Cargando…
Comparative Response of HCC Cells to TKIs: Modified in vitro Testing and Descriptive Expression Analysis
INTRODUCTION: Although the treatment paradigm for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has recently shifted in favour of checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based treatment options, the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) currently approved for the treatment of HCC are expected to remain the cornerstone of HCC treatm...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9278726/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35845819 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JHC.S356333 |
_version_ | 1784746245763366912 |
---|---|
author | Sagmeister, Paula Daza, Jimmy Ofner, Andrea Ziesch, Andreas Ye, Liangtao Ben Khaled, Najib Ebert, Matthias Mayerle, Julia Teufel, Andreas De Toni, Enrico N Munker, Stefan |
author_facet | Sagmeister, Paula Daza, Jimmy Ofner, Andrea Ziesch, Andreas Ye, Liangtao Ben Khaled, Najib Ebert, Matthias Mayerle, Julia Teufel, Andreas De Toni, Enrico N Munker, Stefan |
author_sort | Sagmeister, Paula |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Although the treatment paradigm for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has recently shifted in favour of checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based treatment options, the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) currently approved for the treatment of HCC are expected to remain the cornerstone of HCC treatment alone or in combination with CPIs. Despite considerable research efforts, no biomarker capable of predicting the response to specific TKIs has been validated. Thus, personalized approaches to HCC may aid in determining optimal treatment lines for 2nd and 3rd lines. To identify new biomarkers, we examined differential sensitivity and investigated potential transcriptomic predictors. METHODS: To this aim, the sensitivity of nine HCC cell lines to sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, and cabozantinib was evaluated by a prolonged treatment scheme to determine their respective growth rate inhibition concentrations (GR(50)). Subgroups discriminated by GR(50) values underwent differential expression and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA). RESULTS: The nine cell lines showed broadly different sensitivities to different TKIs. GR(50) values of sorafenib and regorafenib clustered closer in all cell lines, whereas treatments with lenvatinib and cabozantinib showed diversified GR(50) values. GSEA showed the activation of specific pathways in sensitive vs non-sensitive cell lines. A signature consisting of 14 biomarkers (GAGE12H, GJB6, PTCHD3, PRH1-PRR4, C6orf222, HBB, C17orf99, GOLGA6A, CRYAA, CCL23, RP11-347C12.3, RP11-514O12.4, FAM180B, and TMPRSS4) discriminates the cell lines’ response into three distinct treatment profiles: 1) equally sensible to sorafenib, regorafenib and cabozantinib, 2) sensible to lenvatinib, and 3) more sensible to regorafenib than sorafenib. CONCLUSION: We observed diverse responses to either of the four TKIs. Subgroup analysis of TKI effectiveness showed distinct transcriptomic profiles and signaling pathways associated with responsiveness. This prompts more extensive studies to explore and validate pharmacogenomic and transcriptomic strategies for a personalized treatment approach, particularly after the failure of CPI treatment. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9278726 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Dove |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92787262022-07-14 Comparative Response of HCC Cells to TKIs: Modified in vitro Testing and Descriptive Expression Analysis Sagmeister, Paula Daza, Jimmy Ofner, Andrea Ziesch, Andreas Ye, Liangtao Ben Khaled, Najib Ebert, Matthias Mayerle, Julia Teufel, Andreas De Toni, Enrico N Munker, Stefan J Hepatocell Carcinoma Original Research INTRODUCTION: Although the treatment paradigm for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has recently shifted in favour of checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based treatment options, the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) currently approved for the treatment of HCC are expected to remain the cornerstone of HCC treatment alone or in combination with CPIs. Despite considerable research efforts, no biomarker capable of predicting the response to specific TKIs has been validated. Thus, personalized approaches to HCC may aid in determining optimal treatment lines for 2nd and 3rd lines. To identify new biomarkers, we examined differential sensitivity and investigated potential transcriptomic predictors. METHODS: To this aim, the sensitivity of nine HCC cell lines to sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, and cabozantinib was evaluated by a prolonged treatment scheme to determine their respective growth rate inhibition concentrations (GR(50)). Subgroups discriminated by GR(50) values underwent differential expression and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA). RESULTS: The nine cell lines showed broadly different sensitivities to different TKIs. GR(50) values of sorafenib and regorafenib clustered closer in all cell lines, whereas treatments with lenvatinib and cabozantinib showed diversified GR(50) values. GSEA showed the activation of specific pathways in sensitive vs non-sensitive cell lines. A signature consisting of 14 biomarkers (GAGE12H, GJB6, PTCHD3, PRH1-PRR4, C6orf222, HBB, C17orf99, GOLGA6A, CRYAA, CCL23, RP11-347C12.3, RP11-514O12.4, FAM180B, and TMPRSS4) discriminates the cell lines’ response into three distinct treatment profiles: 1) equally sensible to sorafenib, regorafenib and cabozantinib, 2) sensible to lenvatinib, and 3) more sensible to regorafenib than sorafenib. CONCLUSION: We observed diverse responses to either of the four TKIs. Subgroup analysis of TKI effectiveness showed distinct transcriptomic profiles and signaling pathways associated with responsiveness. This prompts more extensive studies to explore and validate pharmacogenomic and transcriptomic strategies for a personalized treatment approach, particularly after the failure of CPI treatment. Dove 2022-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9278726/ /pubmed/35845819 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JHC.S356333 Text en © 2022 Sagmeister et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Sagmeister, Paula Daza, Jimmy Ofner, Andrea Ziesch, Andreas Ye, Liangtao Ben Khaled, Najib Ebert, Matthias Mayerle, Julia Teufel, Andreas De Toni, Enrico N Munker, Stefan Comparative Response of HCC Cells to TKIs: Modified in vitro Testing and Descriptive Expression Analysis |
title | Comparative Response of HCC Cells to TKIs: Modified in vitro Testing and Descriptive Expression Analysis |
title_full | Comparative Response of HCC Cells to TKIs: Modified in vitro Testing and Descriptive Expression Analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparative Response of HCC Cells to TKIs: Modified in vitro Testing and Descriptive Expression Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Response of HCC Cells to TKIs: Modified in vitro Testing and Descriptive Expression Analysis |
title_short | Comparative Response of HCC Cells to TKIs: Modified in vitro Testing and Descriptive Expression Analysis |
title_sort | comparative response of hcc cells to tkis: modified in vitro testing and descriptive expression analysis |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9278726/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35845819 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JHC.S356333 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sagmeisterpaula comparativeresponseofhcccellstotkismodifiedinvitrotestinganddescriptiveexpressionanalysis AT dazajimmy comparativeresponseofhcccellstotkismodifiedinvitrotestinganddescriptiveexpressionanalysis AT ofnerandrea comparativeresponseofhcccellstotkismodifiedinvitrotestinganddescriptiveexpressionanalysis AT zieschandreas comparativeresponseofhcccellstotkismodifiedinvitrotestinganddescriptiveexpressionanalysis AT yeliangtao comparativeresponseofhcccellstotkismodifiedinvitrotestinganddescriptiveexpressionanalysis AT benkhalednajib comparativeresponseofhcccellstotkismodifiedinvitrotestinganddescriptiveexpressionanalysis AT ebertmatthias comparativeresponseofhcccellstotkismodifiedinvitrotestinganddescriptiveexpressionanalysis AT mayerlejulia comparativeresponseofhcccellstotkismodifiedinvitrotestinganddescriptiveexpressionanalysis AT teufelandreas comparativeresponseofhcccellstotkismodifiedinvitrotestinganddescriptiveexpressionanalysis AT detonienricon comparativeresponseofhcccellstotkismodifiedinvitrotestinganddescriptiveexpressionanalysis AT munkerstefan comparativeresponseofhcccellstotkismodifiedinvitrotestinganddescriptiveexpressionanalysis |