Clinical Cancer Research CR Surrogrates Frontiers in Basic Cancer Research
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 Moran, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Beer, D. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Moran, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Beer, D. G.
Clinical Cancer Research Vol. 8, 3803-3812, December 2002
© 2002 American Association for Cancer Research


Molecular Oncology, Markers, Clinical Correlates

RANTES Expression Is a Predictor of Survival in Stage I Lung Adenocarcinoma1

Christopher J. Moran, Douglas A. Arenberg, Chiang-Ching Huang, Thomas J. Giordano, Dafydd G. Thomas, David E. Misek, Guoan Chen, Mark D. Iannettoni, Mark B. Orringer, Samir Hanash and David G. Beer2

Section of General Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery [C. J. M., M. D. I., G. C., M. B. O., D. G. B.], Section of Pulmonary Medicine and Critical Care, Department of Medicine [D. A. A.], Biostatistics [C-C. H.], Pathology [T. J. G., D. G. T.], Pediatrics [D. E. M., S. H.], University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109


    ABSTRACT
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Purpose: The presence of an active lymphocytic response (ALR) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors has previously been associated with a more favorable prognosis. The purpose of this study was to identify differences in global gene expression profiles between stage I NSCLC tumors with ALR (ALR+) and those without ALR (ALR-).

Experimental Design: Sixty-three stage I lung adenocarcinomas were analyzed for gene expression using Affymetrix oligonucleotide microarrays. Tumors were stratified into ALR+ and ALR- groups and compared for statistically significant differences in gene expression. Identified candidate genes were validated using both ELISA and immunohistochemistry. Follow-up data for these patients were collected and used to assess patient prognosis.

Results: Of the 63 tumors studied, 27 were ALR+ and 36 were ALR-. A total of 303 genes showed significant differences in gene expression between the two populations (t test, P < 0.02). Three of the genes overexpressed by ALR+ tumors were the chemokines: small inducible cytokine A4 (MIP-1ß), RANTES, and interferon inducible protein 10 (IP-10). Immunohistochemistry analysis showed that the tumor cells expressed these cytokines. ELISA showed that MIP-1ß and RANTES were overexpressed at the protein level by ALR+ tumors. Univariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that RANTES was a predictor of survival in stage I lung adenocarcinomas (P = 0.002).

Conclusion: When tested in the Cox univariate proportional hazards model, RANTES expression by lung adenocarcinoma cells is a predictor of survival in stage I NSCLC patients and may be useful as a prognostic factor in lung cancer.


    INTRODUCTION
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death and is the second most common malignancy in both men and women. Surgery, the mainstay of therapy for NSCLC,3 accounts for only a 14% 5-year survival in all patients (1) . In patients who undergo resection, no single variable has been shown to more strongly predict survival than the tumor-node-metastasis staging system (2) . Given the variability of survival within a given stage, many have searched for alternative or adjunctive variables to more accurately predict patient prognosis. These variables have been both of a clinical and a molecular nature (3, 4, 5, 6) .

Patients who have an ALR+ within their NSCLC tumor demonstrate an improved prognosis compared with those patients without ALR (ALR-). This relationship is especially true for tumors with high levels of intratumoral CD3+ and S100+ cells (7) . This relationship has also been shown for stage I NSCLC tumors with peritumoral B-lymphocytes (8) and for advanced lung cancer patients (9) .

The mechanisms underlying the presence or absence of lymphocytic infiltration within a lung tumor mass are unknown. The immune system may tolerate a tumor because of the tumor’s failure to produce the needed "danger" signals required for recognition and inflammation (10) . On the other hand, tumors may also secrete signals that actively down-regulate the immune response and allow the tumor to escape immune surveillance (11) . Regardless of how these cells arrive in the tumor, stimulation of peritumoral lymphocytes results in the release of tumoricidal cytokines (12) . Some therapies have tried to harness the antitumor activity of the immune system by providing stimulation to these peritumoral lymphocytes (13) . Other experiments have used fusion antibodies that target tumor antigens and contain a superantigen to activate T cells by linking the T-cell receptor to the MHC class II receptor on an antigen-presenting cell (14) . To date, immune therapies for lung cancer are experimental and have achieved limited success.

Chemokines, a structurally similar but functionally diverse family of molecules, are principally produced by, and target cells of, the immune system (15) . Chemokines are also produced by a variety of normal tissues including lung tissue. These lung-derived chemokines are produced by pulmonary epithelium, especially in the setting of acute injury from infectious or chemical insult (16 , 17) . The effect of chemokines on other cells is usually dependent on the presence of chemokine receptors on those target cells. Such cell surface receptors have been found on a variety of cells including endothelial, neuronal, smooth muscle, and epithelial cells (18) .

In addition to normal tissues, a variety of tumors have been shown to secrete chemokines (19 , 20) . These molecules are now known to affect the behavior of cells in tumors. Chemokine receptors are expressed by breast cancer cells and are thought to be responsible for the distinct pattern of metastasis in breast cancer (21) . Chemokines and their receptors have also been implicated in the migration of ovarian cancer cells (22) .

Some chemokines with ascribed "antitumor" activity, particularly RANTES, IP-10, MCP-1, and MIP-3{alpha}, have been used in animal trials in an attempt to induce tumor-specific immune responses (23 , 24) . In NSCLC, chemokines secreted by the tumor cells are responsible for the infiltration of macrophages (25) . Sharma et al., (26) has shown that secondary lymphoid organ (SLO) chemokine reduced tumor burden and increased CD4, CD8, and dendritic cell infiltrates in the tumors when injected into mice with metastatic pulmonary adenocarcinoma.

