Upload
vudiep
View
221
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Cancer Therapy: Preclinical
Drozitumab, a Human Antibody to Death Receptor 5, Has PotentAntitumor Activity against Rhabdomyosarcoma with the Expressionof Caspase-8 Predictive of Response
Zhigang Kang1,3, Jun-Jie Chen2, Yunkai Yu1,3, Bo Li4, Shi-Yong Sun4, Baolin Zhang2, and Liang Cao1
AbstractPurpose: Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a common pediatric soft-tissue tumor. In this study, we
evaluated the efficacy and selectivity of drozitumab, a death receptor DR5-targeted therapeutic antibody,
in RMS preclinical models.
Experimental Design: A panel of 11 RMS cell lines was used for in vitro studies. The molecular marker
predictive of response to drozitumab was interrogated. Selected RMS cell lines were injected into the
gastrocnemius muscle of mice for in vivo assessment of the potency and selectivity of drozitumab.
Results:We report that DR5, but not DR4, persisted at high levels and on the surface of all RMS cell lines.
DR5 antibody drozitumab was effective in vitro against the majority of RMS cell lines. There was a strong
correlation between caspase-8 expression and the sensitivity to drozitumab, which induced the rapid
assembly of the death-induced signaling complex and the cleavage of caspase-8 only in sensitive cells. More
importantly, caspase-8 catalytic activity was both necessary and sufficient for mediating the sensitivity to
drozitumab. Furthermore, drozitumab had potent antitumor activity against established RMS xenografts
with a specificity predicted from the in vitro analysis and with tumor-free status in half of the treated mice.
Conclusion: Our study provides the first preclinical evaluation of the potency and selectivity of a death
receptor antibody in RMS. Drozitumab is effective, in vitro, against the majority of RMS cell lines that
express caspase-8 and, in vivo, may provide long-term control of RMS. Clin Cancer Res; 17(10); 3181–92.
�2011 AACR.
Introduction
Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is the most common pedia-tric soft-tissue tumor. Despite aggressive managementincluding surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, the out-come for children with metastatic disease is dismal, andthis prognosis has remained unchanged for decades (1, 2).The cure rate for advanced RMS is not expected to improvesignificantly until effective targeted and tumor-specificagents are developed (3). Recent advances in targetedtherapies provide fresh alternatives for therapeutic devel-opment against RMS.Many novel investigational agents are
in various stages of clinical development, including thosetargeting insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF1R),mTOR, platelet-derived growth-factor receptor (PDGFR),and c-Kit (3).
We recently showed that a therapeutic antibody againstIGF1R effectively induced cell death via intrinsic apoptosisin selected RMS cell lines, which express high levels ofIGF1R and minimal levels of Bcl-2 (4). This antibodyshowed only modest growth inhibitory activity, however,against the majority of RMS cell lines in vitro. Thus, thereis a need to further explore other agents capable of inducingapoptosis in a greater percentage of RMS cells. Interestingly,a previous report showed that a significant number of RMScell lines were susceptible to TNF-related apoptosis indu-cing ligand (TRAIL)-induced apoptosis but resistant to FAS-induced cell death in vitro (5). However, many issuesremain to be resolved, including the identification of thereceptors mediating the activity of TRAIL, the detection ofbiomarkers predictive of tumor sensitivity, and the demon-stration of in vivo antitumor activity. Indeed, little is knownabout the antitumor activity of agonistic antibodies toTRAIL receptors in RMS, and in vivo preclinical evaluationof a therapeutic composition targeting TRAIL receptors isneeded.
Apoptosis or programmed cell death is a naturally occur-ring process for removing unwanted cells in the body.Defects in apoptotic pathways have been implicated in
Authors' Affiliations: 1Genetics Branch, Center for Cancer Research,National Cancer Institute; 2Division of Therapeutic Proteins, Office ofBiotechnology Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Foodand Drug Administration, Bethesda; 3Laboratroy of Proteomics and Ana-lytical Technologies, SAIC-Frederick Inc., National Cancer Institute-Fre-derick, Frederick, Maryland; and 4Department of Hematology and MedicalOncology, Emory University School of Medicine and Winship CancerInstitute, Atlanta, Georgia
Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Clinical CancerResearch Online (http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/).
