Gastroenterology Gastroenterology

ISSN 1007-9327 CN 14-1219/R

World Journal of Gastroenterology

World Journal of

Gastroenterology Volume 15 Number 29 August 7, 2009

www.wjgnet.com Volume 15 Number 29

百世登

Baishideng™©

Aug 07

Published by The WJG Press and Baishideng Room 903, Building D, Ocean International Center, No. 62 Dongsihuan Zhonglu, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100025, China Telephone: +86-10-59080039 Fax: +86-10-85381893 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.wjgnet.com

2009

I S S N 1 0 0 7 - 9 3 2 7 2 9

World Journal of

Gastroenterology Indexed and Abstracted in: Current Contents®/Clinical Medicine, Science Citation Index Expanded (also known as SciSearch®) and Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, Index Medicus, MEDLINE and PubMed, Chemical Abstracts, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Abstracts Journals, PubMed Central, Digital Object Identifier, CAB Abstracts and Global Health. ISI, Thomson Reuters, 2008 Impact Factor: 2.081 (32/55 Gastroenterology and Hepatology).

Volume 15 Number 29 August 7, 2009 World J Gastroenterol 2009 August 7; 15(29): 3585-3712

A Weekly Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

ISSN 1007-9327 CN 14-1219/R Local Post Offices Code No. 82-261

9 7 7 1 0 0 7 9 3 2 0 45

Online Submissions wjg.wjgnet.com www.wjgnet.com Printed on Acid-free Paper

World Journal of

Gastroenterology Weekly Established in October 1995

Volume 15 Number 29 August 7, 2009

Contents EDITORIAL

3585

百世登

Baishideng™©

Hepatic portal venous gas: Physiopathology, etiology, prognosis and treatment Abboud B, El Hachem J, Yazbeck T, Doumit C

TOPIC HIGHLIGHT

3591

Post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome Thabane� M�� , Marshall�� JK

REVIEW

3597

Irinotecan therapy and molecular targets in colorectal cancer: A systemic review Weekes J, Lam AKY, Sebesan S, Ho YH

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

3603

Transcriptional down regulation of hTERT and senescence induction in HepG2 cells by chelidonine Kazemi Noureini�� S�� , Wink� � M

3611

Phenotypic changes of human cells in human-rat liver during partial hepatectomy-induced regeneration Sun Y, Xiao D, Li HA, Jiang JF, Li Q, Zhang RS, Chen XG

3621

Interleukin-6, desmosome and tight junction protein expression levels in reflux esophagitis-affected mucosa Li FY, Li Y

BRIEF ARTICLES

3631

Spot urinary sodium for assessing dietary sodium restriction in cirrhotic ascites El-Bokl MA, Senousy BE, El-Karmouty KZ, Mohammed IEK, Mohammed SM, Shabana SS, Shalaby H

3636

A randomized controlled trial of imipramine in patients with irritable bowel syndrome Abdul-Baki�� H�� , El Hajj�� II�� , ElZahabi�� L�� , Azar�� C�� , Aoun�� E�� , Skoury�� A�� , Chaar�� H�� , Sharara�� AI

3643

Association of Fas/Apo1 gene promoter (-670 A/G) polymorphism in Tunisian patients with IBD Ben Aleya W, Sfar I, Mouelhi L, Aouadi H, Makhlouf M, Ayed-Jendoubi S, Matri S, Filali A, Najjar T, Ben Abdallah T, Ayed K, Gorgi Y

3649

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during pregnancy without radiation Akcakaya A, Ozkan OV, Okan I, Kocaman O, Sahin M

3653

Factors associated with use of gastric cancer screening services in Korea Kwon YM, Lim HT, Lee K, Cho BL, Park MS, Son KY, Park SM

3660

Bilateral liver resection for bilateral intrahepatic stones Li SQ, Liang LJ, Hua YP, Peng BG, Chen D, Fu SJ

www.wjgnet.com


Contents

Volume 15 Number 29 August 7, 2009 3664

Sequential use of transarterial chemoembolization and percutaneous cryosurgery for hepatocellular carcinoma Xu KC, Niu LZ, Zhou Q, Hu YZ, Guo DH, Liu ZP, Lan B, Mu F, Li YF, Zuo JS

3670

CEUS: A new imaging approach for postoperative vascular complications after right-lobe LDLT Luo Y, Fan YT, Lu Q, Li B, Wen TF, Zhang ZW

3676

Astragalus mongholicus polysaccharide inhibits lipopolysaccharide-induced production of TNF-α and interleukin-8 Yuan Y, Sun M, Li KS

CASE REPORT

3681

Bilhemia after trans-jugular intra-hepatic porto-systemic shunt and its management with biliary decompression Singal AK, Kathuria MK, Malhotra A, Goodgame RW, Soloway RD

3684

What is a reliable CT scan for diagnosing splenosis under emergency conditions? Garaci FG, Grande M, Villa M, Mancino S, Konda D, Attinà GM, Galatà G, Simonetti G

3687

Obstructive ileus due to a giant fibroepithelial polyp of the anus Galanis I, Dragoumis D, Tsolakis M, Zarampoukas K, Zarampoukas T, Atmatzidis K

3691

Xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis mimicking gallbladder carcinoma with a false-positive result on fluorodeoxyglucose PET Makino I, Yamaguchi T, Sato N, Yasui T, Kita I

3694

Bell’s palsy and choreiform movements during peginterferon α and ribavirin therapy Barut� S, �� Karaer� �� H, �� Oksuz� �� E, �� Gündoğdu �� Eken� �� A, �� Basak�� AN

3697

Recurrent giant fibrovascular polyp of the esophagus Lee SY, Chan WH, Sivanandan R, Lim DTH, Wong WK

3701

Heterotopic pancreas in the gastrointestinal tract Yuan Z, Chen J, Zheng Q, Huang XY, Yang Z, Tang J

3704

Primary gastrointestinal stromal tumor of the liver: A case report Luo XL, Liu D, Yang JJ, Zheng MW, Zhang J, Zhou XD

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

3708

Acknowledgments to reviewers of World Journal of Gastroenterology

APPENDIX

3709

Meetings

3710

Instructions to authors

I-VII

Editorial Board

FLYLEAF INSIDE BACK COVER

Online Submissions

INSIDE FRONT COVER

Online Submissions

www.wjgnet.com


Contents

Volume 15 Number 29 August 7, 2009

INTRODUCTION

World Journal of Gastroenterology is an international, open-access, peer-reviewed, and multidisciplinary weekly journal that serves gastroenterologists and hepatologists. The biggest advantage of the open access model is that it provides free, full-text articles in PDF and other formats for experts and the public without registration, which eliminates the obstacle that traditional journals possess and usually delays the speed of the propagation and communication of scientific research results. The open access model has been proven to be a true approach that may achieve the ultimate goal of the journals, i.e. the maximization of the values of the readers, the authors and the society. Maximization of the value of the readers can be comprehended in two ways. First, the journal publishes articles that can be directly read or downloaded free of charge at any time, which attracts more readers. Second, the readers can apply the knowledge in clinical practice without delay after reading and understanding the information in their fields. In addition, the readers are encouraged to propose new ideas based on those of the authors, or to provide viewpoints that are different from those of the authors. Such discussions or debates among different schools of thought will definitely boost advancements and developments in the fields. Maximization of the value of the authors refers to the fact that these journals provide a platform that promotes the speed of propagation and communication to a maximum extent. This is also what the authors really need. Maximization of the value of the society refers to the maximal extent of the social influences and impacts produced by the high quality original articles published in the journal.�� This is also the main purpose of many journals around the world.

EDITORS FOR THIS ISSUE

Responsible Assistant Editor: Xiao-Fang Liu Responsible Electronic Editor: Xiao-Mei Zheng Proofing Editor-in-Chief: Lian-Sheng Ma

NAME OF JOURNAL World Journal of Gastroenterology RESPONSIBLE INSTITUTION Department of Science and Technology of Shanxi Province SPONSOR Taiyuan Research and Treatment Center for Digestive Diseases, 77 Shuangta Xijie, Taiyuan 030001, Shanxi Province, China EDITING Editorial Board of World Journal of Gastroenterology, Room 903, Building D, Ocean International Center, No.62 Dongsihuan Zhonglu, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100025, China Telephone: +86-10-59080039 Fax: +86-10-85381893 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.wjgnet.com PUBLISHING The WJG Press and Beijing Baishideng BioMed Scientific Co., Ltd.. Room 903, Building D, Ocean International Center, No.62 Dongsihuan Zhonglu, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100025, China Telephone: +86-10-59080039 Fax: +86-10-85381893 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.wjgnet.com PRINTING Beijing Kexin Printing House OVERSEAS DISTRIBUTOR Beijing Bureau for Distribution of Newspapers and Journals (Code No. 82-261) China International Book Trading Corporation PO Box 399, Beijing, China (Code No. M4481) PUBLICATION DATE August 7, 2009 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Lian-Sheng Ma, Beijing

SUBSCRIPTION RMB 50 Yuan for each issue, RMB 2400 Yuan for one year CSSN ISSN 1007-9327 CN 14-1219/R HONORARY EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Montgomery Bissell, San Francisco James L Boyer, New Haven Chao-Long Chen, Kaohsiung Ke-Ji Chen, Beijing Li-Fang Chou, Taipei Jacques V Dam, Stanford Martin H Floch, New Haven Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, New Haven Zhi-Qiang Huang, Beijing Shinn-Jang Hwang, Taipei Ira M Jacobson, New York Derek Jewell, Oxford Emmet B Keeffe, Palo Alto Min-Liang Kuo, Taipei Nicholas F LaRusso, Rochester Jie-Shou Li, Nanjing Geng-Tao Liu, Beijing Lein-Ray Mo, Tainan Bo-Rong Pan, Xi'an Fa-Zu Qiu, Wuhan Eamonn M Quigley, Cork David S Rampton, London Rafiq A Sheikh, Sacramento Rudi Schmid, Kentfield[1] Nicholas J Talley, Rochester Sun-Lung Tsai, Young-Kang City Guido NJ Tytgat, Amsterdam Hsiu-Po Wang, Taipei Jaw-Ching Wu, Taipei Meng-Chao Wu, Shanghai Ming-Shiang Wu, Taipei Jia-Yu Xu, Shanghai Ta-Sen Yeh, Taoyuan Ming-Lung Yu, Kaohsiung STRATEGY ASSOCIATE EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Peter Draganov, Florida Ronnie Fass, Tucson Hugh J Freeman, Vancouver John P Geibel, New Haven Maria C Gutiérrez-Ruiz, México

Responsible Science Editor: Lin Tian Proofing Editorial Office Director: Jian-Xia Cheng

Kazuhiro Hanazaki, Kochi Akio Inui, Kagoshima Kalpesh Jani, Vadodara Sanaa M Kamal, Cairo Ioannis E Koutroubakis, Heraklion Jose JG Marin, Salamanca Javier S Martin, Punta del Este Natalia A Osna, Omaha Jose Sahel, Marseille Ned Snyder, Galveston Nathan Subramaniam, Brisbane Wei Tang, Tokyo Alan BR Thomson, Edmonton Paul Joseph Thuluvath, Baltimore James F Trotter, Denver Shingo Tsuji, Osaka Harry HX Xia, Hanover Yoshio Yamaoka, Houston Jesue K Yamamoto-Furusho, México ASSOCIATE EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Gianfranco D Alpini, Temple Bruno Annibale, Roma Roger William Chapman, Oxford Chi-Hin Cho, Hong Kong Alexander L Gerbes, Munich Shou-Dong Lee, Taipei Walter Edwin Longo, New Haven You-Yong Lu, Beijing Masao Omata, Tokyo EDITORIAL OFFICE Director: Jian-Xia Cheng, Beijing Deputy Director: Jian-Zhong Zhang, Beijing LANGUAGE EDITORS Director: Jing-Yun Ma, Beijing Deputy Director: Xian-Lin Wang, Beijing MEMBERS Gianfranco D Alpini, Temple BS Anand, Houston Manoj Kumar, Nepal Patricia F Lalor, Birmingham Ming Li, New Orleans Margaret Lutze, Chicago Sabine Mihm, Göttingen Francesco Negro, Genève Bernardino Rampone, Siena Richard A Rippe, Chapel Hill Stephen E Roberts, Swansea

www.wjgnet.com

COPY EDITORS Gianfranco D Alpini, Temple Sujit Kumar Bhattacharya, Kolkata Filip Braet, Sydney Kirsteen N Browning, Baton Rouge Radha K Dhiman, Chandigarh John Frank Di Mari, Texas Shannon S Glaser, Temple Eberhard Hildt, Berlin Patricia F Lalor, Birmingham Ming Li, New Orleans Margaret Lutze, Chicago MI Torrs, Jaén Sri Prakash Misra, Allahabad Giovanni Monteleone, Rome Giovanni Musso, Torino Valerio Nobili, Rome Osman Cavit Ozdogan, Istanbul Francesco Perri, San Giovanni Rotondo Thierry Piche, Nice Bernardino Rampone, Siena Richard A Rippe, Chapel Hill Ross C Smith, Sydney Daniel Lindsay Worthley, Bedford George Y Wu, Farmington Jian Wu, Sacramento COPYRIGHT © 2009 Published by The WJG Press and Baishideng. All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of WJG. Authors are required to grant WJG an exclusive licence to publish. SPECIAL STATEMENT All articles published in this journal represent the viewpoints of the authors except where indicated otherwise. INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS Full instructions are available online at http://www.wjgnet.com/wjg/help/ instructions.jsp. If you do not have web access please contact the editorial office. ONLINE SUBMISSION http://wjg.wjgnet.com

Online Submissions: wjg.wjgnet.com [email protected] doi:10.3748/wjg.15.3597

World J Gastroenterol 2009 �� August �� 7; �� 15(29): 3597-3602 �� World Journal of Gastroenterology ISSN 1007-9327

© 2009 The WJG Press and Baishideng. All rights reserved.

REVIEW

Irinotecan therapy and molecular targets in colorectal cancer: A systemic review

Jessica Weekes, Alfred King-Yin Lam, Sabe Sebesan, Yik-Hong Ho Jessica Weekes, Yik-Hong Ho, Discipline of Surgery (School of Medicine) and North Queensland Centre for Cancer Research (Australian Institute of Tropical Medicine), James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia Alfred King-Yin Lam, Discipline of Pathology, Griffith Medical School, Medicine and Oral Health Centre, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, Queensland 4222, Australia Sabe Sebesan, Medical Oncology, Townsville Hospital, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia Author contributions: Weekes J and Lam AKY contributed equally to this work; Sebesan S and Ho YH designed the research; Weekes J and Lam AKY wrote the paper. Supported by A research fund of Queensland Cancer Council and Pathology Scholarship from Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Correspondence to: Alfred King-Yin Lam, Professor, MBBS, PhD, FRCPA, Head of Pathology, Discipline of Pathology, Griffith Medical School, Medicine and Oral Health Centre, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, Queensland 4222, Australia. [email protected] Telephone: +61-7-56780718 Fax: +61-7-56780708 Received: March 23, 2009 Revised: June 15, 2009 Accepted: June 22, 2009 Published online: August 7, 2009

limited by irinotecan toxicity levels. To conclude, irinotecan improves the patient’s quality of life and the survival rates of patients with advanced CRC. p53 and VEGF status of the patients’ tumour is likely to affect the responsiveness of CRC to irinotecan. It is recommended that studies of the expression of these molecular markers in relation to chemoresponsiveness of irinotecan should be carried out for better management of patients with advanced CRC. © 2009 The WJG Press and Baishideng. All rights reserved.

Key words: Colorectal cancer; Irinotecan; Molecular; p53; Vascular endothelial growth factor Peer reviewer: Qin Su, Professor, Department of Pathology,

Cancer Hospital and Cancer Institute, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Medical College, PO Box 2258, Beijing 100021, China Weekes J, Lam AKY, Sebesan S, Ho YH.� Irinotecan therapy and molecular targets in colorectal cancer: A systemic review. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15(29): 3597-3602 Available from: URL: http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/15/3597.asp DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.15.3597

Abstract Irinotecan is the second line chemotherapy for advanced stage colorectal cancer (CRC) after failure of first line chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil. The aim of this review is to analyse the data on irinotecan as second line chemotherapy for advanced CRC and the potential roles of the molecular markers, p53 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in the management of advanced CRC. Thus, the English literature from 1980 to 2008 concerning irinotecan, p53, VEGF and CRC was reviewed. On review, Phase Ⅱ and Ⅲ clinical trials showed that irinotecan improves pain-free survival, quality of life, 1-year survival, progression-free survival and overall survival in advanced CRC. p53 and VEGF were expressed in CRC and had a predictive power of aggressive clinical behaviour in CRC. Irinotecan sensitizes p53 wild type, mutant and null cells to Fasmediated cell apoptosis in CRC cells. Wild type p53 cells were more sensitive to irinotecan than mutated p53. Irinotecan has an anti-VEGF effect inhibiting endothelial cell proliferation, increasing apoptosis and reducing microvascular density which is only

INTRODUCTION Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is one of the most common types of cancer in Western countries[1]. Five-year survival in CRC patients is related to diagnostic staging of CRC[2]. Due to the late onset of symptoms, the majority of cases are diagnosed in Duke’s stages C or D. Most patients with CRC undergo surgical resection and then commence adjuvant chemotherapy, with the exception of stage A and some stage B cancers where side effects outweigh potential benefits. In patients who develop recurrent or metastatic CRC, oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) combined are the most extensively used first line treatment, with a response in approximately half of patients[3]. If the cancer progresses after this treatment, irinotecan is commenced. This review was undertaken to study the impact of irinotecan in the treatment of advanced CRC and to identify advanced CRC molecular markers that predict response to irinotecan. The aims are to influence patient selection and to recommend

www.wjgnet.com

3598

ISSN 1007-9327

CN 14-1219/R

World J Gastroenterol

evidence-based treatment options for patients with advanced CRC and to reduce patient morbidity and mortality.

DATA COLLECTOIN The English literature between 1980 and 2008 on the treatment of advanced CRC with irinotecan was reviewed; the effects of irinotecan on CRC, p53, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and CRC in Australia. Studies not including irinotecan as the variable were excluded, as were those without CRC. The studies were statistically significant when P < 0.05. Only original full text publications were reviewed. The selection criteria included adequate follow-up, sample numbers, second line irinotecan therapy and clinicopathological features: grading and staging of the CRCs, histological subtype, nodal and metastatic status, threshold cut off values and complete reference lists. The blinded status and number of experimental observers were noted. The review was limited by suboptimal cohort sizes as it focuses on recently emerging research. Whilst the methodology and statistical analysis varied between studies, their designs were similar.

LITERATURE OVERVIEW Irinotecan therapy Irinotecan is activated by hydrolysis to SN-38, an inhibitor of topoisomerase Ⅰ. This is then inactivated by glucuronidation by uridine diphosphate glucoronosyltransferase 1A1[4]. The inhibition of topoisomerase Ⅰ by the active metabolite SN-38 eventually leads to inhibition of both DNA replication and transcription. Unlike hepatocytes, other cells in the body have no way of detoxifying SN-38 through glucoronidation, thus contributing to its high cytotoxicity. The most frequent irinotecan toxicities are severe diarrhoea and suppression of the immune system (neutropenia). Other side effects include nausea, hyperbilirubinaemia, fatigue, emesis, fever, weight loss, alopecia, oedema, dyspnoea and thromboembolism. A Phase Ⅱ study on irinotecan therapy was performed by Cunningham and colleagues in 289 patients with advanced CRC[5]. It was shown that the survival rates were much better in 189 patients who received chemotherapy than the 90 patients who received supportive care only (36.2% vs 13.8%). In addition, both pain-free survival and quality of life were higher with irinotecan 2nd line chemotherapy. Also, irinotecan increased survival of patients without World Health Organisation (WHO) performance status deterioration and without weight loss exceeding 5%. A Phase Ⅲ study by Rougier and colleagues concluded that irinotecan produced better 1-year survival of 45% and median survival of 10.8 mo than the comparison groups treated with three different regimes of infused FU, where a survival rate of 32% and a median survival of 8.5 mo were recorded[6]. These were both well designed randomised non-blinded studies with large cohorts both in excess of 265 patients. The patients

August 7, 2009

Volume 15

Number 29

were assessed every 3 wk with imaging and CEA levels to detect progression of disease. All the patients had metastatic CRC and had received treatment within the preceding 6 mo with 5-FU. Clinicopathological features were a major confounding factor, however, the results of Cunningham et al[5] and Rougier et al [6] remained significant after the WHO baseline performance status of the patients was analysed with multivariate analysis. These studies support the use of second line irinotecan monotherapy to increase painfree survival, quality of life, 1-year survival, progressionfree survival and overall survival in metastatic CRC, both in comparison to best supportive care and to 5-FU. Rothenberg and colleagues conducted a Phase Ⅱ trial, involving 166 patients with metastases involving either liver, lung, lymph nodes or other soft tissue, treated with second line irinotecan monotherapy[7]. They found a significant response to irinotecan with 10.8% of patients achieving complete or partial response and 40.4% with stabilised disease. The median progressionfree survival was 3.9 mo with a median survival of 9.9 mo. Unlike the above studies which examined the effect of clinicopathological variants through multivariate analysis, Rothenberg et al[7] directly examined the effect of symptomatic disease on overall sur vival. They found that asymptomatic patients had a longer overall survival than those patients with symptoms prior to irinotecan therapy. However, on further analysis the 1-year survival was 42.4%, with no significant effect from clinicopathological factors or baseline variables. There were several limitations in this study. Most importantly there was no control or comparison group. Despite the tumors being assessed every 12 wk, the assessment criteria states the tumors must decrease or remain stable for 4 wk or more to be classified as responding to therapy. Therefore the tumors needed to respond for 12 or more weeks. Such a long time lapse between monitoring affects progression-free results, leading to an underestimation of true progression-free survival. Also, the study was not blinded. However, the authors overcame this by the use of two teams assessing the imaging and CEA results, one of which involved radiologists and oncologists independent of the study. These three major studies show statistically that clinicopathological features have no effect on overall survival, and that the presence of symptomatic disease is not an independent predictor for outcome in a multivariate analysis. Overall, irinotecan is an effective second line chemotherapeutic agent for CRC. In Phase Ⅱ and Ⅲ clinical trials, it has been shown to increase 1-year survival, quality of life and symptom control despite a high side effect profile. Molecular targeted therapy Molecular targeted therapy is a “drug or therapeutic strategy with a focused mechanism specifically acting on a well-defined target or biological pathway that, when inactivated, causes the regression or destruction of cancer”. The advantages of molecular targeted therapy include (1) providing evidence-based treatment options

