Search

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176139.].

Epigenetic control of gene expression is a major determinant of tumor phenotype and has been found to influence sensitivity to individual chemotherapeutic agents. Glutathione peroxidase 3 (GPX3, plasma glutathione peroxidase) is a key component of cellular antioxidant regulation and its gene has been reported to be methylated in specific tumor types. GPX3 role in oxidative damage has been associated with sensitivity to platinums in other tumors but its importance in colorectal cancer (CRC) has not been determined. We examined the role of GPX3 methylation in colorectal carcinoma in determining sensitivity to platinum drugs using primary tumor specimens, cell lines, knockdown cell lines, and tumor cell line xenografts. We find GPX3 promoter region methylation in approximately one third of CRC samples and GPX3 methylation leads to reduced GPX3 expression and increased oxaliplatin and cisplatin sensitivity. In contrast, in cell lines with high baseline levels of GPX3 expression or with the ability to increase GPX3 expression, platinum resistance is increased. The cisplatin IC50 in GPX3-methylated cell lines is approximately 6-fold lower than that in GPX3-unmethylated lines. Additionally, knockdown cell lines with essentially no GPX3 expression require N-acetylcysteine to survive in culture underscoring the importance of GPX3 in redox biology. In vivo, GPX3 methylation predicts tumor xenograft sensitivity to platinum with regression of GPX3 knockdown xenografts with platinum treatment but continued growth of GPX3 wild type xenografts in the presence of platinum. These studies demonstrate the importance of GPX3 for CRC cells resistance to platinums and the potential utility of GPX3 methylation status as a predictive biomarker for platinum sensitivity in CRC.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In the metastatic setting, the majority of patients respond to initial therapies but eventually develop resistance and progress. In this study, we test the hypothesis that priming with epigenetic therapy sensitizes CRC cell lines, which were previously resistant to subsequent chemotherapeutic agents. When multiple CRC cell lines are first exposed to 500 nM of the DNA demethylating agent, 5-aza-cytidine (AZA) in-vitro, and the cells then established as in-vivo xenografts in untreated NOD-SCID mice; there is an enhanced response to cytotoxic chemotherapy with agents commonly used in CRC treatment. For irinotecan (IRI), growth diminished by 16-62 fold as assessed, by both proliferation (IC50) and anchorage independent cell growth soft agar assays. Treatment of resistant HCT116 cell line along with in-vivo, for CRC line xenografts, AZA plus IRI again exhibits this synergistic response with significant improvement in survival and tumor regression in the mice. Genome-wide expression correlates changes in pathways for cell adhesion and DNA repair with the above responses. A Phase 1/2 clinical trial testing this concept is already underway testing the clinical efficacy of this concept in IRI resistant, metastatic CRC (NCT01896856).

Purpose. To compare the acute toxicities of IMRT to 3D-conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) in the treatment of rectal cancer. Methods and Materials. Eighty-six patients with rectal cancer preoperatively treated with IMRT (n=30) and 3DCRT (n=56) were retrospectively reviewed. Rates of acute toxicity between IMRT and 3DCRT were compared for anorexia, dehydration, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, weight loss, radiation dermatitis, fatigue, pain, urinary frequency, and blood counts. Fisher's exact test and chi-square analysis were applied to detect statistical differences in incidences of toxicity between these two groups of patients. Results. There were fewer hospitalizations and emergency department visits in the group treated with IMRT compared with 3DCRT (P=0.005) and no treatment breaks with IMRT compared to 20% with 3DCRT (P=0.0002). Patients treated with IMRT had a significant reduction in grade ≥3 toxicities versus grade ≤2 toxicities (P=0.016) when compared to 3DCRT. The incidence of grade ≥3 diarrhea was 9% among 3DCRT patients compared to 3% among IMRT patients (P=0.31). Conclusions. IMRT for rectal cancer can reduce treatment breaks, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and all grade ≥3 toxicities compared to 3DCRT. Further evaluation and followup is warranted to determine late toxicities and long-term results of IMRT.