Corresponding Author: Liang Cao, Genetics Branch, Center for CancerResearch, National Cancer Institute, 37 Convent Dr. MSC 4265, Bldg 37,Rm 6134, Bethesda, MD 20892. Phone: 301-435-9039; Fax: 301-402-3241; E-mail: [email protected]
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874
�2011 American Association for Cancer Research.
ClinicalCancer
Research
www.aacrjournals.org 3181
Research. on June 2, 2018. © 2011 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst March 8, 2011; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874
disease conditions, such as cancer, which are characterizedby uncontrolled cell growth. Apoptosis can be achieved bythe activation of the intrinsic, mitochondria-dependentpathway or the extrinsic, death receptor-mediated pathway.The frequent inactivation of p53 enables cancer cells notonly to bypass the intrinsic apoptotic response to theirgenomic aberrations, but also to escape apoptosis initia-tion in response to DNA damage induced by variousconventional cancer therapies (6). Therefore, targetingthe extrinsic, death receptor-mediated pathway providesa fresh alternative to current cancer therapies (7).
The extrinsic pathway depends on ligand-mediated acti-vation of cell-surface receptors, including CD95 (FAS), TNFreceptor, and TRAIL receptors (8). Binding of TRAIL todeath receptors DR4 and/or DR5 results in the assembly ofthe death-induced signaling complex (DISC) involving Fas-associated via death domain (FADD) and caspase-8 or -10(9, 10). Because of the selectivity of TRAIL toward cancercells, there has been a significant interest in developingagents targeting TRAIL receptors for the treatment of var-ious cancers (7, 11). Recent analysis reveals that sensitivityto the ligand seems to be controlledmainly by apical eventsincluding DISC assembly and caspase-8 activation (12).
Multiple factors have been suggested to affect TRAIL-induced apoptosis, including decoy receptors DcR1, DcR2,and OPG that bind to TRAIL without mediating deathsignaling (13) and c-FLIP (flice-inhibitor protein) thatmay compete with the recruitment of caspases-8 and -10at the DISC (14). It was also suggested that the mitochon-dria-dependent apoptotic pathway may augment TRAIL-induced cell death (7). Recently, both the posttranslationalmodifications of the DR4 and DR5 receptors, including O-glycosylation (15) and endocytosis (16), and the ubiqui-tination of caspase-8 (17) were implicated as mechanisms
for affecting TRAIL-induced cell death. These importantstudies may facilitate the identification and implementa-tion of predictive biomarkers for the clinical developmentof TRAIL-based therapeutics for cancer.
Recent clinical trial results showed that treatment withthe recombinant human rhApo2L/TRAIL was associatedwith responses in several sarcoma patients in a phase Istudy (18). Various agonist therapeutic antibodies againstDR4 and DR5 also exhibited antitumor activities in pre-clinical models (19–22) and are in clinical development(11). The antibodies for death receptors have uniquecharacteristics including different pharmacokinetic proper-ties (much longer half-life), greater receptor selectivity,and reduced sensitivity to the effects of decoy receptorsor receptor posttranslational modification. One of thehuman DR5 antibodies, drozitumab (Apomab), displayedencouraging antitumor activity in amouse xenograft model(20). Phase I study of drozitumab showed that the agentwas safe and well tolerated with a mean plasma half-lifebetween 1 and 3 weeks (23). Yet, to date, there is littleinformation on the determinants of cancer cell suscept-ibility to antibody-based agents and on predicting cancercell responses. Uncovering these determinants would bevery important for promoting the clinical development ofthese antibody-based therapies.
To further explore the potential of targeting death recep-tors against RMS, we carried out a preclinical investigationof DR5 therapeutic antibody drozitumab on RMS. Theresults illustrate that RMS is a rational target for drozitumaband other DR5-targeted agents. Our data further show thatcaspase-8 expression and activity is crucial for predict-ing the therapeutic efficacy of antibodies against deathreceptors.
Materials and Methods
Cell lines and reagentsThe RMS cell lines Rh4, Rh18, Rh28, Rh30, Rh36, and
Rh41 were from Dr. Peter Houghton at Nationwide Chil-dren’s Hospital, and CTR was from Dr. Lee Helman at USNational Cancer Institute (NCI). RMS cell lines RD, A204,HS729, RMS13, and Ewing’s cell line A673 (EWS) wereacquired from ATCC. The authenticity of the cell lines wereverified with immunoblots using a specific antibodyagainst the PAX3-FKHR fusion protein (24). All cell lineswere maintained in RPMI-1640 with 10% FBS and anti-biotics. Human skeletal muscle derived cells (SkMDC)were obtained from Cook Myosite and cultured per man-ufacturer’s instructions. Recombinant human TRAIL,mouse antibodies against human DR4 (MAB347), andDR5 (MAB631) for cell-based assays were purchased fromR&D Systems. The human DR5 antibody drozitumab andplacebo antibody were kindly provided by Genentech Inc.The goat anti-Fc antibody was obtained from Jackson Lab.Caspase-8 specific inhibitor Z-I-E(OMe)-T-D(OMe)-FMKwas obtained from R&D Systems. The expression plasmidswith CASP8 and enzyme defective CASP8mt (C360S) wereprovided by Drs. Michael Lenardo and Lixin Zheng at the
Translational Relevance
Despite aggressive management including surgery,radiation, and chemotherapy, the outcome for childrenwith metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is dismal,and this prognosis has remained unchanged for dec-ades. This study shows that the susceptibility of RMS celllines to TNF-related apoptosis inducing ligand (TRAIL)-induced apoptosis is entirely mediated through thedeath receptor DR5. Drozitumab, a human anti-DR5antibody, is both selective and effective against RMScells in vitro. Further analysis reveals that the sensitivityof RMS to drozitumab is correlated with the expressionof caspase-8 and that its catalytic activity is both neces-sary and sufficient to confer this sensitivity. In vivo,drozitumab is both selective and highly effective againstRMS and, 4 months after drug administration, is cap-able of achieving long-term control of establishedtumors in half of the treated animals. Thus, our studyprovides the basis for the clinical evaluation of DR5targeted agents against RMS and indicates a biomarkerfor correlative studies.
Kang et al.
Clin Cancer Res; 17(10) May 15, 2011 Clinical Cancer Research3182
Research. on June 2, 2018. © 2011 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst March 8, 2011; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874
U.S. NIH. Transfection was carried out with lipofectamineper manufacturer’s instructions (Invitrogen).
Cell viability and clonogenic assaysCell proliferation assays were carried out with ATPLite
reagent as previously described (25). All experiments werecarried out in triplicate at least 3 times for each result.Clonogenic assays were carried out with 0.5% crystal violet(26). All clonogenic experiments were reproducible.
DR5 immunoprecipitationRh18 or Rh41 cells were stimulated with 1 mg/mL dro-
zitumab þ anti-Fc antibody or placebo antibody þ anti-Fcfor 10 minutes at 37�C. Stimulation was stopped by wash-ing twice with 25 mL of ice-cold PBS. Cells were lysed inimmunoprecipitation (IP) lysis buffer (30 mMol/L Tris-HCl, 150 mMol/L NaCl, 10% glycerol, 2 mMol/L EDTA,containing 0.5% triton, and 1x phenylmethylsulfonylfluor-ide, and protease inhibitor cocktail). After centrifugation,the supernatant was precleared with agarose resin. Theprecleared lysate was immunoprecipitated via DR5 withdrozitumab (for cells stimulated with placebo þ anti-Fc,0.5 mg drozitumab was also added) for 3 hours at 4�C withprotein G beads. The protein G beads were washed with IPlysis buffer and the precipitated proteins were resuspendedin 100 mL of 1x sample buffer. The protein concentrationsof the pre-IP total cell lysates were measured and normal-ized. The IP samples and pre-IP total lysates were analyzedby immunoblotting.
Immunoblot analysisBoth sensitive and resistant RMS cells were treated with 1
mg/mL drozitumabþ anti-Fc antibody or placebo antibodyfor the indicated time. Cell and tissue lysates were preparedas previously described (25). The DR4 and DR5 antibodieswere from Imgenex, the FADD antibody was from BDPharmingen, and the FLIP, PARP, caspase-3, caspase-8,caspase-9, a-tubulin, GAPDH, and actin antibodies werefrom Cell Signaling Technology.
Flow cytometric analysis of surface DR4 and DR5expressionFluorescence-activated cell-sorting (FACS) analysis of
DR4 and DR5 cell surface expression was carried out usingPE-conjugated antibodies (R&D Systems) as per man-ufacturer’s suggestion and previously described (16). Inbrief, cells were blocked with 1% goat serum, incubatedwith 10 mg/mL anti-DR4-PE or anti-DR5-PE (mouse IgG1-PE and IgG2b-PE as respective controls), and analyzed byFACS.
Human tissues and animal studiesAnonymous human RMS tumor and control skeletal
muscle tissues were obtained from patients at NCI. Institu-tional Review Board exemption for using human speci-mens was obtained from the National Institutes of Health.The animal protocol was approved by the NCI Animal Careand Use Committee. Female 4- to 6-week-old CB17.B6-
Prkdcscid mice were purchased from Charles River Labora-tories. The animal study was done as previously described(25) except that drozitumab treatment was initiated oncetumors reached about 1 to 2 mm in maximal length(subtracted that of the uninoculated leg) to determine itsability to induce tumor regression. The drug or placebo wasgiven at 10 mg/kg i.p. once weekly for a total of 10 weeks.Tumors were measured with calipers. The tissues wereobtained 4 days after drozitumab or placebo treatment,fixed with 10% buffered formalin and paraffin embedded.The H&E staining and TUNEL assay were carried out by thepathology facility within the Advance Technology Programat NCI Frederick. Images were acquired with a ScanScope(Aperio) at 20x resolution.
ImmunohistochemistryRhabdomyosarcoma tissue arrays were acquired from
Biomax. Control slides were obtained from mouse xeno-grafts generated with Rh18 and Rh4 cells. IHC staining wascarried out as previously described (27). In brief, the slideswere incubated with caspase-8 polyclonal antibody (1:100dilution; NeoMarkers) or DR5 polyclonal antibody (1:250dilution; ProSci, Inc.) overnight at 4�C, following theDAKO Visualization System instructions. Both the percen-tage of positive staining in tumor cells and the intensity ofstaining were scored. The intensity of IHC staining wasmeasured by using a numerical scale (0 ¼ no expression, 1¼ weak expression, 2 ¼ moderate expression, and 3 ¼strong expression). The staining data were finally quanti-fied as the weighted index [(WI); WI ¼ % positive stain intumor � intensity score] as previously described (27). Thefinal values were the average of readings from 2 replicatecores.
Statistical analysisStatistical analyses were carried out with Prism
(GraphPad). All cell-based studies were done in triplicate.Data were presented as mean þ SEM. Statistical compar-isons were determined by 2-way ANOVA test using Prism.Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was carried out with Prism.
Results
TRAIL ligand effectively induces RMS cell deathmediated through DR5 receptor
To determine the in vitro susceptibility of RMS cell linesto TRAIL receptor targeted agents, drug sensitivity analysiswas carried out with a panel of 11 RMS cell lines and 1Ewing’s sarcoma line (A673), with various concentrationsof TRAIL ligand. MDA-231 cells were selected as a highlysensitive cell line as our previous study showed that it wasthe most sensitive breast cancer cell line to TRAIL or DR4and DR5 antibodies in vitro (16). As a negative control,primary human SkMDC were used. The SkMDC wereentirely insensitive to treatment with TRAIL, or the DR4and DR5 antibodies in vitro (Table 1). There was a sig-nificant difference between RMS cell lines, however, in
Preclinical Evaluation of DR5 Antibody Drozitumab in RMS
www.aacrjournals.org Clin Cancer Res; 17(10) May 15, 2011 3183
Research. on June 2, 2018. © 2011 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst March 8, 2011; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874
Tab
le1.
Drugse
nsitivity
ofRMSce
lllines
toTR
AIL,mou
sean
ti-DR4an
dan
ti-DR5,
drozitumab
(DRO),an
dDRO
þan
ti-Fc
antib
odies
TRAIL
ligan
dDR4mous
emab
DR5mous
emab
DRO
DRO
þan
tiFc
RMS
lines
Sub
type
IC50
(mg/m
L)Viability
(%)
at0.1mg
/mL
IC50
(mg/m
L)Viability
(%)
at1mg
/mL
IC50
(mg/m
L)Viability
(%)
at1mg
/mL
IC50
(mg/m
L)Viability
(%)
at1mg
/mL
IC50
(mg/m
L)Viability
(%)
at1mg
/mL
RH4a
ARMS
>0.100
100
>110
0>1
100
>198
>180
RH18
ERMS
0.00
44
>185
0.01
44
>156
0.01
45
RH28
ARMS
0.00
114
>110
00.09
315
0.65
970
0.01
817
RH30
ARMS
0.00
17
>190
0.03
97
>178
0.07
915
RH36
ERMS
0.03
045
0.39
850
0.13
621
0.98
648
0.15
615
RH41
aARMS
>0.100
85>1
90>1
90>1
98>1
80RD
ERMS
0.00
329
>195
0.39
832
>178
0.10
834
A67
3EWS
0.00
13
0.07
621
0.11
24
0.68
139
0.00
612
CTR
ERMS
0.01
112
>185
0.08
824
0.60
042
0.00
616
A20
4aERMS
0.07
050
>110
0>1
65>1
980.60
845
HS72
9aERMS
>0.100
80>1
100
>180
>195
>185
RMS13
aARMS
>0.100
68>1
45>1
52>1
92>1
53MDA23
1BrC
a0.00
19
0.02
642
0.02
618
>169
0.11
519
SkM
DC
Normal
>0.100
95>1
100
>195
>110
0>1
100
NOTE
:Dos
estud
iesof
theag
entson
thepan
elof
RMSce
llsas
desc
ribed
inFigu
res1an
d2.
Theperce
ntviab
ility
was
defined
astheratio
betwee
nviab
lece
llsat
thehigh
estligan
dor
antib
odydos
ean
din
theab
senc
eof
ligan
dor
antib
ody.
aRMSce
lllines
resistan
tto
TRAIL
ligan
dan
ddrozitumab
þan
ti-FC
.MDA23
1,TR
AIL
sens
itive
breas
tca
ncer
cellline;
A67
3,EWSce
llline,
SkM
DC,prim
aryhu
man
SkM
DC.
Kang et al.
Clin Cancer Res; 17(10) May 15, 2011 Clinical Cancer Research3184
Research. on June 2, 2018. © 2011 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst March 8, 2011; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874
terms of their response to TRAIL (Fig. 1A). Rh18 and Rh30showed very high sensitivity to TRAIL, comparable withthat of MDA-231 cells; whereas Rh4 and Rh41 had mini-mal to no response to TRAIL. The detailed dose studies ofthese RMS cell lines revealed 4 additional cell lines thatwere highly sensitive to TRAIL, Rh28, Rh36, RD, and CTR(Table 1), with more than 50% reduction of viability at 0.1mg/mL TRAIL. Thus, approximately half of the RMS celllines examined were sensitive to TRAIL.To determine the specific receptor that mediated the
cytotoxic activity of TRAIL, the RMS cell lines were treatedwith mouse agonist monoclonal antibodies against DR4and DR5. The results showed that the 6 RMS cell linessensitive to TRAIL were also selectively sensitive to the DR5antibody (Fig. 1B, Table 1). In contrast, they were mostlyresistant to the DR4 antibody (Fig. 1B, Table 1). In com-parison, MDA-231 cells were equally sensitive to both DR4and DR5 antibodies. To understand the selective sensitivityof RMS to the DR5 antibody, the expression of DR4 andDR5 receptors were analyzed by immunoblotting. The datashowed that DR5 was widely expressed in RMS, whereasDR4was generally expressed atmuch lower levels (Fig. 1C).
Further analysis of the receptor expression on the cellsurface by flow cytometry indicated ubiquitous cell surfaceexpression of DR5 in all RMS cell lines (Fig. 1D, and datanot shown). In contrast, only A673 has significant surfaceDR4 expression (Fig. 1D, and data not shown). In compar-ison, both DR4 and DR5 were detected on the surface ofMDA-231 cells. Thus, our results suggest that TRAIL treat-ment reduces RMS cell viability mainly through the DR5receptor. It is worth noting that DR5 was expressed andpresent on the surface of all RMS cell lines examined,including those cell lines that failed to respond to TRAILor the agonist DR5 antibody (Fig. 1). Our data suggest thatother factor(s) may be involved in determining the cellularsensitivity to DR5 targeted agents in RMS.
Drozitumab, a human agonist antibody against DR5,is effective against RMS in vitro
The fact that a large percentage of RMS cell lines wassensitive to a DR5 antibody allowed us to explore the ther-apeutic potential of a humanDR5 antibody, drozitumab, forRMS. Previous studies showed that receptor aggregationenhances the proapoptotic signal of drozitumab (20, 28).
Figure 1. TRAIL reduces RMS cellviability mediated via the DR5receptor. A, cell viability analysisof RMS cell lines treated withTRAIL for 72 hours, followed byATPLite assay. A highly sensitivebreast cancer cell line, MDA-231,was used as a reference. B,sensitivity of RMS cell lines tomouse monoclonal antibodyagainst DR4 (top) or DR5 (bottom).The cells were treated with theindicated concentrations of theseantibodies for 72 hours prior to theviability assay. C, the expressionof DR4 and DR5 in the panel ofRMS cell lines was determined byimmunoblotting. D, the cellsurface expression of DR4 andDR5 was analyzed by FACS inselected TRAIL and DR5 resistant(R) or sensitive (S) cells. The purplesignal was from the controlnonspecific antibody whereas thegreen signal was from either theDR4 or DR5 specific antibody.Increased intensity of the greensignal over the purple reflects aspecific expression of the analyte.
120A C
B D
100
80
60
40
Rel
ativ
e vi
abili
ty (
%)
20
00.1 1 10
Trail (ng/mL)100
MDA231
DR5
Rh4
Rh1
8
Rh2
8
Rh3
6
Rh4
1
RD
A20
4
A67
3
RM
S13
HS
729T
CT
R
MD
A23
1
Rh3
0
DR4
β-actin
Rh4
Rh18
Rh30
Rh41
1000
120
100
80
60
40
Rel
ativ
e vi
abili
ty (
%)
20
00.1 1 10
DR4 MAb (ng/mL)100
MDA231
Rh41(R)
DR4
020
0C
ount
s
DR5
Rh4(R)
Rh18(S)
Rh30(S)
MDA-231(S)
Rh4
Rh18
Rh30
Rh41
1000 10000
120
100
80
60
40
Rel
ativ
e vi
abili
ty (
%)
20
00.1 1 10
DR5 MAb (ng/mL)100
MDA231
Rh4
Rh18
Rh30
Rh41
1000 10000
100 101 102 103 104
FL2-H
020
0C
ount
s
100 101 102 103 104
FL2-H
020
0C
ount
s
020
0C
ount
s0
200
Cou
nts
020
0C
ount
s
100 101 102 103 104
FL2-H
020
0C
ount
s0
200
Cou
nts
020
0C
ount
s0
200
Cou
nts
100 101 102 103 104
FL2-H
100 101 102 103 104
FL2-H100 101 102 103 104
FL2-H
100 101 102 103 104
FL2-H100 101 102 103 104
FL2-H
100 101 102 103 104
FL2-H100 101 102 103 104
FL2-H
Preclinical Evaluation of DR5 Antibody Drozitumab in RMS
www.aacrjournals.org Clin Cancer Res; 17(10) May 15, 2011 3185
Research. on June 2, 2018. © 2011 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst March 8, 2011; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874
Our results showed that the RMS cell lines were minimallysensitive to drozitumab alone (Fig. 2A, Table 1). However,they were susceptible to drozitumab cross-linked with ananti-Fc antibody(Fig.2A,Table2), a result thatwas consistentwith these reports (20, 28). This result was in contrast to thatof the mouse DR5 monoclonal antibody described above,which did not require cross-linking. All subsequent in vitrostudies were carried out with drozitumab and an equalamount of the anti-Fc antibody.
