ELSEVIER
Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mce
Molecular and Celular Endocrinology
.
Cytotoxic activity of gemcitabine, alone or in combination with mitotane, in adrenocortical carcinoma cell lines
CrossMark
Antonina Germano ª, Ida Rapa b, Marco Volante b,*, Nicola Lo Buono , Sonia Carturan b, Alfredo Berruti b,1, Massimo Terzolo ª, Mauro Papotti b
a Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, 10043 Orbassano, Turin, Italy
b Department of Oncology, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, 10043 Orbassano, Turin, Italy
“Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy
ARTICLE INFO
Article history: Received 4 April 2013 Received in revised form 29 August 2013 Accepted 29 August 2013 Available online 7 September 2013
Keywords: Adrenocortical cancer Gemcitabine Mitotane Cell lines
ABSTRACT
We aimed at investigating in vitro the cytotoxic activity (determined using WST-1, apoptosis and cell cycle assays) of gemcitabine, alone or in combination with mitotane, in mitotane-sensitive H295R and mitotane-insensitive SW-13 cells. Results of these experiments were compared with drug-induced mod- ulation of RRM1 gene, the specific target of gemcitabine. In H295R cells, mitotane and gemcitabine com- binations showed antagonistic effects and interfered with the gemcitabine-mediated inhibition of the S phase of the cell cycle. By contrast, in SW-13 cells, except when mitotane was sequentially administered prior to gemcitabine, the combination of the two drugs was synergistic. Such opposite effects were asso- ciated with opposite expression profiles of the target gene, with significant up-modulation in H295R but not in SW-13 under gemcitabine and mitotane combination treatment.
@ 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Mitotane [1,1-dichcloro-2-(o-chloropheyl)-2-(p-chlorophenyl)- ethane] is an adreno-corticolytic drug and represents the standard treatment for adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC), a rare and clinically aggressive endocrine tumor generally associated with a poor prog- nosis (Wajchenberg et al., 2000; Dackiw et al., 2001; Fassnacht et al., 2011).
In clinical practice, the antitumor efficacy of mitotane has been demonstrated both in the adjuvant setting (Terzolo et al., 2007) and in the treatment of advanced/progressive disease. In the latter setting, mitotane is active either alone or in combination with dif- ferent chemotherapeutic agents (Fassnacht et al., 2012). However, scarce data on antitumor efficacy of mitotane have been obtained in vitro. Mitotane is highly effective for blocking adrenocortical hormone secretion by inhibiting cholesterol chain cleavage and 11ß-hydroxylation, but evidence of an anti-proliferative effect is incomplete and controversial. First, differential effects on tumor growth have been shown in the two most commonly investigated
ACC cell line models, H295R and SW-13, the former being mito- tane-sensitive and the latter lacking responsiveness even at very high doses (Volante et al., 2012). Second, the anti-neoplastic prop- erties of mitotane seem to be adrenocortical-specific, since mito- tane does not appear to be effective on other tumor cells lines, such as those of lung origin (Volante et al., 2012). Moreover, the mechanisms underlying its adrenocortical-specific anti-neoplastic properties are largely unknown and possibly related to different biological processes (including energetic metabolism, stress re- sponse and other cellular functions), as suggested by proteomic analysis of H295R cells (Stigliano et al., 2008). Finally, the possible interactions of mitotane with other antitumor agents, including the chemotherapeutic drugs commonly used for ACC treatment, are poorly explored. In this latter respect, mitotane has been shown to sensitize ACC cancer cells to ionizing radiation (Cerquetti et al., 2008) and to enhance cytotoxicity of chemotherapy by reversing P-glycoprotein-mediated multidrug resistance with a specific effect on the cell cycle (Bates et al., 1991). However, very few studies determined in vitro the activity of mitotane in combi- nation with other chemotherapeutic agents used in ACC patients (Villa et al., 1999).
From a clinical standpoint, the toxicity of mitotane is still a ma- jor limitation to its use in the treatment of ACC patients (Daffara et al., 2008) and predictive biomarkers correctly identifying pa- tients who will profit from mitotane treatment are still missing. In a recent study from our group, high expression levels of Ribonu- cleotide Reductase Large Subunit 1 (RRM1) gene were shown to be
* Corresponding author. Address: Department of Oncology, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043 Orbassano, Turin, Italy. Tel .: +39 0116705464; fax: +39 0119026753.
E-mail addresses: antonina.germano@unito.it (A. Germano), ida.rapa@unito.it (I.
Rapa), marco.volante@unito.it (M. Volante), nicola.lobuono@unito.it (N. Lo Buono), sonia.carturan@unito.it (S. Carturan), alfredo.berruti@gmail.com (A. Berruti), mas- simo.terzolo@unito.it (M. Terzolo), mauro.papotti@unito.it (M. Papotti).
1 Current address: Medical Oncology, University of Brescia, 25123 Brescia, Italy.
0303-7207/$ - see front matter @ 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2013.08.023
negative predictors of response to mitotane administration as an adjuvant treatment (Volante et al., 2012). RRM1 is the specific molecular target of gemcitabine, a chemotherapeutic agent used in the treatment of different solid tumors. Gemcitabine requires intracellular phosphorylation to its active metabolites, 2’-2’-di- fluoro-dCDP and 2’-2’-difluoro-dCTP, which, specifically inhibits RRM1 and is incorporated into the DNA leading to chain termina- tion (Gandhi et al., 1995). In ACC, a recent phase 2 study demon- strated that a combination of gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine derivatives (5-fluoruracilor capecitabine) and mitotane was active as second or third-line treatment (Sperone et al., 2010). However, no data are currently available on the cytotoxic efficacy of gemcit- abine in ACC cells, in vitro.
The aim of this study was to evaluated the cytotoxic effects of gemcitabine in H295R and SW-13 adrenocortical cancer cell lines, as a single agent or in combination with mitotane, and to compare the profiles of responsiveness with RRM1 drug-induced gene regulation.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Cell culture and chemical reagents
NCI-H295R and SW-13 ACC cell lines were supplied by the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Rockville, MD, USA). H295R cells were cultured in a 1:1 mixture of Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium and Ham’s F-12 Nutrient mixture (DMEM/F12) (Sigma, St. Louis, USA) supplemented with 1% L-glutamine (Sigma) and 2.5% of Nu-Serum (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA) and enriched with 1% di ITS + Premix (BD Bioscience). SW-13 cells were cultured in DMEM (Sigma) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Bio- west, France) and 1% L-glutamine (Sigma). Mitotane was purchased from Supelco and dissolved in 100% methanol (Sigma). Gemcita- bine (Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN) was dissolved in physiolog- ical buffer at 150 mM.
2.2. Treatment and cell viability assay
Cell lines were seeded into 96-well plates in triplicates and treated with mitotane and gemcitabine (with a range between 100 nM and 25 µM for each drug), used alone or in simultaneous combinations for 48 h and 72 h in SW-13 and H295R cells, respec- tively. Time endpoints of 48 h and 72 h for SW-13 and H295R cells were selected based on the different proliferation profiles of these two cell lines, following previously published preliminary experi- ments (Volante et al., 2012). Sequential treatments were as fol- lows: gemcitabine or mitotane for 24 h, followed by the adjunct of mitotane or gemcitabine for 24 h (total treatment: 48 h) in SW-13 and for 48 h (total treatment: 72 h) in H295R cells. After incubation time, Cell Proliferation Reagent WST-1 (Roche Applied Science, Penzberg, Germany) was added to each well in order to measure cell proliferation, following the supplied protocol. The absorbance was determined using a microplate reader (iMARK microplate reader, Biorad Life Science Group, Hercules, CA, USA) at a test wavelength of 450 nm and reference wavelength of 630 nm. Cell viability ratios were calculated using the sigmoid inhibition model (GraphPad PRISM 5, San Diego, CA, USA). Drug interaction between mitotane and gemcitabine was assessed using the combination index (CI), according to the following formula (Chou and Talalay, 1984): CI = CA,x/ICx,A + CB,x/ICx,B; CA,X and CB,X are the concentrations of drug A and drug B used in combination to achieve 50% drug effect. ICx,A and ICx,B are IC50 concentrations for single agents, that achieve the same effect. Values of CI < 1, equal to 1, and > 1 indicate synergistic, additive and antagonistic effects, respectively.
2.3. Apoptosis detection and cell cycle analysis
Cytofluorimetric assays were performed on ACC cells treated in triplicates with mitotane and gemcitabine, alone or in simulta- neous combination, at 48 h and 72 h for SW-13 and H295R cells, respectively. In apoptosis and cell cycle experiments, fixed drug concentrations of 5 uM for both mitotane and gemcitabine - either used alone or in combination - were employed. Higher concentra- tions for both drugs were also tested but yielded insufficient rate of evaluable cells due to extensive cell necrosis (data not shown). To detect apoptotic events, cells were washed twice with PBS and the pellet was re-suspended in 1X Annexin binding buffer (Annexin V- FITC Apoptosis Detection Kit Immunostep, Roche Applied Science) at a concentration of 106 cells/100 ul. Five microlitre of the Annex- in V-FITC and 5 ul of Propidium Iodide (PI) were added to each test, and samples were incubated for 15 min at room temperature in darkness. Additional 400 ul of 1X Annexin binding buffer was added to each tube and cells were analyzed using a BD FacsCanto flow cytometer (BD Biosciences). For cell cycle analysis, cells were fixed with EtOH 70% and re-suspended in PBS. PI/Rnase staining buffer (BD Biosciences) was added to each condition, following the manufacturer’s instructions and samples were incubated for 15 min at room temperature in darkness. Flow cytometry setup was performed using DNA QC particles kit (BD Biosciences). For both cell cycle and apoptosis experiments, data were analyzed using the ModFit software (Verity Software, Topsham, ME,USA) and results were represented as fold changes in relative mean ra- tios between cells untreated as compared with the different treat- ment modalities.
2.4. RRM1 gene expression evaluation by means of Real Time PCR
H295R and SW-13 cell lines were cultured in triplicate into six- well plates and treated with mitotane and gemcitabine either alone or in simultaneous/sequential combinations, at a fixed con- centration of 5 µM for mitotane and gemcitabine, in both cell lines. Duration of treatment was set as detailed above at 48 h for SW-13 and 72 h for H295R cells. Total RNA was extracted using Qiazol Re- agent (Qiagen, Japan). Complementary DNA was generated using M-MLVT RT (200 U/ul) (Invitrogen, California) and oligodT primers (500 ul/ml) (Invitrogen) from 1 µg of total RNA. Relative cDNA quantification of RRM1 and a housekeeping gene (beta-actin) were examined by quantitative real-time PCR using primers and PCR conditions previously reported (Ceppi et al., 2006). Target gene expression was analyzed at different treatment combinations nor- malizing RRM1 mRNA levels to beta-actin, then calculating 44Ct and expressing corresponding values as 2-44Ct. A change in RRM1 gene expression levels above 2 folds was considered significant.
3. Results
3.1. Gemcitabine is an active cytotoxic agent in adrenocortical cancer cells
Gemcitabine induced a dose-dependent decrease of cell viabil- ity in the two adrenal cancer cell lines (Fig. 1), with IC50 values of 28.87 µM (standard error ± 0.04) (at 48 h of treatment) and 45.99 µM (standard error ± 2.61) (at 72 h of treatment) in SW-13 and H295R cells, respectively. The effect of gemcitabine on apopto- sis (Fig. 2) was mild in H295R cells, with a fold increase of 2.37 (standard error ± 0.43; Student’s t test: p = 0.13) and 3.12 (standard error ± 0.37; Student’s t test: p = 0.02) in the early and late apopto- tic phases, respectively. In SW-13 cells, a 2.16 (standard er- ror ± 0.07; Student’s t test: p = 0.025) fold increase was observed
H295R
SW-13
1.0
1.0
T
O
Cell viability ratio
Cell viability ratio
2
0.5
£
0.5
- Mitotane
- Mitotane
Gemcitabine
Gemcitabine
Mitotane/gemcitabine
Mitotane/gemcitabine
··· Gemcitabine — >mitotane
··· Gemcitabine — >mitotane
Mitotane — >gemcitabine
Mitotane — >gemcitabine
-8
-6
-4
-8
-6
-4
drug (Log of dose)
drug (Log of dose)
| COMBINATION INDEX (CI ) | SW-13 | H295R |
|---|---|---|
| Mitotane/Gemcitabine | 0.80±0.05 | 5.44±0.87 |
| Gemcitabine-> Mitotane | 0.90±0.07 | 2.12±0.21 |
| Mitotane->Gemcitbine | 2.49±0.78 | 82.11±1.03 |
Fig. 1. Cell viability after single or combined mitotane and gemcitabine treatment. Cytotoxic response to mitotane and gemcitabine and their combination in H295R and in SW-13 cell lines. Data result from three different experiments (+SD, n = 3) having three replicates for each experiment, and are expressed as ratios of proliferating cells as compared to basal conditions. Logarithm of doses correspond to the following drug concentrations: - 7 = 0.1 uM; - 6 = 1 µM; - 5.6 = 5 uM; - 5 = 10 uM; - 4.6 = 25 uM.
in the early apoptotic phase whereas a consistent increase in the population of late apoptotic/necrotic cells was detected, with a fold increase of 54.25 (standard error ± 5.25; Student’s t test: p = 0.009). In cell cycle experiments (Fig. 3), as expected by the specific role of gemcitabine to block the S phase, a striking reduction of the rate of cells in the G2 phase was observed in both H295R (Student’s t test: p = 0.0005) and SW-13 cells (Student’s t test: p = 0.0002).
3.2. Opposing effect of gemcitabine/mitotane combination in mitotane-sensitive and insensitive adrenocortical cancer cells
As expected by the known profiles of drug-responsiveness of the two cell lines, mitotane determined a cytotoxic effect, as mea- sured by cell viability assay, in H295R cells, with a IC50 value of 30.62 µM (standard error ± 2.02) (at 72 h of treatment), but not in SW-13 cells, with a IC50 value of 6.20 x 102 µM (standard error ± 0.17 x 102) (at 48 h of treatment) (Fig. 1). Early and late apoptotic cell ratios were not modified by mitotane treatment nei- ther in H295R nor in SW-13 cells (Student’s t test: all p val- ues > 0.1) (Fig. 2); moreover, mitotane treatment induced mild changes in the different phases of the cell cycle in H295R cells, only (Student’s t test corresponding p values for fold changes in G1, S and G2: 0.018, 0.019, 0.016, respectively) (Fig. 3).
The combination of mitotane and gemcitabine showed oppos- ing effects in mitotane-sensitive and insensitive cells. In H295R cells, that responded in terms of cell viability to both mitotane and gemcitabine used as single agents, the simultaneous combina- tion of these two drugs resulted in an antagonistic effect on cell growth (CI = 5.44 + 0.87). Such drug antagonism was evident also in sequential treatments and significantly increased when mito-
tane was used as the first drug (gemcitabine → mitotane: CI = 2.12 ± 0.21; mitotane → gemcitabine: CI = 82.11 + 1.03).
In mitotane-insensitive SW-13 cells, the combination of gemcit- abine + mitotane showed a slightly significant synergistic anti-pro- liferative effect (CI = 0.80 ± 0.05) that potentiated the cytotoxic effect observed by using gemcitabine alone (Fig. 1). Sequential gemcitabine → mitotane treatment showed effects similar to the simultaneous treatment (CI = 0.90 ± 0.07), whereas sequential mitotane → gemcitabine treatment was antagonistic (CI = 2.48 ± 0.78).
This observation was paralleled by data resulting from apopto- sis (Fig. 2) and cell cycle (Fig. 3) investigations. In fact, the combi- nation of gemcitabine + mitotane in H295R cells had a minor influence on the apoptotic rate in late phase, only (Student’s t test: p = 0.019). Moreover, the proportion of cells in the G2 phase, although lower than untreated cells, was significantly increased as compared to gemcitabine alone (Student’s t test: p = 0.001), thus showing a significant interference in the inhibitory effect of gem- citabine to the S phase. By contrast, in SW-13 cells the combination of gemcitabine + mitotane potentiated the effect of gemcitabine to induce late apoptotic/necrotic (Student’s t test: p = 0.038) events.
3.3. Modulation of RRM1 gene expression by gemcitabine and mitotane
Mitotane and gemcitabine alone showed no effect in the modu- lation of RRM1 gene in H295R cells, whereas mitotane induced an up-modulation of RRM1 gene expression levels in SW-13 cells (Fig. 4). Interestingly, the opposing anti-proliferative effects of the combination gemcitabine plus mitotane were paralleled by
| Cell line | Treatment | % ANNEXIN positive/PI negative | FOLD INCREASE | % ANNEXIN positive/PI positive | FOLD INCREASE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H295R | UNTREATED | 4.7±0.1 | 7 2.3740,43 1.64±0.33 | 0.8610.11 | 0,3±0.1 | 3.12±0,37 2±1 2.37±1.12 | |
| GEMCITABINE | 11.2±2.30 | 0.9±0.2 | |||||
| MITOTANE | 7.75±1.75 | 0.55±0.15 | |||||
| GEM/MIT | 4.05±0.45 | 0.65±0.05 | |||||
| SW-13 | UNTREATED | 1.9±0.19 | 2.1610.07 0.68±0.03 1.53+0.1 | 0.2±0 | 54.2515.25 1.25+0.25 | 143.75±17.75 | |
| GEMCITABINE | 4.10±0,30 | 10.85±1.05 | |||||
| MITOTANE | 1.3±0.2 | 0.25±0.05 | |||||
| GEM/MIT | 2.9±0.10 | 28.75±3.45 | |||||
H295R
Untreated
Gemcitabine
Mitotane
GEM + MIT
Propidium Todide
-
=
1
2
~
v
=
Q2
0
Q2
9
q1
92
+
-
01
02
M =
9
e
m
:
9ª
Q4
49
Q4
Q3
44
“a
4
-
1
=
ID-
ID’
10
10
ID”
ID”
1
10
112
11
ID
10
1ª
11
1D
10°
Annexin V
SW-13
Untreated
Gemcitabine
Mitotane
GEM + MIT
Propidium lodide
1
2
5
-
QL
LOW
Q1
*
-
QL
60
Y
R
1
1
P
05
84
Q3
Q+
1
1
-
201
”
1
11”
1#
10
”
10
1ª
10*
10
11”
11
ID”
10”
10
1
Annexin V
opposite effects on RRM1 gene modulation. In fact, the antagonism of the two drugs in H295R cells, either as simultaneous or sequen- tial treatments, was associated with up-modulation of RRM1 tran- scription. In SW-13 cells, mitotane-induced RMM1 gene up- modulation was absent in synergistic combinations of simulta- neous mitotane + gemcitabine and sequential gemcita- bine → mitotane treatments, whereas was observed in antagonist mitotane → gemcitabine combination.
4. Discussion
The present study demonstrates that gemcitabine is effective as an anti-neoplastic agent in ACC in vitro, and shows that the drug interacts differently with mitotane provoking variable effects on cell viability and modulation of its target gene RRM1.
The concept of this study stems from different viewpoints. Pri- marily, no preclinical data on gemcitabine activity on ACC cell lines have been published, so far, although this drug represents an anti- tumoral compound used in advanced ACC patients (Sperone et al., 2010). Very few studies in the literature analyzed the effects of dif- ferent chemotherapeutic agents on the growth and survival of ACC cells in vitro. However, gemcitabine was not included in these stud- ies, which were also based on a single cell line (SW-13) (Montoya et al., 2008; Villa et al., 1999). Our data show that gemcitabine is highly effective in the two most commonly studied ACC cell lines, specifically blocking the transition from the S to the G2 phase and inducing late apoptotic events, this latter being more evident in the SW-13 cell line model. As compared to gemcitabine, and in line with previous data from the literature including those from our group (Volante et al., 2012), mitotane was effective at inducing a reduction of cell viability in H295R but not in SW-13 cells. How-
| Cell line | Treatment | %G1 | FOLD INCREASE | %8 | FOLD DECREASE | %G2 | FOLD DECREASE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H295R | UNTREATED | 69.710.68 | 0.88±0.03 1.0720.01 | 0.910.03 | 21.9410.5 | 0.57±0.06 1.2120.01 | 0.67±0.01 | 8.3510.19 | 84.49±1.9 1.2340.04 3.09±0.05 |
| GEM | 61.61±3.12 | 38.39±3.12 | 01.140 | ||||||
| MIT | 75.12+0.29 | 18.1240.2 | 6.7540.09 | ||||||
| GEM/MIT | 63±1.8 | 32.6±0.21 | 2.7±0.11 | ||||||
| SW-13 | UNTREATED | 59.08+0.11 | 1.2840.48 0.94±0.05 1.23±0.01 | 32.32+0.10 | 1.37±0.17 0.87±0.03 1.20,01 | 8.41±0.14 | 84.1£1,4 1.13±0.1 84±1.4 | ||
| GEM | 76.16+2.98 | 23.83+2.98 | 0.10 | ||||||
| MIT | 55.58±3.17 | 36.90±1.24 | 7.5±0.6 | ||||||
| GEM/MIT | 73.09±0.36 | 26.91±0.36 | 0.1±0 | ||||||
H295R
Untreated 8%
Gemcitabine 0%
Mitotane 7%
GEM + MIT 6%
22%
38%
18%
32%
70%
62%
75%
62%
G1
☐ S
☐ G2
SW-13
Untreated 9%
Gemcitabine 0%
Mitotane 7%
GEM + MIT 0%
24%
27%
32%
59%
37%
76%
56%
73%
G1
☐ S
☐ G2
ever, this effect on cell proliferation was not paralleled by a signif- icant influence on apoptosis and cell cycle in mitotane-sensitive H295R cells. This observation, already presented in previous re- ports detailing the effects of mitotane on cell cycle used as a single agent (Cerquetti et al., 2008), supports a cytostatic rather than cytotoxic effect of mitotane in ACC cells.
A secondary endpoint was the investigation of the interac- tions between gemcitabine and mitotane used as combination treatment in ACC cells. In this respect, very few data are avail- able in the literature on the activity of mitotane in association with any of the chemotherapeutic agents commonly used in ACC patients’ treatment (Villa et al., 1999), generally with an
additive effect. This aspect is of particular interest since mitotane is the mainstay of treatment in ACC patients and is present in every chemotherapeutic regimen currently proposed in advanced or progressive disease (Fassnacht et al., 2012). However, it is al- ready established in other tumor models that the combination of active drugs, if used alone as antitumor agent, is not necessarily favorable in terms of global anti-neoplastic efficacy. Our data are rather provocative, since differential effects of the mitotane plus gemcitabine combination were demonstrated in mitotane-sensi- tive and mitotane-insensitive ACC cells. In fact, in H295R cells, sensitive to mitotane used as a single agent, the combination with gemcitabine was antagonistic and repressed the antineo-
H295R
SW-13 cells
RRM1 gene expression
(Fold change as compared to b-actin)
5
4
3
2
1
UNTREATED
GEMCITABINE
MITOTANE
GEM + MIT
MIT — >GEM
GEM — >MIT
UNTREATED
GEMCITABINE
MITOTANE
GEM + MIT
MIT — >GEM
GEM — >MIT
plastic properties of both agents. By contrast, in SW-13 cells mitotane was not effective alone but potentiated the antitumor effects of gemcitabine when used as a combination modality. It is worth noticing that in both cell lines sequential treatments having mitotane as the first drug showed an antagonistic effect. Our results suggest that a combination modality may not be al- ways favorable for ACC patients. It has been already established in other tumor models that the combination of active drugs is not necessarily associated with greater anti-neoplastic efficacy. In lung cancer models, gemcitabine has been demonstrated to be either synergistic or antagonistic with topotecan depending on the type and timing of combination (Giovannetti et al., 2005). However, caution should be used to translate our results into clinically meaningful data. In fact, our findings were ob- tained in vitro, only, using the two commercially available ACC cell lines, that do not necessarily represent the best model for assessing chemotherapeutic agent sensitivity profiles in ACC. Moreover, in vivo studies are needed to better understand the interactions at the pharmacodynamic and metabolic levels be- tween mitotane and gemcitabine (or other chemotherapeutic agents used in ACC patients), and to validate our findings into a clinical perspective.
Our results point also to the fact that a better genetic and path- ological profiling of ACC is needed to identify tissue biomarkers that may predict response to therapy. In this latter respect, a third aim of the study was to analyze in parallel with cytotoxic proper- ties of the two compounds, the modulation profiles of RRM1, the specific target of gemcitabine that in a recent study from our group was also found to be associated with mitotane responsiveness, being high gene expression levels correlated to a lower sensitivity (Volante et al., 2012). In line with the drug-sensitivity profiles, syn- ergistic mitotane plus gemcitabine combination treatment in SW- 13 cells, simultaneous or sequential gemcitabine → mitotane, did not up-modulate RRM1 gene expression rendering the cells more sensitive to both drugs, whereas the antagonist sequential mito- tane → gemcitabine combination induced RRM1 gene up-modula- tion, similar to mitotane alone. By contrast, the antagonism showed in H295R cells by the mitotane and gemcitabine combina- tion, either simultaneous or in the two different sequential modal- ities, was associated with a striking up-modulation of RRM1 gene, a finding not evident using the two compounds individually, possi- bly conferring resistance of this cell model to both agents. Far from being a molecular explanation of the differential effects of mito- tane and gemcitabine combination treatment in ACC cells, these findings strongly support our previous data on a major role of the RRM1 enzyme in determining profiles of responsiveness to mitotane in ACC tumor cells.
5. Conclusions
In summary, this study shows that (i) gemcitabine is an active cytotoxic agent in ACC cells in vitro, thus substantiating the use of this chemotherapeutic agent in ACC patients; (ii) its efficacy in combination with mitotane is heterogeneous, antagonistic in mito- tane-sensitive and synergistic in mitotane-insensitive cells depending on the sequential schedule, and (iii) the drug effects are strongly associated with a different modulation of its target gene - RRM1.
Further studies are therefore needed to better understand in vivo the profiles of responsiveness to the combination of gemcit- abine and mitotane, as well as to clarify the influence of RRM1 gene in the pharmacokinetics of the two compounds, either used alone or in combination.
Acknowledgments
Work supported by Grants from the Italian Association for Can- cer Research (AIRC, Milan, Grant No. IG/10795/2010 to MP), from the Regione Piemonte (Progetto Ricerca Sanitaria Finalizzata, D.G.R. No. 35-4231 dated 06.11.2006 to MV, and Ricerca Sanitaria Finalizzata 2008 to AB), from the Italian Ministry of University and Scientific and Technological Research (PRIN, Grant No. 20085P5S49 to MT).
References
Bates, S.E., Shieh, C.Y., Mickley, L.A., Dichek, H.L., Gazdar, A., Loriaux, D.L., Fojo, A.T., 1991. Mitotane enhances cytotoxicity of chemotherapy in cell lines expressing a multidrug resistance gene (mdr-1/P-glycoprotein) which is also expressed by adrenocortical carcinomas. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 73, 18-29.
Ceppi, P., Volante, M., Novello, S., Rapa, I., Danenberg, K.D., Danenberg, P.V., Cambieri, A., Selvaggi, G., Saviozzi, S., Calogero, R., Papotti, M., Scagliotti, G.V., 2006. ERCC1 and RRM1 gene expressions but not EGFR are predictive of shorter survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with cisplatin and gemcitabine. Ann. Oncol. 17, 1818-1825.
Cerquetti, L., Bucci, B., Marchese, R., Misiti, S., De Paula, U., Miceli, R., Muleti, A., Amendola, D., Piergrossi, P., Brunetti, E., Toscano, V., Stigliano, A., 2008. Mitotane increases the radiotherapy inhibitory effect and induces G2-arrest in combined treatment on both H295R and SW13 adrenocortical cell lines. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 15, 623-634.
Chou, T.C., Talalay, P., 1984. Quantitative analysis of dose-effect relationships: the combined effects of multiple drugs or enzyme inhibitors. Adv. Enzyme Regul. 22, 27-55.
Dackiw, A.P., Lee, J.E., Gagel, R.F., Evans, D.B., 2001. Adrenal cortical carcinoma. World J. Surg. 25, 914-926.
Daffara, F., De Francia, S., Reimondo, G., Zaggia, B., Aroasio, E., Porpiglia, F., Volante, M., Termine, A., Di Carlo, F., Dogliotti, L., Angeli, A., Berruti, A., Terzolo, M., 2008. Prospective evaluation of mitotane toxicity in adrenocortical cancer patients treated adjuvantly. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 15, 1043-1053.
Fassnacht, M., Libé, R., Kroiss, M., Allolio, B., 2011. Adrenocortical carcinoma: a clinician’s update. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 7, 323-335.
Fassnacht, M., Terzolo, M., Allolio, B., Baudin, E., Haak, H., Berruti, A., Welin, S., Schade-Brittinger, C., Lacroix, A., Jarzab, B., Sorbye, H., Torpy, D.J., Stepan, V., Schteingart, D.E., Arlt, W., Kroiss, M., Leboulleux, S., Sperone, P., Sundin, A., Hermsen, I., Hahner, S., Willenberg, H.S., Tabarin, A., Quinkler, M., de la Fouchardière, C., Schlumberger, M., Mantero, F., Weismann, D., Beuschlein, F., Gelderblom, H., Wilmink, H., Sender, M., Edgerly, M., Kenn, W., Fojo, T., Müller, H.H., Skogseid, B., FIRM-ACT Study Group, 2012. Combination chemotherapy in advanced adrenocortical carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 2189-2197.
Gandhi, V., Mineishi, S., Huang, P., Chapman, A.J., Yang, Y., Chen, F., Nowak, B., Chubb, S., Hertel, L.W., Plunkett, W., 1995. Cytotoxicity, metabolism, and mechanisms of action of 2’,2’-difluorodeoxyguanosine in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Cancer Res. 55, 1517-1524.
Giovannetti, E., Mey, V., Danesi, R., Basolo, F., Barachini, S., Deri, M., Del Tacca, M., 2005. Interaction between gemcitabine and topotecan in human non-small-cell lung cancer cells: effects on cell survival, cell cycle and pharmacogenetic profile. Br. J. Cancer 92, 681-689.
Montoya, M., Brown, J.W., Fishman, L.M., 2008. Comparative effects of chemotherapeutic agents on the growth and survival of human adrenal carcinoma cells in culture. Horm. Metab. Res. 40, 302-305.
Sperone, P., Ferrero, A., Daffara, F., Priola, A., Zaggia, B., Volante, M., Santini, D., Vincenzi, B., Badalamenti, G., Intrivici, C., Del Buono, S., De Francia, S., Kalomirakis, E., Ratti, R., Angeli, A., Dogliotti, L., Papotti, M., Terzolo, M., Berruti, A., 2010. Gemcitabine plus metronomic 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine
as a second-/third-line chemotherapy in advanced adrenocortical carcinoma: a multicenter phase II study. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 17, 445-453.
Stigliano, A., Cerquetti, L., Borro, M., Gentile, G., Bucci, B., Misiti, S., Piergrossi, P., Brunetti, E., Simmaco, M., Toscano, V., 2008. Modulation of proteomic profile in H295R adrenocortical cell line induced by mitotane. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 15, 1-10.
Terzolo, M., Angeli, A., Fassnacht, M., Daffara, F., Tauchmanova, L., Conton, P.A., Rossetto, R., Buci, L., Sperone, P., Grossrubatscher, E., Reimondo, G., Bollito, E., Papotti, M., Saeger, W., Hahner, S., Koschker, A.C., Arvat, E., Ambrosi, B., Loli, P., Lombardi, G., Mannelli, M., Bruzzi, P., Mantero, F., Allolio, B., Dogliotti, L., Berruti, A., 2007. Adjuvant mitotane treatment for adrenocortical carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 356, 2372-2380.
Villa, R., Orlandi, L., Berruti, A., Dogliotti, L., Zaffaroni, N., 1999. Modulation of cytotoxic drug activity by mitotane and lonidamine in human adrenocortical carcinoma cells. Int. J. Oncol. 14, 133-138.
Volante, M., Terzolo, M., Fassnacht, M., Rapa, I., Germano, A., Sbiera, S., Daffara, F., Sperone, P., Scagliotti, G., Allolio, B., Papotti, M., Berruti, A., 2012. Ribonucleotide reductase large subunit (RRM1) gene expression may predict efficacy of adjuvant mitotane in adrenocortical cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 3452-3461. Wajchenberg, B.L., Albergaria Pereira, M.A., Medonca, B.B., Latronico, A.C., Campos Carneiro, P., Alves, V.A., Zerbini, M.C., Liberman, B., Carlos Gomes, G., Kirschner, M.A., 2000. Adrenocortical carcinoma: clinical and laboratory observations. Cancer 88, 711-736.