Affiliations of authors: D. R. Welch, Jake Gittlen Cancer Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey; C. W. Rinker-Schaeffer, Section of Urology, Prostate Cancer Program, The University of Chicago, IL.
Correspondence to: Danny R. Welch, Ph.D., Jake Gittlen Cancer Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, 500 University Dr., Hershey, PA 17033-2390.
In this issue of the Journal, O'Connell et al. (1) describe the identification of a region on the long arm of chromosome 14 that is apparently involved in the progression of breast cancer toward metastasis. Measuring loss of heterozygosity, the investigators found that the majority of lymph node-negative breast tumors did not amplify a region linked to D14S62 and D14S51, while lymph node-positive breast tumors retained heterozygosity for these same markers. These data could imply the existence of a metastasis-promoting gene. Alternatively, the observed molecular changes may be a marker of metastatic propensity.
Since metastasis is the most lethal attribute of a cancer, it is critical that tumors be diagnosed while still localized to achieve the highest probability of long-term survival and quality of life. In the absence of objective evidence that metastases do not exist, earlier diagnosis would accomplish three things: 1) increase the probability of diagnosis prior to spread, 2) decrease total tumor burden so that less therapy is required, and 3) decrease the likelihood of therapy-resistant tumor cell populations.
Detection of cancer has improved appreciably in recent years. However, there is still a critical need for markers that unambiguously distinguish weakly metastatic from highly metastatic lesions. This concept is underscored by the example of malignant melanoma where there is a direct relationship between primary lesion thickness and the likelihood of metastasis (2). For lesions that are overtly thin or thick, planning treatment is easy. However, for lesions of intermediate thickness, the decision is not straightforward. The subjectivity of the current grading criteria is demonstrated by the greater than 50% discordance in the diagnosis and staging of melanomas, even between preeminent dermatopathologists (3).
Choosing useful markers of metastasis requires a better understanding of the metastatic
process (Fig. 1) and of how it is distinct from tumorigenicity.
Tumorigenicity and oncogenicity refer to the ability of cells to proliferate continuously in the
absence of the persistent stimulation by a triggering agent. Tumor progression is the evolution of
already tumorigenic cells toward increasingly autonomous states (i.e., decreased dependence on
host-derived growth factors and/or increased resistance to negative regulatory molecules). The
distinction between oncogenesis and tumor progression is critical when one is determining
whether a gene is important in controlling steps associated with malignancy or is simply involved
in tumor formation [reviewed in (4-6)]. Some of the
distinctions between malignant and metastatic are more subtle. Attributes of malignant cells
include, but are not limited to, less differentiated morphology/cytology, vascular density, necrosis,
high mitotic index, aneuploidy, and high nuclear : cytoplasmic ratio (7).
The utility of these characteristics as markers is limited by some degree of subjectivity. In the end,
the only incontrovertible hallmark of malignancy is the ability to invade through basement
membrane and/or to metastasize.
|
Each of these categories can be further divided on the basis of on whether the marker is increased or decreased. This criterion impacts the clinical utility of the marker. Assay sensitivity for molecules that are more highly expressed in metastatic primary tumors would be greater than for those expressed at lower levels because of tumor heterogeneity. It is well recognized that the majority of cells within a tumor cannot complete the multistep process of metastasis. Indeed, less than 0.1% of cells entering the bloodstream successfully form clinically detectable lesions (7). By inference, it follows that a similarly small percentage of cells within a primary tumor would display a marker of metastasis. Just as it is easier to see a single lighted candle in a dark room than to find the only unlit candle in a room full of lighted candles, it is easier to identify a single cell expressing a new marker against a background of nonexpressing cells than it is to find nonexpressing cells within a mass of cells that express a particular marker. This comparison does not even take into account quantitative differences in expression, which would further complicate the matter. For this reason, identification of metastasis-associated, positive regulators would be preferred by pathologists. Examples of such positive regulators include vascular endothelial growth factor, Ras, Mts1, Mta1, and Tiam1 [reviewed in (5,10)].
From experimental and treatment perspectives, however, identification of suppressors of
metastasis offers advantages. To metastasize, cells must complete all steps of the metastatic
cascade shown in Fig. 1. If a cell fails to complete any of these steps, it is
nonmetastatic. Thus, it takes only one gene to block metastasis, whereas it takes the coordinated
expression of many genes to allow metastasis (6,11). In experimental
systems, it is fairly easy to find associations with metastatic ability; however, it is difficult to prove
that a particular gene is essential. For example, if one were to transfect a bona fide metastasis-promoting gene that promoted invasion into a cell that already contained a defect in
another genesay, one required for angiogenesisthat transfected cell would still
be nonmetastatic. In contrast, introduction of a gene that disrupts any step in the metastatic
cascade would render metastatic cells nonmetastatic. Thus, from a treatment perspective,
identification of metastasis-suppressing genes/products would offer the greatest advantage. To
date, five such human metastasis suppressor genes have been reported: NME1 (12,13), KiSS1 (14,15), KAI1 (16,17),
E-cadherin (18,19), and MKK4 (20).
It must be emphasized that markers can be clinically useful even if their biologic function is not well defined. Indeed, we anticipate that, as a result of efforts to sequence the human genome, there will be numerous molecular markers identified in regions that have not previously been linked to gross chromosomal changes. This concept is well illustrated by the report by O'Connell et al. (1). The immediate, critical concern for breast cancer, as well as for other cancers, is to improve the ability of the pathologist to segregate metastatic from nonmetastatic lesions unambiguously. If it is certain that the patient does not have metastases (even occult ones), treatment beyond surgical removal is not necessary. However, if metastases are present, then more aggressive treatments must begin. As with most issues, decisions are more difficult when the evidence is not clear (i.e., patients with no evidence of macroscopic metastases but for which microscopic, occult metastases are suspected). How are those patients to be treated? The underlying question relates to the level of assurance on which the suspicions are founded. In other words, how confident is the physician that the marker accurately reflects tumor stage? The goal is to avoid unnecessary, expensive treatment, which often comes with undesirable side effects.
As efforts continue toward the identification and development of molecular markers of metastasis, we should heed the experiences that tell us that the use of subjective markers of metastasis leads to ambiguity. In addition, the complexity of the metastatic process suggests that multiple markers may be needed.
NOTES
Supported by Public Health Service grants CA62168 (to D. R. Welch) and CA69487 (to C. W. Rinker-Scjaeffer) from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services; by grant DAMD-96-1-6152 from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (to D. R. Welch); by grant RPG-99-068-01-CSM from the American Cancer Society (to C. W. Rinker-Schaeffer); by the National Foundation for Cancer Research (to D. R. Welch); by the RESCUE Fund of the University of Chicago (to C. W. Rinker-Schaeffer); and by the Jake Gittlen Memorial Golf Tournament (to D. R. Welch).
REFERENCES
1
O'Connell P, Fischbach K, Hilsenbeck S, Mohsin SK,
Fuqua SA, Clark GM, et al. Loss of heterozygosity at D14S62 and metastatic potential of breast
cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1391-7.
2 Balch CM, Houghton AN, Milton GW, Sober AJ, Song SJ. Cutaneous melanoma. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 1991.
3 Farmer ER, Gonin R, Hanna MP. Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma and melanocytic nevi between expert pathologists. Hum Pathol 1996;27:528-31.[Medline]
4 Welch DR, Goldberg SF. Molecular mechanisms controlling human melanoma progression and metastasis. Pathobiology 1997;65:311-30.[Medline]
5
Welch DR, Wei LL. Genetic and epigenetic regulation of human
breast cancer progression and metastasis. Endocrine-related Cancer 1998;5:155-97.
6
Fidler IJ, Radinsky R. Search for genes that suppress cancer
metastasis [editorial]. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1700-3.
7 Fidler IJ. The biology of cancer metastasis or, "you cannot fix it if you do not know how it works." Bioessays 1991;13:551-4.[Medline]
8 Bast RC, Desch CE, Hayes DF, Kemeny NE, Ravdin P, Somerfield MR, et al. 1997 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:793-5.[Abstract]
9 Brandt-Rauf PW, Pincus MR. Molecular markers of carcinogenesis. Pharmacol Ther 1998;77:135-48.[Medline]
10 Dear TN, Kefford RF. Molecular oncogenetics of metastasis. Mol Aspects Med 1990;11:243-324.[Medline]
11 Fidler IJ, Radinsky R. Genetic control of cancer metastasis [editorial]. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990;82:166-8.[Medline]
12 Freije JM, MacDonald NJ, Steeg PS. Differential gene expression in tumor metastasis: Nm23. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 1996;213(Part 2): 215-32.
13
Weinstat-Saslow DL, Steeg PS. Angiogenesis and colonization
in the tumor metastatic process: basic and applied advances. FASEB J 1994;8:401-7.
14
Lee JH, Miele ME, Hicks DJ, Phillips KK, Trent JM, Weissman
BE, et al. KiSS-1, a novel human malignant melanoma metastasis-suppressor gene
[published erratum appears in J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:1549]. J Natl Cancer
Inst 1996;88:1731-7.
15 Lee JH, Welch DR. Identification of highly expressed genes in metastasis-suppressed chromosome 6/human malignant melanoma hybrid cells using subtractive hybridization and differential display. Intl J Cancer 1997;71:1035-44.[Medline]
16 Dong JT, Lamb PW, Rinker-Schaeffer CW, Vukanovic J, Ichikawa T, Isaacs JT, et al. KAI1, a metastasis suppressor gene for prostate cancer on human chromosome 11p11.2. Science 1995;268:884-6.[Medline]
17 Phillips KK, White AE, Hicks DJ, Welch DR, Barrett JC, Wei LL, et al. Correlation between reduction of metastasis in the MDA-MB-435 model system and increased expression of the Kai-1 protein. Mol Carcinog 1998;21:111-20.[Medline]
18 Perl AK, Wilgenbus P, Dahl U, Semb H, Christofori G. A causal role for E-cadherin in the transition from adenoma to carcinoma. Nature 1998;392:190-3.[Medline]
19 Christofori G, Semb H. The role of the cell-adhesion molecule E-cadherin as a tumour-suppressor gene. Trends Biochem Sci 1999;24:73-6.[Medline]
20 Yoshida BA, Dubauskas Z, Chekmareva MA, Zaucha MM, Christiano TR, Christiano AP, et al. Identification and characterization of candidate prostate cancer metastasis-suppressor genes encoded on human chromosome 17 [abstract]. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 1999;40:701.
21 Welch DR. Tumor progression: analysis of the instability of the metastatic phenotype, response to radiation and chemotherapy. Houston (TX): The University of Texas; 1984.
This article has been cited by other articles in HighWire Press-hosted journals:
![]() |
||||
|
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement |