TGFβ promotes YAP‐dependent AXL induction in mesenchymal‐type lung cancer cells

The acquisition of chemoresistance remains a major cause of cancer mortality due to the limited accessibility of targeted or immune therapies. However, given that severe alterations of molecular features during epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition (EMT) lead to acquired chemoresistance, emerging studies have focused on identifying targetable drivers associated with acquired chemoresistance. Particularly, AXL, a key receptor tyrosine kinase that confers resistance against targets and chemotherapeutics, is highly expressed in mesenchymal cancer cells. However, the underlying mechanism of AXL induction in mesenchymal cancer cells is poorly understood. Our study revealed that the YAP signature, which was highly enriched in mesenchymal‐type lung cancer, was closely correlated to AXL expression in 181 lung cancer cell lines. Moreover, using isogenic lung cancer cell pairs, we also found that doxorubicin treatment induced YAP nuclear translocation in mesenchymal‐type lung cancer cells to induce AXL expression. Additionally, the concurrent activation of TGFβ signaling coordinated YAP‐dependent AXL expression through SMAD4. These data suggest that crosstalk between YAP and the TGFβ/SMAD axis upon treatment with chemotherapeutics might be a promising target to improve chemosensitivity in mesenchymal‐type lung cancer.

Abbreviations

AUC

area under the curve

AXL

AXL receptor tyrosine kinase

BCL2

B‐cell lymphoma 2

CTD2

cancer target discovery and development

CTGF

connective tissue growth factor

DEG

differentially expressed genes

DOXO

doxorubicin

EMT

epithelial–mesenchymal transition

Eto

etoposide

FDA

Food and Drug Administration

ITGB3

integrin beta‐3

MAPK

mitogen‐activated protein kinase

MMP2

matrix metalloproteinase‐2

MMP9

matrix metalloproteinase‐9

mRNA

messenger RNA

NF‐κB

nuclear factor kappa‐light‐chain‐enhancer of activated B cells

SBE

SMAD binding element

SERPINE1

serpin family E member 1

siRNA

small interfering RNA

ssGSEA

single‐sample gene set enrichment analysis

TCGA

The Cancer Genome Atlas

TGFβ

transforming growth factor beta

YAP

Yes‐associated protein

YAP8SA

mutants of inhibitory phosphorylation site at eight serine to Alanine of YAP

ZEB1

zinc finger E‐box binding homeobox 1

ZEB2

zinc finger E‐box‐binding homeobox 2

     

Animal Models of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma–Past,Present, and Future

Esophageal adenocarcinoma is the fastest rising cancer in the United States. It develops from long‐standing gastroesophageal reflux disease which affects >20% of the general population. It carries a very poor prognosis with 5‐year survival <20%. The disease is known to sequentially progress from reflux esophagitis to a metaplastic precursor, Barrett''s esophagus and then onto dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, only few patients with reflux develop Barrett''s esophagus and only a minority of these turn malignant. The reason for this heterogeneity in clinical progression is unknown. To improve patient management, molecular changes which facilitate disease progression must be identified. Animal models can provide a comprehensive functional and anatomic platform for such a study. Rats and mice have been the most widely studied but disease homology with humans has been questioned. No animal model naturally simulates the inflammation to adenocarcinoma progression as in humans, with all models requiring surgical bypass or destruction of existing antireflux mechanisms. Valuable properties of individual models could be utilized to holistically evaluate disease progression. In this review paper, we critically examined the current animal models of Barrett''s esophagus, their differences and homologies with human disease and how they have shaped our current understanding of Barrett''s carcinogenesis.     

Brand-Name Antidepressants Outperform Their Generic Counterparts in Preventing Hospitalization for Depression: The Real-World Evidence from Taiwan

BackgroundGeneric antidepressants are approved on the market based on evidence of bioequivalence to their brand-name versions. We aimed to assess whether generic antidepressants exert equal effectiveness as their brand-name counterparts for treating patients with depressive disorders.MethodsIn a nationwide, population-based cohort in Taiwan from 1997 through 2013, patients with a diagnosis of a depressive disorder aged between 18 and 65 years who were new users of antidepressant drugs were classified into either the brand-name group or the generic group. All patients were followed up until medication discontinuation or the end of the study period. We assessed the risk for hospitalization as a primary outcome and augmentation therapy, daily dose, medication discontinuation, or switching to another antidepressant as secondary outcomes.ResultsA total of 277 651 brand-name users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.2 years) and 270 583 generic users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.0 years) were divided into 10 different antidepressant groups (fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, citalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, moclobemide, imipramine, and bupropion). We found that patients treated with the generic form of sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, and bupropion demonstrated significantly higher risks of psychiatric hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratios ranged from 1.20–2.34), compared to their brand-name counterparts. The differences between brand-name antidepressants and their generic counterparts in secondary outcomes varied across different drugs.ConclusionsCompared to most generic antidepressants, brand-name drugs exhibited more protective effects on psychiatric hospitalization for depressive patients. These findings could serve as an important reference for clinicians when encountering patients with depressive disorder.     

A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily.
• The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BackgroundThe RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC.MethodsThis was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment‐naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsA total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated‐ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated‐ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ConclusionTrametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.