The aim of this study was to identify differences in gene expression between lung adenocarcinomas that correlate with ALR. Global gene expression in stage I tumors was examined using oligonucleotide microarrays. Differences in tumor cell expression of genes with known chemotactic, or immune-activating potential, may provide additional avenues for immune therapy in the future, or markers for prognosis that may direct therapy and more accurately stratify patients based on risk profile.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Patient Population.
Sequential patients seen by the General Thoracic Surgery Section at the University of Michigan Hospital between May 1994 and July 2000 for resection of stage I or stage III lung adenocarcinoma were evaluated for inclusion in this study. Consent was received from all of the patients and the project approved by the Institutional Review Board. Patients’ medical records were reviewed and patient identifiers removed. Tumor and uninvolved lung tissue were obtained immediately at the time of surgery and transported to the laboratory in DMEM (Life Technologies, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD) on ice. Tumor samples were obtained from the advancing edge of resected lung carcinomas. A portion of each tumor tissue was embedded in OCT (Miles Scientific, Naperville, IL) for cryostat sectioning, frozen in isopentane cooled to the temperature of liquid nitrogen, and stored at -80°C. Hematoxylin-stained cryostat sections (5 µm), prepared from tumor pieces to be used for mRNA isolation, were evaluated by a study pathologist (T. J. G.) for comparison with H&E sections made from paraffin blocks of the same tumors. All of the stage I specimens included in the study had a minimum 70% tumor cellularity. The study pathologist diagnosed the tumors that had ALR from those that did not. The pathological diagnosis of ALR was made without knowledge of the gene expression data. Demographic and follow-up data were collected on all of the patients. Survival, as measured in months, was calculated from the time of resection to the time of latest follow-up or death.

At least two of the original H&E-stained slides of each tumor were evaluated for the presence of lymphocytic response. Tumors were divided by the study surgical pathologist (T. J. G.) into two broad categories based on the absence or presence of a significant peritumoral and intratumoral lymphocytic infiltrate that was readily apparent at low magnification (ALR- versus ALR+).

RNA Isolation and Oligonucleotide Microarray Analysis.
RNA isolation and oligonucleotide microarray analysis was carried out according to the methods of Giordano et al., (27) .

Statistical Methods.
Trimming of the dataset was performed by excluding genes from analysis if the Affymetrix measure of their 75th percentile value was less than 100. Restriction of the dataset in this manner reduced the number of probe sets from 7129 to 4578. Tumors were divided into two groups: those with ALR+ and those without (ALR-). Next, using Microsoft Excel, we performed a Student’s t test to compare the ALR+ and ALR- groups. To restrict the dataset further, a P of <0.02 was considered statistically significant. An average-linkage hierarchical clustering of an uncentered Pearson correlation similarity matrix was applied to the list of significant genes with the program Cluster, and figures were generated with the program TreeView (Eisen Lab Software; Stanford, Palo Alto, CA). From the clusters generated, genes that were overexpressed by the ALR+ group were further analyzed. With the use of the Locus Link website,4 genes in this group were subcategorized into functional classes. Genes with functional potential to incite ALR were chosen for validation. A correlation analysis between mRNA expression and protein expression was performed using the Spearman method. Survival analysis was performed using the Cox univariate proportional hazard regression model. Median gene expression for all tumors for a given gene was used as a cutoff value to designate "high expression" or "low expression" groups.

IHC.
IHC was performed on tissue microarrays containing 90 lung adenocarcinomas to simultaneously examine the majority of cases in the study. From the diagnosed adenocarcinomas, the areas of the tumor that best represented the overall morphology were selected and a tissue microarray (TMA) block was constructed according to the method of Kononen et al., (28) . Deparaffinized sections, along with sections from a commercially available normal-tissue tissue microarray block (NO50; Clinomics Laboratories, Pittsfield, MA) were microwave pretreated in citric acid buffer for antigen retrieval. The sections were incubated with blocking solution for 60 min at room temperature before being exposed to the primary antibodies. The antibodies used included: anti-MIP-1ß, anti-RANTES (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN), and anti-IP-10 (Santa Cruz Biotechnologies, Santa Cruz, CA). The antibodies were incubated with the tissue microarrays overnight at 4°C. The immunocomplex was visualized by the immunoglobulin enzyme bridge technique using Vector ABC-kit (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA), with 3,3-diaminobenzidine tetrachloride as the enzyme substrate. Sections were lightly stained with hematoxylin and permanently mounted.

ELISA.
Of these same tumor specimens, 25 had sufficient tumor material to perform protein-based assays. This included 12 in the ALR+ group and 13 in the ALR- group. Samples of tumor and normal lung distal to tumor were homogenized and sonicated in anti-protease buffer on recovery from the operating room. Specimens were centrifuged at 900 x g for 15 min, filtered through 0.45-µm Sterile Acrodiscs (Gelman Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI), and frozen at -70°C until thawed for assay by a specific antibody (MIP-1ß, RANTES, IP-10). Proteins were quantitated using a modification of a double ligand method as described previously (29) . All of the antibodies were polyclonal goat antihuman as listed above. The IP-10 antibody used for the ELISA was purchased from R&D Systems. Briefly, flat-bottomed 96-well microtiter plates (Nunc Immuno-Plate I 96-F) were coated with 50 µl/well containing the primary antibody [1 ng/µl in 0.6 M NaCl, 0.26 M H3B04, and 0.08 N NaOH (pH 9.6)] for 24 h at 4°C and then washed with PBS (pH 7.5), 0.05% Tween 20 (wash buffer). Microtiter plate nonspecific binding sites were blocked with 2% BSA in PBS and incubated for 60 min at 37°C. Plates were rinsed three times with wash buffer. Fifty µl of tumor homogenate were added (neat and 1:10 dilution), followed by incubation for 1 h at 37°C. Plates were washed three times, 50 µl/well biotinylated polyclonal rabbit anti-IP-10 [3.5 ng/µl in PBS (pH 7.5), 0.05% Tween 20, and 2% FCS] were added, and plates were incubated for 45 min at 37°C. Plates were washed three times, streptavidin-peroxidase conjugate (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Richmond, CA) added, and the plates incubated for 30 min at 37°C. Plates were washed three times and chromogen substrate (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Richmond, CA) added. The plates were incubated at room temperature to the desired extinction, and the reaction terminated with 50 µl/well H2SO4 (3 M) solution. Plates were read at 490 nm in an automated microplate reader (Bio-Tek Instruments, Inc., Winooski, VT). Standards were dilutions of IP-10 from 100 ng/ml to 1 pg/ml (50 µl/well). This protocol consistently detected protein (MIP-1ß, RANTES, IP-10) concentrations greater than 50 pg/ml in a linear fashion. Tissue samples were run in parallel for total protein content (Pierce, Rockford, IL), and results were expressed as nanograms of protein per milligram.


    RESULTS
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Gene Expression Differences between ALR+ and ALR- Tumors.
Sixty-three stage I adenocarcinomas were analyzed using the Affymetrix oligonucleotide arrays that interrogates ~6800 genes and included tumors of various cell differentiations and derivations. Tumors were stratified into 27 with ALR+ and 36 ALR-. Pathological and demographic data for the two groups are represented in Table 1Citation . The presence of ALR was the only other clinical or pathological variable in this patient cohort that was even marginally associated with survival (P = 0.06). Trimming of the data was performed to remove genes that showed low or no expression in the lung tumor samples and resulted in 4578 genes for further analysis. The Student’s t test was then used to compare the average expression of these genes between tumors that were ALR+ and ALR- tumors; 303 were found to significantly differ between ALR+ and ALR- tumors, even when a fairly stringent P of <=0.02 was used as a cutoff.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 1 Demographic data for the 63 patients in this study

 
Hierarchical Clustering Revealed Two Main Clusters of Genes Distinguishing ALR+ and ALR- Tumors and Three Possible Candidates as Potential Chemotactic Cytokines.
Hierarchical clustering analysis of the 303 genes that were found to be significantly different between ALR+ and ALR- revealed two main clusters of genes, with Cluster 1 representing the 146 genes overexpressed in the ALR+ tumors (Table 2)Citation and Cluster 2 representing the 157 genes overexpressed in the ALR- tumors. The genes in both clusters were classified according to their function with the use of the Locus Link website.4 Among the 146 genes in Cluster 1, there were at least 40 genes that were directly related to lymphocytes (Fig. 1)Citation . Other genes in Cluster 1 included cell adhesion molecules, signal transduction proteins, metabolic proteins, cytostructural proteins, and oncogenes. Any of these classes of genes may have proved interesting for further study, however, in an attempt to identify genes that may represent chemotactic signals secreted by tumor cells to help incite an ALR, we focused on the three chemokines overexpressed in the ALR+ group in Cluster 1: SCYA4 (MIP-1ß), SCYA5 (RANTES), and SCYA10 (IP-10). The expression of the corresponding receptors for these three chemokines was not significantly different between ALR+ and ALR- groups (CXCR3, CCR1, CCR3, CCR5). MIP-1ß showed an average level of expression of 786.3 in the ALR+ group but a level of only 476.0 in the ALR- group, which was significantly different (P = 0.001). Similarly, RANTES was more highly expressed in the ALR+ tumors with an average expression level of 816.4 versus 494.1 in ALR- tumors (P = 0.01). IP-10 also showed a higher level of average expression in those tumors that had ALR: 713.8 versus 322.7 in the ALR- group (P = 0.013; Table 3Citation ).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 2 Cluster 1: the 146 genes overexpressed in ALR+ tumors, grouped by function

 


View larger version (93K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Fig. 1. Graphic representation of the Cluster 1 genes showing overexpression in the ALR+ tumors. On the Y axis of the cluster diagram are the abbreviated names of all of the146 genes of Cluster 1 the expression of which separates the ALR+ and ALR- groups. Tumors are grouped in their respective groups (ALR+ versus ALR-) along the X axis. Red color, genes that are overexpressed relative to the median expression value (black); green color, genes that are underexpressed relative to the median expression.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 3 Comparison of protein and mRNA expression for MIP-1ß, RANTES, and IP-10 in ALR+ and ALR- tumors

ELISA and mRNA expression are shown for MIP-1ß, RANTES, and IP-10. Affymetrix average values for all tumors of the ALR+ (n = 27) and ALR- (n = 36) groups for the three genes with P values are listed. Next, average protein values for the ELISA for each gene are listed; 12 tumors were tested in the ALR+ group and 13 in the ALR- group. SD for each population is listed beside the average value for mRNA and protein. P values for t tests between the ALR+ and ALR- groups are also listed.