Our study showed that the loss of cell viability was rapidwith a substantially decreased viability after only 2 hours ofantibody treatment (Fig. 2A). RMS cell lines had the samesensitivity profile to drozitumab as they did to TRAIL and
the mouse DR5 antibody. The cell lines that were mostresistant to TRAIL (marked *) were also most resistant tothe mouse DR5 antibody and to drozitumab (Fig. 2B,Table 1). All together 6 RMS cell lines, including Rh18,Rh28, Rh30, Rh36, RD, and CTR, were highly sensitive todrozitumab þ anti-Fc treatment, with sensitivities compar-able to that of MDA-231 (Table 1). In contrast, SkMDCwere entirely resistant to drozitumab þ anti-Fc (Fig. 2B,Table 1). The cellular sensitivity to drozitumab using theshort-term proliferation assay was also confirmed with along-term clonogenic assay (Fig. 2B). Thus, drozitumab þanti-Fc induced rapid RMS cell death with the same selec-tivity as TRAIL and the mouse DR5 antibody.
120
A B
C D
100
80
60
40
Rel
ativ
e vi
abili
ty (
%)
20
00.1 1 10
Antibody (ng/mL)100 1000
100
150
100
50
50
Rel
ativ
e vi
abili
ty (
%)
Rel
ativ
e co
lony
Num
ber
0
0Rh18
Rh180 1 2 4 0 1 2 4 0 1 2 4 (hr)
CTR RH41
Rh41
0.1 1 10DRO + anti-Fc (ng/mL)
100 1000 10000
MDA231-DRO
Rh18-DROMD231-DRO+α-Fc
RH18-DRO+α-Fc
48 hr
RH18A673RH4RH41CTRSkMDC
Placebo + anti-FcDRO + anti-Fc
24 hr
8 hr2 hr
1 hr
120
100
80
60
40
Rel
ativ
e vi
abili
ty (
%)
20
00.1 1 10
DRO+anti-Fc (ng/mL)
Rh18
Ctrl
DRO
DRO+ α-Fc
DRO + α-Fc
Rh41
100
Rh18
1000
100
80
60
40
Apo
ptot
ic c
ells
(%
)
20
0Rh18 Rh41
ControlDRO aloneDRO+Anti-Fc
Casp-3
Casp-8
PARP
α-Tubulin
Figure 2. Drozitumab (DRO) withanti-Fc antibody treatmentinduces apoptosis in the sensitiveRMS cells. A, the sensitive Rh18cells were treated with drozitumabor a 1:1 ratio of drozitumab þ anti-Fc antibodies at the indicateddoses for 72 hours prior to theviability assay (top). Also, Rh18cells were treated with variousdoses of drozitumab þ anti-Fc forthe indicated time points andanalyzed immediately for cellviability (bottom). B, selectedsensitive and resistant RMS celllines and primary SkMDC weretreated with drozitumab þ anti-Fcor placebo þ anti-Fc for 72 hours,followed by cell viability assay(top); or clonogenic assay(bottom). C, both sensitive Rh18and resistant Rh41 cells weretreated with indicated antibodiesfor 4 hours, fixed, stained withDAPI, and analyzed forfragmented nuclei as a marker forapoptotic cells. D, RMS cells weretreated with drozitumab þ anti-Fcfor the indicated time points andanalyzed for the cleavage ofapoptotic markers, caspases-3and -8 and PARP.
Kang et al.
Clin Cancer Res; 17(10) May 15, 2011 Clinical Cancer Research3186
Research. on June 2, 2018. © 2011 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst March 8, 2011; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874
As expected, drozitumab-mediated cell death wasbecause of a rapid onset of apoptosis. After 4 hours ofdrozitumab þ anti-Fc treatment, greater than 90% of thesensitive Rh18 cells displayed fragmented nuclei (Fig. 2C).Immunoblot analysis showed that drozitumab þ anti-Fctreatment induced the cleavage of caspase-3, -8, and PARPin these sensitive cells with the maximum induction seen 1hour following the antibody treatment (Fig. 2D). Theresistant Rh41 cells, even though they expressed DR5 ontheir cell surface (Fig. 1D), failed to respond to drozitumabþ anti-Fc treatment (Fig. 2C, 2D). Therefore, we sought tounderstand the determinants of sensitivity to drozitumabin RMS cells.
