Selinexor versus doxorubicin in dedifferentiated liposarcoma PDXs: evidence of greater activity and apoptotic response dependent on p53 nuclear accumulation and survivin down-regulation.


Journal

Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR
ISSN: 1756-9966
Titre abrégé: J Exp Clin Cancer Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8308647

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 Mar 2021
Historique:
received: 23 11 2020
accepted: 17 02 2021
entrez: 2 3 2021
pubmed: 3 3 2021
medline: 21 10 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS), a tumor that lacks effective treatment strategies and is associated with poor outcomes, expresses amplified MDM2 in the presence of wild-type p53. MDM2 ubiquitination of p53 facilitates its XPO1-mediated nuclear export, thus limiting p53 tumor suppressor functions. Consequently, nuclear export is a rational target in DDLPS. We directly compared the antitumor activity of the first-in class XPO1 inhibitor selinexor and doxorubicin, the standard front-line therapy in sarcomas, in DDLPS patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) and primary cell lines. Drug activity was assessed in three PDXs (and two corresponding cell lines) established from the dedifferentiated component of primary untreated retroperitoneal DDLPS with myogenic (N = 2) and rhabdomyoblastic (N = 1) differentiation from patients who underwent surgery. These models were marked by amplification of MDM2, CDK4 and HMGA2 genes. Selinexor was moderately active in the three PDXs but achieved greater tumor response compared to doxorubicin (maximum tumor volume inhibition: 46-80 % vs. 37-60 %). The PDX harboring rhabdomyoblastic dedifferentiation showed the highest sensitivity to both agents. PDX response to selinexor and doxorubicin was not associated with the extent of MDM2 and CDK4 gene amplification. Interestingly, the most chemosensitive PDX model showed the lowest extent of HMGA2 amplification. Selinexor was also more efficient than doxorubicinin in inducing an apoptotic response in PDXs and cell lines. Consistently, an increased nuclear accumulation of p53 was seen in all selinexor-treated models. In addition, a time-dependent decrease of survivin expression, with an almost complete abrogation of the cytoplasmic anti-apoptotic pool of this protein, was observed as a consequence of the decreased acetylation/activation of STAT3 and the increased ubiquitination of nuclear survivin. Selinexor showed a moderate antitumor activity in three DDLPS PDXs, which was, however, consistently higher than doxorubicin across all different models regardless the extent of MDM2 amplification and the histological differentiation. The depletion of survivin protein seems to significantly contribute to the induction of apoptosis through which selinexor exerts its antitumor activity.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS), a tumor that lacks effective treatment strategies and is associated with poor outcomes, expresses amplified MDM2 in the presence of wild-type p53. MDM2 ubiquitination of p53 facilitates its XPO1-mediated nuclear export, thus limiting p53 tumor suppressor functions. Consequently, nuclear export is a rational target in DDLPS. We directly compared the antitumor activity of the first-in class XPO1 inhibitor selinexor and doxorubicin, the standard front-line therapy in sarcomas, in DDLPS patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) and primary cell lines.
METHODS METHODS
Drug activity was assessed in three PDXs (and two corresponding cell lines) established from the dedifferentiated component of primary untreated retroperitoneal DDLPS with myogenic (N = 2) and rhabdomyoblastic (N = 1) differentiation from patients who underwent surgery. These models were marked by amplification of MDM2, CDK4 and HMGA2 genes.
RESULTS RESULTS
Selinexor was moderately active in the three PDXs but achieved greater tumor response compared to doxorubicin (maximum tumor volume inhibition: 46-80 % vs. 37-60 %). The PDX harboring rhabdomyoblastic dedifferentiation showed the highest sensitivity to both agents. PDX response to selinexor and doxorubicin was not associated with the extent of MDM2 and CDK4 gene amplification. Interestingly, the most chemosensitive PDX model showed the lowest extent of HMGA2 amplification. Selinexor was also more efficient than doxorubicinin in inducing an apoptotic response in PDXs and cell lines. Consistently, an increased nuclear accumulation of p53 was seen in all selinexor-treated models. In addition, a time-dependent decrease of survivin expression, with an almost complete abrogation of the cytoplasmic anti-apoptotic pool of this protein, was observed as a consequence of the decreased acetylation/activation of STAT3 and the increased ubiquitination of nuclear survivin.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Selinexor showed a moderate antitumor activity in three DDLPS PDXs, which was, however, consistently higher than doxorubicin across all different models regardless the extent of MDM2 amplification and the histological differentiation. The depletion of survivin protein seems to significantly contribute to the induction of apoptosis through which selinexor exerts its antitumor activity.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33648535
doi: 10.1186/s13046-021-01886-x
pii: 10.1186/s13046-021-01886-x
pmc: PMC7923610
doi:

Substances chimiques

Antibiotics, Antineoplastic 0
BIRC5 protein, human 0
Hydrazines 0
Survivin 0
TP53 protein, human 0
Triazoles 0
Tumor Suppressor Protein p53 0
selinexor 31TZ62FO8F
Doxorubicin 80168379AG

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

83

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States

Références

Sci Rep. 2018 Aug 16;8(1):12248
pubmed: 30115935
Cancer Res. 2019 Mar 1;79(5):982-993
pubmed: 30563890
Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2015 Mar;39:91-6
pubmed: 25591986
J Biol Chem. 2007 May 11;282(19):14616-25
pubmed: 17371868
Anticancer Agents Med Chem. 2019;19(3):304-309
pubmed: 30543177
Cancer Med. 2019 Sep;8(11):5313-5326
pubmed: 31339234
Cancers (Basel). 2019 Jul 19;11(7):
pubmed: 31331120
Mol Cancer Ther. 2014 Mar;13(3):675-86
pubmed: 24431073
Pathology. 2014 Feb;46(2):95-104
pubmed: 24378391
Ann Oncol. 2012 Jun;23(6):1601-7
pubmed: 22039081
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Jul 7;96(13):1006-14
pubmed: 15240784
Cancer. 2011 Dec 1;117(23):5359-69
pubmed: 21598240
Oncologist. 2019 Jul;24(7):989-996
pubmed: 31019022
Curr Opin Oncol. 2017 Jul;29(4):260-267
pubmed: 28509807
Eur J Cancer. 2021 Feb;144:360-367
pubmed: 33418486
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):134-144
pubmed: 30578023
Cells. 2020 Oct 02;9(10):
pubmed: 33023194
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2020 Feb 5;21(2):15
pubmed: 32026050
Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2021 Jan;60(1):26-37
pubmed: 33111425
Oncotarget. 2017 Jan 31;8(5):7521-7532
pubmed: 27893412
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Aug 15;25(16):5135-5142
pubmed: 31164371
Cell Death Dis. 2010 Jul 22;1:e57
pubmed: 21364662
Oncotarget. 2018 Jan 10;9(11):9963-9974
pubmed: 29515783
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Jan;106:225-233
pubmed: 30528807
Cell Cycle. 2019 Oct;18(19):2524-2537
pubmed: 31416393
Bioinformatics. 2010 Oct 1;26(19):2363-7
pubmed: 20688976
Eur J Cancer. 2014 Nov;50(17):3021-8
pubmed: 25269954
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb;142(2):389-99
pubmed: 26319392
Drug Resist Updat. 2011 Feb;14(1):52-66
pubmed: 21169051
Eur J Cancer. 2005 Dec;41(18):2853-60
pubmed: 16289617
Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Sep 15;19(18):5192-201
pubmed: 23888069
Biosci Rep. 2019 Jul 5;39(7):
pubmed: 31189742
Nat Rev Cancer. 2017 Apr;17(4):254-268
pubmed: 28104906
Transl Oncol. 2017 Aug;10(4):546-554
pubmed: 28654818
Mol Cancer Ther. 2013 Jul;12(7):1171-9
pubmed: 23615632
Oncogene. 2011 Jul 7;30(27):3024-35
pubmed: 21339738
Neoplasia. 2013 Mar;15(3):263-80
pubmed: 23479505
Oncotarget. 2017 Nov 30;8(67):111225-111245
pubmed: 29340049
Exp Cell Res. 2002 Apr 15;275(1):44-53
pubmed: 11925104
Oncotarget. 2015 May 30;6(15):13119-32
pubmed: 25948791
Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 29;7(13):16581-92
pubmed: 26918731
Eur J Cancer. 2017 May;76:84-92
pubmed: 28284173
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Aug 1;23(15):4301-4311
pubmed: 28314790
Am J Surg Pathol. 2015 Mar;39(3):383-93
pubmed: 25581729

Auteurs

Valentina Zuco (V)

Molecular Pharmacology Unit, Department of Applied Research and Technological Development, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Amadeo 42, 20133, Milan, Italy.

Sandro Pasquali (S)

Molecular Pharmacology Unit, Department of Applied Research and Technological Development, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Amadeo 42, 20133, Milan, Italy.

Monica Tortoreto (M)

Molecular Pharmacology Unit, Department of Applied Research and Technological Development, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Amadeo 42, 20133, Milan, Italy.

Silvia Brich (S)

Department of Pathology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, via Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.

Stefano Percio (S)

Molecular Pharmacology Unit, Department of Applied Research and Technological Development, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Amadeo 42, 20133, Milan, Italy.

Gian Paolo Dagrada (GP)

Department of Pathology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, via Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.

Chiara Colombo (C)

Sarcoma Service, Department of Surgery, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, via Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.

Roberta Sanfilippo (R)

Adult Mesenchymal Tumor and Rare Cancer Unit, Department of Cancer Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, via Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.

Calogero Lauricella (C)

Molecular Pathology Unit, Ospedale Niguarda Ca' Grande, Milan, Italy.

Mrinal Gounder (M)

Sarcoma Medical Oncology and Early Drug Development, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, 10065, New York, NY, USA.

Rihan El Bezawy (R)

Molecular Pharmacology Unit, Department of Applied Research and Technological Development, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Amadeo 42, 20133, Milan, Italy.

Marta Barisella (M)

Department of Pathology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, via Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.

Angelo Paolo Dei Tos (AP)

Department of Medicine, University of Padua School of Medicine, Via Giustiniani 2, 35128, Padua, Italy.

Paolo Giovanni Casali (PG)

Adult Mesenchymal Tumor and Rare Cancer Unit, Department of Cancer Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, via Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences L. Sacco, University of Milan, Via Grassi 74, 20157, Milan, Italy.

Alessandro Gronchi (A)

Sarcoma Service, Department of Surgery, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, via Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.

Silvia Stacchiotti (S)

Adult Mesenchymal Tumor and Rare Cancer Unit, Department of Cancer Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, via Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.

Nadia Zaffaroni (N)

Molecular Pharmacology Unit, Department of Applied Research and Technological Development, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Amadeo 42, 20133, Milan, Italy. nadia.zaffaroni@istitutotumori.mi.it.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH