Clinical Cancer Research Bridging the Lab and the Clinic in Cancer Medicine Tumor Immunology: New Perspectives
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 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 George, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kantoff, P. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by George, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kantoff, P. W.
Clinical Cancer Research Vol. 11, 1815-1820, March 2005
© 2005 American Association for Cancer Research

Imaging, Diagnosis, Prognosis

The Prognostic Significance of Plasma Interleukin-6 Levels in Patients with Metastatic Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer: Results from Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9480

Daniel J. George1, Susan Halabi1, Timothy F. Shepard2, Ben Sanford1, Nicholas J. Vogelzang4, Eric J. Small3 and Philip W. Kantoff2

1 Divisions of Urology and Medical Oncology, Cancer and Leukemia Group B Statistical Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; 2 Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; 3 Mount Zion Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California; and 4 Nevada Cancer Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada

Requests for reprints: Daniel J. George, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Box 3850 DUMC, Durham, NC 2771; E-mail: georg033{at}mc.duke.edu.


   ABSTRACT
Top
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Interleukin-6 signaling can activate androgen receptor in a ligand-independent manner and may play an important functional role in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRCaP) progression and patient survival. Plasma and serum IL-6 levels have been associated with prostate cancer progression in several small studies. In order to evaluate its prognostic significance in metastatic HRCaP patients, we measured IL-6 in plasma collected at baseline from patients in a large cooperative group study [Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9480 (CALGB 9480)].

Methods: 191 patients entered on CALGB 9480 had pretreatment plasma collected and centrally stored. Using a human IL-6 immunoassay, quantitative levels of IL-6 were measured in duplicate on 300 µL samples. The proportional hazard model was used to assess the prognostic significance of IL-6 in predicting overall survival.

Results: Median IL-6 level for the cohort of 191 patients was 4.80 pg/mL. Survival time among patients with IL-6 levels less than or equal to the median was 19 months (95% CI, 17-22) compared with 11 (95% CI, 8-14) months for patients above the median (P = 0.0004). In multivariate analysis, adjusting on performance status, lactate dehydrogenase, and prostate-specific antigen level, the hazard ratio was 1.38 (95% CI, 1.01-1.89; P = 0.043) using the median level as a cut point. Furthermore, a cut point of 13.31 pg/mL revealed robust prognostic significance with a hazard ratio of 2.02 (95% CI, 1.36-2.98; P = 0.0005).

Conclusions: Plasma IL-6 level has prognostic significance in patients with metastatic HRCaP from CALGB 9480. These findings support using IL-6 levels in prognostic models and support the rationale for IL-6-targeted therapy in patients with HRCaP.

Key Words: cytokines • prognostic factors • tumor biology


   INTRODUCTION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRCaP) is a uniformly fatal disease accounting for an estimated 28,900 deaths annually in the United States, with a median survival slightly over 1 year (1–4) that can vary significantly based on known prognostic factors (5, 6). Currently established prognostic factors for patients with HRCaP qualitatively reflect either their overall tumor burden including serum levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and bone scan findings, or the overall condition of the patient as a host, including their performance status, plasma hemoglobin level, or history of weight loss. However, biological behavior of individual prostate cancers is not assessed directly by such factors (5). Plasma biomarkers produced by tumors may correlate with disease progression and predict a specific biological phenotype. Such markers might better characterize a subset of this heterogeneous patient population and might represent new biological targets for therapy. One such marker is interleukin-6 (IL-6).

IL-6 is a pleiotropic cytokine with a variety of effects on hematopoesis, immune system, and acute-phase responses. IL-6 is produced by androgen-independent prostate cancer cell lines and has been shown to act in an autocrine and/or paracrine manner to stimulate their growth but suppressing the growth of androgen-dependent cell lines (7–9). It has been implicated in the oncogenic process for a number of other tumors cell types including renal cell carcinoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, lymphoma, plasmacytoma/myeloma, and mammary cell carcinoma (10). Whereas the molecular actions of IL-6 in prostate cancer cells have not been completely elucidated, it is known that IL-6 binds to a transmembrane receptor (IL-6Rp80) which requires the association of a second glycoprotein (gp130; ref. 11). Signal transduction proceeds via three possible pathways: the ErbB3(2)-mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway, the phosphoinositide 3-kinase-Etk/Bmx pathway, and the Janus-activated kinase/signal transducers and activators of transcription pathway, all of which have been associated with androgen-independent prostate cancer (11). Recent studies suggest IL-6R activation may represent a dominant pathway for accessory activation of the androgen receptor (12).

IL-6 levels in patients with advanced prostate cancer may have important biological prognostic correlations. Twillie et al. (13) have shown that IL-6 is a candidate mediator of prostate cancer morbidity and have hypothesized that death in some patients may be caused or hastened by elevated levels of IL-6. Castleman's disease is a syndrome of high chronic levels of IL-6. Its symptoms, including fatigue, anemia, anorexia and weight loss, are experienced by many patients with symptomatic prostate cancer. Anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibodies have been used to effectively alleviate these symptoms in patients suffering from Castleman's disease (14, 15).

Four independent studies have examined serum IL-6 levels in controls and patients with differing stages of prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia (13–18). Three of these studies showed significantly higher median IL-6 levels in patients with metastatic disease (13, 16, 18) whereas the fourth associated significantly higher levels with HRCaP (17). Finally, Nakashima et al. (19) showed that elevated serum IL-6 levels were significantly associated with lower survival rates in patients with prostate cancer by univariate analysis. A small multivariate analysis adjusting for performance status, extent of disease, tumor histology, PSA, alkaline phosphatase, hemoglobin, and LDH revealed that only elevated IL-6 and extent of disease were significant prognostic factors. This study was limited by its small size—only 74 patients were examined in total, of these only 37 were stage D. Based on this preliminary evidence, we investigated the prognostic significance of IL-6 level in a large prospectively collected, multicenter data set.


   METHODS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Patient Selection. An intergroup phase III trial [Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9480 (CALGB 9480)] of three different fixed doses of suramin was conducted. Between February 1996 and July 1998, 390 patients with metastatic HRCaP were enrolled on study after signing an Institutional Review Board–approved, protocol-specific informed consent in accordance with federal and institutional guidelines. Patients were then randomized with equal probability to receive one of three fixed dose regimens of suramin. Randomization was stratified by site (bone only versus soft tissue), performance status (0-1 versus 2), and number of prior hormonal manipulations (1-2 versus 3). Suramin was given on days 1, 2, 8, and 9 of a 28-day cycle for three cycles, with total doses cumulative of 3.19 g/m2 (low dose arm), 5.32 g/m2 (intermediate dose arm), and 7.66 g/m2 (high dose arm). All patients received 40 mg/d of hydrocortisone whereas patients in the high dose arm also received 0.1 mg/d of fludrocortisone.

Patients were eligible if they had evidence of progressive metastatic adenocarcinoma of the prostate, a life expectancy of at least 3 months, a CALGB performance status of 0 to 2, and adequate hematologic, renal, hepatic and clotting function. Patients were allowed no more than three prior hormonal manipulations, no prior chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or nonhormonal therapy. If patients had been treated with strontium-89 or radiation therapy, it must have been completed at least 8 and 4 weeks before enrollment, respectively. The end points of the study were objective and PSA responses, progression-free survival, and overall survival.

Quality Control. Patient registration and data collection were managed by the CALGB Statistical Center. Data quality was ensured by careful review of data by CALGB Statistical Center staff and by the study chairperson. Statistical analyses were done by CALGB statisticians. As part of the quality assurance program of the CALGB, members of the Data Audit Committee visit all participating institutions at least once every 3 years to review source documents. The auditors verify compliance with federal regulations and protocol requirements, including those pertaining to eligibility, treatment, toxic effects, tumor response, and outcome in a sample of protocols at each institution. Such on-site review of medical records was done for a subgroup of 69 patients (17.6%) of the 390 patients treated under this study.

Pretreatment Blood Collection. During the accrual period, an amendment was added that allowed for a pretreatment blood sample to be drawn for correlative studies. Seven milliliters of blood drawn into glass vacutainer tubes containing EDTA were collected at various affiliated institutions and transferred to Dana-Farber Cancer Institute for plasma preparation and biomarker assessment. With 12 hours of arrival, samples were spun at 2,000 x g for 15 minutes. Plasma was removed, aliquoted into 500 µL microtubes, stored at –20 C, and thawed just before testing. In total, samples from 197 patients were received for these studies.

Assessment of Plasma Interleukin-6 Levels. Plasma IL-6 levels were measured at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Using a microplate luminescence detection system (Dynex Technologies, Chantilly, VA) and a human IL-6 immunoassay Quantiglo kit (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN), quantitative levels of IL-6 can be accurately detected from 0.3 to 20,000 pg/mL using 300 µL of plasma. This solid phase ELISA system allows for high-throughput, rapid detection of IL-6 levels. By using luminescence detection, we are able to decrease the volume of plasma used from 400 to 300 µL per sample while improving intra-sample variation. In addition, quality control of a standardized kit, with internal controls and automated washes and detection, has lowered our coefficient of variance routinely below 10%.

Statistical Design and Data Analysis. Assuming that there are 250 deaths, the hazards in the two groups are proportional, and a two-sided type I error of 0.05, the log-rank statistics has 85% power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.5 between patients whose IL-6 levels are high (dichotomized at greater than the median level) and low (below or equal to the median). Survival time was defined as the time between randomization and death. Patients lost to follow-up were censored.

The Kaplan-Meier (20) product limit estimator was used to estimate the survival distribution by the two groups (low or high) of IL-6 levels based on the median value of IL-6 levels and the log-rank statistics was used to test for differences in the distribution of the survival times between the two groups of low and high IL-6 levels (21). Statistical methods based on exact asymptotic distributions were used to find a cut point (other than the median) for IL-6. The cut point corresponding to the largest discrepancy between the lower and higher risk groups was based on the log-rank statistics and the exact P value based on the maximally selected rank statistics was computed adjusting on multiple comparisons (22). In addition, the proportional hazard model was used to assess the prognostic importance of plasma IL-6 for survival adjusting for important baseline predictors, such as baseline PSA, performance status, alkaline phosphatase, LDH, and hemoglobin (23). All tests were done using a two-sided {alpha} level of 0.05.


   RESULTS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Table 1 presents the baseline characteristics of the 191 patients with plasma IL-6 data. The median age of 191 patients in which plasma IL-6 levels were measured was 71 years; 82% of these patients were Caucasian. Eighty-eight percent of the patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. The majority of patients had metastatic disease: 95% had bone metastases and 29% had bidimensionally measurable disease. The median baseline PSA and alkaline phosphatase were 135 ng/mL and 169 IU/L, respectively. The cohort was divided between the three different suramin treatment arms, however, none of the regimens resulted in a difference in survival. Furthermore, there was no association between baseline IL-6 level and prior therapy (antiandrogen, secondary hormonal therapy) or response to suramin. All recorded baseline characteristics of the 191 patients for whom plasma was available in this study were similar to the entire cohort of 390 patients enrolled to the CALGB 9480 (Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1 Baseline characteristics of 191 patients with IL-6 data and entire CALGB 9480 population

 
There was no statistically significant difference in survival when we compared the 191 patients in which a plasma IL-6 level was obtained to the entire cohort of 199 patients (log-rank test P = 0.560). The median survival time in the 191 patients was 16.5 (95% CI, 12.5-17.1) months versus 13.7 (95% CI, 11.3-15.6) for the remaining 199 patients, from whom no pretreatment plasma was available.

Of 191 patients, 180 deaths (94%) occurred and the median follow-up time among the 11 surviving patients was 33.90 months (95% CI, 4.43-54.17). Table 2 presents a univariate analysis of the plasma IL-6 levels based on the a priori cut point, the median, and other cut points based on the tertiles, quartiles, and the cut point that had the largest log-rank statistics. In the univariate analysis higher IL-6 levels were associated with shorter survival time. The median survival time was 19 months (95% CI, 17-22) among patients with low IL-6 levels (levels below or equal to 4.80) compared with 11 months among patients whose levels were greater than 4.80 (95% CI, 8-14; P = 0.00041; Table 2). Figure 1 shows the Kaplan-Meier survival distribution with IL-6 levels dichotomized by the median IL-6. Further, the median survival time was 17 months for patients whose IL-6 levels were ≤13.31 pg/mL compared with 7 months for patients whose IL-6 levels were >13.31 pg/mL, with an adjusted P value of <0.001 (Fig. 2). Roughly 24% of patients fell above this threshold.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2 Overall survival based on IL-6 level

 


View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1 IL-6 dichotomized by median. A Kaplan-Meier plot depicts the differences in survival seen in this patient population when separated by IL-6 level. Those patients with an IL-6 level above the median (>4.80 pg/mL) show a statistically worse survival (dashed line) compared with patients with an IL-6 level at or below the median (solid line).

 


View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2 IL-6 dichotomized by maximum rank statistics. The Kaplan-Meier plot here depicts the differences in survival seen in this patient population when separated by an IL-6 cut point of 13.31 pg/mL. This cut point was identified using the Maxstat program to select the statistical cut point with maximum significance. Those patients with an IL-6 level above 13.31 pg/mL show a statistically worse survival (dashed line) compared with patients with an IL-6 level at or below this cut point (solid line). Twenty-four percent of patients in this population were above this cut point.

 
The prognostic importance of IL-6 remained when adjusting for other potential prognostic factors, such as baseline PSA, LDH, and performance status. In multivariate analysis, IL-6 was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival, with elevated levels predictive of poor outcome at the median and Maxstat cut points. We calculated an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.01-1.89; P = 0.0432) for patients with IL-6 levels greater than the median (4.80 pg/mL) compared with patients with IL-6 levels less than or equal to the median (Table 3). The association of IL-6 level and survival became even stronger when we used a higher cut point (13.31 pg/mL). For this cut point the adjusted hazard ratio was 2.02 (95% CI, 1.36-2.98; P = 0.0005), which was the most significant factor in this multivariate model.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3 Multivariate proportional hazards analysis for predicting overall survival

 

   DISCUSSION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
HRCaP remains a fatal disease with a median survival that varies between 7.5 and 27.2 months, depending on current prognostic factors (6). Such variation may also reflect the heterogeneous biology of this disease. Because of the nature of clinical prostate cancer, metastatic tumor tissue is rarely obtained and difficult to assess. Consequently, little is known about the specific biological features of metastatic, hormone-refractory prostate tumors and the clinical relevance of tumor markers. Linking plasma levels of specific biological markers to prognosis may add insights to the biology of aggressive tumor phenotypes and identify rational targets for novel therapeutic approaches.

We report here results of a CALGB study that evaluated the prognostic significance of plasma IL-6 level. Prospectively collected plasma was collected in a multi-institutional study and linked to survival. We established cut points for evaluation prospectively (median, tertile, and quartile) and showed prognostic significance in both univariate and multivariate models using other known prognostic factors (LDH, PSA, and performance status). In addition, we identified retrospectively the optimal cut point (13.31 pg/mL) which represented 24% of the population.

One unexpected finding that emerged from this study is that IL-6 level did not show prognostic significance as a continuous variable. One explanation for this finding is that IL-6 levels showed a bimodal distribution that may reflect in some patients that other concomitant conditions, particularly those associated with inflammation, may result in mild elevations of IL-6. Such confounding factors might weaken the association of IL-6 with outcome, particularly at low levels. In contrast, we identified a subset of patients with elevated IL-6 levels by two cut points, the highest quartile and the Maxstat procedure, which show robust prognostic significance. Importantly, this prognostic association was independent of other known prognostic factors, which indirectly correlate with tumor burden (PSA level, LDH level, and performance status).

Our results raise the possibility that a subset of patients, representing the 25% highest IL-6 levels, may harbor a biologically more aggressive phenotype of prostate cancer. For instance, previous studies have shown that IL-6 can enhance the differentiation to a neuroendocrine phenotype that is thought to represent more aggressive biology (24–30). In addition, IL-6 has been identified as a relatively potent activator of androgen receptor in the absence of androgen, as well as synergistically in the presence of low levels of androgen (11, 12, 18, 31–37). As such, IL-6 acts as an autocrine growth factor for androgen-independent prostate cancer cell growth (7, 9, 38, 39). However, some studies suggest that IL-6 could also induce in a more differentiated grade of cancer, resulting in decreased proliferation and apoptosis (40, 41). These studies suggest that the ultimate cellular effect of IL-6 may be dependent on other genetic and molecular features of the cancer including downstream pathways such as signal transducers and activators of transcription-3 and phosphoinositide 3-kinase.

Finally, the dysregulation of IL-6 may result in paraneoplastic morbidity and early mortality. Previous studies show that IL-6 is a potent mediator of acute-phase response to injury and infection (11). Chronically elevated IL-6 levels in Castleman's disease are associated with a constellation of symptoms analogous to many patients with end-stage prostate cancer (15). However, if IL-6 represented such biology solely, we would anticipate that its prognostic significance would more closely correlate with LDH, performance status, and other measures of the condition of the host.

Based on these preliminary results, further confirmatory investigations into the prognostic value of plasma IL-6 level are warranted to evaluate its biological implications and clinical importance in relation to other prognostic biomarkers, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (5, 42) and chromogranin A levels.4 In particular, the robust preliminary findings using a cut point of 13.31 pg/mL should be confirmed using a separate, independent data set. Support of these findings would justify the clinical development of anti-IL-6-targeted treatment strategies in patients with prostate cancer.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank the CALGB staff, in particular Anne Battershell, for their help in manuscript preparation.


   FOOTNOTES
 
Grant support: National Cancer Institute grant CA31946 to the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Richard L. Schilsky, M.D., Chairman). The contents of this research are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute.

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.

4 Taplin M, et al. submitted for publication. Back

Received 8/ 9/04; revised 11/22/04; accepted 11/30/04.


