This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Miselli, F.=C> Articles by Pilotti, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Miselli, F.=C> Articles by Pilotti, S.

c-Kit/PDGFRA Gene Status Alterations Possibly Related to Primary Imatinib Resistance in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

Authors' Affiliations: ¹ Experimental Molecular Pathology, Departments of Pathology, ² Surgery, and ³ Clinical Oncology, ⁴ Scientific Direction, Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy

Requests for reprints: Silvana Pilotti, Unit of Experimental Molecular Pathology, Fondazione Istituto di Ricerca e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via G. Venezian 1, 20133 Milano, Italy. Phone: 39-2-23902260; Fax: 39-2-23902877; E-mail: silvana.pilotti{at}istitutotumori.mi.it.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Purpose: To correlate morphologic changes with molecular, biochemical, and cytogenetic profiles in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) patients before and after imatinib treatment.

Experimental Design: We investigated 132 tumor samples obtained from 35 patients with advanced disease who underwent resective surgery after imatinib treatment according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group protocol. On the basis of imaging findings, 27 patients were responders and 8 progressors, and retaining this radiological subdivision, we analyzed posttreatment morphologic changes correlating them with molecular, biochemical, and cytogenetic analyses.

Results: On the basis of morphology (residual viable cellularity/proliferation markers), three subgroups were identified showing high, moderate, or low response. All of the progressing cases clustered in the low-response subgroup, whereas the responding cases were distributed in all three subgroups. The correlation between morphology and the molecular findings showed that secondary mutations segregated with the low-response subgroup, whereas c-Kit primary resistance mutations were randomly distributed in the three subgroups. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis of c-Kit/PDGFRA genes showed that all of the progressing cases were disomic. Referring to morphology, among the responding cases, a disomic pattern was mainly restricted to the high responders, whereas the moderate and low responders were aneusomic. Comparison of post-imatinib genomic profiles with the 23 available primary tumors showed that 17 cases carried the same cytogenetic pattern. Overall, 12 of the 27 primary tumors presented a gain/loss of c-Kit/PDGFRA gene copy number.

Conclusions: Our findings show that c-Kit/PDGFRA genomic alterations were present at disease onset in 1/3 of the examined cases. They therefore represent an early event possibly related to primary imatinib resistance in GISTs.

It seems that the mechanisms of secondary resistance are related to the selection of subclones carrying gain or loss copies of the c-Kit gene (1) or to mutant receptors in which amino acid residues (essential for the correct "fit" of the inhibitor molecule into the tyrosine kinase pocket) are changed by DNA point mutations (2–6), but the mechanisms underlying primary resistance remain only partially understood.

c-Kit and PDGFRA mutations have been found in 88% of GIST patients (7), but 60% to 65% of patients treated with imatinib show a partial response, and another 20% experience stable disease (8). These responses are highly dependent on the regions of c-Kit, and PDGFRA affected by mutations as primary resistance is frequently associated with a wild-type c-Kit, mutations in exon 9 or 17 of c-Kit, or a D842V mutation in PDGFRA (9–12); moreover, codon changes in the distal part of c-Kit exon 11 correlate with a significant increase in the risk of progression (13). Unlike chronic myeloid leukemia (14), the response of GISTs does not seem to be affected by multidrug protein expression (MDR; ref. 15). It has also been pointed out that careful analyses of imatinib resistance in GISTs will probably reveal other targets (8).

Taking advantage of a series of 35 patients with advanced disease who were surgically treated after receiving imatinib (27 responders and 8 progressors), we decided to investigate residual tumoral tissue by means of molecular, biochemical, and cytogenetic analyses and, when possible, to compare the results of sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analyses with those of the recovered corresponding primary tumors.

The results showed that the presence of a genetic instability could be considered as another mechanism of primary resistance, and that several GISTs are characterized by a genuine, constitutive alteration in the copy numbers of both c-Kit and PDGFRA in addition to mutually exclusive mutations.

	Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Patients and materials. The case material consisted of surgical samples obtained from a cohort of 35 patients (15 men and 20 women with a median age of 55 years) who underwent resection after receiving imatinib treatment (400 or 800 mg/day depending on their randomized dose in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group trial; ref. 16) as described in a previous paper (17). More precisely, the series included 27 clinically responding (group A) and 8 clinically progressing patients (group B) of the previous study (3 patients who received neoadjuvant treatment were excluded; ref. 17). Briefly, the responders were defined as patients who had received imatinib treatment for at least 12 months (the median preoperative duration of imatinib was 17 months; range, 7-39) in whom stable disease, or a partial or complete response was observed, and the progressors as those on imatinib treatment (median preoperative duration 21 months, range 6-39) showing progression after response on the basis of imaging findings. In group A, the best radiological responses at the time of surgery were stable disease in 1 patient, a partial response in 18 patients, a complete response in 7 patients, and a hepatic complete response combined with abdominal partial response in 1 patient. In group B, one patient showed primary and seven developed a limited secondary progression. In particular, two patients had two lesions in progression and five patients had only one lesion in progression (an abdominal nodule or a liver nodule in two cases each and a liver recurrence of a resected GIST with bladder invasion in one). No surgical clearing was achieved in any of the cases. Imatinib treatment was stopped 24 h before the surgical procedures, in accordance with the standard of care. None of the patients had previously received chemotherapy. Written informed consent was obtained from all of the patients.

The 35 surgical specimens came from advanced and/or metastatic GISTs: 2 primary tumors (esophagus case 3 and small intestine case 21) with metastases, 29 abdominal recurrences (10 associated with liver metastases), and 4 liver metastases (Tables 1 and 2 ). On the basis of the clinical records, the primary tumors (32 treated elsewhere and 3 in our institution) were located in the esophagus in 1 case, stomach in 5, small intestine in 19, colon in 2, rectum in 4, and other sites in 4. The GIST diagnosis was confirmed by means of immunohistochemical analysis (on referred slides in 32 cases and institutional slides in 3) using antibodies against CD117, CD34, desmin, and actin, as previously described (18). Thirty of the tumors were of the spindle cell type, two were epithelioid, and three had a mixed morphology.

Pathology: immunophenotyping and histologic response assessment. The immunohistochemical analyses were made using 2-µm, formalin-fixed, and paraffin-embedded tumoral sections of representative samples of the surgical specimens using antibodies against CD117, CD34, desmin, and actin as previously described (18). Moreover, all of the samples were immunoperoxidase phenotyped using a Ki-67 antibody (clone Mib-1; DAKO, Carpinteria, CA; diluted 1:200), and antigen was retrieved by pretreating the sections in citrate buffer for 15 min at 95°C in an autoclave.

The microscopic histologic response was scored on the basis of the residual viable cell component as high in the presence of acellular areas or <10% residual tumoral cells; moderate in the presence of 10% to <50% residual tumoral cells; and mild/low when the cell component was >50% to 90%.

To determine cell proliferation, the mitotic and Ki-67 labeling indices were counted under a microscope. The mitotic index per 50 high-power fields was assessed in each of the cellular cases on the basis of the proposed guidelines (ref. 19; see Tables 1 and 2); the Ki-67 labeling index was defined as low when nuclear labeling was observed in <10% of the tumoral cells, moderate when it was observed in 10% to 20%, and high when it was observed in >30%.

Molecular analysis. A total of 72 paraffin-embedded samples from 34 of the surgical specimens were analyzed for c-Kit and PDGFRA mutations; the remaining specimen (case 7) contained no viable tumoral cells (100% regression). We also analyzed samples of primary tumor specimens obtained from 30 patients before imatinib treatment (shown in Tables 1 and 2, in bold).

The tumoral samples had various response rates (for details, see Tables 1 and 2 and the corresponding legends) and were isolated by microdissection for the molecular investigations (18); the DNA was extracted following standard procedures (20). c-Kit exons 9, 11, 13, 14, and 17 were amplified using the following primer sequences and annealing temperatures (designed): exon 9 (5'-ATTTATTTTCCTAGAGTAAGCCAGGG-3' and 5'-ATCATGACTGATATGGTAGACAGAGC-3' at 65°C), exon 11 (5'-ATTATTAAAAGGTGATCTATTTTT-3' and 5'-ACTGTTATGTGTACCCAAAAAG-3' at 54°C), exon 13 (5'-CACCATCACCACTTACTTGTTGTCT-3' and 5'-GACAGACAATAAAAGGCAGCTTGGAC-3' at 67°C), exon 14 (5'-TCTCACCTTCTTTCTAACCTTTTC-3' and 5'-AACCCTTATGACCCCATGAA-3' at 54°C), and exon 17 (5'-TGAACATCATTCAAGGCGTACTTTTG-3' and 5'-TTGAAACTAAAAATCCTTTGCAGGAC-3' at 65°C). The primers and PCR conditions used to amplify PDGFRA exons 12, 14, and 18 have been previously described (21, 22). The sequencing was carried out using an automated 377 DNA Sequencer ABIPRISM-PE, Applied Biosystems (Foster City, CA) following standard protocols.

Biochemical analysis: protein extraction and immunoprecipitation/Western blotting. Immunoprecipitation and Western blot analyses were only done when sufficient frozen material was available. The proteins were extracted, and 0.5 mg of protein lysates were immunoprecipitated for KIT and blotted as previously described (23).

FISH analyses. Representative areas were selected from 51 tumoral samples of 30 surgical specimens (22 from group A and 8 from group B) under microscopic control and analyzed to define the allelic status of the c-Kit and PDGFRA genes. We also analyzed samples of primary tumor specimens obtained from 30 patients before imatinib treatment (shown in Tables 1 and 2, in bold).

BAC clones RP11-586A2 (c-Kit gene, 4q12) and RP11-231C18 (PDGFRA gene, 4q12) were used as the FISH probes, and CEP4 labeled with Spectrum Orange (SO); (Vysis, Downers Groove, IL) as the control probe, as previously described (23). The probe mixtures prepared for dual-color FISH were Spectrum Green (SG)-labeled cKIT + SO-labeled CEP4, and SG-labeled PDGFRA + SO-labeled CEP4. Each mixture was placed on the preselected target area under microscopic control, covered with a coverslip, and sealed with rubber cement.

The samples were denaturated and hybridized in HYBrite Thermoblock (Vysis) and mounted using 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole II antifade (Vysis). The slides were observed using a Zeiss Axioscope equipped with a 100-W mercury lamp and 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole, SG, and SO filters (Vysis), and the signals were counted in at least 40 nuclei per slide under 600x/1,000x magnification. The images were acquired using a cooled CHOU 4912 camera (Applied Imaging Corporation, San Jose, CA) and McProbe software (Vysis).

One hundred interphase nuclei were evaluated for each selected area, and the ratio of KIT/PDGFRA to CEP4 was calculated. The cytogenetic pattern was classified as disomic when 2 chromosome 4 were present in more than 90% of cells; trisomic when there were 3 chromosome 4 in more than 10% of cells; low polysomic when 4 chromosome 4 were present in more than 40% of cells; high polysomic when there were 4 chromosome 4 in 40% cells; and gene amplification when the gene/chromosome ratio was >2, or when 15 gene copies were present in 10% of cells (24, 25).

	Results

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Pathology: immunophenotyping and histologic response assessment
After morphologic and immunophenotypical confirmation of the diagnosis of GIST, 132 samples/nodules from the 35 surgical specimens were assessed for tumor response on the basis of residual cellularity, the mitotic index, and Ki-67 labeling for each nodule in each case (the details regarding viable cellularity are shown in Tables 1 and 2).

Retaining the clinical/radiological division of responding and progressing cases, the following distribution was observed.

Responding cases. Thirteen cases fell into the high histologic response group (high responders or the low cellular/low-proliferating group) showing 0% to <50% residual viable tumoral cells in addition to no mitosis, no obvious immunostaining, or Ki-67 labeling in <10% of the cells. Eight cases showed a moderate histologic response coupled with similar mitotic and Ki-67 features to those of the first group, i.e., >50% to 90% tumoral cells, no mitoses, Ki-67 immunostaining in <10% of cells (moderate responders or the cellular/low-proliferating group). Six cases showed a mild/low histologic response, but with a mitotic index of >10/50 high-power fields (range 12-50) and Ki-67 immunostaining in 20% to 30% or >30% of cells; these were considered low responders or the cellular/high proliferating group.

Progressing cases. All eight cases were low responders (cellular/high-proliferating group).

Molecular analysis
Primary mutations. A total of 27 out of 34 patients (regardless of group) showed a mutated c-Kit exon 11 (79.5%): 13 deletions (48.2%), 4 point mutations (14.8%), and 10 cases with both alterations (37%). Of the remaining seven patients, three carried a c-Kit exon 9 mutation (8.8%), and four expressed the wild-type sequence (11.7%). No PDGFRA mutations were detected. All of the mutations are listed in Tables 1 and 2.

Secondary mutations. One group A patient (case 27) showed the previously reported imatinib-acquired mutation V654A in c-Kit exon 13. This was also detected in three group B patients (cases 32, 34, and 35), whereas one group B patient showed the known T670I substitution in c-Kit exon 14 (case 28), and another patient (case 31) carried the mutation D820N in exon 17.

Before imatinib treatment (primary tumors). In all of the analyzed cases for which primary tumor samples were available, the same primary c-Kit mutation was detected in each sample before and after imatinib treatment (shown in Tables 1 and 2, in bold).

Biochemical analysis
Eight cases for which cryopreserved material was available were analyzed for KIT receptor expression and phosphorylation by means of total protein extract immunoprecipitation experiments (see Tables 1 and 2 and their legends). As shown in Fig. 1A and B , a highly expressed and phosphorylated KIT (++P; +++P) was present in the samples in both the cellular/low-proliferating and cellular/high-proliferating groups, regardless of whether the patient were in group A (cases 14, 19, 20, and 25) or group B (cases 28, 29, 30, and 31) patients.

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. KIT expression/activation in samples with residual viable cellular component. A and B, top, IP/WB experiments. A and B, bottom, H&E staining of the corresponding frozen sections employed for protein extraction. For each sample, total protein extracts were immunoprecipitated with anti-KIT antibody, run on gel and blotted with anti-phosphotyrosine antibody (anti p-Tyr) to evaluate receptor phosphorylation status and with anti-KIT antibody (anti KIT) to evaluate receptor expression. Lane C+, positive control (559 cell line). Numbers correspond to the cases listed in Tables 1 and 2, and letters correspond to the histologic response assessment of the analyzed samples (residual tumoral cells; c, 50-90%; d, 90%).

Group A: Subgroup with a high histologic response. In each case, one sample was examined. All of the samples carrying a c-Kit mutation (cases 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11) showed disomy of chromosome 4; case 12 carrying wild-type c-Kit showed trisomy.

Group A: Subgroup with a moderate response. The analyses were made of four nodules in two cases, three nodules in four cases, and two nodules in one case; case 18 was not evaluable. All of the nodules showed the same cytogenetic pattern except those from case 16, which showed a disomic condition (ratio, 0.5) in three nodules and low polysomy with the same ratio in one. Case 21 was normal disomic; case 19 showed a disomic condition associated with deletion (ratio, 0.5); cases 14, 17, and 20 showed low polysomy.

Group A: Subgroup with a low response. One nodule was analyzed in two cases (22 and 27) and more than one in the remaining three cases. No material was available for case 23. Both of the nodules of case 24 showed a chromosome 4 trisomic pattern; case 25 showed high polysomy in each of the three nodules examined; and case 26 showed high polysomy in three nodules and disomy in one. Case 27 carried a secondary mutation and, like other cases in group B, showed a disomic pattern.

Group B: Subgroup with a low response. Seven of the eight cases showed a normal disomic pattern; case 29 showed high polysomy of chromosome 4 associated with a gene deletion (ratio, 0.5).

Before imatinib treatment (primary tumors). Thirty primary tumors were analyzed. A total of 12 of the 22 responding cases (group A) showed a chromosome 4 disomic pattern with a ratio of 1; one showed a disomic pattern with a ratio of 0.5; two showed a trisomic pattern; six showed chromosome 4 polysomy (low or high); and one was not evaluable. Four of the eight progressing cases (group B) showed a normal disomic pattern; two showed a polysomic pattern, one of which coupled with a gene deletion (ratio, 0.5); and two cases were not evaluable.

Group A: Subgroup with a high histologic response. Six cases showed normal disomy (cases 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11), two cases trisomy (cases 4 and 12), and two low polysomy (cases 1 and 2).

Group A: Subgroup with a moderate response. Four cases showed normal disomy (cases 14, 16, 18, and 21); case 19 was disomic with a ratio of 0.5; two cases (cases 17 and 20) showed low polysomy; and case 15 showed high polysomy.

Group A: Subgroup with a low response. In this subgroup, two cases showed a normal disomic pattern (cases 22 and 23); case 25 showed low polysomy; one case was not evaluable (case 27).

Group B: Subgroup with a low response. Four of the eight cases showed a normal disomic pattern (cases 30, 31, 32, and 34); cases 29 and 33 showed polysomy of chromosome 4 with gene deletion (respectively, high with a ratio of 0.5, and low with a ratio of >0.5 and <1); two cases (cases 28 and 35) were not evaluable.

Correlation between pre- and post-imatinib cytogenetic profiles. The available material allowed us to make a pre- and post-imatinib correlation in 23 cases (see Tables 1 and 2, rows in bold). Seventeen cases presented the same cytogenetic pattern: 11 normal disomy; 1 disomy with a ratio of 0.5; and the remaining 5 aneusomy (the high polysomy in case 29 was associated with gene deletion). Figures 2 , 3 , and 4 , respectively, show cases 17, 19, and 29 and the corresponding pre- and post-imatinib histologic sections.

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. FISH analysis in pre and post-imatinib samples. Group A, moderate responder case (case 17). The same cytogenetic profile, i.e., low polysomy, is observed in the spindle cell primary tumor (PRE) and in post-imatinib samples [POST(d) and (c)].

View larger version (34K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. FISH analysis in pre- and post-imatinib samples. Group A, moderate responder case (case 19). The same cytogenetic pattern, i.e., disomy associated with genes deletion (ratio, 0.5), is present in the epithelioid featuring primary tumor and in both post-imatinib spindle cell tumoral samples [POST(d) and (c)].

View larger version (36K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. FISH analysis in pre- and post-imatinib samples. Group B, low responder case (case 29). High polysomy of chromosome 4 associated with deletion of c-Kit and PDGFRA (ratio, 0.5) is present in spindle cell primary tumor (PRE) and in post-Imatinib samples [POST(d)].

	Discussion

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
On the basis of published reports, histologic examinations of resected lesions after imatinib treatment in GISTs have shown a partial response in the majority of cases and a complete response in only 12% (26, 27). The partial responses are due to c-Kit genomic amplifications or c-Kit/PDGFRA secondary mutations leading to late resistance to imatinib treatment, as well as to the presence of c-Kit or PDGFRA primary resistance mechanisms (9). Mutation-based secondary resistance will only be overcome by next-generation inhibitors (28), but the use of high-dose regimens may be beneficial in cases of primary resistance (13).

We describe a further biological mechanism possibly responsible for drug resistance, which is evident in apparently still clinically responding patients who nevertheless show morphologic, biochemical, and cytogenetic evidence of imatinib resistance.

Starting with morphology, our retrospective review not only shows that the progressing group showed a low response (all cellular/high proliferation rate cases), but also that the post-imatinib morphologic changes in the responding cases covered high responders (the low cellular/low-proliferating subgroup), moderate responders (the cellular/low-proliferating subgroup), and low responders (the cellular/high-proliferating subgroup), whose morphologic and proliferation characteristics were similar to those of the progressing cases.

In molecular terms, six of the eight progressing cases (the cellular/high-proliferating subgroup) showed changes related to resistance: one with a primary resistant mutation (case 30) and five with secondary mutations. However, with the exception of patient 27 who showed a secondary mutation and (as expected) fell into the low-response subgroup, the distribution of the so-called c-Kit primary resistance mutations (9) was similar in all of the three subgroups of responding cases.

The genomic profile of c-Kit and PDGFRA was disomic in all but one of the progressing cases (case 29 with high polysomy associated with hemizygosity), but segregated into three main profiles in the responding cases: disomic in all but one high responder subgroup, and mainly aneusomic in the moderate and low responder subgroups, with evidence of numerical variations in of both c-Kit and PDGFRA in 9 of the 12 cases.

It is worth noting that, in terms of morphology/proliferation markers and KIT expression/activation, the moderate responding (cellular/low proliferating) subgroup reflects the recently described pattern observed in GIST cell lines (29) and the mouse model carrying KIT^V558/+(30), which have been proved to be responsive to imatinib and in which one of the main effect of imatinib is suppressed cell growth. Assuming that the tumoral cells from the GIST cell lines, the mouse model, and our samples all depend on activated KIT receptors, our data seem to fit preclinical models. However, at odds with preclinical experimental findings indicating the switching off of activated KIT receptor, signs of KIT activation were observed in the cases in our moderate and low-response subgroups regardless of their quiescent or proliferating status, thus not only indicating that the tumors are still dependent on KIT activation, but also that both cellular subgroups are likely to be less sensitive to imatinib. This is not entirely unexpected because the efficiency of imatinib not only depends on the inhibition of mutation-activated KIT but also on the blockade of other mechanisms supporting tumoral growth, such as the gain or loss of c-Kit/PDGFRA genes or the activation of signal transduction pathways independently of the receptors. Consequently, crossover the recommended imatinib dose could be more effective in cases carrying c-Kit/PDGFRA alterations, although further studies of a larger series with more homogeneous disease presentations and treatments could better clarify this point. In any event, we cannot exclude the possibility that the KIT activation may have been related to KIT reactivation due to imatinib discontinuation before surgery.

In each individual case, the same genetic deregulation profile was observed in all of the tumoral nodules regardless of the morphologic response pattern, thus suggesting that these alterations may represent an early event. This hypothesis, which is further supported by very preliminary data showing the same profile in pre- and post-imatinib tumoral samples from five patients, prompted us to recover as many of the primary tumors as possible to compare the pre- and post-imatinib molecular/cytogenetic profiles.

No changes were observed at the molecular level, but comparison of the pre- and post-imatinib c-Kit/PDGFRA gene profiles of 23 cases (shown in bold row in Tables 1 and 2) showed the normal disomic pattern in 11 paired samples and the same abnormal genetic pattern in six cases (cases 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 29), which indicates that the cytogenetic aberrations were already present at the time of disease onset and suggests that they may represent a mechanism of primary resistance. Furthermore, cases 14, 16, and 25 showed a gain/loss in the c-Kit gene copy number in the post-imatinib samples, a change that has previously been reported by Debiec-Richter (1) and which is consistent with a possible nonmutation-based mechanism of secondary resistance. Finally, cases 1, 2, and 33 changed from low polysomy to disomy which, to the best of our knowledge, has not been reported before and for which we do not yet have an explanation. Cumulatively, a gain/loss of c-Kit/PDGFRA gene copy number occurred in about 1/3 of the cases (12 of the 27 evaluable primary tumors), which suggests that it is not a chance finding but indicates a genuine and constitutive alteration that, in addition to mutually exclusive c-Kit/PDGFRA mutations, characterizes a number of GISTs.

Interestingly, unlike c-Kit and PDGFRA mutations, genomic alterations always seem to involve both genes and characteristically show the same genetic profile. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the cases characterized by secondary mutations always segregate with the disomic pattern. Accordingly, in an analysis of a group of 33 patients with secondary resistance, most (22 cases) of whom were characterized by secondary mutations, only two cases were found to have low levels of c-Kit amplification (11). Our results seem to justify investigating whether GISTs carrying gene copy number abnormalities are not inclined to develop secondary mutations, and whether nonmutation-based secondary resistance is part of the primary tumor make-up.

We did not find any correlations between the cytogenetic alterations and outcomes in our group of responding patients, possibly because of the retrospective nature of our analysis and the heterogeneity of the patients in terms of the preoperative duration of imatinib treatment, doses, tumor phase, surgical clearing, etc. Further studies are therefore essential to clarify the clinical role of these cytogenetic alterations. Moreover, the radiological evaluation also did not always correlate with the biological response and, thus, with the molecular profile of the tumors.

In conclusion, our results underline the remarkable cytogenetic heterogeneity of the tumors in the responding patients possibly related to a mechanism of late primary resistance. If these data are confirmed, assessments of GIST cytogenetic make-up and mutational analyses can be expected to become a significant part of GIST management.

	Acknowledgments

 
We thank the following pathologists who kindly contributed case material of preimatinib tumors: C. De Gaetani (Azienda ospedaliera-Policlinico, Modena), M. Albrizio (Azienda ospedaliera "Di Venere-Giovanni XXIII", Bari), M. Fabio (Ospedale Sant'Orsola, Ordine Ospedaliero Fatebenefratelli, Brascia), E. D'Amore (Unità Locale Socio Sanitaria, Vicenza), G. De Dominicis (Ospedale Cardarelli, Napoli), M. Assi (Ospedale Civile, Legnano), F. Stella (Ospedale Civile, Voghera), M. Barberis [Casa di Cura "Santa Maria", Castellanza (Varese)], M. Cornaggia Medici [Ospedale Casa di Cura "San Carlo", Paderno Dugnano (Milan)]; E. Schiaffino (Azienda Ospedaliera "San Carlo Borromeo," Milano), M. Filotico (Studi Diagnostici Specializzati, Lecce), C. Patriarca [Presidio ospedaliero, Vizzolo Predabissi, Melegnano (Milan)]; F. Giangaspero (Ospedale M. Bufalini, Cesena), A. Parma (Ospedale Riuniti, Bergamo), F. Menestrina (Policlinico G.B. Rossi, Verona), R. Ribacchi (Azienda ospedaliera "R. Silvestrini", Perugia), F. Crivelli [Ospedale S. Antonio Abate, Gallarate (Varese)], M. Cazzaniga [Ospedale Civile di Legnano, Po di Magenta (Magenta)], E. Padolecchia (Casa di Cura "Poliambulanza", Brescia), G. Baruzzi (Ospedale Maggiore, Bologna); R. Colombari [Ospedale Cazzavillan, Arzignano (Vicenza)], V. Mambelli (Ospedale C.G. Mazzoni, Ascoli Piceno), R.M. Bona [Ospedale Miulli, Acquaviva delle Fonti (Bari)], M. Verroli (Presidio ospedaliero di Eboli, Salerno).

	Footnotes

 
Grant support: Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (S. Pilotti and E. Tamborini) and the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Finalizzata 2004).

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: F. Miselli and P. Casieri contributed equally to the study. E. Tamborini and S. Pilotti are senior coauthors.

Received 7/18/06; revised 12/11/06; accepted 12/29/06.

	References

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

1. Debiec-Rychter M, Cools J, Dumez H, et al. Mechanisms of resistance to imatinib mesylate in gastrointestinal stromal tumors and activity of the PKC412 inhibitor against imatinib-resistant mutants. Gastroenterology 2005;128:270–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
2. Chen LL, Trent JC, Wu EF, et al. A missense mutation in KIT kinase domain 1 correlates with imatinib resistance in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Cancer Res 2004;64:5913–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Antonescu CR, Besmer P, Guo T, et al. Acquired resistance to imatinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor occurs through secondary gene mutation. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:4182–90.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Wardelmann E, Merkelbach-Bruse S, Pauls K, et al. Polyclonal evolution of multiple secondary KIT mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors under treatment with imatinib mesylate. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12:1743–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Tamborini E, Pricl S, Negri T, et al. Functional analyses and molecular modeling of two c-Kit mutations responsible for imatinib secondary resistance in GIST patients. Oncogene 2006;25:6140–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
6. Carter TA, Wodicka LM, Shah NP, et al. Inhibition of drug-resistant mutants of ABL, KIT, and EGF receptor kinases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005;102:11011–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Corless CL, Fletcher JA, Heinrich MC. Biology of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3813–25.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Borden EC, Baker LH, Bell RS, et al. Soft tissue sarcomas of adults: state of the translational science. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:1941–56.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Tornillo L, Terracciano LM. An update on molecular genetics of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Clin Pathol 2006;59:557–63.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Heinrich MC, Corless CL, Demetri GD, et al. Kinase mutations and imatinib response in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4342–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Heinrich MC, Corless CL, Blanke CD, et al. Molecular correlates of imatinib resistance in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4764–74.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Frost MJ, Ferrao PT, Hughes TP, Ashman LK. Juxtamembrane mutant V560GKit is more sensitive to imatinib (STI571) compared with wild-type c-kit whereas the kinase domain mutant D816VKit is resistant. Mol Cancer Ther 2002;1:1115–24.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Debiec-Rychter M, Sciot R, Le Cesne A, et al. Kit mutations and dose selection for imatinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:1093–103.[CrossRef][Medline]
14. Mahon FX, Belloc F, Lagarde V, et al. MDR1 gene overexpression confers resistance to imatinib mesylate in leukemia cell line models. Blood 2003;101:2368–73.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Theou N, Gil S, Devocelle A, et al. Multidrug resistance proteins in gastrointestinal stromal tumors: site-dependent expression and initial response to imatinib. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:7593–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Verweij J, Casali PG, Zalcberg J, et al. Progression-free survival in gastrointestinal stromal tumors with high-dose imatinib: randomised trial. Lancet 2004;364:1127–34.[CrossRef][Medline]
17. Gronchi A, Fiore M, Miselli F, et al. Surgery of residual disease following molecular-targeted therapy with imatinib mesylate in advanced/matastatic GIST. Ann Surg. In press.
18. Perrone F, Tamborini E, Dagrada GP, et al. 9p21 locus analysis in high-risk gastrointestinal stromal tumors characterized for c-kit and platelet-derived growth factor receptor gene alterations. Cancer 2005;104:159–69.[CrossRef][Medline]
19. Fletcher CD, Berman JJ, Corless C, et al. Diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a consensus approach. Hum Pathol 2002;33:459–65.[CrossRef][Medline]
20. Rubin BP, Singer S, Tsao C, et al. Kit activation is a ubiquitous feature of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Cancer Res 2001;61:8118–21.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Hirota S, Ohashi A, Nishida T, et al. Gain-of-function mutations of platelet-derived growth factor receptor gene in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Gastroenterology 2003;125:660–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
22. Lasota J, Stachura J, Miettinen M. GISTs with PDGFRA exon 14 mutations represent subset of clinically favourable gastric tumors with epithelioid morphology. Lab Invest 2006;86:94–100.[CrossRef][Medline]
23. Lagonigro MS, Tamborini E, Negri T, et al. PDGFR, PDGFRß and KIT expression/activation in conventional chondrosarcoma. J Pathol 2006;208:615–23.[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Hirsch FR, Varella-Garcia M, McCoy J, et al. Increased epidermal growth factor receptor gene copy number detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization associates with increased sensitivity to gefitinib in patients with bronchioloalveolar carcinoma subtypes: a Southwest Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:6838–45.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Chung CH, Ely K, McGavran L, et al. Increased epidermal growth factor receptor gene copy number is associated with poor prognosis in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4170–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Bumming P, Andersson J, Meis-Kindblom JM, et al. Neoadjuvant, adjuvant and palliative treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) with imatinib: a centre-based study of 17 patients. Br J Cancer 2003;89:460–4.[CrossRef][Medline]
27. Scaife CL, Hunt KK, Patel SR, et al. Is there a role for surgery in patients with "unresectable" cKIT+ gastrointestinal stromal tumors treated with imatinib mesylate? Am J Surg 2003;186:665–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
28. Fricker J. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors: the next generation. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:621.[CrossRef][Medline]
29. Noma K, Naomoto Y, Gunduz M, et al. Effects of imatinib vary with the types of KIT-mutation in gastrointestinal stromal tumor cell lines. Oncol Rep 2005;14:645–50.[Medline]
30. Rossi F, Ehlers I, Agosti V, et al. Oncogenic Kit signaling and therapeutic intervention in a mouse model of gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006;103:12843–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Mussi, H.-U. Schildhaus, A. Gronchi, E. Wardelmann, and P. Hohenberger Therapeutic Consequences from Molecular Biology for Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients Affected by Neurofibromatosis Type 1 Clin. Cancer Res., July 15, 2008; 14(14): 4550 - 4555. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. P. Agaram, M. P. Laquaglia, B. Ustun, T. Guo, G. C. Wong, N. D. Socci, R. G. Maki, R. P. DeMatteo, P. Besmer, and C. R. Antonescu Molecular Characterization of Pediatric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors Clin. Cancer Res., May 15, 2008; 14(10): 3204 - 3215. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Miselli, F.=C> Articles by Pilotti, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Miselli, F.=C> Articles by Pilotti, S.