www.wjgnet.com

Weekes J et al . Irinotecan, molecular markers and colorectal cancer

for patients, (2) treating patients most likely to respond to the therapy (3) sparing patients with poor response profiles from further harm in terms of side effects, (4) minimising side effects (5) streamlining healthcare resources and finally (6) to promote further research into molecular targeted therapy. This review focused on two common genes that are commonly investigated in cancer, namely VEGF and p53. Being a second line chemotherapeutic agent, it is important to research the effects of irinotecan on such mutations as these antigens are key determinants in the survival of advanced CRCs. By researching irinotecan it is hoped that results will show different molecular targeted pathways by which irinotecan can potentially inhibit CRCs so that patients with the most responsive marker profile may be treated with a molecular targeted drug that acts on different sites rather than just one site. p53 in CRC p53 is a tumour suppressor gene[8]. Alterations in p53 are the most common genetic changes noted in human cancer. p53 senses DNA damage in the G1 stage of the cell cycle and either prevents cell cycle progression until DNA is repaired or induces apoptosis. p53 acts as a central mediator of the cellular response to stressful stimuli. The growth-suppressive function of p53 is lost with mutation and this occurs commonly in human cancer. In addition to suppressing cancer development and progression, wild-type p53 further confers chemosensitivity and radio-sensitivity in tumour cells. Our recent study, involving 188 patients, showed that p53 is over-expressed in 63% of Australian patients with CRC [9]. The survival of the CRC patients was related to staging and p53 protein nuclear expression in the tumors. In our other study, p53 was also noted to predict poorer survival in a subset of CRC patients with mucinous adenocarcinomas[10]. Bosari et al[11] conducted a 5-year retrospective study on p53 immunostaining in 206 CRC specimens from patients with no neoadjuvant therapy or history of other malignancies and with clear resection margins. 65 specimens stained positive for nuclear p53 and 99 for cytoplasmic p53 accumulation. Cytoplasmic p53 accumulation correlated with reduced overall survival and reduced disease-free survival. In addition, cytoplasmic accumulation of p53 was a significant prognostic factor for poorer overall survival and diseasefree survival in left sided CRC. The study could have been strengthened by the identification of the type of p53, rather than relying on past research that indicates cytoplasmic accumulation of p53 is usually WTp53. WTp53 and Mp53 respond differently in CRC and induce cell death via different mechanisms. Flamini and colleagues studied 96 CRC patients, of which 47% where p53 positive[12]. The patients were studied for 3 years and treated exclusively by surgical resection of the CRC and metastases. Compared to other stages, Duke’s D CRC had increased cytoplasmic p53 expression, whilst nuclear p53 was over expressed in Duke’s B CRC. This study had unique findings

3599

and is unlikely to ever be repeated due to the ethical restrictions of not treating patients with either adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy. Diez and colleagues studied 174 patients and concluded that p53 positivity in the primary CRC increased the risk of recurrence only after the first year of follow-up[13]. Lanza and colleagues studied 204 CRCs by IHC, of which 60.4% where p53 positive[14]. The study concluded that there was no statistical significance with regard to age, gender, tumour site, tumour stage or grade of differentiation. Of the 141 patients with TNM Ⅰ-Ⅲ disease who underwent curative resection, positive p53 staining was associated with poorer overall survival. Adrover and colleagues randomly selected 111 patients with sporadic CRCs TNM stages Ⅰ-Ⅳ, and quantitatively measured the cytoplasmic WTp53 and Mp53 in both the cancerous and non-neoplastic tissue of all patients using immunoassay with the p53 antibodies Ab1801 and DO1 as markers[15]. High p53 expression was defined as having ≥ 2.7 ng/mg cytosolic protein. TNM stage Ⅲ and high p53 expression correlated with increased disease-free survival. In multivariate analysis, p53 expression is related to a survival advantage in stage Ⅲ CRCs. These results significantly contradict previous studies. However, Adrover et al [15] were the first to identify the difference in normal p53, wild type and mutant p53. The definition of high levels of p53 is debatable as the p53 expression in adjacent nonneoplastic tissue has not been evaluated. To conclude, p53 expression is important in the prognosis of CRC. The identification of WTp53 and Mp53 is controversial due to the half life of WTp53. Based on the larger studies, the overexpression of p53, especially cytoplasmic p53, is a crucial target for molecular targeted chemotherapy. Vascular endothelial growth factor in CRC The VEGF family of genes are key regulators of angiogenesis[16]. VEGF expression correlated with clinical and pathological parameters in cancers[17-19]. For instance, we have shown that strong immunohistochemical VEGF expression levels tended also to have higher serum VEGF level than those with low expression levels. In addition, elevated serum VEGF levels are strongly correlated to the recurrence of thyroid cancer and the presence of lymph node metastases. VEGF expression was noted in the non-cancerous tissue adjacent to the cancer indicating that genetic changes may occur before the morphological appearance of cancer. Colorectal mucosa contains all the subtypes of the VEGF family A-D[20]. VEGF mRNA is expressed in higher levels in human CRC cells compared to adjacent normal tissue[21]. VEGF mRNA expression rises most between CRC stages Tis to T1. A meta-analysis involving 27 studies of VEGF expression and overall survival of CRC observed a 1.65 times poorer survival in those with higher ratios of VEGF in cancer tissue [22] . Kondo et al [23] found VEGF mRNA and protein only in CRCs (15 of 26 studied) compared to no expression in adenomas. They

www.wjgnet.com

3600

ISSN 1007-9327

CN 14-1219/R


suggested that mutant p53 induced VEGF expression, which coincides with the progression from adenoma to carcinoma in CRC. Of the 31 human CRC cell lines examined with IHC, Kuramochi et al[24] concluded there was no significant difference in median VEGF mRNA levels of expression in the primary CRC in patients with or without hepatic metastases. However, the level of VEGF expression is significantly less in the hepatic metastatic tissue compared to the adjacent non-cancerous hepatic tissue. Patients with more than one site of metastasis expressed higher levels of mRNA VEGF compared to those with one metastasis site[22]. Comparing CRC (T) to the adjacent colorectal mucosa (N), Hanrahan et al [25] concluded that VEGF-A and VEGF-B play a significant role in the early development of CRC from adenomas, whilst VEGF-C is expressed at higher levels in metastatic CRC. They concluded that VEGF A and C mRNA levels were correlated to tumour grade and tumour size, but not significantly related to the staging of CRC. Ottaiano and colleagues concluded from their study of 71 patients that CXCL12 stimulates ICAM-1 and VEGF expression and clonogenic growth of CRC cells, which all lead to metastases, and that over expression of VEGF was an independent predictor of early metastases in CRC patients[26]. Ishigami et al[27] further concluded that over expression of VEGF mRNA also correlated with poor overall survival. Saad and colleagues showed that VEGF expression correlated with the presence of angiolymphatic invasion, lymph node metastasis and the depth of invasion [28]. They found no significant correlation between VEGF expression and tumour grade and development of liver metastases. Molecular markers and irinotecan p53: Yu et al[29] profiled the 24 genes associated with the mechanism of action of irinotecan in 52 CRC specimens from humans with no previous neoadjuvant therapy. Irinotecan is converted to SN-38 which acts on topoisomerase-1 then subsequently via a cascade effect on TNFSF6 to FDXR and then p53 which finally induces cell apoptosis. Through in vitro gene profiling and cluster analysis, Yu et al[29] found that the pathway leading to p53 was expressed at higher levels in tumourous tissues (T) compared to adjacent normal tissue (N), however, none as high as p53. Whilst the level of p53 RNA expression was not identical for each specimen, the general trend remained. The study showed that irinotecan is more effective in inducing apoptosis in CRC when the p53 T:N is high, despite the type of mutation in p53. In-vitro studies concluded that irinotecan sensitizes p53 wild type, mutant and null cells to Fas-mediated cell apoptosis in CRC cells[30]. Irinotecan caused a significant rise in Fas mRNA in WTp53 cells[31]. However, irinotecan also caused a small increase in Fas mRNA in p53 mutant and null cells. This indicates that not only does p53 have a major role in Fas cell surface expression, but