   REFERENCES
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Dawson NA, Conaway M, Halabi S, et al. A randomized study comparing standard versus moderately high dose megestrol acetate for patients with advanced prostate carcinoma: cancer and leukemia group B study 9181. Cancer 2000;88:825–34.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Kantoff PW, Halabi S, Conaway M, et al. Hydrocortisone with or without mitoxantrone in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer: results of the cancer and leukemia group B 9182 study. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:2506–13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Small EJ, Meyer M, Marshall ME, et al. Suramin therapy for patients with symptomatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer: results of a randomized phase III trial comparing suramin plus hydrocortisone to placebo plus hydrocortisone. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1440–50.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Smith DC, Esper P, Strawderman M, Redman B, Pienta KJ. Phase II trial of oral estramustine, oral etoposide, and intravenous paclitaxel in hormone-refractory prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1664–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. George DJ, Kantoff PW. Prognostic indicators in hormone refractory prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am 1999;26:303–10, viii.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Halabi S, Small EJ, Kantoff PW, et al. Prognostic model for predicting survival in men with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1232–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Giri D, Ozen M, Ittmann M. Interleukin-6 is an autocrine growth factor in human prostate cancer. Am J Pathol 2001;159:2159–65.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Lee SO, Lou W, Hou M, de Miguel F, Gerber L, Gao AC. Interleukin-6 promotes androgen-independent growth in LNCaP human prostate cancer cells. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:370–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Okamoto M, Lee C, Oyasu R. Autocrine effect of androgen on proliferation of an androgen responsive prostatic carcinoma cell line, LNCAP: role of interleukin-6. Endocrinology 1997;138:5071–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Chung TD, Yu JJ, Spiotto MT, Bartkowski M, Simons JW. Characterization of the role of IL-6 in the progression of prostate cancer. Prostate 1999;38:199–207.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Heinrich PC, Behrmann I, Haan S, Hermanns HM, Muller-Newen G, Schaper F. Principles of interleukin (IL)-6-type cytokine signalling and its regulation. Biochem J 2003;374:1–20.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Ueda T, Bruchovsky N, Sadar MD. Activation of the androgen receptor N-terminal domain by interleukin-6 via MAPK and STAT3 signal transduction pathways. J Biol Chem 2002;277:7076–85.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Twillie DA, Eisenberger MA, Carducci MA, Hseih WS, Kim WY, Simons JW. Interleukin-6: a candidate mediator of human prostate cancer morbidity. Urology 1995;45:542–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Beck JT, Hsu SM, Wijdenes J, et al. Brief report: alleviation of systemic manifestations of Castleman's disease by monoclonal anti-interleukin-6 antibody. N Engl J Med 1994;330:602–5.[Free Full Text]
  15. Nishimoto N, Sasai M, Shima Y, et al. Improvement in Castleman's disease by humanized anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody therapy. Blood 2000;95:56–61.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Adler HL, McCurdy MA, Kattan MW, Timme TL, Scardino PT, Thompson TC. Elevated levels of circulating interleukin-6 and transforming growth factor-ß1 in patients with metastatic prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 1999;161:182–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Drachenberg DE, Elgamal AA, Rowbotham R, Peterson M, Murphy GP. Circulating levels of interleukin-6 in patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer. Prostate 1999;41:127–33.[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Kim J, Palmer JL, Finn L, et al. The pattern of serum markers in patients with androgen-independent adenocarcinoma of the prostate. 2000;5:97–103.
  19. Nakashima J, Tachibana M, Horiguchi Y, et al. Serum interleukin 6 as a prognostic factor in patients with prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:2702–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Kaplan EL MP. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958;53:457–81.[CrossRef]
  21. Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. analysis and examples. Br J Cancer 1977;35:1–39.[Medline]
  22. Hothorn TLB. On the exact distribution of maximally selected rank statistics. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. 2003:121–37.
  23. Cox D. Regression models and life tables (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 2003;B74:187–220.
  24. Kim J, Adam RM, Solomon KR, Freeman MR. Involvement of cholesterol-rich lipid rafts in interleukin-6-induced neuroendocrine differentiation of LNCaP prostate cancer cells. Endocrinology 2004;145:613–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Kim J, Adam RM, Freeman MR. Activation of the Erk mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway stimulates neuroendocrine differentiation in LNCaP cells independently of cell cycle withdrawal and STAT3 phosphorylation. Cancer Res 2002;62:1549–54.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Deeble PD, Murphy DJ, Parsons SJ, Cox ME. Interleukin-6- and cyclic AMP-mediated signaling potentiates neuroendocrine differentiation of LNCaP prostate tumor cells. Mol Cell Biol 2001;21:8471–82.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Zelivianski S, Verni M, Moore C, Kondrikov D, Taylor R, Lin MF. Multipathways for transdifferentiation of human prostate cancer cells into neuroendocrine-like phenotype. Biochim Biophys Acta 2001;1539:28–43.[Medline]
  28. Spiotto MT, Chung TD. STAT3 mediates IL-6-induced neuroendocrine differentiation in prostate cancer cells. Prostate 2000;42:186–95.[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Mori S, Murakami-Mori K, Bonavida B. Interleukin-6 induces G1 arrest through induction of p27(Kip1), a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, and neuron-like morphology in LNCaP prostate tumor cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1999;257:609–14.[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Qiu Y, Robinson D, Pretlow TG, Kung HJ. Etk/Bmx, a tyrosine kinase with a pleckstrin-homology domain, is an effector of phosphatidylinositol 3'-kinase and is involved in interleukin 6-induced neuroendocrine differentiation of prostate cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998;95:3644–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Ueda T, Mawji NR, Bruchovsky N, Sadar MD. Ligand-independent activation of the androgen receptor by interleukin-6 and the role of steroid receptor coactivator-1 in prostate cancer cells. J Biol Chem 2002;277:38087–94.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Lin DL, Whitney MC, Yao Z, Keller ET. Interleukin-6 induces androgen responsiveness in prostate cancer cells through up-regulation of androgen receptor expression. Clin Cancer Res 2001;7:1773–81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Chen T, Wang LH, Farrar WL. Interleukin 6 activates androgen receptor-mediated gene expression through a signal transducer and activator of transcription 3-dependent pathway in LNCaP prostate cancer cells. Cancer Res 2000;60:2132–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Hobisch A, Eder IE, Putz T, et al. Interleukin-6 regulates prostate-specific protein expression in prostate carcinoma cells by activation of the androgen receptor. Cancer Res 1998;58:4640–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Matsuda T, Junicho A, Yamamoto T, et al. Cross-talk between signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 and androgen receptor signaling in prostate carcinoma cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2001;283:179–87.[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Yang L, Wang L, Lin HK, et al. Interleukin-6 differentially regulates androgen receptor transactivation via PI3K-Akt, STAT3, and MAPK, three distinct signal pathways in prostate cancer cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2003;305:462–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Jia L, Kim J, Shen H, Clark PE, Tilley WD, Coetzee GA. Androgen receptor activity at the prostate specific antigen locus: steroidal and non-steroidal mechanisms. Mol Cancer Res 2003;1:385–92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Okamoto M, Lee C, Oyasu R. Interleukin-6 as a paracrine and autocrine growth factor in human prostatic carcinoma cells in vitro. Cancer Res 1997;57:141–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Chung TD, Yu JJ, Spiotto MT, Bartkowski M, Simons JW. Characterization of the role of IL-6 in the progression of prostate cancer. Prostate 1999;38:199–207.
  40. Chung TD, Yu JJ, Kong TA, Spiotto MT, Lin JM. Interleukin-6 activates phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase, which inhibits apoptosis in human prostate cancer cell lines. Prostate 2000;42:1–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  41. Spiotto MT, Chung TD. STAT3 mediates IL-6-induced growth inhibition in the human prostate cancer cell line LNCaP. Prostate 2000;42:88–98.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Bok RA, Halabi S, Fei DT, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor urine levels as predictors of outcome in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients: a cancer and leukemia group B study. Cancer Res 2001;61:2533–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Taplin M, George DJ, Halabi S, et al. Urology. In press.



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
A. J. Armstrong, E. S. Garrett-Mayer, Y.-C. O. Yang, R. de Wit, I. F. Tannock, and M. Eisenberger
A Contemporary Prognostic Nomogram for Men with Hormone-Refractory Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A TAX327 Study Analysis
Clin. Cancer Res., November 1, 2007; 13(21): 6396 - 6403.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Molecular Cancer TherapeuticsHome page
C. Van Sant, G. Wang, M. G. Anderson, O. J. Trask, R. Lesniewski, and D. Semizarov
Endothelin signaling in osteoblasts: global genome view and implication of the calcineurin/NFAT pathway
Mol. Cancer Ther., January 1, 2007; 6(1): 253 - 261.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
J. Domingo-Domenech, C. Oliva, A. Rovira, J. Codony-Servat, M. Bosch, X. Filella, C. Montagut, M. Tapia, C. Campas, L. Dang, et al.
Interleukin 6, a Nuclear Factor-{kappa}B Target, Predicts Resistance to Docetaxel in Hormone-Independent Prostate Cancer and Nuclear Factor-{kappa}B Inhibition by PS-1145 Enhances Docetaxel Antitumor Activity.
Clin. Cancer Res., September 15, 2006; 12(18): 5578 - 5586.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
E. J. Small, S. Halabi, P. Kantoff, A. D'Amico, W. Stadler, W. K. Kelley, J. Mohler, D. Bajorin, and N. J. Vogelzang
Activities and accomplishments of the cancer and leukemia group B genitourinary committee.
Clin. Cancer Res., June 1, 2006; 12(11): 3596s - 3600s.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
L. Wallner, J. Dai, J. Escara-Wilke, J. Zhang, Z. Yao, Y. Lu, M. Trikha, J. A. Nemeth, M. H. Zaki, and E. T. Keller
Inhibition of Interleukin-6 with CNTO328, an Anti-Interleukin-6 Monoclonal Antibody, Inhibits Conversion of Androgen-Dependent Prostate Cancer to an Androgen-Independent Phenotype in Orchiectomized Mice.
Cancer Res., March 15, 2006; 66(6): 3087 - 3095.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 George, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kantoff, P. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by George, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kantoff, P. W.

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