Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Gynecol Oncol ; 154(1): 199-206, 2019 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30987772

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Endocrine therapy is often considered as a treatment for hormone-responsive gynecologic malignancies. In breast cancer, activating mutations in the estrogen receptor (mutESR1) contribute to therapeutic resistance to endocrine therapy, especially aromatase inhibitors (AIs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency and clinical relevance of ESR1 genomic alterations in gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: DNA from FFPE tumor tissue obtained during routine clinical care for 9645 gynecologic malignancies (ovary, fallopian tube, uterus, cervix, vagina, vulvar, and placenta) was analyzed for all classes of genomic alterations (base substitutions (muts), insertions, deletions, rearrangements, and amplifications) in ESR1 by hybrid capture next generation sequencing. A subset of alterations was characterized in laboratory-based transcription assays for response to endocrine therapies. RESULTS: A total of 295 ESR1 genomic alterations were identified in 285 (3.0%) cases. mutESR1 were present in 86 (0.9%) cases and were more common in uterine compared to other cancers (2.0% vs <1%, respectively p < 0.001). mutESR1 were enriched in carcinomas with endometrioid versus serous histology (4.4% vs 0.2% respectively, p < 0.0001 in uterine and 3.5% vs 0.3% respectively, p = 0.0004 in ovarian carcinomas). In three of four patients with serial sampling, mutESR1 emerged under the selective pressure of AI therapy. Despite decreased potency of estrogen receptor (ER) antagonists in transcriptional assays, clinical benefit was observed following treatment with selective ER-targeted therapy, in one case lasting >48 months. CONCLUSIONS: While the prevalence of ESR1 mutations in gynecologic malignancies is low, there are significant clinical implications useful in guiding therapeutic approaches for these cancers.


Subject(s)
Aromatase Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Estrogen Receptor alpha/genetics , Genital Neoplasms, Female/drug therapy , Genital Neoplasms, Female/genetics , Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators/administration & dosage , Adult , Aromatase Inhibitors/pharmacology , DNA, Neoplasm/genetics , Drug Resistance, Neoplasm , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Molecular Targeted Therapy , Mutation , Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators/pharmacology , Transcription, Genetic/drug effects , Transcriptome , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
2.
Expert Opin Drug Saf ; 13(10): 1375-82, 2014 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25146351

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are the most frequently used form of effective, reversible contraception among women of childbearing potential. In the average risk population, OCPs may offer a protective benefit against ovarian, endometrial and colorectal malignancies. In women at high risk for breast, ovarian, endometrial or colorectal malignancies, the risk-benefit profile is less well studied. AREAS COVERED: In this article, we review pertinent literature on the use of OCPs in patients with genetic susceptibilities due to mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2 or mismatch repair genes implicated in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer as well as those with a strong family history of malignancies associated with these syndromes. EXPERT OPINION: For women at high risk for ovarian, endometrial and/or colorectal malignancies due to genetic susceptibilities or a strong family history, the possibility of chemoprevention with OCPs may be an attractive option; however, the potential increase in breast cancer, although small, must be considered in clinical decision-making. The ultimate decision to use OCPs in a high-risk woman should be based on a consideration of her specific genetic risk, her age, her reproductive plans and her willingness to consider surgical prophylaxis options.


Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis/prevention & control , Contraceptives, Oral, Combined/administration & dosage , Genital Neoplasms, Female/prevention & control , Age Factors , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Breast Neoplasms/etiology , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis/genetics , Contraceptives, Oral, Combined/adverse effects , Female , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Genital Neoplasms, Female/genetics , Humans , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors
3.
Front Oncol ; 4: 163, 2014.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24999452

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Underlying mechanisms regulating angiogenesis in ovarian cancer have not been completely elucidated. Evidence suggests that the TP53 tumor suppressor pathway and tumor microenvironment play integral roles. We utilized microarray technology to study the interaction between TP53 mutational status and hypoxia on angiogenic gene expression. METHODS: Affymetrix U133A arrays were analyzed for angiogenic gene expression in 19 ovarian cancer cell lines stratified both by TP53 mutation status and A2780 wild-type (wt) TP53 vs. mutated (m) TP53 cell lines after treatment under hypoxic conditions or with ionizing radiation. RESULTS: Twenty-eight differentially expressed angiogenic genes were identified in the mTP53 cell lines compared to wtTP53 lines. Five genes were upregulated in mTP53 cells: 40% involved in extracellular matrix (ECM) degradation [matrix metalloproteinase 10 (MMP10)/15] and 60% in angiogenesis (fibroblast growth factor receptor 3/VEGFA/ephrin receptor-B4). Twenty-three genes were upregulated in wtTP53: nearly 22% were ECM constituents or involved in ECM degradation; over 40% were growth factors or mediators of angiogenesis. Five genes were upregulated in the A2780mTP53 cells: 40% involved in ECM remodeling (MMP10, ADAMTS1), 40% with pro-angiogenic activity (EFNB2, factor 2 receptor), and 20% with anti-angiogenic properties (ADAMTS1). Three genes were upregulated in hypoxia treated cells compared to controls: one with anti-angiogenic activity (angiopoietin-like 4) and two with pro-angiogenic activity (VEGFA, EFNA3). No significant gene fold changes were noted after exposure to radiation. Four genes continued to demonstrate significant differential expression (p ≤ 0.05) after adjusting for multiple comparisons. These genes included endoglin upregulation in wt lines (pro-angiogenesis) and upregulation of FGF20 (growth factor), ADAMTS1 (anti-angiogenesis) and MMP10 (ECM degradation) in mTP53 cell lines. CONCLUSION: Our exploratory findings indicate that non-overlapping angiogenic pathways may be altered by TP53 mutations and hypoxic conditions in the tumor microenvironment. Further evaluation is needed for confirmation.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...