignant potential. Mutat Res 1999;423:91–101.[Medline]
  28. Gama-Sosa MA, Slagel VA, Trewyn RW, et al. The 5-methylcytosine content of DNA from human tumors. Nucleic Acids Res 1983;11:6883–94.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Narayan A, Ji W, Zhang XY, et al. Hypomethylation of pericentromeric DNA in breast adenocarcinomas. Int J Cancer 1998;77:833–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Soares J, Pinto AE, Cunha CV, et al. Global DNA hypomethylation in breast carcinoma: correlation with prognostic factors and tumor progression. Cancer 1999;85:112–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  31. De Smet C, De Backer O, Faraoni I, Lurquin C, Brasseur F, Boon T. The activation of human gene MAGE-1 in tumor cells is correlated with genome-wide demethylation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1996;93:7149–53.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Weber J, Salgaller M, Samid D, et al. Expression of the MAGE-1 tumor antigen is up-regulated by the demethylating agent 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine. Cancer Res 1994;54:1766–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Li J, Yang Y, Fujie T, et al. Expression of BAGE, GAGE, MAGE genes in human gastric carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 1996;2:1619–25.[Abstract]
  34. Gure AO, Wei IJ, Old LJ, Chen YT. The SSX gene family: characterization of 9 complete genes. International Journal of Cancer 2002;101:448–53.
  35. Cho B, Lee H, Jeong S, et al. Promoter hypomethylation of a novel cancer/testis antigen gene CAGE is correlated with its aberrant expression and is seen in premalignant stage of gastric carcinoma. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2003;307:52–63.[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Piyathilake CJ, Frost AR, Bell WC, et al. Altered global methylation of DNA: an epigenetic difference in susceptibility for lung cancer is associated with its progression. Hum Pathol 2001;32:856–62.[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Kavalar R, Sarcevic B, Spagnoli GC, et al. Expression of MAGE tumour-associated antigens is inversely correlated with tumour differentiation in invasive ductal breast cancers: an immunohistochemical study. Virchows Arch 2001;439:127–31.[CrossRef][Medline]
  38. Sarcevic B, Spagnoli GC, Terracciano L, et al. Expression of cancer/testis tumor associated antigens in cervical squamous cell carcinoma. Oncology 2003;64:443–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  39. Hansel DE, House MG, Ashfaq R, Rahman A, Yeo CJ, Maitra A. MAGE1 is expressed by a subset of pancreatic endocrine neoplasms and associated lymph node and liver metastases. Int J Gastrointest Cancer 2003;33:141–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  40. Bert T, Lubomierski N, Gangsauge S, et al. Expression spectrum and methylation-dependent regulation of melanoma antigen-encoding gene family members in pancreatic cancer cells. Pancreatology 2002;2:146–54.[CrossRef][Medline]
  41. Dhodapkar MV, Osman K, Teruya-Feldstein J, et al. Expression of cancer/testis (CT) antigens MAGE-A1, MAGE-A3, MAGE-A4, CT-7, and NY-ESO-1 in malignant gammopathies is heterogeneous and correlates with site, stage and risk status of disease. Cancer Immun 2003;3:9.[Medline]
  42. Sienel W, Varwerk C, Linder A, et al. Melanoma associated antigen (MAGE)-A3 expression in stages I and II non-small cell lung cancer: results of a multi-center study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:131–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Honda T, Tamura G, Waki T, et al. Demethylation of MAGE promoters during gastric cancer progression. Br J Cancer 2004;90:838–43.[CrossRef][Medline]
  44. Goydos JS, Patel M, Shih W. NY-ESO-1 and CTp11 expression may correlate with stage of progression in melanoma. J Surg Res 2001;98:76–80.[CrossRef][Medline]
  45. Kurashige T, Noguchi Y, Saika T, et al. NY-ESO-1 expression and immunogenicity associated with transitional cell carcinoma: correlation with tumor grade. Cancer Res 2001;61:4671–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Sharma P, Gnjatic S, Jungbluth AA, et al. Frequency of NY-ESO-1 and LAGE-1 expression in bladder cancer and evidence of a new NY-ESO-1 T-cell epitope in a patient with bladder cancer. Cancer Immun 2003;3:19.[Medline]
  47. Yakirevich E, Sabo E, Lavie O, Mazareb S, Spagnoli GC, Resnick MB. Expression of the MAGE-A4 and NY-ESO-1 cancer-testis antigens in serous ovarian neoplasms. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:6453–60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Katano M, Nakamura M, Morisaki T, Fujimoto K. Melanoma antigen-encoding gene-1 expression in invasive gastric carcinoma: correlation with stage of disease. J Surg Oncol 1997;64:195–201.[CrossRef][Medline]
  49. Otte M, Zafrakas M, Riethdorf L, et al. MAGE-A gene expression pattern in primary breast cancer. Cancer Res 2001;61:6682–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Kocher T, Zheng M, Bolli M, et al. Prognostic relevance of MAGE-A4 tumor antigen expression in transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: a tissue microarray study. Int J Cancer 2002;100:702–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  51. Sugita M, Geraci M, Gao B, et al. Combined use of oligonucleotide and tissue microarrays identifies cancer/testis antigens as biomarkers in lung carcinoma. Cancer Res 2002;62:3971–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Tammela J, Jungbluth AA, Qian F, et al. SCP-1 cancer/testis antigen is a prognostic indicator and a candidate target for immunotherapy in epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer Immun 2004;4:10.[Medline]
  53. Oberthuer A, Hero B, Spitz R, Berthold F, Fischer M. The tumor-associated antigen PRAME is universally expressed in high-stage neuroblastoma and associated with poor outcome. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:4307–13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Park JH, Kong GH, Lee SW. hMAGE-A1 overexpression reduces TNF-{alpha} cytotoxicity in ME-180 cells. Mol Cells 2002;14:122–9.[Medline]
  55. Cilensek ZM, Yehiely F, Kular RK, Deiss LP. A member of the GAGE family of tumor antigens is an anti-apoptotic gene that confers resistance to Fas/CD95/APO-1, Interferon-{gamma}, taxol and {gamma}-irradiation. Cancer Biol Ther 2002;1:380–7.[Medline]
  56. Bolli M, Kocher T, Adamina M, et al. Tissue microarray evaluation of Melanoma antigen E (MAGE) tumor-associated antigen expression: potential indications for specific immunotherapy and prognostic relevance in squamous cell lung carcinoma. Ann Surg 2002;236:785–93; discussion 793.[CrossRef][Medline]
  57. Zambon A, Mandruzzato S, Parenti A, et al. MAGE, BAGE, GAGE gene expression in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the gastric cardia. Cancer 2001;91:1882–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  58. Fraga MF, Herranz M, Espada J, et al. A mouse skin multistage carcinogenesis model reflects the aberrant DNA methylation patterns of human tumors. Cancer Res 2004;64:5527–34.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Costello JF, Fruhwald MC, Smiraglia DJ, et al. Aberrant CpG-island methylation has non-random and tumour-type-specific patterns. Nat Genet 2000;24:132–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  60. Davis ID, Chen W, Jackson H, et al. Recombinant NY-ESO-1 protein with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant induces broad integrated antibody and CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cell responses in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:10697–702.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Chen Q, Jackson H, Parente P, et al. Immunodominant CD4+ responses identified in a patient vaccinated with full-length NY-ESO-1 formulated with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:9363–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  62. Lurquin C, Lethe B, De Plaen E, et al. Contrasting frequencies of antitumor and anti-vaccine T cells in metastases of a melanoma patient vaccinated with a MAGE tumor antigen. J Exp Med 2005;201:249–57.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  63. Germeau C, Ma W, Schiavetti F, et al. High frequency of antitumor T cells in the blood of melanoma patients before and after vaccination with tumor antigens. J Exp Med 2005;201:241–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. Daskalakis M, Nguyen TT, Nguyen C, et al. Demethylation of a hypermethylated P15/INK4B gene in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome by 5-Aza-2'-deoxycytidine (decitabine) treatment. Blood 2002;100:2957–64.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  65. Marks PA, Richon VM, Kelly WK, Chiao JH, Miller T. Histone deacetylase inhibitors: development as cancer therapy. Novartis Found Symp 2004;259:269–81; discussion 281–68.[Medline]
  66. Blaheta RA, Michaelis M, Driever PH, Cinatl J, Jr. Evolving anticancer drug valproic acid: insights into the mechanism and clinical studies. Med Res Rev 2005;25:383–97.[CrossRef][Medline]
  67. Esteller M. DNA methylation and cancer therapy: new developments and expectations. Curr Opin Oncol 2005;17:55–60.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ThoraxHome page
C J Chapman, A Murray, J E McElveen, U Sahin, U Luxemburger, O Tureci, R Wiewrodt, A C Barnes, and J F Robertson
Autoantibodies in lung cancer: possibilities for early detection and subsequent cure
Thorax, March 1, 2008; 63(3): 228 - 233.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
D. Atanackovic, N. K. Altorki, Y. Cao, E. Ritter, C. A. Ferrara, G. Ritter, E. W. Hoffman, C. Bokemeyer, L. J. Old, and S. Gnjatic
Booster vaccination of cancer patients with MAGE-A3 protein reveals long-term immunological memory or tolerance depending on priming
PNAS, February 5, 2008; 105(5): 1650 - 1655.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
M. Condomines, D. Hose, P. Raynaud, M. Hundemer, J. De Vos, M. Baudard, T. Moehler, V. Pantesco, M. Moos, J.-F. Schved, et al.
Cancer/Testis Genes in Multiple Myeloma: Expression Patterns and Prognosis Value Determined by Microarray Analysis
J. Immunol., March 1, 2007; 178(5): 3307 - 3315.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
D. S. Schrump, M. R. Fischette, D. M. Nguyen, M. Zhao, X. Li, T. F. Kunst, A. Hancox, J. A. Hong, G. A. Chen, V. Pishchik, et al.
Phase I Study of Decitabine-Mediated Gene Expression in Patients with Cancers Involving the Lungs, Esophagus, or Pleura.
Clin. Cancer Res., October 1, 2006; 12(19): 5777 - 5785.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
B. Cadieux, T.-T. Ching, S. R. VandenBerg, and J. F. Costello
Genome-wide Hypomethylation in Human Glioblastomas Associated with Specific Copy Number Alteration, Methylenetetrahydrofolate Reductase Allele Status, and Increased Proliferation.
Cancer Res., September 1, 2006; 66(17): 8469 - 8476.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
T. Peikert, U. Specks, C. Farver, S. C. Erzurum, and S. A.A. Comhair
Melanoma Antigen A4 Is Expressed in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers and Promotes Apoptosis.
Cancer Res., May 1, 2006; 66(9): 4693 - 4700.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

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 Gure, A. O.
Right arrow Articles by Altorki, N. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gure, A. O.
Right arrow Articles by Altorki, N. K.

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