4.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Stopping treatment can reverse acquired resistance to letrozole

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 68, 期 12, 页码 4518-4524

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-5999

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA062483, CA-62483, R01 CA062483-25] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using the intratumoral aromatase xenograft model, we have observed that despite long-lasting growth inhibition, tumors eventually begin to grow during continued letrozole treatment. In cells isolated from these long-term letrozole-treated tumors (LTLT-Ca), estrogen receptor-alpha (ER alpha) levels were decreased, whereas signaling proteins in the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade were up-regulated along with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her-2). In the current study, we evaluated the effect of discontinuing letrozole treatment on the growth of letrozole-resistant cells and tumors. The cells formed tumors equally well in the absence or presence of letrozole and had similar growth rates. After treatment was discontinued for 6 weeks, letrozole was administered again. Marked tumor regression was observed with this second course of letrozole treatment. Similarly, in MCF-7Ca xenografts, a 6-week break in letrozole treatment prolonged the responsiveness of-the tumors to letrozole. To understand the mechanisms of this effect, LTLT-Ca cells were cultured in the absence of letrozole for 16 weeks. The resulting cell line (RLT-Ca) exhibited properties similar to MCF-7Ca cells. The cell growth was inhibited by letrozole and stimulated by estradiol. The expression of phosphorylated mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) was reduced and ER alpha and aromatase levels increased compared with LTLT-Ca cells and were similar to levels in MCF-7Ca cells. These results indicate that discontinuing treatment can reverse letrozole resistance. This could be a beneficial strategy to prolong responsiveness to aromatase inhibitors for patients with breast cancer.

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

4.8
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