| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Cancer Therapy: Preclinical |
Departments of 1 Medicine and 2 Molecular Pharmacology and Chemistry, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
Requests for reprints: David B. Solit, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021. Phone: 646-422-4459; Fax: 253-423-3415; E-mail: solitd{at}mskcc.org.
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Experimental Design: To test these assertions, we compared combinations of paclitaxel and gefitinib using either intermittent or continuous dosing schedules in mice.
Results: We found that when used in combination with paclitaxel, pulsatile gefitinib was significantly superior to continuous dosing. When gefitinib was administered for one or two consecutive days before paclitaxel, much higher doses could be given safely. Two days of gefitinib treatment before paclitaxel was most effective, causing significantly greater mean tumor regression and a higher percentage of complete responses than other schedules.
Conclusions: The results suggest that the dose and schedule of an EGFR inhibitor required to effectively inhibit proliferation may differ from that required to stimulate apoptosis or to induce other effects. The former may require continuous EGFR inhibition to maintain cell cycle arrest, whereas sensitization to apoptosis may be optimally induced by profound but temporary inhibition of survival pathways. Our data suggest that the effects of receptor inhibition vary as a function of dose and schedule and that continuous administration of tyrosine kinase inhibitors may not be the best schedule with which to combine such agents with taxanes.
Key Words: Gefitinib Iressa EGFR Taxol Synergy xenografts
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Gefitinib (Iressa, ZD1839) is an orally active EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (5). At higher concentrations than those that inhibit EGFR, gefitinib also inhibits HER2. Gefitinib inhibits the growth of several cancer cell lines and xenografts but its clinical activity does not correlate with EGFR expression (49). In phase I/II trials of this agent, significant tumor regressions were observed in 10% to 20% of patients with chemotherapy-refractory nonsmall cell lung cancer (10, 11). Based on these observations, gefitinib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in this setting. Recently, somatic mutations in the EGFR gene have been identified in tumors of patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer who responded to gefitinib (12, 13). Preliminary data suggest that these mutations increase the affinity of gefitinib for the receptor and that they correlate with response to this agent. A second common EGFR mutation formed by an in-frame deletion and insertion of glycine at the fusion junction of the extracellular domain (EGFRvIII) is found in patients with glioblastoma (14). This mutation leads to constitutive receptor dimerization and, therefore, kinase activation. Although clinical activity has been reported with gefitinib in patients with glioblastoma, the predictive value of the EGFRvIII mutation for response to this agent remains unknown (15).
Anti-EGFR (cetuximab, Erbitux) and anti-HER2 (trastuzumab, Herceptin) antibodies have been shown to enhance the activity of cytotoxic chemotherapies in animal models (16, 17). These preclinical findings prompted clinical studies in which Herceptin was combined with paclitaxel (breast cancer) and Erbitux with irinotecan (colon cancer). These studies show that the trastuzumab/paclitaxel combination is significantly more effective than either agent alone in the treatment of breast cancer patients with HER2 amplification and the cetuximab/irinotecan combination is active in patients with irinotecan-refractory colon cancer (18, 19).
In mice, gefitinib has also been shown to synergize with cytotoxic chemotherapies (7). Based on these results, two large phase III clinical trials of gefitinib and chemotherapy were initiated in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer, but in both cases, these studies did not show an advantage of the combination over chemotherapy alone (20, 21). Studies of the EGFR inhibitor erlotinib (Tarceva) and chemotherapy also failed to show any advantage of the combination over single-agent therapy (22). Because gefitinib causes G1 growth arrest of EGFR-dependent tumor cells, we hypothesized that continuous administration of this agent may attenuate the effects of tubulin inhibitors such as paclitaxel that arrest cells in mitosis. We therefore treated xenograft-bearing mice with the paclitaxel/gefitinib combination using both pulsatile and continuous dosing schedules. We found that the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of gefitinib was higher when administered intermittently and that pulsatile dosing was significantly more active than continuous therapy.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Cell Culture. The human cancer cell lines BT-474, A431, and SK-LC-16 (American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, VA) and CWR22rv1 (Dr. Thomas Pretlow, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH) were maintained in a 1:1 mixture of DMEM:F-12 or RPMI supplemented with 2 mmol/L glutamine, 50 units/mL penicillin, 50 units/mL streptomycin, and 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (Gemini Bioproducts, Calabasa, CA) and incubated at 37°C in 5%CO2.
Animal Studies. Four- to six-week-old nu/nu athymic female mice were obtained from the National Cancer Institute-Frederick Cancer Center and maintained in ventilated caging. Experiments were carried out under an Institutional Animal Use and Care Committeeapproved protocol and institutional guidelines for the proper and humane use of animals in research were followed. BT-474 tumors were generated by injecting 1 x 107 BT-474 tumor cells together with reconstituted basement membrane (Matrigel, Collaborative Research, Bedford, MA). Before tumor cell inoculation, 0.72 mg/d 17ß-estradiol pellets (Innovative Research of America, Sarasota, FL) were inserted s.c. in the left flank. All other tumor models were maintained by s.c. transplantation as follows: after growth of a seed tumor, a cell suspension in RPMI medium was prepared from the excised tumor and centrifuged for 5 minutes at 1000 x g, and the pellet was mixed with Matrigel and aliquots of tumor cell suspension were then implanted in a group of mice.
When tumors reached 5 to 6 mm in diameter, mice were randomized among control and the various treatment groups. A stock solution of paclitaxel was prepared in a 1:1 solution of Cremophor EL (Sigma, St. Louis, MO) and ethanol at a concentration of 10 mg/kg. This solution was held at 4°C for no longer than 2 weeks and was diluted with saline before injection. Paclitaxel was given weekly by i.p. injection. Gefitinib was dissolved in distilled water with 0.5% lactic acid (85%, Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA) to prepare a 40 mg/mL stock solution, which was stored until use at 4°C. Gefitinib was given by p.o. gavage. Mice were sacrificed by CO2 euthanasia. The average tumor diameter (two perpendicular axes of the tumor were measured) was measured in control and treated groups by caliper. The data are expressed as the increase or decrease in tumor volume in cubic millimeters (mm3 = 4/3
r3). Differences between treatment arms were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test using the SAS 8.2 program.
Immunoblotting. To prepare lystates from xenograft tumors, flash-frozen tumor tissue was homogenized in modified radioimmunoprecipitation assay buffer (0.1% SDS, 1% NP40, 1% sodium deoxycholate, 10% glycerol, 1 mmol/L EDTA, 1 mmol/L ß-glycerolphosphate, 2.5 mmol/L sodium pyrophosphate, 2.5 mmol/L sodium orthovanadate, 10 mmol/L phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, and 10 µmol/L each leupeptin, aprotinin, and soybean trypsin inhibitor). Lysates were cleared by centrifugation, separated by SDS-PAGE, transferred to membrane, and immunoblotted using specific primary and secondary antibodies.
Immunohistochemistry. For immunohistochemical studies, xenograft tumors were washed with PBS and then fixed overnight in paraformaldahyde followed by dehydration in graded ethanols. Tissues were embedded in paraffin and sectioned at a thickness of 5 to 8 µm. To optimize antigen retrieval, slides were treated with 10 mmol/L citric acid at 100°C for 15 minutes. Immunohistochemical staining was done with antibodies directed against the following antigens: cleaved caspase 3 (Cell Signaling Technology, Beverly, MA) at 1 µg/mL and phospho-histone H3 (Upstate Cell Signaling Solutions) at 5 µg/mL.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Immunohistochemical analysis was done on tumors from mice sacrificed 12 and 24 hours following the week 2 paclitaxel treatment. In paclitaxel- and paclitaxel plus gefitinibtreated mice, evidence of mitotic block was observed with an increase in staining for phosphorylated histone H3 compared with control tumors or tumors treated with gefitinib alone. Large areas of necrosis were observed in tumors from animals treated with paclitaxel alone or with the combination, although no significant increase in apoptosis was observed at this particular time point. As we have reported previously, gefitinib enhancement did not correlate with the expression of EGFR or other HER kinases (Fig. 1). In addition, enhanced activity with the combination was observed in tumor models sensitive (BT-474 and MX-1) and in those resistant (SK-LC-16 and CWR22rv1) to gefitinib as a single agent.
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
When used in combination with paclitaxel, intermittent treatment may be more effective for several reasons. First, intermittent therapy alters the toxicity profile of the drug, thus allowing for gefitinib dose escalation. Given the role of EGFR in activating prosurvival/ antiapoptotic pathways, the increased dose intensity of gefitinib therapy may result in more profound inhibition of such pathways and, thus, greater sensitization to chemotherapy. Whereas inhibition of Ras/mitogen-activated protein kinase and Akt activity was seen in BT-474 and A431 tumors (data not shown) treated with gefitinib, such effects were not seen in all cell lines tested and therefore the particular downstream target responsible for sensitizing to chemotherapy remains unknown and may vary as a function of the complement of mutations found in different tumor types. Because all the xenograft models used in this study expressed wild-type EGFR, it is possible that gefitinib dose escalation is more relevant in such tumors and would provide little additional benefit in tumors with EGFR kinase domain mutations in which the binding affinity of gefitinib for EGFR is 6- to 10-fold higher (13).
Second, the improved efficacy with pulsatile gefitinib treatment may be in part due to antagonism between continuous gefitinib treatment and paclitaxel. In some tumor types, treatment with gefitinib leads to down-regulation of D cyclin expression and G1 growth arrest. Paclitaxel exerts its antitumor effects by stabilizing microtubules, and thus its cytotoxic effects occur during mitosis (26). Therefore, pretreatment with a cytostatic agent such as gefitinib before paclitaxel may protect cells from paclitaxel-induced apoptosis by preventing their entry into the mitotic phase of the cell cycle. Such sequence-specific antagonism has been reported in cell culture model systems with EGFR inhibitors and other biological agents that cause G1 growth arrest (27, 28). It is likely that the contribution of such antagonism to the overall response to the paclitaxel-gefitinib combination is also cell line dependent. This is because sensitization was observed in tumors such as SK-LC-16 and CWR22rv1, which are highly resistant to gefitinib alone, and suggests that the optimal timing of gefitinib and paclitaxel administration may vary as a function of the sensitivity of an individual patient's tumor to gefitinib.
The improved efficacy of the dose-escalated intermittent gefitinib-paclitaxel combination may also be due to non-EGFR or nontumor-cell-specific mechanisms. Specifically, higher doses of gefitinib may lead to inhibition of other targets within the cancer cell. Of particular interest would be HER2, which is inhibited with an IC50
10 times higher than that required to inhibit EGFR (5). Effects of the combination on tumor endothelia leading to impaired angiogenesis or to changes in paclitaxel transport associated with gefitinib treatment may also be contributing to the added benefit observed with dose escalation (4).
Finally, it is important to state what we believe these findings do and do not suggest. They do not suggest that high-dose, pulsatile administration of signaling inhibitors or even of EGFR inhibitors is always better than continuous administration. Furthermore, they do not predict that this schedule is likely to yield improved sensitization to all forms of cytotoxic therapy. The data only speak of paclitaxel; experiments with other agents have not yet been done. The data simply generate the hypothesis that pulsatile, high-dose administration with an EGFR inhibitor before paclitaxel administration results in enhanced antitumor activity.
We believe that there are two general lessons of this work. First, dose and schedule matter and must be studied in preclinical models in light of the mechanism one is trying to elicit. Preferably, these studies will occur before initiation of large-scale clinical trials and the data obtained will be used to plan these trials. EGFR and other components of the signaling apparatus are pleiotypic regulators of proliferation, cell survival, angiogenesis, and other aspects of cell physiology. The dose and schedule required to optimally inhibit each of these processes may differ, as illustrated in this study and in the work of Kerbel and others, who have shown that low-dose continuous (chronotropic) administration of cytotoxics may have more antiangiogenic activity than traditional schedules (29).
Second, it is generally believed that mechanism-based therapies are more likely to be effective than traditional ones and that they will work best in combination. However, the mechanism whereby the combinations work is rarely explored. Instead, the chemotherapeutic agent used in the combination is chosen because it is frequently used in the particular disease and the dose and schedule of each agent is determined empirically or from single-agent studies. For example, in the large phase III studies in which gefitinib was combined with standard chemotherapy for lung cancer, each agent was given at schedules determined empirically in single-agent studies (2022). We propose that realization of the potential of targeted therapies will require the testing in clinic of hypotheses generated in preclinical models that concern the biological basis for the antitumor activity of the combination.
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Note: D.B. Solit, Y. She, N. Rosen, and F.M. Sirotnak contributed equally to this work.
3 W. Pao, personal communication. ![]()
Received 7/ 8/04; revised 11/18/04; accepted 12/ 7/04.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A. J. Gonzales, K. E. Hook, I. W. Althaus, P. A. Ellis, E. Trachet, A. M. Delaney, P. J. Harvey, T. A. Ellis, D. M. Amato, J. M. Nelson, et al. Antitumor activity and pharmacokinetic properties of PF-00299804, a second-generation irreversible pan-erbB receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor Mol. Cancer Ther., July 1, 2008; 7(7): 1880 - 1889. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Sawai, S. Chandarlapaty, H. Greulich, M. Gonen, Q. Ye, C. L. Arteaga, W. Sellers, N. Rosen, and D. B. Solit Inhibition of Hsp90 Down-regulates Mutant Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Expression and Sensitizes EGFR Mutant Tumors to Paclitaxel Cancer Res., January 15, 2008; 68(2): 589 - 596. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Witham, M. R. Valenti, A. K. De-Haven-Brandon, S. Vidot, S. A. Eccles, S. B. Kaye, and A. Richardson The Bcl-2/Bcl-XL Family Inhibitor ABT-737 Sensitizes Ovarian Cancer Cells to Carboplatin Clin. Cancer Res., December 1, 2007; 13(23): 7191 - 7198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. V. Karamouzis, J. R. Grandis, and A. Argiris Therapies Directed Against Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor in Aerodigestive Carcinomas JAMA, July 4, 2007; 298(1): 70 - 82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
U. Gatzemeier, A. Pluzanska, A. Szczesna, E. Kaukel, J. Roubec, F. De Rosa, J. Milanowski, H. Karnicka-Mlodkowski, M. Pesek, P. Serwatowski, et al. Phase III Study of Erlotinib in Combination With Cisplatin and Gemcitabine in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial J. Clin. Oncol., April 20, 2007; 25(12): 1545 - 1552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Shrader, M. S. Pino, L. Lashinger, M. Bar-Eli, L. Adam, C. P.N. Dinney, and D. J. McConkey Gefitinib Reverses TRAIL Resistance in Human Bladder Cancer Cell Lines via Inhibition of AKT-Mediated X-Linked Inhibitor of Apoptosis Protein Expression Cancer Res., February 15, 2007; 67(4): 1430 - 1435. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. A. Helfrich, D. Raben, M. Varella-Garcia, D. Gustafson, D. C. Chan, L. Bemis, C. Coldren, A. Baron, C. Zeng, W. A. Franklin, et al. Antitumor Activity of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Gefitinib (ZD1839, Iressa) in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Cell Lines Correlates with Gene Copy Number and EGFR Mutations but not EGFR Protein Levels Clin. Cancer Res., December 1, 2006; 12(23): 7117 - 7125. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. H. Johnson Targeted therapies in combination with chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin. Cancer Res., July 15, 2006; 12(14): 4451s - 4457s. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. J. Friedmann, M. Caplin, B. Savic, T. Shah, C. J. Lord, A. Ashworth, J. A. Hartley, and D. Hochhauser Interaction of the epidermal growth factor receptor and the DNA-dependent protein kinase pathway following gefitinib treatment. Mol. Cancer Ther., February 1, 2006; 5(2): 209 - 218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. K. Schwartz and M. A. Shah Targeting the Cell Cycle: A New Approach to Cancer Therapy J. Clin. Oncol., December 20, 2005; 23(36): 9408 - 9421. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. I. Scher and C. L. Sawyers Biology of Progressive, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Directed Therapies Targeting the Androgen-Receptor Signaling Axis J. Clin. Oncol., November 10, 2005; 23(32): 8253 - 8261. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. R. Gandara and P. H. Gumerlock Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Plus Chemotherapy: Case Closed or Is the Jury Still Out? J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2005; 23(25): 5856 - 5858. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Gandara, S. Narayan, P. N. Lara Jr., Z. Goldberg, A. Davies, D. H.M. Lau, P. Mack, P. Gumerlock, and S. Vijayakumar Integration of Novel Therapeutics into Combined Modality Therapy of Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., July 1, 2005; 11(13): 5057s - 5062s. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |