Abstract
Background
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may arise from genomic instability and has dismal outcome. Sorafenib is the first-line treatment for advanced stage HCC, but its therapeutic efficacy is less than 50%. Biomarkers for predicting the therapeutic efficacy of sorafenib administration to patients with advanced HCC are required. Here, we evaluated the role of chromosomal copy number aberrations (CNAs) in patients with advanced HCC who were treated with sorafenib along with their drug response.
Methods
The response to sorafenib treatment of twenty-three HCC patients who developed advanced recurrence after partial hepatectomy was analyzed using the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). Formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens obtained after tumor resection were analyzed using the Affymetrix OncoScan® FFPE assay.
Results
From the 23 patients analyzed in this study, 7 (30.4%) had complete/partial response to sorafenib (CR/PR), 7 (30.4%) had stable disease (SD), and 9 (39.1%) had progressive disease (PD). The mean genome-wide percentage of genome change acquisition via the OncoScan platform was 19.8% for patients with CR/PR/SD and 50.02% in the PD group (p = 0.055). Percentage of genome change above 33% was associated with adverse outcomes for sorafenib treatment in the time-to-progression analysis (p = 0.007) and overall survival (p = 0.096). Among these CNAs, amplification of chromosome 7q, containing the multidrug resistance gene ATP Binding Cassette Subfamily B Member 1 (ACBC1), significantly associated with poor overall survival (p = 0.004) and time-to-progression (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
Higher percentage genome change and amplification of chromosome 7q in advanced HCC is associated with sorafenib resistance.
Keywords: Advanced HCC, Sorafenib, Copy number aberrations, 7q amplification, ABCB1
At a glance of commentary
Scientific background
Sorafenib is the first-line treatment for advanced stage HCC, but its therapeutic efficacy is less than 50%. Therefore, biomarkers for predicting the therapeutic efficacy of sorafenib administration to patients with advanced HCC are still required.
What this study adds to the field
In this report, tumor specimen with higher percentage genome change and amplification of chromosome 7q containing ABCB1 drug resistant gene in advanced HCC was associated with sorafenib resistance, which might be applied for copy number analysis before drug administration after partial hepatectomies in these patients.
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer in the world. The major risk factors for HCC are chronic infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV), alcohol intake, smoking, and toxin exposure [1,2]. Curative treatment, including a partial hepatectomy, ablation therapy, and liver transplantation at an early stage, lead to the best outcome, but the risk of recurrence is still more than 50% [[3], [4], [5], [6]]. Most recurrences are intrahepatic; however, some patients develop disseminated spreading or distant metastasis and require systemic treatment [7]. The poor prognosis after HCC resection may arise from increased genomic instability [4,8,9]. Besides, early recurrence has a dismal outcome and, thus, there is an increased need for the development of effective adjuvant therapies [10]. Combined treatment with sorafenib and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) was a well-tolerated and efficacious strategy for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B in START trials [11]. Although systemic targeted therapy with sorafenib has been assumed as a standard treatment for advanced HCC, a precise and personalized approach is necessary to improve survival [12].
Sorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor that targets the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), the platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), and the downstream RAF/mitogen-activated protein/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (MAPK)/(ERK) cascade [13]. The antiproliferative and antiangiogenic effects of sorafenib reduce tumor growth in several kinds of cancers [13]. The real world treatment showed that half of the patients treated with sorafenib had progressive disease and their quality of life did not benefit because of sorafenib resistance [14]. There are several theories regarding sorafenib resistance: extrahepatic spreading and occurrence of intolerant adverse events [15]; escape of cancer stem cells from treatment-induced apoptosis, leading to tumor repopulation [16]; activation of hypoxia-inducible factor 1 after sorafenib treatment and the subsequent induction of angiogenesis, immune escape, and autophagy in the tumor [17]; activation of the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt signaling pathway; and enhancement of epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) [18]. Suppression of the RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway and induction of cell cycle arrest in the G2/M phase could help treatment in patients with sorafenib resistance [19]. Changes in the tumor microenvironment has been proven to be correlated with sorafenib resistance [20,21]. Chromosome instability and CNAs in HCC and other solid tumors could lead to the activation of oncogenes and the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes, which induce changes in transcription, translation, and tumor invasiveness [8,9]. A recent study has shown that genome-wide CNAs and VEGFA amplification in circulating cell-free DNA were a biomarker for advanced HCC in patients treated with sorafenib [22]. In addition, Fibroblast Growth Factor 3 and 4 (FGF3/4) amplification detected via fluorescence in situ hybridization was associated with lung metastases in sorafenib-treated advanced HCC patients [23]. Amplification of FGF19 has also been reported to be associated with sorafenib response in advanced HCC using next generation sequencing and copy number assay [24]. Therefore, genome instability has been strongly associated with sorafenib treatment response in advanced HCC patients; systematic analysis of CNAs in tumor specimens of patients would improve the survival of patients.
In this study, we assessed the role of chromosomal CNAs in patients with advanced HCC who were treated with sorafenib and also evaluated their drug response. Twenty-three HCC patients had undergone surgical resection and showed advanced recurrence. FFPE tumor specimens of HCC at resection were used for the analysis of chromosomal CNAs using the Affymetrix OncoScan® FFPE assay to decipher the difference between sorafenib sensitive and resistant groups. The long-term outcome of sorafenib treatment in patients with advanced HCC was also examined.
Patients and methods
Patients and samples
This study was approved by the Institute Review Board (IRB) of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH), Linkou (IRB 201600707B0C501). Twenty-three HCC patients had curative treatment and developed HCC recurrence. All recurrence was at advanced stage, involved portal vein thrombus (PVT) or extrahepatic spreading (EHS). All patients enrolled was in good performance status with ECOG score between 0 and 1 and Child-Pugh A status, then sorafenib based combination treatment was started. The clinical and pathological variables were collected for analysis and the long-term outcome was compared with log-rank test and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. The response to sorafenib was measured according to the modified RECIST as best clinical response; complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) [25]. The operation FFPE specimens were processed for genomic DNA extraction and OncoScan genechip analysis.
DNA extraction and FFPE sample gene chips analysis
The genomic DNA extraction and data processing after Affymetrix OncoScan genechip hybridization were performed as previously described [9]. The FFPE genomic DNA was extracted using the QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer's instructions. DNA samples were further processed at the Genomic Medicine Research Core Laboratory in CGMH for Affymetrix OncoScan® FFPE assay (Santa Clara, CA, United States) to analyze copy number aberrations (CNAs), loss of heterozygosity (LOH), and somatic mutations [26]. The data were analyzed by the Nexus Copy Number software included in the Affymetrix OncoScan FFPE Express Service (Biodiscovery). The percentage genome change showed the number of CNAs of each patient divided by the total of 875 genes designed in OncoScan platform.
Immunohistochemistry
The FFPE specimen were sectioned to 4 μm in thickness and de-paraffinized, rehydrated, and processed for antigen retrieval. The slides were further incubated with appropriate dilutions of the selected antibodies at room temperature for 1–2 h. After incubation, the slides were washed three times in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), incubated with a horse reddish peroxidase conjugated antibody polymer (Zymed) at room temperature for 10 min, and were then developed by treatment with 3,3′-diaminobenzidine (Roche) at room temperature for 10 min. The titer for ABCB1 (Wuhan Fine Biotech, FNab09805), EGFR (Zeta Corporation, clone EP22) and BRAF (Abcam) was 1:500, 1:500 and 1:100; respectively.
Statistical analysis
Categorical data were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Continuous variables were analyzed using with Mann–Whitney U test due to the limited cases without normal distribution in this study. Survival rates in each group were determined by the Kaplan–Meier method and differences between groups were analyzed using log-rank test. The best cut-off value was estimated using the Youden index for maximizing the sum of sensitivity and specificity to discriminate different events. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS statistical software version 19.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, United States).
Results
The best clinical response was associated with the long term-outcome
Of the 23 patients who were administered sorafenib, 7 (30.4%) showed CR/PR, 7 (30.4%) showed SD, and 9 (39.1%) presented PD in the evaluation of best clinical response [Fig. 1] [Table 1]. The mean age of the patients was 58.7 ± 11.2 years and 22 (95.7%) patients were male. Four patients (17.4%) had stage III HCC and 19 (82.6%) had stage IV HCC. The most common extrahepatic spreading was to bone, lung, and lymph nodes [Table 1]. The mean duration of treatment (DOT) was 12.2, 34.9, 6.8, and 2.73 months in CR, PR, SD, and PD, respectively. The typical sorafenib response in patients with advanced HCC is shown in Fig. 1A–C. The Kaplan–Meier survival curve for patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib and the log-rank test indicated a better outcome when the treatment response was CR/PR (tumor shrinkage) as compared with PD and SD (p = 0.003) [Fig. 1D]. There is no significant difference by log rank tests for combination treatment, radiotherapy (RT) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in overall survival (p = 0.777, 0.119 and 0.120; respectively).
Fig. 1.
Clinical treatment of HCC at advanced stage. (A) No. 23, 74 y/o male, developed sternum and liver recurrence. He had complete treatment response to sorafenib, radiotherapy, and TACE. He had been off treatment for 5 years or more. (B) No. 18, 42 y/o female, had regional lymph node metastasis and failed local ablation treatment, but she received a 200–400 mg daily dosage of sorafenib to keep her condition stable. The best response was a partial response. (C) 56 y/o male, had right scapula metastatic destruction and progressive disease. The target lesion is marked with white and black arrows before and 3 months after treatment in the computed tomography scans, respectively. (D) Cumulative survival rates of advanced HCC with sorafenib administration and the log-rank test indicated a better outcome when the treatment was complete/partial response (CR/PR) (tumor shrinkage, black solid line) as compared with stable disease/progressive disease (SD/PD) (gray dotted line) (p = 0.003).
Table 1.
Clinical response to sorafenib administration in HCC patients who underwent partial hepatectomy and have recurrent disease.
| No | CNA (%) | Age | Sex | stage at diagnosis | Stage at recurrence | Target site | Dosage | DOT | Treatment/combination | Best Clinical Response | Mortality | Survival |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.3 | 53 | M | I | IV | Bone | 600 | 2.1 | SORA/RT | PD | Yes | 7.8 |
| 2 | 14.8 | 45 | M | I | IV | IVC, PV, HV, adrenal | 800 | 1.8 | SORA | PD | Yes | 1.8 |
| 3 | 29.2 | 56 | M | I | IV | Bone, Liver | 800 | 2.4 | SORA/RT | PD | Yes | 12.3 |
| 4 | 34.3 | 39 | M | I | IV | Lung, Bone | 600 | 2.8 | SORA/RT | PD | Yes | 14.6 |
| 5 | 36.9 | 65 | M | I | IV | Duodenum | 400 | 2.3 | SORA/RT | PD | Yes | 3.1 |
| 6 | 38.4 | 57 | M | I | IV | Bone | 600 | 1.6 | SORA | PD | Yes | 23.6 |
| 7 | 48.7 | 66 | M | I | IV | IVC, HV, adrenal | 400 | 2.3 | SORA | PD | Yes | 33.3 |
| 8 | 60.7 | 49 | M | I | IV | Lung, IVC | 600 | 6.4 | SORA | PD | Yes | 7.0 |
| 9 | 77.2 | 57 | M | I | III | MHV | 800 | 2.7 | SORA/RT | PD | Yes | 8.0 |
| 10 | 17.8 | 74 | M | I | IV | Bone | 400 | 7.8 | SORA/RT | SD | Yes | 13.3 |
| 11 | 19.6 | 43 | M | I | IV | LN, PVT | 600 | 4.8 | SORA/TACE, RT | SD | Yes | 7.0 |
| 12 | 29.2 | 70 | M | II | IV | Pleura | 800 | 1.2 | SORA/RT | SD | Yes | 66.3c |
| 13 | 30.2 | 59 | M | I | III | Liver | 400 | 12.1 | SORA | SD | Yes | 14.0 |
| 14 | 33.0 | 62 | M | I | III | Liver | 600 | 14.3 | SORA/TACE | SD | 14.3 | |
| 15 | 36.1 | 72 | M | I | IV | LN | 400 | 5.8 | SORA | SD | 19.6 | |
| 16 | 36.4 | 48 | M | I | IV | Lung | 600 | 1.7 | SORA | SD | Yes | 7.3 |
| 17 | 0.3 | 55 | M | I | III | Liver | 200 | 33.4 | SORA/OPa | PR | 65.5 | |
| 18 | 11.8 | 42 | F | II | IV | LN | 400 | 72.6 | SORA | PR | 72.6 | |
| 19 | 20.8 | 65 | M | I | IV | LN | 400 | 7.3 | SORA | PR | Yes | 8.5 |
| 20 | 28.0 | 79 | M | I | IV | Lung | 600 | 26.3 | SORA | PR | 26.3 | |
| 21 | 23.5 | 54 | M | I | IV | Lung | 600 | 5.8 | SORA/OPb | CR | 21.5 | |
| 22 | 28.5 | 65 | M | II | IV | Bone, Liver | 600 | 11.4 | SORA/RT, TACE | CR | 63.7 | |
| 23 | 31.6 | 74 | M | II | IV | Lung, Sternum | 400 | 19.4 | TACE, SORA | CR | 63.2 |
Abbreviations: CNA (%): percentage of genome change in copy number aberration; DOT: duration of treatment; SORA: sorafenib; RT: radiotherapy; CT: chemotherapy; TACE: transarterial chemoembolization.
Liver transplantation.
Lung lobectomy for solitary lesion.
Stable state after radiotherapy.
Application of percentage of genome changes for sorafenib response in advanced HCC after resection
All patients with HCC recurrence administered sorafenib were at an advanced HCC stage, with portal vein thrombus (PVT) or extrahepatic spreading (EHS) involvement. Global genomic alterations in recurring HCC were analyzed using the Affymetrix OncoScan® FFPE assay with 875 oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes. CNAs, upon virtual karyotyping of chromosomes showed a remarkable difference in amplification in patients with CR/PR, SD, and PD treatment responses. However, there was a significant increase in amplification in chromosome 7q in HCC patients with PD, and the clinical treatment response of patients was poor when the global percentage genome change was increased in the tumor specimen [Fig. 2]. The comparison between patients with low and high percentage genome change (≤33.0% and >33.0%, respectively) is shown in Table 2. There was no difference in clinical staging and demographic data but the percentage genome change and disease control rate (DCR) were different. The log-rank test indicated there was borderline difference in overall survival between high and low percentage genome change (p = 0.096) but the time-to-progression analysis indicated a significantly better outcome in patients with low percentage genome change (p = 0.004) [Fig. 3A and B], which indicated higher percentage genome change in tumor specimen of advance HCC indicate adverse prognosis after sorafenib treatment.
Fig. 2.
The global chromosomal change in clinical sorafenib treatment for HCC. There was a remarkable increase in CNAs for the treatment response from CR/PR (A) to SD (B) to PD (C). There was significant increase of amplification at chromosome 7q that was associated with sorafenib resistance (Black arrow).
Table 2.
Comparison of the clinical characteristics of two groups of the 23 patients with advanced HCC created using a percentage genome change cut off value of 33%.
| Percent genome change ≤33.0% (n = 15) | Percent genome change >33.0% (n = 8) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 59.7 ± 11.6 | 56.6 ± 10.9 | 0.651 |
| Sex (male) | 14 (93.3%) | 8 (100.0%) | 0.652 |
| Stage (Diagnosis) | II 4 (26.7%) | II 0 (0%) | 0.154 |
| I 11 (73.3%) | I 8 (100.0%) | ||
| Stage (Recurrence) | IV 12 (80.0%) | IV 7 (87.5%) | 0.565 |
| III 3 (20.0%) | III 1 (12.5%) | ||
| AFP (ng/ml) | 96.0 ± 173.3 | 8379.9 ± 23287.9 | 0.071 |
| CNA (%) | 21.9 ± 9.5 | 46.1 ± 15.4 | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| Dosage ≥600 mg | 9 (60.0%) | 5 (62.5%) | 0.633 |
| DCR (%) | 7 (46.7%) | 0 (0%) | 0.026∗ |
Abbreviations: AFP: alpha-fetoprotein; DCR: disease control rate. Age, CNA, and AFP are presented as mean ± S.D. Sex, stage, Dosage≥600 mg and disease control rate (DCR) are presented as number of cases (percentage).∗P<0.05, ∗∗∗P<0.001.
Fig. 3.
The percentage genome change and amplification of chromosome 7q in overall survival and time-to progression analysis (A). The cut-off of percentage genome change for outcome prediction was set at ≤33.0% vs. >33.0% and the log-rank test showed no significant difference although it showed a tendency for the same (p = 0.096). (B) The time-to-progression analysis indicated a significantly better outcome when percentage genome change was <33% (black solid line) (p = 0.004). (C) The amplification of chromosome 7q (dotted line) was significantly associated with poor outcome in overall survival (p = 0.004). (D) The amplification of chromosome 7q (dotted line) was significantly associated with poor survival in the time-to progression analysis. (p < 0.001).
Karyotyping analysis of sorafenib response in advanced HCC
The analysis of amplifications and deletions in 875 genes listed in the Affymetrix OncoScan® FFPE assay showed there was a significant increase of amplification at chromosome 7q associated with sorafenib resistance [Table 3]. HCC patients with PD after sorafenib administration had more than 75% amplification at chromosome 7; especially the amplification of 7q21.12-7q31.2 was the most significantly associated with treatment failure [Fig. 2] [Table 3]. Only one patient had chromosome 7q amplification in the CR/PR/SD group. These results imply that the drug response was possibly related to the amplification. Within the amplification region, 7q21.12-7q31.2, was the ATP Binding Cassette Subfamily B Member 1 (ABCB1) gene, which functions as an ATP-dependent drug efflux pump and has been reported to be associated with multidrug resistance in several kinds of cancers [27,28]. Cyclin Dependent Kinase 6 (CDK6) has been reported to play a role in the proliferation of cancer cells [29]. Besides 7q21.12-7q31.2, other region in chromosome 7 contains epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and INHBA, which may trigger the MAPK/ERK and PI3K pathways [18,30]. Respectively, and play a role in cell survival, were also amplified in the sorafenib resistant patients. Moreover, the amplification of chromosome 7q was significantly associated with poor outcome in overall survival and time-to-progression analyses [Fig. 3C and D, p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively]. Therefore, CNA changes in the tumors of patients with advanced HCC may increase the activity of the ATP-dependent drug efflux pump, cell survival, and cell proliferation, establishing resistance to sorafenib treatment.
Table 3.
Association of amplification in chromosome 7 with the response to sorafenib.
| Gene | Cytogenetic band | Official full name | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| ABCB1 | 7q21.12 | ATP binding cassette subfamily B member 1 | 0.000211 |
| AKAP9 | 7q21.2 | A-kinase anchor protein 9 | 0.000211 |
| CDK6 | 7q21.2 | Cyclin-dependent kinase 6 | 0.000211 |
| LMTK2 | 7q21.3 | Serine/threonine-protein kinase LMTK2 | 0.000211 |
| STAG3 | 7q22.1 | Stromal antigen 3 | 0.000211 |
| PILRB | 7q22.1 | Paired immunoglobulin-like type 2 receptor beta | 0.000211 |
| MOSPD3 | 7q22.1 | Motile sperm domain containing 3 | 0.000211 |
| SERPINE1 | 7q22.1 | serpin E1 | 0.000211 |
| PIK3CG | 7q22.3 | Phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit gamma isoform | 0.000211 |
| PPP1R3 | 7q31.1 | protein phosphatase 1 regulatory subunit 3A | 0.000211 |
| MET | 7q31.2 | MET proto-oncogene | 0.00031 |
| GRM8 | 7q31.33 | Glutamate metabotropic receptor 8 | 0.001126 |
| FLNC | 7q32.1 | Filamin C | 0.000211 |
| SMO | 7q32.1 | Smoothened | 0.000211 |
| CREB3L2 | 7q33 | cAMP responsive element binding protein 3 like 2 Aliases | 0.001126 |
| TRIM24 | 7q33-q34 | Tripartite motif-containing 24 | 0.001126 |
| HNRNPA2B1 | 7p15.2 | Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoproteins A2/B1 | 0.004785 |
| JAZF1 | 7p15.2-p15 | Juxtaposed with another zinc finger protein 1 | 0.004785 |
| INHBA | 7p14.1 | Inhibin, beta A | 0.004785 |
| GLI3 | 7p14.1 | GLI family zinc finger 3 | 0.004785 |
| HECW1 | 7p14.1-p13 | HECT, C2 and WW domain containing E3 ubiquitin protein ligase 1 | 0.004785 |
| IGFBP1 | 7p12.3 | Insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 1 | 0.004785 |
| IGFBP3 | 7p12.3 | Insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 3 | 0.004785 |
| GRB10 | 7p12.1 | Growth factor receptor-bound protein 10 | 0.006192 |
| EGFR | 7p11.2 | Epidermal growth factor receptor | 0.004785 |
| SBDS | 7q11.21 | 0.004785 | |
| CLDN3 | 7q11.23 | Claudin 3 | 0.004785 |
| ELN | 7q11.23 | Elastin | 0.004785 |
| CLIP2 | 7q11.23 | CAP-Gly domain-containing linker protein 2 | 0.003745 |
| HIP1 | 7q11.23 | Huntingtin-interacting protein 1 | 0.004785 |
| STYXL1 | 7q11.23 | Serine/threonine/tyrosine-interacting-like protein 1 | 0.004785 |
| YWHAG | 7q11.23 | 14-3-3 protein gamma | 0.004785 |
To correlate whether the amplification of 7q21.12-7q31.2 was associated with elevated its protein level, the expression of ABCB1, EGFR, and BRAF [list on Table 3] were examined via immunohistochemistry in tumor FFPE specimen of seven cases. Even amplification in chromosome 7q21.12-7q31.2 in these cases, the heterogeneity still existed in each specimen; some of specimen containing whole 7q21.12-7q31.2 amplification, some specimen containing only ABCB1, or EGFR amplification [Fig. 4]. Overall speaking, the amplification of ABCB1 region had relatively higher protein expression than those without ABCB1 amplification [Fig. 4], which might be the result for treatment failure.
Fig. 4.
The expression of ABCB1, EGFR and BRAF in four representative cases were examined via immunohistochemistry in tumor FFPE specimen. The copy number changes in each gene within patient was as described. Amp: amplification (copy number >2), normal (copy number = 2). The staining density of ABCB1, EGFR was higher in specimen with copy number amplification than those are without amplification. The magnification of left three panel was 100X; whereas the magnification of the right panel (BRAF) was 200X.
In summary, the treatment response for sorafenib for recurring HCC could be possibly predicted before drug treatment via acquisition of global CNAs in the tumor tissue using the OncoScan platform. Higher percentage genome change or amplification in chromosome 7q (containing ABCB1 amplification) in tumor specimen of advance HCC indicate resistance to the drug sorafenib.
Discussion
It is still necessary to develop prognostic biomarkers to determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of sorafenib therapy [31,32]. Elevated levels of the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), phosphorylated-ERK (p-ERK), and c-Jun have been reported to contribute to the poor response to sorafenib. However, cancer genetic heterogeneity influences the clinical application of these biomarkers as predictors of the response to sorafenib [[33], [34], [35]]. In our study, amplification of chromosome 7, including ABCB1, EGFR, BARF, and MET, the upstream receptor kinases for activation of p-ERK and c-Jun, was found in the sorafenib resistant group [Table 3]. The expression of EGFR was not evaluated in these twenty-three patients via immunohistochemistry; therefore, we could not confirm whether EGFR and its downstream RAF/MEK/ERK pathway were activated in sorafenib resistant patients [36]. In a previous study, inhibition of the PI3K/Akt pathway reversed sorafenib resistance in HCC cells, indicating that combinatorial treatment would promote sorafenib treatment efficacy [18,37]. Interestingly, amplification of INHBA (encoded activin A) was also found to be associated with sorafenib response in advanced HCC patients [Table 3]. Overexpression of activin A stimulated the non-canonical pathway PI3K/akt signaling to promote cell migration [30]. Therefore, amplification of chromosome 7 contributed to the characteristics of sorafenib resistant HCC cells. Besides, the quantitation of chromosomal alterations as the percentage of genome changed via the Affymetrix OncoScan® FFPE assay for each HCC patient tumor specimen could predict drug responsiveness to sorafenib, which may be applied before drug administration after partial hepatectomies in these patients.
ABCB1 amplification and single nucleotide polymorphisms have been associated with multiple drug resistance in several kinds of cancers [27,28]. Resistance to doxorubicin and 5-fluorouracil have been associated with overexpression of ABCB1 in HCC tumor tissues. Additionally, some reports have suggested that combination with a specific ABCB1 inhibitor would increase sensitivity to drugs [38]. However, the ABCB1 polymorphism 3435C > T was significantly associated with the lowest sorafenib plasma levels and, thus, with a better therapeutic response [39]. In our study, the amplification of ABCB1 was significantly associated with resistance to sorafenib. This is the first report showing the correlation between amplification of ABCB1 and sorafenib resistance in advance HCC patients.
Based on previous reports, amplifications of VEGFA, FGF3/FGF4, and FGF19 have been reported to be associated with sorafenib response in advanced HCC using different detection methods [[22], [23], [24]]. As shown in supplementary Table 1, amplification of VEGFA, FGF3, FGF4, and FGF19 in the SD, PD and PR/CR groups resulted in no statistically significant difference between them upon analysis of OncoScan data; however the probes in FGF3/4 and FGF19 were limited in the Affymetrix OncoScan® FFPE assay platform. The amplification of VEGFA was also not associated with the sorafenib response; however, the difference of this result with those of other studies might be due to differences in analysis platforms or patient-inclusion criteria. Meanwhile, the amplification or loss of RPPH1 (RNase P) was also found in our data (supplementary Table 1). The copy number of RPPH1 is frequently used as an internal control (reference) in commercial copy number assays. Among the 23 cases assessed here, RPHH1 was amplified in several cases with PD; this could have resulted in a lack of observed ACBC1 amplification in the analysis of CNAs through copy number PCR assay. Therefore, the internal controls for normalization of copy number PCR results should be carefully chosen.
The limited number of cases analyzed in this study could lead to potential bias and, thus, the results should be carefully interpreted. Further studies using well-designed large cohort could help validate our results.
Conclusion
Although the enrolled case number in this study was limited, the following conclusions could be drawn:
-
1.
The treatment failure for sorafenib could be possibly predicted via higher percentage genome changes in tumor specimen acquisition from Affymetrix OncoScan platform.
-
2.
Among these CNAs, amplification in chromosome 7q that containing drug resistant gene ACBC1 in tumor specimen tend to resistant to Sorafenib.
-
3.
From tumor specimen of patients with HCC could predict drug responsiveness to sorafenib, which may be applied before drug administration after partial hepatectomies in these patients.
Financial support
The study was supported by Chang Gung Memorial Hospital CMRPG3F1993 and CMRPG1H0131 for Dr. Yu MC; CMRPD1G0611 and CMRPD1H0661 for Dr. Tsai CN.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful for the technological support of the Department of Cancer Center and Genomic Medicine Research Core Laboratory, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou branch.
Footnotes
Peer review under responsibility of Chang Gung University.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bj.2020.07.001.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
The following is the Supplementary data to this article:
References
- 1.Bray F., Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Siegel R.L., Torre L.A., Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. Ca Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Sartorius K., Sartorius B., Aldous C., Govender P.S., Madiba T.E. Global and country underestimation of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in 2012 and its implications. Cancer Epidemiol. 2015;39:284–290. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2015.04.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Cha C., Fong Y., Jarnagin W.R., Blumgart L.H., DeMatteo R.P. Predictors and patterns of recurrence after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197:753–758. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2003.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Shah S.A., Cleary S.P., Wei A.C., Yang I., Taylor B.R., Hemming A.W., et al. Recurrence after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: risk factors, treatment, and outcomes. Surgery. 2007;141:330–339. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2006.06.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Shen A., Tang C., Wang Y., Chen Y., Yan X., Zhang C., et al. A systematic review of sorafenib in Child-Pugh A patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2013;47:871–880. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182a87cfd. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Wu J.C., Huang Y.H., Chau G.Y., Su C.W., Lai C.R., Lee P.C., et al. Risk factors for early and late recurrence in hepatitis B-related hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2009;51:890–897. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2009.07.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hayashi M., Shimizu T., Hirokawa F., Inoue Y., Komeda K., Asakuma M., et al. Clinicopathological risk factors for recurrence within one year after initial hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Am Surg. 2011;77:572–578. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Cho H.J., Kim S.S., Wang H.J., Kim B.W., Cho H., Jung J., et al. Detection of novel genomic markers for predicting prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma patients by integrative analysis of copy number aberrations and gene expression profiles: results from a long-term follow-up. DNA Cell Biol. 2016;35:71–80. doi: 10.1089/dna.2015.3026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Yu M.C., Lee C.W., Lee Y.S., Lian J.H., Tsai C.L., Liu Y.P., et al. Prediction of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma using OncoScan chromosomal copy number aberration data. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23:7818–7829. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i44.7818. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Bruix J., Takayama T., Mazzaferro V., Chau G.Y., Yang J., Kudo M., et al. Adjuvant sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma after resection or ablation (STORM): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1344–1354. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00198-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Chao Y., Chung Y.H., Han G., Yoon J.H., Yang J., Wang J., et al. The combination of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and sorafenib is well tolerated and effective in Asian patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: final results of the START trial. Int J Canc. 2015;136:1458–1467. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Zhang W. Sorafenib in adjuvant setting: call for precise and personalized therapy. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;1:13. doi: 10.21037/tgh.2016.03.13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wilhelm S., Carter C., Lynch M., Lowinger T., Dumas J., Smith R.A., et al. Discovery and development of sorafenib: a multikinase inhibitor for treating cancer. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5:835–844. doi: 10.1038/nrd2130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Shang J., Xu S., Zhang J., Ran X., Bai L., Tang H. Efficacy of sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after resection: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8:109723–109731. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.21299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Yada M., Masumoto A., Motomura K., Tajiri H., Morita Y., Suzuki H., et al. Indicators of sorafenib efficacy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:12581–12587. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i35.12581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Xin H.W., Ambe C.M., Hari D.M., Wiegand G.W., Miller T.C., Chen J.Q., et al. Label-retaining liver cancer cells are relatively resistant to sorafenib. Gut. 2013;62:1777–1786. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Shi Y.H., Ding Z.B., Zhou J., Hui B., Shi G.M., Ke A.W., et al. Targeting autophagy enhances sorafenib lethality for hepatocellular carcinoma via ER stress-related apoptosis. Autophagy. 2011;7:1159–1172. doi: 10.4161/auto.7.10.16818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Zhang H., Wang Q., Liu J., Cao H. Inhibition of the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway reverses sorafenib-derived chemo-resistance in hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncol Lett. 2018;15:9377–9384. doi: 10.3892/ol.2018.8536. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Wang W., Xu B., Li Q., Jiang D., Yan S. Anticancer effects of a novel PanRAF inhibitor in a hepatocellular carcinoma cell line. Mol Med Rep. 2018;17:6185–6193. doi: 10.3892/mmr.2018.8615. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Chen J., Jin R., Zhao J., Liu J., Ying H., Yan H., et al. Potential molecular, cellular and microenvironmental mechanism of sorafenib resistance in hepatocellular carcinoma. Canc Lett. 2015;367:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2015.06.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Nishida N., Kitano M., Sakurai T., Kudo M. Molecular mechanism and prediction of sorafenib chemoresistance in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Dig Dis. 2015;33:771–779. doi: 10.1159/000439102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Oh C.R., Kong S.Y., Im H.S., Kim H.J., Kim M.K., Yoon K.A., et al. Genome-wide copy number alteration and VEGFA amplification of circulating cell-free DNA as a biomarker in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with Sorafenib. BMC Canc. 2019;19:292. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5483-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Arao T., Ueshima K., Matsumoto K., Nagai T., Kimura H., Hagiwara S., et al. FGF3/FGF4 amplification and multiple lung metastases in responders to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2013;57:1407–1415. doi: 10.1002/hep.25956. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kaibori M., Sakai K., Ishizaki M., Matsushima H., De Velasco M.A., Matsui K., et al. Increased FGF19 copy number is frequently detected in hepatocellular carcinoma with a complete response after sorafenib treatment. Oncotarget. 2016;7:49091–49098. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.10077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Therasse P., Arbuck S.G., Eisenhauer E.A., Wanders J., Kaplan R.S., Rubinstein L., et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European organization for Research and treatment of cancer, national cancer Institute of the United States, national cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–216. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.3.205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Wang Y., Carlton V.E., Karlin-Neumann G., Sapolsky R., Zhang L., Moorhead M., et al. High quality copy number and genotype data from FFPE samples using Molecular Inversion Probe (MIP) microarrays. BMC Med Genom. 2009;2:8. doi: 10.1186/1755-8794-2-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Chen G., Duran G.E., Steger K.A., Lacayo N.J., Jaffrezou J.P., Dumontet C., et al. Multidrug-resistant human sarcoma cells with a mutant P-glycoprotein, altered phenotype, and resistance to cyclosporins. J Biol Chem. 1997;272:5974–5982. doi: 10.1074/jbc.272.9.5974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Choi K.H., Chen C.J., Kriegler M., Roninson I.B. An altered pattern of cross-resistance in multidrug-resistant human cells results from spontaneous mutations in the mdr1 (P-glycoprotein) gene. Cell. 1988;53:519–529. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(88)90568-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Lu X., Fang Y., Wang Z., Xie J., Zhan Q., Deng X., et al. Downregulation of gas5 increases pancreatic cancer cell proliferation by regulating CDK6. Cell Tissue Res. 2013;354:891–896. doi: 10.1007/s00441-013-1711-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Tsai C.N., Tsai C.L., Yi J.S., Kao H.K., Huang Y., Wang C.I., et al. Activin A regulates the epidermal growth factor receptor promoter by activating the PI3K/SP1 pathway in oral squamous cell carcinoma cells. Sci Rep. 2019;9:5197. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-41396-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kim H.Y., Park J.W. Molecularly targeted therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma: sorafenib as a stepping stone. Dig Dis. 2011;29:303–309. doi: 10.1159/000327563. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Thomas M.B., Jaffe D., Choti M.M., Belghiti J., Curley S., Fong Y., et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: consensus recommendations of the national cancer Institute clinical trials planning meeting. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3994–4005. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.7805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Chen W., Xiao W., Zhang K., Yin X., Lai J., Liang L., et al. Activation of c-Jun predicts a poor response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma: preliminary Clinical Evidence. Sci Rep. 2016;6:22976. doi: 10.1038/srep22976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Firtina Karagonlar Z., Koc D., Iscan E., Erdal E., Atabey N. Elevated hepatocyte growth factor expression as an autocrine c-Met activation mechanism in acquired resistance to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Canc Sci. 2016;107:407–416. doi: 10.1111/cas.12891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Liang Y., Chen J., Yu Q., Ji T., Zhang B., Xu J., et al. Phosphorylated ERK is a potential prognostic biomarker for Sorafenib response in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Med. 2017;6:2787–2795. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Sigismund S., Avanzato D., Lanzetti L. Emerging functions of the EGFR in cancer. Mol Oncol. 2018;12:3–20. doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.12155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Ye L., Mayerle J., Ziesch A., Reiter F.P., Gerbes A.L., De Toni E.N. The PI3K inhibitor copanlisib synergizes with sorafenib to induce cell death in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cell Death Dis. 2019;5:86. doi: 10.1038/s41420-019-0165-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Genovese I., Ilari A., Assaraf Y.G., Fazi F., Colotti G. Not only P-glycoprotein: amplification of the ABCB1-containing chromosome region 7q21 confers multidrug resistance upon cancer cells by coordinated overexpression of an assortment of resistance-related proteins. Drug Resist Updates. 2017;32:23–46. doi: 10.1016/j.drup.2017.10.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Tandia M., Mhiri A., Paule B., Saffroy R., Cailliez V., Noe G., et al. Correlation between clinical response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma treatment and polymorphisms of P-glycoprotein (ABCB1) and of breast cancer resistance protein (ABCG2): monocentric study. Canc Chemother Pharmacol. 2017;79:759–766. doi: 10.1007/s00280-017-3268-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.