August 7, 2009

Volume 15

Number 29

that irinotecan also increases Fas cell surface expression independent of p53. Irinotecan induces signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1) phosphorylation in the p53-null cell lines and increases the expression of genes involved in cell surface trafficking of Fas, despite STAT1 not being identified in the promoter of Fas. Absence of STAT-1 decreases Fas expression. McDer mott and colleagues found a significant increase in STAT-1 Ser727 phosphorylation in irinotecan treated null cells[32]. The experiment was repeated with the addition of STAT1 small interfering RNA which caused a down regulation of STAT1 expression in the WTp53 and null cell lines. Subsequent treatment with irinotecan produced no change in the level of Fas mRNA, however, down regulation of STAT1 resulted in a significant decrease in Fas cell surface expression in the p53-null cell line. They proposed that STAT1 silencing was incomplete or that STAT-1 independent pathways regulate Fas ligand expression in response to irinotecan p53 wild type cells were also more sensitive to irinotecan treatment compared to mutant p53 at low dose and high dose treatment[33]. No significant response to irinotecan treatment was recorded in the mutant p53 cell lines As irinotecan is known to have a higher response in both cytoplasmic accumulation of p53 and of WTp53, this study further suggests that WTp53 accumulates in the CRC cell cytoplasm and that WTp53 in CRC is a positive predictive factor for response to irinotecan. Irinotecan was added to cells from a single Duke’s B CRC with mutant p53 and its sub-clone transfected with wide type p53. The cells were synchronised to G0/G1 stage of the cell cycle by starvation. Following the addition of irinotecan, the wild type p53 cells were arrested in S phase whilst the mutated p53 cells continued to progress through the cell cycle, indicating a lack of functionality of p53. The functional response of irinotecan in the wide type p53 line and not the mutant p53 was observed during in-vivo studies of nu/nu mice with xenografted human CRC, whereby there was increased apoptosis and decreased proliferation. Overall, irinotecan reduces progression in WTp53 CRCs, and plays a less significant role in inhibiting mutant and null p53 CRCs via the STAT1 pathway. Having identified p53 as the key component of the apoptotic pathway and the significance of the T:N p53 ratio in predicting a positive response to irinotecan, it is necessary that these findings are implemented in practice. Thus, further research should be conducted using in-vivo research methods on a large scale to confirm the clinical significance of such results. Vascular endothelial growth factor: In CRCs, high� levels of EGFR correlated with response to irinotecan and progression-free�� survival[34]. However, this did not �� prove that VEGF expression is correlated with response to irinotecan. The study had a small sample size, all were treated with irinotecan, 5-FU and leucovorin, and no control groups treated with single agent therapy. Whilst there was an adequate follow up period of 23 mo, there were several variables.

www.wjgnet.com

Weekes J et al . Irinotecan, molecular markers and colorectal cancer

Koizumi and colleagues developed NK012, a SN-38 (irinotecan metabolite) releasing nanodevice and tested its efficacy in xenografted CRCs in mice[35]. A comparison of tumour size reduction with NK012 (doses 15 and 30 mg/kg per day) vs irinotecan (66.7 mg/kg per day) showed a significant reduction in tumour size compared to the irinotecan treatment. Compared to irinotecan, NK012 was more cytotoxic with potent anti-tumour activity, thought to be secondary to the enhanced and prolonged distribution of free SN-38 in the tumour. This showed that irinotecan and its active metabolite has an anti-VEGF effect. Thus, it can be proposed that these activities should be reflected in VEGF positive CRCs if adequate levels of SN-38 are produced, which is only limited by the irinotecan dose side effects. Bocci and colleagues compared the effects of irinotecan metronomic monotherapy against irinotecan combined with semaxinib on xenografted CRCs in mice and in in-vivo CRC cell lines[36]. They analysed in-vitro proliferation of cells, apoptosis and thrombospondin-1 (TSP-1)/ VEGF expression and concluded that in the cells treated with SN-38 monotherapy, there was inhibited endothelial cell proliferation alone, and that irinotecan worked synergistically with semaxinib to increase apoptosis and increase expression and secretion of TSP-1 and to reduce microvascular density[35]. In in-vitro studies, SN-38 increased TSP-1 expression and in in-vivo studies, SN-38 reduced tumour and microvessel growth[37]. Higher levels of TSP-1, an antiangiogenic factor are linked with low levels of VEGF[37]. TSP-1 inhibits angiogenesis through the inhibition of matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP9). TSP-1 null mice have both increased levels of MMP9, whilst over expression of TSP-1 in mammary tissue reduced the levels of active MMP9. The levels of MMP9 correlated with the level of expression of VEGF binding to VEGFR-2 [38] . Gupta et al [39] concluded that TSP-1 inhibits VEGF mobilisation from the extracellular matrix by inhibiting active MMP9 and that TSP-1 also has a direct role in inhibiting VEGF activity. Irinotecan increases TSP-1 expression and secretion and TSP-1 reduces VEGF expression and activity [36]. CRCs expressing high levels of VEGF respond more significantly to irinotecan as the stimulus for angiogenesis and thus subsequent growth of the tumour is reduced.

CONCLUSION Increased expression of p53, especially cytoplasmic WTp53 is associated with poor overall survival, decreased disease-free survival, increased relapse and metastases. However, cytoplasmic accumulation of wild type p53 is a positive predictive factor for irinotecan response. Irinotecan induces apoptosis in both mutant and null p53 CRCs to a lesser extent via the STAT1 pathway. Increased expression of VEGF is correlated with multiple metastases, tissue invasion and lymph node invasion. Whilst there is evidence that irinotecan increases TSP-1 expression which in turn reduces VEGF expression and the angiogenic growth of tumors, there

3601

is no conclusive evidence linking irinotecan with VEGF expression and response. Irinotecan has the potential for multiple effects within CRC cells which may reduce the number of prescribed drugs and side effects for patients. As a second line therapy, irinotecan improves patient quality of life, 1-year survival and progression-free survival. It would be beneficial to all patients to determine the molecular profiles of CRC most likely to respond to irinotecan and to spare those unlikely to respond from unnecessary side effects. A standardised criteria needs to be developed to compare marker expression in normal colorectal mucosa to that of cancerous mucosa in order to define overexpression of markers. Further research would also benefit from a standard CRC staging system so that studies can be compared directly, as well as 12 mo follow-up periods for irinotecan treatment. Areas of potential research focus include: (1) large studies on the effects of irinotecan with regard to VEGF and p53 expressions in CRC and (2) determine whether the expression of molecular markers can predict response to irinotecan.

REFERENCES 1 2 3 4 5

6

7

8 9

10 11

12

Stewart BW, Kleihues P, eds. World Cancer Report. IARC non-serial publication. Lyon: IARC, 2003 Washington MK. Colorectal carcinoma: selected issues in pathologic examination and staging and determination of prognostic factors. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2008; 132: 1600-1607 Midgley RS, Yanagisawa Y, Kerr DJ. Evolution of nonsurgical therapy for colorectal cancer. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 6: 108-120 Glimelius B. Benefit-risk assessment of irinotecan in advanced colorectal cancer. Drug Saf 2005; 28: 417-433 Cunningham D, Pyrhönen S, James RD, Punt CJ, Hickish TF, Heikkila R, Johannesen TB, Starkhammar H, Topham CA, Awad L, Jacques C, Herait P. Randomised trial of irinotecan plus supportive care versus supportive care alone after fluorouracil failure for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet 1998; 352: 1413-1418 Rougier P, Van Cutsem E, Bajetta E, Niederle N, Possinger K, Labianca R, Navarro M, Morant R, Bleiberg H, Wils J, Awad L, Herait P, Jacques C. Randomised trial of irinotecan versus fluorouracil by continuous infusion after fluorouracil failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet 1998; 352: 1407-1412 Rothenberg ML, Cox JV, DeVore RF, Hainsworth JD, Pazdur R, Rivkin SE, Macdonald JS, Geyer CE Jr, Sandbach J, Wolf DL, Mohrland JS, Elfring GL, Miller LL, Von Hoff DD. A multicenter, phase II trial of weekly irinotecan (CPT-11) in patients with previously treated colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 1999; 85: 786-795 Lu C, El-Deiry WS. Targeting p53 for enhanced radio- and chemo-sensitivity. Apoptosis 2009; 14: 597-606 Lam AK, Ong K, Ho YH. hTERT expression in colorectal adenocarcinoma: correlations with p21, p53 expressions and clinicopathological features. Int J Colorectal Dis 2008; 23: 587-594 Lam AK, Ong K, Giv MJ, Ho YH. p16 expression in colorectal adenocarcinoma: marker of aggressiveness and morphological types. Pathology 2008; 40: 580-585 Bosari S, Viale G, Bossi P, Maggioni M, Coggi G, Murray JJ, Lee AK. Cytoplasmic accumulation of p53 protein: an independent prognostic indicator in colorectal adenocarcinomas. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86: 681-687 Flamini G, Curigliano G, Ratto C, Astone A, Ferretti G, Nucera P, Sofo L, Sgambato A, Boninsegna A, Crucitti F,

www.wjgnet.com

3602

13

14

15

16 17

18

19

20 21

22

23

24

25

26

ISSN 1007-9327

CN 14-1219/R


Cittadini A. Prognostic significance of cytoplasmic p53 overexpression in colorectal cancer. An immunohistochemical analysis. Eur J Cancer 1996; 32A: 802-806 Diez M, Pollan M, Müguerza JM, Gaspar MJ, Duce AM, Alvarez MJ, Ratia T, Herñandez P, Ruiz A, Granell J. Timedependency of the prognostic effect of carcinoembryonic antigen and p53 protein in colorectal adenocarcinoma. Cancer 2000; 88: 35-41 Lanza G Jr, Maestri I, Dubini A, Gafa R, Santini A, Ferretti S, Cavazzini L. p53 expression in colorectal cancer: relation to tumor type, DNA ploidy pattern and short-term survival. Am J Clin Pathol 1996; 105: 604-612 Adrover E, Maestro ML, Sanz-Casla MT, del Barco V, Cerdán J, Fernández C, Balibrea JL. Expression of high p53 levels in colorectal cancer: a favourable prognostic factor. Br J Cancer 1999; 81: 122-126 Royston D, Jackson DG. Mechanisms of lymphatic metastasis in human colorectal adenocarcinoma. J Pathol 2009; 217: 608-619 Yu XM, Lo CY, Chan WF, Lam KY, Leung P, Luk JM. Increased expression of vascular endothelial growth factor C in papillary thyroid carcinoma correlates with cervical lymph node metastases. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11: 8063-8069 Yu XM, Lo CY, Lam AK, Lang BH, Leung P, Luk JM. The potential clinical relevance of serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and VEGF-C in recurrent papillary thyroid carcinoma. Surgery 2008; 144: 934-940; discussion 940-941 Yu XM, Lo CY, Lam AK, Leung P, Luk JM. Serum vascular endothelial growth factor C correlates with lymph node metastases and high-risk tumor profiles in papillary thyroid carcinoma. Ann Surg 2008; 247: 483-489 Bergers G, Benjamin LE. Tumorigenesis and the angiogenic switch. Nat Rev Cancer 2003; 3: 401-410 Kuniyasu H, Yasui W, Shinohara H, Yano S, Ellis LM, Wilson MR, Bucana CD, Rikita T, Tahara E, Fidler IJ. Induction of angiogenesis by hyperplastic colonic mucosa adjacent to colon cancer. Am J Pathol 2000; 157: 1523-1535 Des Guetz G, Uzzan B, Nicolas P, Cucherat M, Morere JF, Benamouzig R, Breau JL, Perret GY. Microvessel density and VEGF expression are prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. Meta-analysis of the literature. Br J Cancer 2006; 94: 1823-1832 Kondo Y, Arii S, Furutani M, Isigami S, Mori A, Onodera H, Chiba T, Imamura M. Implication of vascular endothelial growth factor and p53 status for angiogenesis in noninvasive colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 2000; 88: 1820-1827 Kuramochi H, Hayashi K, Uchida K, Miyakura S, Shimizu D, Vallböhmer D, Park S, Danenberg KD, Takasaki K, Danenberg PV. Vascular endothelial growth factor messenger RNA expression level is preserved in liver metastases compared with corresponding primary colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12: 29-33 Hanrahan V, Currie MJ, Gunningham SP, Morrin HR, Scott PA, Robinson BA, Fox SB. The angiogenic switch for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A, VEGF-B, VEGF-C, and VEGF-D in the adenoma-carcinoma sequence during colorectal cancer progression. J Pathol 2003; 200: 183-194 Ottaiano A, Franco R, Aiello Talamanca A, Liguori G, Tatangelo F, Delrio P, Nasti G, Barletta E, Facchini G, Daniele B, Di Blasi A, Napolitano M, Ieranò C, Calemma R,

27

28 29 30

31

32

33

34 35

36

37 38

39

August 7, 2009

Volume 15

Number 29

Leonardi E, Albino V, De Angelis V, Falanga M, Boccia V, Capuozzo M, Parisi V, Botti G, Castello G, Vincenzo Iaffaioli R, Scala S. Overexpression of both CXC chemokine receptor 4 and vascular endothelial growth factor proteins predicts early distant relapse in stage II-III colorectal cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12: 2795-2803 Ishigami SI, Arii S, Furutani M, Niwano M, Harada T, Mizumoto M, Mori A, Onodera H, Imamura M. Predictive value of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in metastasis and prognosis of human colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 1998; 78: 1379-1384 Saad RS, Kordunsky L, Liu YL, Denning KL, Kandil HA, Silverman JF. Lymphatic microvessel density as prognostic marker in colorectal cancer. Mod Pathol 2006; 19: 1317-1323 Yu J, Shannon WD, Watson MA, McLeod HL. Gene expression profiling of the irinotecan pathway in colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11: 2053-2062 Watanabe T, Sullenger BA. Induction of wild-type p53 activity in human cancer cells by ribozymes that repair mutant p53 transcripts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000; 97: 8490-8494 Moll UM, Ostermeyer AG, Haladay R, Winkfield B, Frazier M, Zambetti G. Cytoplasmic sequestration of wild-type p53 protein impairs the G1 checkpoint after DNA damage. Mol Cell Biol 1996; 16: 1126-1137 McDermott U, Longley DB, Galligan L, Allen W, Wilson T, Johnston PG. Effect of p53 status and STAT1 on chemotherapy-induced, Fas-mediated apoptosis in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 2005; 65: 8951-8960 Abal M, Bras-Goncalves R, Judde JG, Fsihi H, De Cremoux P, Louvard D, Magdelenat H, Robine S, Poupon MF. Enhanced sensitivity to irinotecan by Cdk1 inhibition in the p53deficient HT29 human colon cancer cell line. Oncogene 2004; 23: 1737-1744 Willett CG, Duda DG, Czito BG, Bendell JC, Clark JW, Jain RK. Targeted therapy in rectal cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 2007; 21: 1055-1065; discussion 1065, 1070, 1075 passim Koizumi F, Kitagawa M, Negishi T, Onda T, Matsumoto S, Hamaguchi T, Matsumura Y. Novel SN-38-incorporating polymeric micelles, NK012, eradicate vascular endothelial growth factor-secreting bulky tumors. Cancer Res 2006; 66: 10048-10056 Bocci G, Falcone A, Fioravanti A, Orlandi P, Di Paolo A, Fanelli G, Viacava P, Naccarato AG, Kerbel RS, Danesi R, Del Tacca M, Allegrini G. Antiangiogenic and anticolorectal cancer effects of metronomic irinotecan chemotherapy alone and in combination with semaxinib. Br J Cancer 2008; 98: 1619-1629 Ren B, Yee KO, Lawler J, Khosravi-Far R. Regulation of tumor angiogenesis by thrombospondin-1. Biochim Biophys Acta 2006; 1765: 178-188 Rodriguez-Manzaneque JC, Lane TF, Ortega MA, Hynes RO, Lawler J, Iruela-Arispe ML. Thrombospondin-1 suppresses spontaneous tumor growth and inhibits activation of matrix metalloproteinase-9 and mobilization of vascular endothelial growth factor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98: 12485-12490 Gupta K, Gupta P, Wild R, Ramakrishnan S, Hebbel RP. Binding and displacement of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) by thrombospondin: effect on human microvascular endothelial cell proliferation and angiogenesis. Angiogenesis 1999; 3: 147-158

S- Editor Tian L L- Editor Webster JR

www.wjgnet.com

E- Editor Zheng XM