Øystein Fodstad

BACKGROUND: The process of malignant transformation, progression and metastasis of melanoma is poorly understood. Gene expression profiling of human cancer has allowed for a unique insight into the genes that are involved in these processes. Thus, we have attempted to utilize this approach through the analysis of a series of primary, non-metastatic cutaneous tumors and metastatic melanoma samples. METHODS: We have utilized gene microarray analysis and a variety of molecular techniques to compare 40 metastatic melanoma (MM) samples, composed of 22 bulky, macroscopic (replaced) lymph node metastases, 16 subcutaneous and 2 distant metastases (adrenal and brain), to 42 primary cutaneous cancers, comprised of 16 melanoma, 11 squamous cell, 15 basal cell skin cancers. A Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 array from Affymetrix, Inc. was utilized for each sample. A variety of statistical software, including the Affymetrix MAS 5.0 analysis software, was utilized to compare primary cancers to metastatic melanomas. Separate analyses were performed to directly compare only primary melanoma to metastatic melanoma samples. The expression levels of putative oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes were analyzed by semi- and real-time quantitative RT-PCR (qPCR) and Western blot analysis was performed on select genes. RESULTS: We find that primary basal cell carcinomas, squamous cell carcinomas and thin melanomas express dramatically higher levels of many genes, including SPRR1A/B, KRT16/17, CD24, LOR, GATA3, MUC15, and TMPRSS4, than metastatic melanoma. In contrast, the metastatic melanomas express higher levels of genes such as MAGE, GPR19, BCL2A1, MMP14, SOX5, BUB1, RGS20, and more. The transition from non-metastatic expression levels to metastatic expression levels occurs as melanoma tumors thicken. We further evaluated primary melanomas of varying Breslow's tumor thickness to determine that the transition in expression occurs at different thicknesses for different genes suggesting that the "transition zone" represents a critical time for the emergence of the metastatic phenotype. Several putative tumor oncogenes (SPP-1, MITF, CITED-1, GDF-15, c-Met, HOX loci) and suppressor genes (PITX-1, CST-6, PDGFRL, DSC-3, POU2F3, CLCA2, ST7L), were identified and validated by quantitative PCR as changing expression during this transition period. These are strong candidates for genes involved in the progression or suppression of the metastatic phenotype. CONCLUSION: The gene expression profiling of primary, non-metastatic cutaneous tumors and metastatic melanoma has resulted in the identification of several genes that may be centrally involved in the progression and metastatic potential of melanoma. This has very important implications as we continue to develop an improved understanding of the metastatic process, allowing us to identify specific genes for prognostic markers and possibly for targeted therapeutic approaches.

Metastatic relapse in patients with solid tumors is caused by systemic preoperative or perioperative dissemination of tumor cells. The presence of individual tumor cells in bone marrow and in peripheral blood can be detected by immunologic or molecular methods and is being regarded increasingly as a clinically relevant prognostic factor. Because the goal of adjuvant therapy is the eradication of occult micrometastatic tumor cells before metastatic disease becomes clinically evident, the early detection of micrometastases could identify the patients who are most (and least) likely to benefit from adjuvant therapy. In addition, more sensitive methods for detecting such cells should increase knowledge about the biologic mechanisms of metastasis and improve the diagnosis and treatment of micrometastatic disease. In contrast to solid metastatic tumors, micrometastatic tumor cells are appropriate targets for intravenously applied agents because macromolecules and immunocompetent effector cells should have access to the tumor cells. Because the majority of micrometastatic tumor cells may be nonproliferative (G0 phase), standard cytotoxic chemotherapies aimed at proliferating cells may be less effective, which might explain, in part, the failure of chemotherapy. Thus, adjuvant therapies that are aimed at dividing and quiescent cells, such as antibody-based therapies, are of considerable interest. From a literature search that used the databases MEDLINE(R), CANCERLIT(R), Biosis(R), Embase(R), and SciSearch(R), we discuss the current state of research on minimal residual cancer in patients with epithelial tumors and the diagnostic and clinical implications of these findings.

Paclitaxel (Taxol) is an effective chemotherapeutic agent for treatment of cancer patients. Despite impressive initial clinical responses, the majority of patients eventually develop some degree of resistance to Taxol-based therapy. The mechanisms underlying cancer cells resistance to Taxol are not fully understood. MicroRNA (miRNA) has emerged to play important roles in tumorigenesis and drug resistance. However, the interaction between the development of Taxol resistance and miRNA has not been previously explored. In this study we utilized a miRNA array to compare the differentially expressed miRNAs in Taxol-resistant and their Taxol-sensitive parental cells. We verified that miR-125b, miR-221, miR-222, and miR-923 were up-regulated in Taxol-resistant cancer cells by real-time PCR. We further investigated the role and mechanisms of miR-125b in Taxol resistance. We found that miR-125b was up-regulated in Taxol-resistant cells, causing a marked inhibition of Taxol-induced cytotoxicity and apoptosis and a subsequent increase in the resistance to Taxol in cancer cells. Moreover, we demonstrated that the pro-apoptotic Bcl-2 antagonist killer 1 (Bak1) is a direct target of miR-125b. Down-regulation of Bak1 suppressed Taxol-induced apoptosis and led to an increased resistance to Taxol. Restoring Bak1 expression by either miR-125b inhibitor or re-expression of Bak1 in miR-125b-overexpressing cells recovered Taxol sensitivity, overcoming miR-125-mediated Taxol resistance. Taken together, our data strongly support a central role for miR-125b in conferring Taxol resistance through the suppression of Bak1 expression. This finding has important implications in the development of targeted therapeutics for overcoming Taxol resistance in a number of different tumor histologies.

Survivors of the heritable form of retinoblastoma subsequently develop second primary osteosarcomas at substantially greater frequency than either the general population or survivors of nonheritable retinoblastoma. Here we present molecular genetic evidence that the development of these two disparate tumor types involves specific somatic loss of constitutional heterozygosity for the region of human chromosome 13 that includes the RB1 locus. Similar events occur during the genesis of nonheritable osteosarcoma but not in several other embryonal tumors or sarcomas. These findings suggest that a conceptual approach toward defining the number of genes whose recessive mutant forms predispose to cancer is the molecular genetic analysis of clinically associated tumor types. They also suggest that the molecular basis of mixed cancer families may be the differential expression of a single pleiotropic recessive mutation by tissue specific mitotic segregation abnormalities.