METHODS: Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations were used for EGFR, p38, ERK1/2, and AKT. The effects of berberine and lapatinib on MAPK and PI3K pathways in MDA-MB231 and MCF-7 cells were evaluated using immunoflorescence assays, and the amounts of phosphorylated kinases were compared to total kinases after treating with different concentrations of berberine.
RESULTS: Simulations showed berberine accurately interacted with EGFR, AKT, P38, and ERK1/2 active sites in silico (scores = -7.57 to -7.92 Kcal/mol) and decreased the levels of active forms of corresponding enzymes in both cell lines; however, berberine binding to p38 showed less stability. Cytotoxicity analysis indicated that MDA-MB231 cells were resistant to berberine compared to MCF-7 cells [72 h IC50 = 50 versus 15 μM, respectively). Also, lapatinib strongly activated AKT but suppressed EGFR in MDA-MB231 cells. The activity of EGFR, AKT, P38, and ERK1/2 were affected by berberine; however, berberine dramatically reduced EGFR and AKT phosphorylation.
CONCLUSION: By way of its multikinase inhibitory effects, berberine might be a useful replacement for lapatinib, an EGFR inhibitor which can cause acquired drug resistance in patients.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tumor tissue EGFRm status was determined at screening using the central cobas tissue test or a local tissue test. Baseline circulating tumor (ct)DNA EGFRm status was retrospectively determined with the central cobas plasma test.
RESULTS: Of 994 patients screened, 556 were randomized (289 and 267 with central and local EGFR test results, respectively) and 438 failed screening. Of those randomized from local EGFR test results, 217 patients had available central test results; 211/217 (97%) were retrospectively confirmed EGFRm positive by central cobas tissue test. Using reference central cobas tissue test results, positive percent agreements with cobas plasma test results for Ex19del and L858R detection were 79% [95% confidence interval (CI), 74-84] and 68% (95% CI, 61-75), respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) superiority with osimertinib over comparator EGFR-TKI remained consistent irrespective of randomization route (central/local EGFRm-positive tissue test). In both treatment arms, PFS was prolonged in plasma ctDNA EGFRm-negative (23.5 and 15.0 months) versus -positive patients (15.2 and 9.7 months).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results support utility of cobas tissue and plasma testing to aid selection of patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC for first-line osimertinib treatment. Lack of EGFRm detection in plasma was associated with prolonged PFS versus patients plasma EGFRm positive, potentially due to patients having lower tumor burden.
CASE: A 60-year-old woman presented with abdominal discomfort and hyperleukocytosis. She was diagnosed as CML in the chronic phase with positive BCR-ABL1 transcripts. Due to the failure to obtain an optimal response with imatinib treatment, it was switched to nilotinib. She responded well to nilotinib initially and achieved complete haematological and cytogenetic responses, with undetectable BCR-ABL1 transcripts. However, in 4 years she developed molecular relapse. Mutation analysis which was done 70 months after commencement of nilotinib showed the presence of BCRABL1 kinase domain mutation with nucleotide substitution at position 1187 from Histidine(H) to Proline(P) (H396P). Currently, she is on nilotinib 400mg twice daily. Her latest molecular analysis showed the presence of residual BCR-ABL1 transcripts at 0.22%.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the importance of BCR-ABL1 mutation analysis in CML patients with persistent BCR-ABL1 positivity in spite of treatment. Early detection and identification of the type of BCRABL1 mutation are important to guide appropriate treatment options as different mutation will have different sensitivity to TKI.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two EGFR mutation tests, a tissue-based assay (cobas® v1) and a tissue- and blood-based assay (cobas® v2) were used to analyze matched biopsy and blood samples (897 paired samples) from three Asian studies of first-line erlotinib with similar intent-to-treat populations. ENSURE was a phase III comparison of erlotinib and gemcitabine/platinum, FASTACT-2 was a phase III study of gemcitabine/platinum plus erlotinib or placebo, and ASPIRATION was a single-arm phase II study of erlotinib. Agreement statistics were evaluated, based on sensitivity and specificity between the two assays in subgroups of patients with increasing tumor burden.
RESULTS: Patients with discordant EGFR (tissue+/plasma-) mutation status achieved longer progression-free and overall survival than those with concordant (tissue+/plasma+) mutation status. Tumor burden was significantly greater in patients with concordant versus discordant mutations. Pooled analyses of data from the three studies showed a sensitivity of 72.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 67.8-76.1) and a specificity of 97.9% (95% CI 96.0-99.0) for blood-based testing; sensitivity was greatest in patients with larger baseline tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: Blood-based EGFR mutation testing demonstrated high specificity and good sensitivity, and offers a convenient and easily accessible diagnostic method to complement tissue-based tests. Patients with a discordant mutation status in plasma and tissue, had improved survival outcomes compared with those with a concordant mutation status, which may be due to their lower tumor burden. These data help to inform the clinical utility of this blood-based assay for the detection of EGFR mutations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: BCR-ABL positive CML cells resistant to imatinib (K562-R) were developed by overexposure of K562 cell lines to the drug. Cytotoxicity was determined by MTS assays and IC50 values calculated. Apoptosis assays were performed using annexin V-FITC binding assays and analyzed by flow cytometry. Methylation profiles were investigated using methylation specific PCR and sequencing analysis of SOCS-1 and SOCS-3 genes. Gene expression was assessed by quantitative real-time PCR, and protein expression and phosphorylation of STAT1, 2 and 3 were examined by Western blotting.
RESULTS: The IC50 for imatinib on K562 was 362 nM compared to 3,952 nM for K562-R (p=0.001). Percentage of apoptotic cells in K562 increased upto 50% by increasing the concentration of imatinib, in contrast to only 20% in K562-R (p<0.001). A change from non-methylation of the SOCS-3 gene in K562 to complete methylation in K562-R was observed. Gene expression revealed down- regulation of both SOCS-1 and SOCS-3 genes in resistant cells. STAT3 was phosphorylated in K562-R but not K562.
CONCLUSIONS: Development of cells resistant to imatinib is feasible by overexposure of the drug to the cells. Activation of STAT3 protein leads to uncontrolled cell proliferation in imatinib resistant BCR-ABL due to DNA methylation of the SOCS-3 gene. Thus SOCS-3 provides a suitable candidate for mechanisms underlying the development of imatinib resistant in CML patients.