MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138047541 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-04-1169

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibition Represses Cyclin D1 in Aerodigestive Tract Cancers

2004· article· en· W2138047541 on OpenAlexaff
W. Jeffrey Petty, Konstantin H. Dragnev, Vincent A. Memoli, Yan Ma, Neil Desai, Adrian Biddle, Thomas Davis, William C. Nugent, Natalie Memoli, Marta Hamilton, Kenneth K. Iwata, James R. Rigas, Ethan Dmitrovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsImmunovaccine (Canada)
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteSamuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsErlotinibCyclin D1Epidermal growth factor receptorCancer researchCell cycleEpidermal growth factorTyrosine kinaseBiologyErlotinib HydrochlorideLung cancerCell growthCancerMedicineInternal medicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are active in cancer therapy. Mechanisms engaged during these clinical responses need to be determined. We reported previously that epidermal growth factor stimulation markedly increased cyclin D1 protein expression in human bronchial epithelial (HBE) cells, and this was opposed by chemoprevention with all-trans-retinoic acid. The current study sought to determine whether the EGFR TKI erlotinib repressed cyclin D1 protein expression in immortalized HBE cells, lung cancer cell lines, and clinical aerodigestive tract cancers. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The BEAS-2B immortalized HBE cell line was exposed to varying concentrations of erlotinib, and effects on proliferation, cell cycle distribution, G1 cyclin expression, and cyclin D1 reporter activity were measured. Non-small-cell lung cancer cell lines were also evaluated for changes in proliferation and cyclin protein expression after erlotinib treatments. A proof of principle clinical trial was conducted. During this study, patients underwent a 9-day course of erlotinib treatment. Pretreatment and posttreatment tumor biopsies were obtained, and changes in candidate biomarkers were determined by immunostaining. Plasma pharmacokinetics and tumor tissue erlotinib concentrations were measured. RESULTS: Erlotinib, at clinically achievable dosages, repressed BEAS-2B cell growth, triggered G1 arrest, and preferentially reduced cyclin D1 protein expression and transcriptional activation. Erlotinib also preferentially repressed proliferation and cyclin D1 protein expression in responsive, but not resistant, non-small-cell lung cancer cell lines. This occurred in the presence of wild-type EGFR sequence at exons 18, 19, and 21. Five patients were enrolled onto an erlotinib proof of principle clinical trial, and four cases were evaluable. Pharmacokinetic studies established therapeutic erlotinib plasma levels in all patients, but tissue levels exceeding 2 micromol/L were detected in only two cases. Notably, these cases had pathological evidence of response (necrosis) in posttreatment biopsies as compared with pretreatment biopsies. In these cases, marked repression of cyclin D1 and the proliferation marker Ki-67 was detected by immunohistochemical assays. Cases without pathological response to erlotinib did not exhibit changes in cyclin D1 or Ki-67 immunohistochemical expression and had much lower erlotinib tissue levels than did responding cases. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these in vitro and in vivo findings provide direct evidence for repression of cyclin D1 protein as a surrogate marker of response in aerodigestive tract cancers to erlotinib treatment. These findings also provide a rationale for combining an EGFR TKI with an agent that would cooperatively repress cyclin D1 expression in clinical trials for aerodigestive tract cancer therapy or chemoprevention.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.166
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations96
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207