Background
Significant progress has been made recently in the systemic treatment of colorectal adnocarcinoma (CRC). There are currently 8 agents licensed for use in the US and Europe 5-fluorouracil (5FU), floxuridine, capecitabine, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, cetuximab, panitumumab and bevacizumab [
1]. Combination therapy is the standard of care for both early and advanced disease [
1]. 5FU, or an oral analogue capecitabine, is a component of the majority of combination regimens and the low toxicity, ease and convenience of administration, favour its clinical use. However, a modest response rate due to clinical resistance to 5FU is a major limitation. Older studies with 5FU monotherapy demonstrate that the majority of CRC patients treated will not benefit from 5FU, for example the objective response rate to 5FU or capecitabine monotherapy in advanced CRC is 20% [
1].
Identification of the clinically important mechanisms of resistance to 5FU would allow better selection of patients for 5FU therapy and the rationale design of targeted therapeutics to overcome resistance, and thus increase the proportion of patients deriving benefit from 5FU. A predictive biomarker for clinical 5FU resistance would clearly be useful, but progress has been limited in this area and investigation has thus far failed to fully explain the molecular mechanisms that areimportant for clinical 5FU resistance [
2‐
4]. Preclinical and clinical studies have mainly focussed upon molecules concerned with 5FU metabolism (Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), Thymidine phosphorylase (TP)) or Thymidylate Synthase (TS), a well characterised 5FU target [
3,
4]. Clinical studies in colorectal cancer, assessing these molecules by a variety of techniques (IHC, RT-PCR, ELISA, genotyping), while demonstrating correlation between benefit (such as response and survival) from 5FU or capecitabine, have so far failed either to demonstrate genuine clinical utility as predictive biomarkers or produce useful targeted agents [
3]. Overall, given the widespread clinical use of 5FU or its oral formulations, there is still a need for novel discovery approaches in this area.
The global perspective provided by gene expression profiling has provided novel insights into the molecular mechanisms of clinical response to therapy in human cancers [
5], although few studies have specifically addressed clinical therapy response in colorectal adenocarcinomas [
6‐
10] and only 1 has analysed serial biopsies before and after treatment [
8]. This report describes our prospectively designed discovery study, Aberdeen Microarray in Rectal Cancer Study-1 (AMRECS1) using a combined approach, identifying candidate molecules from clinical specimens and comparing them with our 5FU chemo-resistance data from cell line model systems [
11]. We aimed to identify novel mechanisms of resistance to 5-fluorouracil (5FU) that are clinically relevant in CRC patients. Tumour biopsies were collected before and after pre-operative therapy in rectal cancer patients following staging and stratification with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to identify gene expression changes that occur following either 'short course' radiotherapy (SCRT) or 5FU-based concurrent chemo-radiotherapy (CRT). Gene expression profiles from these matched clinical specimens were compared with profiles generated from colorectal adenocarcinoma cell lines, both sensitive parental and derived daughter cell lines with increasing resistance to 5FU. Data is presented for the validation of one potential novel clinical 5FU resistance candidate APRIL/TNFSF13 in an independent set of 234 patients with colorectal cancer.
Methods
Patients, Follow up and Treatment
The study was approved by the North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee. Patients provided informed consent in accordance with the regulations and instructions of the North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee for study participation, including use and publication of results. Full clinicopathological details are provided in table
1 and
2 and in Additional File
1. Patients were selected for either SCRT or CRT based upon MRI staging features [
12]. All the radiotherapy was CT planned, using a 3 field technique (posterior and two lateral fields), multileaf collimation and with patients having a full bladder during the radiotherapy. Surgery was performed either the following week, for SCRT patients, or 6 to 8 weeks after completion of chemo-radiotherapy.
Table 1
Locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma patients analysed by gene expression microarray.
CRT1 | CRT | T2N1 M0 | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 60% | poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma | 60% | T3N2 |
CRT2 | CRT | T3N1 M0 | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 60% | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 60% | T3N1 |
CRT3 | CRT | T3N0 M0 | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 60% | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 50% | T3N0 |
CRT4 | CRT | T4N1 M0 | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 50% | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 50% | T2N0 |
RT1 | RT | T2N0 M0 | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 60% | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 60% | T3N0 |
RT2 | RT | T2N1 M0 | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 60% | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 60% | T2N1 |
RT3 | RT | T2N0 M0 | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 50% | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 60% | T3N2 |
RT4 | RT | T2N0 M0 | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 60% | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 60% | T3N0 |
CON1 | None | T3N1 M0 | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 75% | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 70% | T3N1 |
CON2 | None | T2N1 M0 | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 50% | moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 50% | T3N1 |
Table 2
Resected colorectal adenocarcinoma patients analysed by immunohistochemistry for APRIL protein expression on tissue microarray
Age
| 71 years (22-92) |
Gender
| |
Male | 121 |
Female | 113 |
Histological Grade
| |
Poor | 27 |
Moderate | 199 |
Well | 8 |
Tumour site
| |
Proximal colon | 79 |
Distal colon | 86 |
Rectum | 69 |
Stage
| |
I | 46 |
II | 86 |
III (adjuvant chemotherapy)1
| 102 (63) |
N2 | 48 |
Gene expression profiling
Tumour biopsies were collected at the time of endoscopic diagnosis of rectal adenocarcinoma and placed immediately into RNAlater (800 μl) (Ambion, Austin, Texas). Tumour biopsies collected at time of curative surgical resection were placed immediately into normal saline and a pathologist provided a representative tumour biopsy, which was placed immediately into RNAlater within 30 minutes (800 μl). Tissues were stored in RNALater at 4°C overnight (16-18 hours), then washed in 500 μl ice cold RNase free PBS (Ambion, Austin, TX) and snap frozen in liquid nitrogen. Long-term storage of tissues was at -80°C. Before RNA extraction, histological diagnosis and features were confirmed by frozen section histology. Extraction and purification of total RNA was performed using TRIZOL reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and RNeasy Microkits (Qiagen, Venlo, The Netherlands), according to the manufacturer's instructions. Quantification of total RNA was performed by spectrophometry (260/280 ratio 1.9 to 2.2 for all samples). Quality of total RNA and cRNA was assessed using a BioAnalyser 2100 (Agilent technologies, Palo Alto, CA). Target preparation for the Affymetrix Genechips™ was according to manufacturer's instructions (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA). Specifically, 4 μg of total RNA was used for reverse transcription and synthesis and amplification of biotin labelled cRNA using the One cycle target labelling and control reagents. Clean-up of biotin-cRNA was performed with RNeasy Minikits (Qiagen, Venlo, The Netherlands). Fragmentation was performed using 20 μg of biotin-labelled cRNA. A hybridisation cocktail was prepared from 15 μg which was first hybridised to Test 3 GeneChips™ to assess sample quality (GAPDH 3':5' < 3 and Actin 3': 5' < 3) and then to HGU133 Plus2.0 GeneChips™ (10 μg) for gene expression analysis. Procedures for hybridisation, washing, staining and scanning of chips were carried out according to standard protocols (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA).
Analysis of gene expression profiling data
Analysis of the gene expression data is described in detail in Additional file
2 and as described previously [
11,
13]. Raw data for gene expression is provided in MIAME complaint format in Array express, accession number E-MEXP-1901
Immunohistochemistry
Description of the Tissue Microarray (TMA) is provided in previous publications [
14]. A total of 268 colorectal tumours and 50 normal colon cores are represented, with 1 core per case. During the staining procedure 34 (13%) tumour cores were lost, leaving cores from 234 patients available for assessment. Antigen retrieval was performed by microwaving in 10 mM citrate (pH 6.0) for 20 minutes. An autostainer (Dakocytomation, Glostrup, Denmark) was used for staining the sections using a mouse monoclonal primary antibody for human APRIL/TNFSF13 (1:60 dilution, Abcam, Cambridge, UK) and Chemate-Envision detection system (Dakocytomation, Glostrup, Denmark), according to the manufacturer's instructions. All sections were double scored by 2 independent investigators who were blinded to the clinical data. Scoring discrepancies were resolved by examination of sections at a double-headed microscope. Sections were scored positive or negative for tumour and/or stromal staining. In addition tumour staining intensity was scored as weak, moderate or strong.
Statistical analysis
Continuity corrected χ2 test, with Fisher's exact test where appropriate, was used for binary categorical variables, Pearson's χ2 test for non-binary categorical variables and Student's t-test for numerical variables. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to assess survival and the log rank test to assess statistical significance. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis of survival. Two-sided p values of less than 0.05 were considered significant. All analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows, version 13.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL).
Discussion
Global gene expression profiling of clinical response to therapy has provided a useful means for biomarker and novel target discovery in several solid tumours [
5,
13]. The work described in this paper has used and extended this experimental approach to rectal adenocarcinomas. The data presented constitutes an analysis from gene expression profiling of prospectively collected pre- and post-treatment tumour specimens from patients with rectal adenocarcinomas receiving pre-operative therapy.
Since a small number of rectal adenocarcinomas have been profiled (n = 10), stringent and focussed analysis of the microarray data was applied to identify leads for further investigation. This included hypothesis-driven focus on cell death pathways and comparison with our previously published cell line work. The key candidate was subsequently validated a in larger independent set (n = 234) using a different technique (immunohistochemistry).
The biological validity of the experimental model and the data is confirmed by the finding of significant alterations in the gene expression of previously implicated molecules and pathways, for example p21 which has been implicated in numerous studies [
20‐
25]. The biological pathways identified (information 3 and 4) suggest a co-ordinated transcriptional response to radiotherapy- and CRT- induced cellular stress, consistent with other reports involving gene expression profiling in cell lines and several different cancer types [
2,
11,
13,
25‐
29]. We hypothesize that this reflects distinct biological effects of these two treatments. However, the possibility of effects due to time course differences in the tumour sampling in each group cannot be excluded.
A supervised analysis of cell death genes, reveals shared genes and pathways. The analysis supports the hypothesise that initiation of cell death is a common final pathway resulting from a multitude of upstream responses to the insult and resultant cellular stress of cytotoxic chemotherapy or radiotherapy thereby accounting for gene expression overlap seen.
