Article

Overexpression of both CXC chemokine receptor 4 and vascular endothelial growth factor proteins predicts early distant relapse in stage II-III colorectal cancer patients

University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, Campania, Italy
Clinical Cancer Research (Impact Factor: 8.19). 05/2006; 12(9):2795-803. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-2142
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT CXC chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) are implicated in the metastatic process of malignant tumors. However, no data are currently available on the biological relationship between these molecules in colorectal cancer. We studied whether CXCR4 and VEGF expression could predict relapse and evaluated in vitro the contribution of CXCR4 in promoting clonogenic growth, VEGF secretion, and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) expression of colorectal cancer cells.
CXCR4 and VEGF were studied in colorectal cancer tissues and in Lovo, HT29, and SW620 colorectal cancer cell lines by immunohistochemistry. Correlations with baseline characteristics of patients and tumors were analyzed by chi2 test. VEGF secretion induced by CXCL12 was measured by ELISA. The effect of CXCL12 on ICAM-1 expression was evaluated by flow cytometry. Clonogenic growth induced by CXCL12 was determined by clonogenic assays. Functional effects induced by CXCL12 were prevented by the administration in vitro of AMD3100, a bicyclam noncompetitive antagonist of CXCR4.
Seventy-two patients, seen between January 2003 and January 2004, were studied. CXCR4 was absent in 16 tumors (22.2%); it was expressed in < or = 50% of cells in 25 (34.7%) tumors and in >50% of cells in 31 (43.0%) tumors. VEGF was absent in 17 (23.6%) tumors; it was expressed in < or = 50% of cells in 16 (22.2%) tumors and in >50% of cells in 39 (54.2%) tumors. There was a significant association between CXCR4 expression and lymph nodal status (P = 0.0393). There were significant associations between VEGF and tumor invasion (P = 0.0386) and lymph nodal involvement (P = 0.0044). American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (P = 0.0016), VEGF expression (P = 0.0450), CXCR4 expression (P = 0.0428), and VEGF/CXCR4 expression (P = 0.0004) had a significant prognostic value for disease-free survival with univariate analysis. The predictive ability of the American Joint Committee on Cancer stage and of the concomitant and high expression of VEGF and CXCR4 was confirmed by multivariate analysis. Prognosis is particularly unfavorable for patients whose primary tumors express CXCR4 and VEGF in >50% of cells (median disease-free survival in relapsed patients, 5.8 months; hazard ratio of relapse, 8.23; 95% confidence interval, 7.24-14.29). In clonogenic assays, CXCL12 (20 ng/mL/d) significantly increased the number of clones in SW620, HT29, and Lovo cells at 7 and 14 days. Again, CXCL12 was able to stimulate VEGF secretion in SW620, HT29, and Lovo cells as well as up-regulated ICAM-1. These effects were prevented by the administration of AMD3100 (1 micromol/L).
We have shown that concomitant and high expression of CXCR4 and VEGF is a strong and independent predictor of early distant relapse in colorectal cancer. CXCR4 triggers a plethora of phenomena, including stimulation of clonogenic growth, induction of VEGF release, and ICAM-1 up-regulation. These data support the inhibition of CXCR4 to prevent the development of colorectal cancer metastasis.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Gaetano Facchini, Aug 13, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
258 Views
  • Source
    • "Statistical correlation was not found with Dukes' stage and lymph node involvement which is in agreement with other reports [37] [44] [46]. However most of the studies have demonstrated significant correlation between VEGF immunoreactivity and nodal metastases [21] [36] [39] [40] [42] [45] or advanced Dukes' stage [36]. The patients' characteristics (age at diagnosis, gender and ethnicity) were not significantly associated with VEGF expression and similar observation was also noted by other investigators [21] [35] [36] [38] [39] [41] [42] [45] [46]. "
  • Source
    • "Statistical correlation was not found with Dukes' stage and lymph node involvement which is in agreement with other reports [37] [44] [46]. However most of the studies have demonstrated significant correlation between VEGF immunoreactivity and nodal metastases [21] [36] [39] [40] [42] [45] or advanced Dukes' stage [36]. The patients' characteristics (age at diagnosis, gender and ethnicity) were not significantly associated with VEGF expression and similar observation was also noted by other investigators [21] [35] [36] [38] [39] [41] [42] [45] [46]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The purpose of the present study is to investigate the expression levels of STAT3, pSTAT3, MMP-7 and VEGF in colorectal adenocarcinoma, and also to determine association with the clinico-pathological parameters and co-expression of these genes. Methods: An immunohisto-chemical method was used to evaluate the expression of MMP-7 and VEGF genes in 93 archival tissues whereas STAT3 and pSTAT3 expression was determined in 75 cases. Results: Overexpres-sion of STAT3 was detected in 26.7% (20/75), pSTAT3 in 13.4% (10/75), MMP-7 in 38.8% (36/93) and VEGF in 59.2% (55/93) of the colorectal carcinomas. STAT3, MMP-7 and VEGF immunoposi-tivity were significantly correlated with poorly-differentiated tumors (P = 0.004; P = 0.03; P = 0.002, respectively) but not with other parameters. However, pSTAT3 immunostaining was not significantly associated with the clinico-pathological characteristics. Significant relationship was noted between overexpression of pSTAT3 and STAT3 (P < 0.001), pSTAT3 and VEGF (P = 0.044), pSTAT3 and MMP-7 (P = 0.003), and STAT3 and VEGF (P = 0.037) but marginal association was detected between STAT3 and MMP-7 (P = 0.057), and MMP-7 and VEGF (P = 0.052). Conclusion: Our data suggest that expression of these genes may have an important role in tumor dedifferen-tiation and may be useful as indicators of biologic aggressiveness. Co-expression of the bio-* Corresponding author. R. Naidu et al. 1176 markers by cancer cells may have important implications in colorectal cancer biology and could be useful biological markers of the malignant phenotype.
    Journal of Cancer Therapy 01/2014; 5(5):1175-1185. DOI:10.4236/jct.2014.513119
  • Source
    • "Elevation in CXCR4 predicts recurrence in HER-2 negative breast cancer (Holm et al., 2007). Over-expression of CXCR4 and VEGF predict early distant relapse in stage II–III colorectal cancer patients (Ottaiano et al., 2006). CCR7 expression in metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is associated with lower incidence of disease free survival and lower overall survival (Tsuzuki et al., 2006). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chemokine ligand/receptor interactions affect melanoma cell growth, stimulate or inhibit angiogenesis, recruit leukocytes, promote metastasis, and alter the gene expression profile of the melanoma associated fibroblasts. Chemokine/chemokine receptor interactions can protect against tumor development/growth or can stimulate melanoma tumor progression, tumor growth and metastasis. Metastatic melanoma cells express chemokine receptors that play a major role in the specifying the organ site for metastasis, based upon receptor detection of the chemokine gradient elaborated by a specific organ/tissue. A therapeutic approach that utilizes the protective benefit of chemokines involves delivery of angiostatic chemokines or chemokines that stimulate the infiltration of cytotoxic T cells and natural killer T cells into the tumor microenvironment. An alternative approach that tackles the tumorigenic property of chemokines uses chemokine antibodies or chemokine receptor antagonists to target the growth and metastatic properties of these interactions. Based upon our current understanding of the role of chemokine-mediated inflammation in cancer, it is important that we learn to appropriately regulate the chemokine contribution to the tumorigenic 'cytokine/chemokine storm', and to metastasis.
    Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research 03/2009; 22(2):175-86. DOI:10.1111/j.1755-148X.2009.00554.x · 5.64 Impact Factor
Show more