SMAD4 and TS expression might predict the risk of recurrence after resection of colorectal liver metastases.

PURPOSE: Colorectal liver metastases (CLM) have significant molecular heterogeneity, which contributes to the risk of recurrence following surgery. Most of the traditional scores intended to predict recurrence is based on clinicopathological variables and it is unclear whether incorporating molecular biomarkers might improve our assessment of the risk of recurrence. Our aim was to determine if molecular biomarkers might be associated with the risk of recurrence after surgery of CLM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 121 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) with resected liver metastases were included. The role of several clinicopathological variables to predict patient's outcome after resection of liver metastases was analyzed. Eighteen genes related to CRC pathogenesis were also included in the analyses. Univariate and multivariate stepwise Cox regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with recurrence and the risk of death. RESULTS: Eight prognostic factors for progression-free survival and nine factors for overall survival were identified in the univariate analyses. After adjusting for other risk factors, only the expression of two molecular factors was associated with the risk of recurrence: TS (HR 0.631, 95 % CI 0.422-0.944) and SMAD4 (HR 1.680, 95 % CI 1.047-2.695). None of the variables was significantly associated with the risk of death in the multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic significance of most traditional clinicopathological variables might be insufficient to define patients at risk for recurrence after liver metastases resection. Molecular biomarkers might improve the identification of patients with higher risk of recurrence.

Gene expression differences in primary colorectal tumors and matched liver metastases: chemotherapy related or tumoral heterogeneity?

BACKGROUND: Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is generally based on genetic testing performed in primary tumor biopsies, but whether the genomic status of primary tumors is identical to that of metastases is not well known. We compared the gene expression profiles of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) biopsies of colorectal primary tumors and matched liver metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared the expression of 18 genes in FFPE CRC tumors and their matched liver metastases from 32 patients. The expression of each gene in CRC primary tumors and their matched liver metastases was tested using Student's t test for paired samples. Pairwise correlations of each gene in the primary tumors and matched liver metastases were evaluated by Pearson's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The expression of six genes was significantly different in primary tumors compared with their matched liver metastases [CXCR4 (p < 0.001), THBS1 (p = 0.007), MMP 9 (p = 0.048), GST Pi (p = 0.050), TYMP (p = 0.042) and DPYD (p < 0.001)]. For the remaining genes, where no significant differences were observed, only SMAD4 (r s = 0.447, p = 0.010), ERCC1 (r s = 0.423, p = 0.016) and VEGF A (r s = 0.453, p = 0.009) showed significant correlation in expression between the two tissues. Therefore, we only detected similar gene expression levels between the tumor and the metastases in these three markers. CONCLUSIONS: We only found similar gene expression levels between the tumor and the metastases in three genes (SMAD4, ERCC1, and VEGF A). However, our study could not assess whether the differences in gene expression were secondary to tumoral heterogeneity or to molecular changes induced by previous chemotherapy.

Molecular markers in colorectal cancer: genetic bases for a customised treatment.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in Western countries. CRC treatment is based on the employment of three chemotherapeutic drugs, including 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan, and the use of recently incorporated targeted agents directed to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The approval of these biologicals and of others to come holds great promise for the improvement of patient outcome. The molecular bases for this lethal disease have been extensively investigated, laying the foundations for a rational and customised treatment approach, expanding the therapeutic index of current drugs and easing the incorporation of new molecules. Individual markers have been mainly investigated based on drug targets and metabolism. Also, the increasing availability of highthroughput technologies has prompted the opportunity for blind studies capable of screening new markers and of identifying the specific oncogenic pathways responsible for drug resistance in a given patient. An updated review of the field is presented in this article.

Localisation of COX-2 protein is different in breast ductal carcinoma and adjacent non-tumour ductal epithelium.

INTRODUCTION: A number of findings suggest that cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) is overexpressed in breast tumours. However, there is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the pattern of expression of this protein in invasive breast ductal carcinoma and in the adjacent non-tumour ductal epithelium. This study compares the expression of COX-2 mRNA and protein in breast ductal carcinoma relative to non-tumour breast tissue. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analysed the expression of COX-2 mRNA by quantitative PCR, and COX-2 protein by immunohistochemistry in invasive ductal carcinoma as well as in non-tumour adjacent ductal epithelium from 34 breast biopsies diagnosed as being invasive ductal carcinoma. As control, we analysed expression of COX-2 protein by immunohistochemistry in surgically-resected benign breast lesions. RESULTS: Our results show that COX-2 mRNA and protein are overexpressed in non-tumour ductal epithelium compared with invasive ductal carcinoma. However, the pattern of the protein expression is different in tumour and non-tumour tissue: COX-2 protein is expressed predominantly in the membrane of the non-tumour ductal epithelium (including in benign breast lesions) while, in invasive ductal carcinoma cells, it is localised in the cytoplasm. CONCLUSIONS: The non-tumour ductal epithelium adjacent to invasive ductal carcinoma shows a higher COX-2 expression than does the invasive ductal carcinoma. However, the different localisation of the immunohistochemically-detected protein suggests a possible post-translational regulation of the protein.