4.5 Article

Preclinical activity of gefitinib in non-keratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma cell lines and biomarkers of response

期刊

INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUGS
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 326-333

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10637-009-9316-7

关键词

Head and neck cancer; Gefitinib; Epidermal growth factor receptor

资金

  1. Research Grant Council Competitive Earmarked Research Grant [4445/05M]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the preclinical activity and molecular predictors of response to gefitinib (IressaA (R), Astra Zeneca Inc, UK) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The activity of gefitinib was evaluated in four human NPC cell lines-HK1, HONE-1, CNE2, C666-1. A representative gefitinib-sensitive (HK1, IC(50) = 250 nM) and gefitinib-resistant cell line (HONE-1, IC(50) > 15 mu M) were selected and compared for expression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and related ligands, and activation of downstream proteins. Gefitinib induced G1 cycle arrest, apoptosis and inhibited cell invasion more significantly in HK1 than HONE-1 cells. HK1 expressed higher levels of p-EGFR, lower p-AKT and phospho-signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (p-STAT3) than other cell lines. EGFR gene was found to be amplified in HK1. Gefitinib at IC(50) concentrations significantly suppressed EGF-induced activation of p-EGFR, phospho-mitogen-activated protein kinase (p-MAPK) and p-STAT3, but p-AKT showed persistent activation in HK1 and HONE-1 cells. There was no difference in EGFR-ligand expression between the 4 NPC cell lines. In NPC samples derived from non-responders to gefitinib, 50% and 60% showed cytoplasmic and nuclear pi-EGFR expression, respectively, and 33% showed p-AKT expression. EGFR or KRAS mutations were not detected. This study suggests that most NPC cell lines are intrinsically resistant to gefitinib (except HK1 cells), and further studies are needed to confirm whether EGFR gene amplification and persistent AKT activation may influence response to gefitinib in NPC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据