The majority of the genes identified in our analysis represent genes and pathways that have not previously been implicated in clinical response of rectal adenocarcinoma or as mechanisms of action or resistance to radiotherapy or 5FU or 5FU-based CRT. This is consistent with the findings of other gene expression profiling studies in rectal adenocarcinoma or other tumour types for radiotherapy or 5FU [
6,
8‐
11,
26,
28‐
30]. However, it is important to note that this discovery phase utilised a small sample cohort and the candidate gene expression changes require further validation in a lrger independent cohort.
APRIL/TNFSF13 was found to be upregulated following CRT but not radiotherapy alone in rectal cancers and was also up-regulated in 5FU resistant cell lines in our previous studies [
11]. The biological function of APRIL as a secreted molecule that has autocrine and paracrine functions to promote cell survival and proliferation and its previously documented expression in colorectal adenocarcinoma but not normal cells outside the immune system, supported it's further investigation as a novel mechanism of 5FU action and resistance, and as a predictive biomarker [
15‐
19,
31‐
35].
This study found that expression of APRIL protein in colorectal tumour stroma was associated with worse survival, but only in those patient's treated with adjuvant 5FU chemotherapy. This relationship was also maintained in a multivariate analysis of 5FU chemotherapy treated Stage III colorectal adenocarcinoma patients (HR 6.25, 1.47-26.31, p = 0.013), in which the Hazard ratio compares favourably to other previously published putative 5FU predictive biomarkers in colorectal cancer [
2‐
4]. Tumour cell expression of APRIL was correlated with stromal staining but was not significantly associated with survival. Overall, APRIL appears to have no therapy independent prognostic impact in colorectal adenocarcinoma in this analysis.
Within the limitations of a retrospective study, these results suggest that APRIL may have clinical utility as a predictive biomarker to select patients who would not benefit from adjuvant 5FU monotherapy. For example, currently adjuvant 5FU is used clinically in an empirical way without predictive biomarkers in stage III patients and in this paradigm the majority of patients with Stage III cancers will not benefit from 5FU. Therefore, the ability to identify some of these stage III patients who will not benefit from 5FU has clear potential clinical utility in optimising and individualising clinical use of 5FU in this setting. An important question is whether APRIL confers cross resistance to other active agents used to treat colorectal cancer, especially Oxaliplatin and Irinotecan, this would be potentially useful to guide 5FU combination adjuvant therapy in stage III patients, but especially in stage II patients where 5FU alone appears to have limited benefit.
The data allows us to hypothesise that APRIL may provide a useful novel therapeutic target. Morphological examination has suggested that positively staining stromal cells include lymphocytes and fibroblasts, but not endothelial cells. This is consistent with evidence indicating that APRIL is predominantly secreted and exerts it's effects via cell surface receptors, acting in a paracrine or autocrine fashion [
15‐
19,
31‐
35].
Our data indicate that APRIL might be secreted by tumour cells or stromal cells within the tumour. The APRIL signalling mechanisms that may mediate tumour cell survival are not well characterised [
32]. However, in
vitro work in glioma cell lines and
ex vivo studies in BCLL, has shown that APRIL stimulates proliferation and inhibits apoptosis in response to a wide range of stimuli, including CD95L, TRAIL and cytotoxic drugs and survival in B-CLL cells involves NFκB activation [
15‐
19,
31‐
34]. More recently it has been suggested that tumour infiltrating neutrophils may be an important source of APRIL production in solid tumours [
35].
If APRIL is functional as an extracellular secreted molecule this makes it amenable to targeting with either a small molecule inhibitor or monoclonal antibody, as has been employed successfully for other targets in solid tumours e.g. bevacizumab against VEGF. An anti-APRIL targeted therapy may be useful in reversal of acquired 5FU resistance or in combination in patients whose tumours over-express the molecule.
The lack of therapy independent prognostic impact suggests that an anti-APRIL therapy may not have anticancer activity on it's own, but the cell survivalpromoting activity may be more generally applicable to other therapeutic cell death stresses. Therefore, combination of an anti-APRIL agent with agents other than 5FU may be active, and our cell line data also suggest that they may be active in other tumour types, such as breast cancer.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions
RDP designed the study, completed ethical submission, consented patients for study, performed, analysed and interpreted gene expression profiling and immunohistochemistry and wrote the manuscript. LMS participated in study design, ethical submission, consenting of patients for study, interpretation of immunohistochemical data, and writing of manuscript GIM- participated in study design, histopathological review of specimens, provision of tissue microarray, analysis and interpretation of immunohistochemical data, and writing of manuscript. GMac- participated in study design, and consenting of patients for the study. T O'K, NB, EA, AMc- Consented patients for study, and provided fresh tumour tissue for gene expression profiling. WW- Assisted with analysis of gene expression data. FG- participated in study design, performed MRIs and reported MRIs SS- participated in study design and reporting of MRIs. ECD - participated in study design, assisted with ethical submission, assisted with analysis and interpretation of gene expression and immunohistochemical data, and writing of manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.