 
Gene Validation Using ELISA and Immunohistochemical Analysis of the Tumor Tissue Microarrays.
Validation of the results obtained by an analysis of mRNA was attempted using quantitative ELISA; and the cellular localization of these proteins was determined using IHC. ELISA was used to validate 25 samples from the tumor set. This included 12 ALR+ tumors and 13 ALR- tumors. Using a standardized ELISA for quantitation of the protein, RANTES showed the highest overall protein levels and also showed higher protein levels in the ALR+ group of tumors (Table 3)Citation . MIP-1ß also showed a higher level of protein expression in the ALR+ tumors, yet showed much lower levels than the level of RANTES expression. IP-10 protein expression was higher in the ALR- group although the IP-10 mRNA levels were higher in the ALR+ group. A Spearman correlation was used to compare the mRNA expression and the protein expression of MIP-1ß, RANTES, and IP-10. RANTES expression in the ALR+ tumors was the most strongly correlated among the three genes and had the highest correlation between mRNA and protein (r = 0.38). IP-10 had a negative correlation between mRNA and protein for the ALR+ tumors (r = -0.19). Because of the sample size, none of the correlation coefficients were statistically significant.

MIP-1ß, RANTES, and IP-10 protein expression was then examined using an immunohistochemical analysis of tissue microarrays containing the majority of the stage I tumors in this study. These arrays also contained samples of normal lung, squamous cell carcinoma, advanced-stage lung adenocarcinoma, and adenocarcinoma cell line samples. For all three of the proteins tested, there was little to no staining in the normal sample, with the exception of positive-staining alveolar macrophages (Fig. 2A)Citation . The A549 lung adenocarcinoma cell line showed positive cytoplasmic staining for all three proteins. Similarly MIP-1ß, RANTES, and IP-10 antibodies stained the cytoplasm of tumor cells, and these IHC results demonstrated that the expression of these gene products are localized to the adenocarcinoma cells. There was no appreciable staining for IP-10, RANTES, or MIP-1ß within lymphocytes (Fig. 2, B–D)Citation .



View larger version (165K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Fig. 2. Immunohistochemical analysis shows that MIP-1ß, RANTES, and IP-10 are produced by NSCLC cells. A, normal lung stained with an anti-IP-10 antibody (x20); arrow, slight staining of an alveolar macrophage. B, ALR+ adenocarcinoma stained for IP-10 (x20). Lymphocytes in the sample do not stain positively for IP-10 (arrow). C, ALR- adenocarcinoma with low expression of RANTES (x40). D, ALR+ adenocarcinoma with high expression of RANTES (x40).

 
RANTES I an Independent Predictor of Survival in Patients with Stage I NSCLC Based on Univariate Cox Analysis.
Using univariate Cox modeling, MIP-1ß, RANTES, and IP-10 mRNA expression values were tested as predictors of survival. Neither MIP-1ß nor IP-10 was a predictor of survival; however, elevated RANTES expression correlated with an improved survival. The median value of RANTES expression for all of the stage I tumors that were tested was 515. This median value was used to stratify patients into "high" or "low" expression groups. Patients in the low-expression group, whose tumors had a RANTES mRNA expression level below the median value, had a higher mortality (P = 0.002; Fig. 3Citation ). One patient, whose tumor had a RANTES expression level of 811, died before 2 months, but his death was unrelated to his cancer. When this patient was omitted from the survival analysis, the analysis showed a more dramatic difference in survival based on the RANTES level of mRNA expression (P = 0.0001).



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Fig. 3. Kaplan-Meier curve for high versus low expression of RANTES in stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Survival is plotted on the X axis versus mRNA expression of RANTES. High- and low-expression groups were defined by the median RANTES mRNA expression value of the study population. Those patients whose tumor had a RANTES expression above the median value were termed "high expression," whereas those whose tumors had a RANTES expression below the median were termed "low expression." The two groups show a significant difference with regard to survival, in that patients in the high-expression group had a survival advantage (P = 0.002). The two curves intersect early on, because of the one patient with high expression of RANTES who suffered an early death not related to his cancer.

 

    DISCUSSION
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
ALR is known to be a favorable prognostic factor in patients with NSCLC. In this study, we examined 63 stage I patients and demonstrated that patients with ALR do indeed have improved survival. Oligonucleotide microarrays revealed 303 genes that significantly separated ALR+ and ALR- tumors. These differences are not attributable to tumoral differentiation or derivation, and the two study groups have similar demographics. In fact, there were more patients with poorly differentiated tumors in the ALR+ group, but this group still had a trend toward improved survival (P = 0.06). There were 146 genes that were overexpressed in the tumors that had ALR. From these 146 genes, the three chemokines were chosen for further analysis because this family of molecules is a known group of chemotactic cytokines and offered a logical signal for ALR. Immunohistochemical analysis showed that these gene protein products were expressed by the tumor cells themselves and not by infiltrating WBCs. RANTES consistently showed more intense staining in the ALR+ group. Protein quantification via ELISA showed a trend toward significance that MIP-1ß and RANTES were overexpressed in ALR+ tumors. IP-10 was overexpressed at the mRNA level in the tumors but did not show a corresponding increase in protein expression by ELISA.

IP-10, MIP-1ß, and RANTES, are known chemotactic cytokines. IP-10 is a chemotactic cytokine that can activate the immune system but that also inhibits angiogenesis. Monocytes/macrophages, T-lymphocytes, endothelial cells, fibroblasts, and keratinocytes produce and secrete IP-10 (30) . As an {alpha}-chemokine, IP-10 is primarily chemotactic for Th-1 lymphocytes and macrophages but has little effect on basophils or eosinophils (31) . From our data, the mRNA expression of IP-10 was higher in the ALR+ group; however, this pattern was not supported by the protein expression as evidenced by the ELISA data. This result may have been influenced by the relatively small sample size tested by ELISA. IHC staining of all stage I tumors did show a higher number of strongly staining tumors in the ALR+ group; however, there was no correlation between the strength of staining and the mRNA level. One explanation for this discrepancy may be that, if only a small number of cells account for the high mRNA expression in a given tumor, this difference in expression may not be reflected in the protein staining. Another possibility is that it is difficult to determine quantitative information regarding protein expression levels using IHC alone. IP-10 may also be induced because of some interaction between lymphocytes and tumor cells. IFN{gamma} up-regulates IP-10 expression. As evidenced by the array data, IFN{gamma} levels in both ALR+ and ALR- tumors are very low. IP-10 is not a product of the lymphocytes themselves, as indicated by the IHC results. The presence of a significant amount of lymphocytes in a tumor in the ALR+ tumor group, as well as the tumor/immune system interplay, may account for the higher level of IP-10 message and may potentially account for the difference in expression between the ALR+ and ALR- groups. In a murine model, IP-10 has been implicated as the key player in the tumor-protective immunity conferred by IL-12 by affecting Th-1 type CD8+ cells (32) .

MIP-1ß is produced by mononuclear cells, endothelial cells, and mast cells. It functions as a chemotactic and activating factor of the immune system and serves to inhibit the CD4+/CCR5-mediated HIV cell entry (30) . MIP-1ß is a ß chemokine and affects all leukocytes except neutrophils (31) . In one study, MIP-1ß was implicated as the major chemotactic cytokine responsible for macrophage chemotaxis and activation during acute lung injury (15) . MIP-1ß was also shown to be produced by NSCLC and was highly correlated with macrophage chemotaxis (25) .

RANTES is another known chemotactic cytokine that is produced by many cell types including T-lymphocytes, monocytes, platelets, eosinophils, epithelial cells, dendritic cells, and mast cells (30) . In cell cultures of bronchial epithelial cells infected with influenza A, the transcription and translation of RANTES is increased within 24 h after infection (33) . In vivo studies have shown the release of RANTES in lung to be a response to a variety of noxious stimuli including bacterial and viral infection, and chemotherapy (34, 35, 36) . Although it typically works through the CCR5 receptor, multiple RANTES molecules can form a complex that can directly stimulate T cells, outside of the usual receptor (37) . This direct stimulation is a reminder that RANTES, as do other chemokines, exerts its effects in a dose-dependent fashion. Arenberg et al. (25) showed that NSCLC cells produced RANTES but that RANTES levels did not correlate significantly with macrophage chemotaxis. RANTES, like MIP-1ß, is a ß chemokine and affects all leukocytes except neutrophils (31) . RANTES has been used as a prognostic indicator in both breast and cervical cancers (38) . However, in contrast to the findings of our study, higher levels of RANTES in those malignancies are correlated with a poor outcome. The reason for this difference in tumor behavior is unknown and may be worthy of future study.

In viewing this study in the context of previous studies, it is very possible that MIP-1ß and RANTES could be signals to incite an ALR. In the tumors that were ALR+, both RANTES and MIP-1ß mRNA were significantly increased. Similarly, the protein levels of these gene products, as confirmed by ELISA, were increased in the tumors with ALR. Immunohistochemical analysis shows that RANTES and MIP-1ß are produced by NSCLC tumor cells and are not associated with lymphocytes.

When the types of inflammatory cells that infiltrate lung tumors are considered, RANTES is seen as an even more plausible signal for ALR. Controversy regarding the type of cells that infiltrate lung tumors exists in the literature. There are reports that both Th-1 and Th-2 profiles exist (39 , 40) . One study that looked at the lymphocytes themselves concluded that the predominant peritumoral lymphocyte in NSCLC is an activated memory T cell that is capable of synthesizing Th-1 cytokines (4) . RANTES was first described as a chemoattractant for memory T cells in vitro (41) . Other more recent data suggest that, in certain lung tumors, the CD4+, CD25+ T cells predominate; these may function to depress the host immune system and allow for tumor progression (42) . One possible future direction for investigation would be to try to further characterize the T-cell population in each tumor and correlate the various T-cell profiles to the gene expression profile of each tumor to determine a more causal relationship among chemokine expression, T-cell population, and tumor behavior. Our data suggest that RANTES is a major chemotactic signal for infiltrating lymphocytes and is produced by NSCLC cells.

The proper antitumor cytokine milieu is surely the result of lymphocytes that recognize the danger of tumor tissue and, in turn, start an inflammatory cascade to destroy the tumor. RANTES expression by the tumor itself may be one possible event to aid in the initiation of this inflammatory cascade in lung adenocarcinoma. Although the Th-1 (IL-2 and IFN{gamma}) and Th-2 (IL-4, IL-5, IL-9, and IL-13) representative cytokines are on the oligonucleotide arrays, their expression levels were found to be extremely low (data not shown). In addition, there was no discernable difference in the expression of any of these cytokines between the ALR+ and ALR- groups. Given these limitations, the prevalence of a Th-1 or Th-2 profile in the peritumoral lymphocytes of NSCLC tumors could not be determined.

If RANTES and MIP-1ß represent signals needed to incite ALR, it is unclear as to why some tumors produce these cytokines and others do not. MIP-1ß is located at 17q21 and RANTES is located at 17q11.2-q12. Chromosome 17p is a known region of loss in NSCLC that also includes the region in which the p53 tumor suppressor gene resides. It is possible that a portion of chromosome 17 could be lost in those tumors with lower levels of RANTES and MIP-1ß. Alternatively, these differences may reflect regulation of gene transcription.

Regardless of the mechanism for the differential expression of these genes, it is clear that, in the case of RANTES, overexpression of this gene is associated with improved prognosis in NSCLC. Patients with a lower expression of this gene had an increased mortality using Cox modeling. If RANTES is a key signal to help promote chemotaxis of lymphocytes to a tumor, it may have potential therapeutic benefit. Irrespective of its therapeutic potential, RANTES could be considered a prognostic factor and may help to further stratify patients with stage I NSCLC. In recent studies, the use of genetic profiling and gene microarray technology has yielded families of genes that have delineated the various phenotypes of lung cancer as well as stratifying high- and low-risk expression profiles (43, 44, 45) . Like those studies, this study also has been able to show a global difference in gene expression profiles between stage I tumors that are ALR+ and those that are ALR-. In concentrating on and further investigating genes that may play a role in recruiting lymphocytes, this study has shown RANTES to predict survival in stage I patients. Recognition of high-risk stage I patients may afford the use of adjuvant therapies in an attempt to positively impact survival in NSCLC patients.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We extend special thanks to Drs. S. L. Kunkel, J. F. Moran, and S. A. Moran for their review of the manuscript and their suggestions.


    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.

1 Supported by National Cancer Institute Grant U19 CA-85953. Back

2 To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at General Thoracic Surgery, MSRB II B560, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0686. E-mail: dgbeer{at}umich.edu Back

3 The abbreviations used are: NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; ALR, active lymphocytic response; RANTES, regulated upon activation, normal T-cell-expressed and -secreted; MIP-1ß, small inducible cytokine A4; IP-10, interferon inducible protein 10; IHC, immunohistochemistry; IL, interleukin; FCS, fetal calf serum. Back

4 Internet address: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/LocusLink/index.html. Back

Received 3/11/02; revised 7/31/02; accepted 8/12/02.


    REFERENCES
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Martin J., Rusch V. Lung neoplasms Greenfield L. Mullholland M. Oldham K. Zelenock G. Lillemoe K. eds. . Surgery: Scientific Principles and Clinical Practice, 1373-1400, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Philadelphia 2001.
  2. Mountain C. F. Lung cancer staging classification. Clin. Chest Med., 14: 43-53, 1993.[Medline]
  3. Slebos R. J., Kibbelaar R. E., Dalesio O., Kooistra A., Stam J., Meijer C. J., Wagenaar S. S., Vanderschueren R. G., van Zandwijk N., Mooi W. J., Bos J. L., Rodenhuis S. K-ras oncogene activation as a prognostic marker in adenocarcinoma of the lung. N. Engl. J. Med., 323: 561-565, 1990.[Abstract]
  4. Carey F. A., Prasad U. S., Walker W. S., Cameron E. W., Lamb D., Bird C. C. Prognostic significance of tumor deoxyribonucleic acid content in surgically resected small-cell carcinoma of lung. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 103: 1214-1217, 1992.[Abstract]
  5. Harpole D. H., Richards W. G., Herndon J. E., Sugarbaker D. J. Angiogenesis and molecular biologic substaging in patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Ann. Thorac. Surg., 61: 1470-1476, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Suzuki K., Nagai K., Yoshida J., Nishimura M., Takahashi K., Yokose T., Nishiwaki Y. Conventional clinicopathologic prognostic factors in surgically resected non-small cell lung carcinoma. Cancer (Phila.), 86: 1976-1984, 1999.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Johnson S. K., Kerr K. M., Chapman A. D., Kennedy M. M., King G., Cockburn J. S., Jeffrey R. R. Immune cell infiltrates and prognosis in primary carcinoma of the lung. Lung Cancer, 27: 27-35, 2000.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Pelletier M. P., Edwardes M. D., Michel R. P., Halwani F., Morin J. E. Prognostic markers in respectable non-small cell lung cancer: a multivariate analysis. Can. J. Surg., 44: 180-188, 2001.[Medline]
  9. Hespanhol V., Queiroga H., Magalhaes A., Santos A. R., Coelho M., Marques A. Survival predictors in advanced non-small lung cancer. Lung Cancer, 13: 253-267, 1995.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Fuchs E. J., Matzinger P. Is cancer dangerous to the immune system?. Semin. Immunol., 8: 271-280, 1996.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Smyth M. J., Godfrey D. I., Trapani J. A. A fresh look at tumor immunosurveillance and immunotherapy. Nat. Immunol., 2: 293-299, 2001.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Ortegel J. W., Staren E. D., Faber L. P., Warren W. H., Braun D. P. Cytokine biosynthesis by tumor-infiltrating T-lymphocytes from human non-small lung carcinoma. Cancer Immunol. Immunother., 48: 627-634, 2000.[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Orditura M., Romano C., De Vita F., Galizia G., Lieto E., Infusino S., De Cataldis G., Catalano G. Behavior of interleukin-2 serum levels in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients: relationship with response to therapy and survival. Cancer Immunol. Immunother., 49: 530-536, 2000.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Forsberg G., Ohlsson L., Brodin T., Bjork P., Lando P. A., Shaw D., Stern P. L., Dohlsten M. Therapy of human non-small-cell lung carcinoma using antibody targeting of a modified superantigen. Br. J. Cancer, 85: 129-136, 2001.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Moser B., Loetscher P. Lymphocyte traffic control by chemokines. Nat. Immunol., 2: 123-128, 2001.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Bless N. M., Huber-Lang M., Guo R., Warner R. L., Schmal H., Czermak B. J., Shanley T. P., Crouch L. D., Lentsch A. B., Sarma V., Mulligan M. S., Friedl H. P., Ward P. A. Role of C-C chemokines (macrophage inflammatory protein-1b, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1. RANTES) in acute lung injury in rats. J. Immunol., 164: 2650-2659, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Katoda J., Mukae H., Tomono K., Kohno S. High concentrations of ß-chemokines in BAL fluid of patients with diffuse panbronchiolitis. Chest, 120: 602-607, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Gerard C., Rollins B. J. Chemokines and disease. Nat. Immunol., 2: 108-115, 2001.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Bottazzi B., Polentarutti N., Acero R., Balsari A., Boraschi D., Ghezzi P., Salmona M., Mantovani A. Regulation of the macrophage content of neoplasms by chemoattractants. Science (Wash. DC), 220: 210-221, 1983.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Negus R. P. M., Stamp G. W. H., Hadley J., Balkwill F. R. Quantitative assessment of the leukocyte infiltrate in ovarian cancer and its relationship to the expression of C-C chemokines. Am. J. Pathol., 150: 1723-1734, 1997.[Abstract]
  21. Muller A., Homey B., Soto H., Ge N., Catron D., Buchanan M. E., McClanahan T., Murphy E., Yuan W., Wagner S. N., Barrera J. L., Mohar A., Verastegui E., Zlotnik A. Involvement of chemokine receptors in breast cancer metastasis. Nature (Lond.), 410: 50-56, 2001.[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Scotton C. J., Wilson J. L., Milliken D., Stamp G., Balkwill F. Epithelial cancer cell migration: a role for chemokine receptors?. Cancer Res., 61: 1961-1965, 2001.
  23. Mule J. J., Custer M., Averbook B., Yang J. C., Weber J. S., Goeddel D. V., Rosenberg S. A., Schall T. J. RANTES secretion by gene-modified tumor cells results in loss of tumorigenicity in vivo: role of immune cell subpopulations. Hum. Gen. Ther., 7: 1545-1553, 1996.[Medline]
  24. Luster A. D., Leder P. IP-10 a –C-X-C- chemokine, elicits a potent thymus-dependent antitumor response in vivo. J. Exp. Med., 178: 1057-1065, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Arenberg D. A., Keane M. P., DiGiovine B., Kunkel S. L., Strom S. R. B., Burdick M. D., Iannettoni M. D., Strieter R. M. Macrophage infiltration in human non-small-cell lung cancer: the role of C-C chemokines. Cancer Immunol. Immunother., 49: 63-70, 2000.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Sharma S., Stolina M., Zhu L., Lin Y., Batra R., Huang M., Strieter R., Dubinett S. Secondary lymphoid organ chemokine reduces pulmonary tumor burden in spontaneous murine bronchoalveolar cell carcinoma. Cancer Res., 61: 6406-6412, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Giordano T. J., Shedden K. A., Schwartz D. R., Kuick R., Taylor J. M., Lee N., Misek D. E., Greenson J. K., Kardia S. L., Beer D. G., Rennert G., Cho K. R., Gruber S. B., Fearon E. R., Hanash S. Organ-specific molecular classification of primary lung, colon, and ovarian adenocarcinomas using gene expression profiles. Am. J. Pathol., 159: 1231-1238, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Kononen J., Bubendorf L., Kallioniemi A., Barlund M., Schraml P., Leighton S., Torhorst J., Mihatsch M. J., Sauter G., Kallioniemi O. P. Tissue microarrays for high throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens. Nat. Med., 4: 844-847, 1998.[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Arenberg D. A., Kunkel S. L., Polverini P. J., Morris S. B., Burdick M. D., Glass M. C., Taub D. T., Iannettoni M. D., Whyte R. I., Strieter R. M. Interferon-{gamma}-inducible Protein 10 (IP-10) is an angiostatic factor that inhibits human non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumorigenesis and spontaneous metastases. J. Exp. Med., 184: 981-992, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Janeway C. A., Travers P., Walport M., Capra J. D. Host defense against infection. Immunobiology: The immune system in health and disease, 363-415, Current Biology Publication, Garland Publications New York 1999.
  31. Kaplan A. Chemokines, chemokine receptors and allergy. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol., 124: 423-431, 2001.[CrossRef][Medline]
  32. Pertl U., Luster A. D., Varki N. M., Homann D., Gaedicke G., Reisfeld R. A., Lode H. N. IFN-{gamma} inducible protein-10 is essential for the generation of a protective tumor specific CD8 T-cell response induced by single chain IL-12 gene therapy. J. Immunol., 166: 6944-6951, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Matsukura S., Kokubu F., Kubo H., Tomita T., Tokunaga H., Kadokura M., Yamamoto T., Kuriowa Y., Ohno T., Suzaki H., Adachi M. Expression of RANTES by normal airway epithelial cells after influenza virus A infection. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol., 18: 255-264, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Fillion I., Ouelett N., Simard M., Bergeron Y., Sato S., Bergeron M. G. Role of chemokines and formyl peptides in pneumococcal pneumonia-induced monocyte/macrophage recruitment. J. Immunol., 166: 7353-7361, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Leidal K. G., Munson K. L., Denning G. M. Small molecular weight secretory factors from Pseudomonas aeruginosa have opposite effects on IL-8 and RANTES expression by human airway epithelial cells. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol., 2: 186-195, 2001.
  36. Koyama S., Takamizawa A., Sato E., Masubuchi T., Nagai S., Izumi T. Cyclophosphamide stimulates lung fibroblasts to release neutrophil and monocyte chemoattractants. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell Mol. Physiol., 280: L1203-L1211, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Appay V., Rowland-Jones S. L. RANTES: a versatile and controversial chemokine. Trends Immunol., 22: 83-87, 2001.[CrossRef][Medline]
  38. Niwa Y., Akamatsu H., Niwa H., Sumi H., Ozaki Y., Abe A. Correlation of tissue and plasma RANTES levels with disease course in patients with breast or cervical cancer. Clin. Cancer Res., 7: 285-289, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Asselin-Paturel C., Echchakir H., Carayol G., Gay F., Opolon P., Gruenwald D., Chouaib S., Mami-Chouaib F. Quantative analysis of Th1, Th2 and TGF-ß1 cytokine expression in tumor, TIL and PBL of non-small cell lung cancer patients. Int. J. Cancer, 77: 7-12, 1998.[CrossRef][Medline]
  40. Huang M., Wang J., Lee P., Sharma S., Mau J. T., Meissner H., Uyemura K., Modlin R., Wollman J., Dubinett S. M. Human non-small cell lung cancer cells express a type-2 cytokine pattern. Cancer Res., 55: 3847-3853, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Schall T. J., Bacon K., Toy K. J., Goeddel D. V. Selective attraction of monocytes and T lymphocytes of the memory phenotype by cytokine RANTES. Nature (Lond.), 347: 669-671, 1990.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Woo E. Y., Yeh H., Chu C. S., Schlienger K., Carroll R. G., Riley J. L., Kaiser L. R., June C. H. Regulatory, T. cells from lung cancer patients directly inhibit autologous T-cell proliferation. J. Immunol., 168: 4272-4276, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Bhattacharjee A., Richards W. G., Staunton J., Li C., Monti S., Vasa P., Ladd C., Beheshti J., Bueno R., Gillette M., Loda M., Weber G., Mark E. J., Lander E. S., Wong W., Johnson B. E., Golub T. R., Sugarbaker D. J., Meyerson M. Classification of human lung carcinomas by mRNA expression profiling reveals distinct adenocarcinoma subclasses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 98: 13790-13795, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Garber M. E., Troyanskaya O. G., Schluens K., Petersen S., Thaesler Z., Pacyna-Gengelbach M., van de Rijn M., Rosen G. D., Perou C. M., Whyte R. I., Altman R. B., Brown P. O., Botstein D., Petersen I. Diversity of gene expression in adenocarcinoma of the lung. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 98: 13784-13789, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Beer D. G., Kardia S. L. R., Huang C-C, Giordano T. J., Levin A. L., Misek D. E., Lin L., Chen G., Gharib T. G., Thomas D. G., Lizyness M. L., Kuick R., Hayasaka S., Taylor J. M. G., Iannettoni M. D., Orringer M. B., Hanash S. Gene expression profiles predict survival of patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Nat. Med., 8: 816-824, 2002.[Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
J. E. Larsen, S. J. Pavey, L. H. Passmore, R. V. Bowman, N. K. Hayward, and K. M. Fong
Gene Expression Signature Predicts Recurrence in Lung Adenocarcinoma
Clin. Cancer Res., May 15, 2007; 13(10): 2946 - 2954.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CarcinogenesisHome page
J. E. Larsen, S. J. Pavey, L. H. Passmore, R. Bowman, B. E. Clarke, N. K. Hayward, and K. M. Fong
Expression profiling defines a recurrence signature in lung squamous cell carcinoma
Carcinogenesis, March 1, 2007; 28(3): 760 - 766.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Immunol.Home page
O. Wald, U. Izhar, G. Amir, S. Avniel, Y. Bar-Shavit, H. Wald, I. D. Weiss, E. Galun, and A. Peled
CD4+CXCR4highCD69+ T Cells Accumulate in Lung Adenocarcinoma
J. Immunol., November 15, 2006; 177(10): 6983 - 6990.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Bio.Home page
M. P. Gruber, C. D. Coldren, M. D. Woolum, G. P. Cosgrove, C. Zeng, A. E. Baron, M. D. Moore, C. D. Cool, G. S. Worthen, K. K. Brown, et al.
Human Lung Project: Evaluating Variance of Gene Expression in the Human Lung
Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol., July 1, 2006; 35(1): 65 - 71.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Res.Home page
T. Zhang, A. Barber, and C. L. Sentman
Generation of Antitumor Responses by Genetic Modification of Primary Human T Cells with a Chimeric NKG2D Receptor
Cancer Res., June 1, 2006; 66(11): 5927 - 5933.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
A. C. Borczuk, H. K. Kim, H. A. Yegen, R. A. Friedman, and C. A. Powell
Lung Adenocarcinoma Global Profiling Identifies Type II Transforming Growth Factor-{beta} Receptor as a Repressor of Invasiveness
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., September 15, 2005; 172(6): 729 - 737.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BloodHome page
T. Zhang, B. A. Lemoi, and C. L. Sentman
Chimeric NK-receptor-bearing T cells mediate antitumor immunotherapy
Blood, September 1, 2005; 106(5): 1544 - 1551.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Biol. Chem.Home page
J. Liu, X. Guan, and X. Ma
Interferon Regulatory Factor 1 Is an Essential and Direct Transcriptional Activator for Interferon {gamma}-induced RANTES/CCl5 Expression in Macrophages
J. Biol. Chem., July 1, 2005; 280(26): 24347 - 24355.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
N. Normanno and A. De Luca
In Reply:
J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2005; 23(16): 3866 - 3867.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Immunol.Home page
J. Liu, Z. Xiang, and X. Ma
Role of IFN Regulatory Factor-1 and IL-12 in Immunological Resistance to Pathogenesis of N-Methyl-N-Nitrosourea-Induced T Lymphoma
J. Immunol., July 15, 2004; 173(2): 1184 - 1193.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ChestHome page
N. Kaminski and M. Krupsky
Gene Expression Patterns, Prognostic and Diagnostic Markers, and Lung Cancer Biology
Chest, May 1, 2004; 125(5_suppl): 111S - 115S.
[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 Moran, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Beer, D. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Moran, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Beer, D. G.


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