Clue To Reversing Resistance To Tamoxifen In Breast Cancer Cells Discovered At Lombardi
Main Category: Breast CancerAlso Included In: Endocrinology
Article Date: 14 Aug 2007 - 10:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
5 (3 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
5 (1 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 1 posts |
When a woman receives a breast cancer diagnosis her entire life may change in the blink of an eye. But the nature of that change is governed by the smallest alterations that take place within the proteins of the tumor cells, determining what treatments she can pursue with a hope of cure and those to which her cancer is resistant.
Scientists from the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center have announced the discovery of a new mechanism of resistance to endocrine or anti-hormonal therapies, such as Tamoxifen and Faslodex. This research may allow oncologists to screen women for responsiveness to these treatments, and provides a much-needed clue to reversing resistance. The research, led by Robert Clarke, PhD, DSc, a professor of oncology and of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown University Medical Center, indicates that a gene previously thought to be unrelated to breast cancer may be responsible for some resistance to endocrine therapy.
The gene, called human X-box binding protein-1 (XBP1), is an alternatively spliced transcription factor that participates in a stress-signaling pathway to protect cells from damage. In a paper published online in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEBJ), Clarke and his colleagues at the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (part of Georgetown University Medical Center) found that over-expression of the spliced variant of the gene in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer cells led to reduced sensitivity to Tamoxifen and Faslodex.
According to Lombardi medical oncologist Minetta Liu, MD, it is expected that all hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancers will eventually develop resistance to endocrine therapies. When this happens, doctors must switch their patients to a different class of drugs -- throwing their lives into limbo once again as treatment schedules are changed and new side effects develop.
"When cell lines changed from being sensitive to endocrine therapy to being resistant, we saw an increase in spliced XBP1 inside the cell. So then we took sensitive cells and added spliced XBP1, which made them resistant to the therapy," explained Clarke, who is interim director of Georgetown's Biomedical Graduate Research Organization and co-leader of the Breast Cancer Program at the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Anti-hormonal therapies are some of the most effective treatments for breast cancer because estrogen, a natural female sex hormone, can drive the growth of the tumor. Tamoxifen and other anti-hormonal therapies cut off the tumor's access to estrogen, causing the tumor to stabilize and sometimes even shrink. However according to Clarke, many cancers become insensitive to these treatments over time -- more than half of all recurring breast cancers lose sensitivity -- because they have found a way to keep growing in the absence of estrogen.
Previously, Clarke and his team found that XBP1 is co-expressed with the estrogen receptor in breast tumor cells. This may mean that the effects of XBP1 over-expression occur when the protein is bound to the estrogen receptor, suggesting for the first time that these two proteins interact in the cell. This was the first evidence that the XBP1 protein may play a role in breast cancer pathways.
Through molecular profiling of the downstream effects of the spliced XBP1, Dr. Clarke and his colleagues discovered that expression of several anti-apoptotic genes responsible for programmed cell death -- including BCL2 -- are altered. While they have not yet determined the exact interactions that take place, the researchers believe that the overexpression of XBP1 promotes cell survival by affecting the activity of the intrinsic apoptosis pathway.
"XBP1 may give us a much-needed clue for better predicting response to anti-estrogen therapies like Tamoxifen," explained Clarke. "The presence of the activated protein at high levels should predict estrogen independence and thus resistance to these therapies."
In the future, Clarke also hopes to develop a new therapeutic treatment based on this discovery. He believes that the XBP1 pathway can be targeted in patients receiving treatment to ensure their tumors do not become resistant to the anti-hormonal therapies. Using this discovery, Clarke also hopes to find a way to reverse resistance to anti-hormonal therapies, making it possible for women to continue treatment with first line therapies for longer.
However, Clarke said that the next step in this research will be to conduct a trial to test the predictive power of XBP1 in the clinic.
###
About Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center
The Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, part of Georgetown University Medical Center and Georgetown University Hospital, seeks to improve the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of cancer through innovative basic and clinical research, patient care, community education and outreach, and the training of cancer specialists of the future. Lombardi is one of only 39 comprehensive cancer centers in the nation, as designated by the National Cancer Institute, and the only one in the Washington, DC, area. For more information, go to http://lombardi.georgetown.edu/.
About Georgetown University Medical Center
Georgetown University Medical Center is an internationally recognized academic medical center with a three-part mission of research, teaching and patient care (through our partnership with MedStar Health). Our mission is carried out with a strong emphasis on public service and a dedication to the Catholic, Jesuit principle of cura personalis -- or "care of the whole person." The Medical Center includes the School of Medicine and the School of Nursing and Health Studies, both nationally ranked, the world-renowned Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Biomedical Graduate Research Organization (BGRO), home to 60 percent of the university's sponsored research funding.
Source: Becky Wexler
Georgetown University Medical Center
Visit our breast cancer section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
16 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/79465.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/79465.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
New Paradigms Of Cancer Treatment
posted by Gregory D. Pawelski on 14 Aug 2007 at 2:30 pmThe contribution of both cell culture and genomic analysis in individualizing cancer treatment is revolutionalizing cancer care by identifying the right drug for each individual patient, thus personalizing chemotherapy treatment. It will help to improve the efficiency of chemotherapy without changing the drugs currently used in standard practice. Rather, it will simply provide an approach to better select a repertoire of available drugs.
Gene Expression assays are panels of markers that can predict the likelihood of cancer recurrence in various populations. A Cell Culture Assay is a test for drug activity against a tumor. What a patient diagnosed with cancer would like ideally is to know whether they would benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. If so, which active drugs have the highest probability of working and are relatively non-toxic in a given patient.
Whether a patient would benefit from adjuvant therapy depends on two things: (1) whether the tumor is "destined" to come back in the first place and (2) whether the tumor is sensitive to drugs which might be used to keep it from coming back.
By testing the gene expression markers of a patient, oncologists can identify those patients unlikely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy from those that would. If a patient is found to be "low risk" of a recurrence they do not need chemotherapy. If the patient is found to be "high risk" and needs adjuvant chemotherapy, by testing the patient's "live" tumor cells the oncologist can select drugs that have a higher probability of being effective for an individual patient rather than selecting drugs based on the average responses of many patients in large clinical trials.
The gene expression markers (assays) actually can be calibrated to provide information both about the possibility of recurrence and also chemosensitivity. The problem is dissecting one from the other. Studies to date have just looked at whether people had a recurrence. You can identify gene expression patterns which correlate with chemosensitivity by combining gene studies (molecular profiling) with cell culture studies (functional profiling). Use the cell culture assay as the gold standard to define the difference between sensitivity and resistance. Then you can see which pattern correlates with which for individual tumors and individual drugs.
When the decision is made to treat a patient with chemotherapy, most patients are treated with a combination of drugs. The "funtional profiling" method differs from existing DNA and RNA tests in that it assesses the activity of a drug upon combined effect of all cellular processes, using several metabolic and morphologic endpoints. Other tests, such as those which identify DNA or RNA sequences or gene expression of individual proteins often examine only one component of a much larger, interactive process.
What effect will different individual drugs have in combination in different, individual tumors? No gene-based test can discriminate differing levels of anti-tumor activity occurring among different therapy drugs. Nor can available gene-based tests identify situations in which it is advantageous to combine the new "targeted" drugs with other types of cancer drugs.
This is where cell culture assays will always be able to provide uniquely valuable information. Cell Culture Assays have contributed to the molecular understanding of chemosensitivity and resistance. But it's not one versus the other. The best thing is to combine these different tests in ways which make the most sense. We can't afford anymore trial-and-error treatment. Not only is this an important predictive test, it is also a unique tool that can help to identify newer and better drugs, evaluate promising drug combinations, and serve as a "gold standard" correlative model with which to develop new DNA, RNA, and protein-based tests that better predict for drug activity.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




