title: Phosphorylated ERK is a potential predictor of sensitivity to sorafenib when treating hepatocellular carcinoma: evidence from an in vitro study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Sorafenib is the first agent that has demonstrated an improved overall survival benefit in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), setting a new standard for first-line treatment. However, no one has yet been able to predict sensitivity to sorafenib. Pre-treatment pERK level has been shown to be associated with favorable response to such therapy in a phase II clinical study, indicating that pERK may be a potential biomarker for treatment of HCC with sorafenib.
  
  
  METHODS
  The effects of sorafenib and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) on cell proliferation were evaluated by cell viability assays in four HCC cell lines (SMMC-7721, MHCC97-L, MHCC97-H and HCCLM6) with different metastatic potential and basal pERK expression levels. Expression levels of pERK were determined by immunocytochemical quantification together with western blot analysis, and pERK density values were also calculated. Correlation analyses were then carried out between the IC50 values of drugs and pERK density values. After basal ERK phosphorylation was down-regulated with U0126 in MHCC97-H cells, cellular responsiveness to sorafenib was assessed by cell viability assay.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Basal pERK levels increased stepwise in cell lines in accordance with their metastatic potential. Sorafenib inhibited ERK phosphorylation in a dose-dependent manner in all four cell lines at a concentration between 5 and 20 microM, but the degree of inhibition was significantly different according to their basal pERK expression level (P < 0.0001). In contrast, no significant change was observed after 5-FU treatment. Correlation analyses between the IC50 values and pERK densities revealed that the effects of sorafenib on cell proliferation were significantly correlated with basal pERK levels (Spearman r = -0.8671, P = 0.0003). Resistance to 5-FU was also significantly associated with basal pERK expression in these HCC cell lines (Spearman r = 0.7832, P = 0.0026). After the basal ERK phosphorylation level in MHCC97-H cells was reduced with U0126, they were significantly less sensitive to sorafenib-mediated growth inhibition, with an IC50 of 17.31 +/- 1.62 microM versus 10.81 +/- 1.24 microM (P = 0.0281).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In this in vitro study, pERK was confirmed to be a potential biomarker predictive of sensitivity to sorafenib in treating HCC. The RAF/MEK/ERK pathway may be involved in drug resistance to traditional chemotherapy in HCC.
authors.affiliation: Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, PR China. zhangzhe2006@hotmail.com
authors.forename: Zhe
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.forename: Xiaoyun
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Zhou
authors.forename: Hujia
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Shen
authors.forename: Dexing
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: Yanhong
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Wang
mesh_terms: D000970:Antineoplastic Agents / Q000494:pharmacology*; D001557:Benzenesulfonates / Q000494:pharmacology*; D015415:Biomarkers; D015153:Blotting, Western; D006528:Carcinoma, Hepatocellular / Q000188:drug therapy*; D045744:Cell Line, Tumor; D049109:Cell Proliferation / Q000187:drug effects; D002470:Cell Survival; D004351:Drug Resistance; D048049:Extracellular Signal-Regulated MAP Kinases / Q000032:analysis*; D022781:Hepatocytes / Q000737:chemistry*; D006801:Humans; D007120:Immunochemistry / Q000379:methods; D020128:Inhibitory Concentration 50; D009536:Niacinamide / Q000031:analogs & derivatives; D010671:Phenylurea Compounds; D010766:Phosphorylation; D011725:Pyridines / Q000494:pharmacology*; D000077157:Sorafenib
chemical_list: D000970:Antineoplastic Agents; D001557:Benzenesulfonates; D015415:Biomarkers; D010671:Phenylurea Compounds; D011725:Pyridines; D009536:Niacinamide; D000077157:Sorafenib; D048049:Extracellular Signal-Regulated MAP Kinases
references.citation: Cancer Res. 2001 May 1;61(9):3640-6
references.pmid: 11325833
references.citation: Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2003 Dec;22(4):395-403
references.pmid: 12884914
references.citation: Cancer Res. 2006 Dec 15;66(24):11851-8
references.pmid: 17178882
references.citation: Adv Enzyme Regul. 2006;46:249-79
references.pmid: 16854453
references.citation: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2004 Aug;130(8):460-8
references.pmid: 15146329
references.citation: J Hepatol. 2004 Nov;41(5):864-80
references.pmid: 15519663
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2006 Sep 10;24(26):4293-300
references.pmid: 16908937
references.citation: Hepatol Res. 2004 Jun;29(2):113-121
references.pmid: 15163433
references.citation: Hepatology. 2005 Nov;42(5):1208-36
references.pmid: 16250051
references.citation: Cancer Res. 2004 Oct 1;64(19):7099-109
references.pmid: 15466206
references.citation: Lancet. 2003 Dec 6;362(9399):1907-17
references.pmid: 14667750
references.citation: Cancer Biol Ther. 2007 Sep;6(9):1461-8
references.pmid: 18424914
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2008 Jul 24;359(4):378-90
references.pmid: 18650514
references.citation: Nat Rev Cancer. 2003 Jan;3(1):11-22
references.pmid: 12509763
references.citation: Br J Cancer. 1999 Nov;81(5):814-21
references.pmid: 10555751
references.citation: Hepatology. 2003 Feb;37(2):429-42
references.pmid: 12540794
references.citation: Oncogene. 2007 May 14;26(22):3291-310
references.pmid: 17496923
references.citation: CA Cancer J Clin. 2005 Mar-Apr;55(2):74-108
references.pmid: 15761078
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jun 1;26(16):2707-16
references.pmid: 18509183