Caspase-8 is associated with the selective activity ofdrozitumab in RMSTo explore the potential link between drozitumab resis-
tance and the expression of components of ligand-inducedapoptosis, immunoblots were carried out with antibodiesagainst caspases-3, -8 and -10, FADD, and FLIP. Of the RMScell lines (Rh4, Rh41, HS729, and RMS13) that wereresistant to drozitumab þ anti-Fc with an IC50 > 1 mg/mL, a level that was achieved for drozitumab in phase Iclinical study (23), themost remarkable correlation was theabsence of caspase-8 protein in all 4 (Fig. 3A). No correla-tion was seen with FADD, FLIP, or caspase-3. Despite thehomology between caspase-8 and caspase-10 and the rolesof caspase-10 in mediating ligand-dependent apoptosis,there was no association between drozitumab sensitivityand reduced caspase-10 expression. On the contrary, 3 ofthe 4 drozitumab resistant cell lines (Rh4, Rh41, andRMS13) had the highest expressed levels of caspase-10.Thus, our results point to a specific correlation of reducedcaspase-8 expression with RMS cell sensitivity to drozitu-mab þ anti-Fc treatment.As the assembly of DISC is the critical initiating step in
TRAIL ligand-mediated apoptosis, we examined the assem-bly of antibody-induced DISC formation and its subse-quent activation in both drozitumab-sensitive Rh18 and-resistant Rh41 cells via IP through DR5. The precipitateswere analyzed by immunoblotting for components of theDISC complex, FADD, and caspase-8. The results showedthat the incubation with drozitumab þ anti-Fc for 10minutes induced the formation of the DISC complex,which associated with FADD and caspase-8 in the sensitiveRh18 cells (Fig. 3B). Significant cleavage of caspase-8 wasobserved on the DISC complex, which was not apparent inthe total cell lysate, suggesting that caspase-8 was beingcleaved within the complex in Rh18 cells. In contrast, therewas reduced FADD in the DR5 IP from the resistant Rh41cells and caspase-8 was clearly absent from the complex(Fig. 3B). This is not surprising because the resistant Rh41cell lysate had no detectable caspase-8, though comparablelevels of DR5 and FADD were detected. The results suggestthat the absence of caspase-8 likely plays a critical role indetermining the resistance of Rh41 cells to drozitumab.To determine the expression of caspase-8 and DR5 in
human RMS tumors, immunoblots were carried out on
RMS tumors from 8 patients (Fig. 3C). Seven of them werepositive for caspase-8 expression, which associated withDR5 expression. One RMS tumor, however, was negativefor both caspase-8 and DR5. It was also apparent that bothcaspase-8 and DR5 were absent in a control normal skeletalmuscle tissue. Additional immunostaining against RMStissue arrays showed that 11 of 18 RMS cases were positivefor both caspase-8 and DR5 (Fig. 3D, SupplementaryTable S1). As the majority of the cases (13) in the arraywere embryonal RMS (ERMS), the IHC showed that 7 of 13ERMS samples were negative for caspase-8, 3 of which werenegative for both caspase-8 and DR5. The results showedthe specific expression of both DR5 and caspase-8 in asignificant percentage of RMS which may make themsusceptible to the effects of DR5 targeted agents.
Caspase-8 is both necessary and sufficient to conferdrozitumab-induced apoptosis
To extend our finding beyond the association betweencaspase-8 and drozitumab sensitivity, we addressed theissue of whether caspase-8 activity was necessary or suffi-cient to confer drozitumab sensitivity in RMS. By using ablocking peptide specific for caspase-8, we showed that thispeptide was capable of inhibiting drozitumab þ anti-Fc-mediated loss of cell viability (Fig. 4A) and induction ofcaspase-8 cleavage (Fig. 4B), indicating that the activity ofcaspase-8 was crucial for transmitting the death signal fromthe activated DR5-dependent DISC complex.
Equally important, we asked if the introduction of anactive caspase-8 was sufficient to convert an insensitiveRMS line to a sensitive one. For the gene transfer experi-ment, we transfected resistant Rh4 cells with a wild-typeCASP8-GFP (green fluorescence protein) and a protease-defective CASP8mt-GFPwith a site-specific C360Smutationat the active-site cysteine of the caspase domain (29). Aftertransfection with CASP8-GFP, it was apparent that the GFPpositive cells were selectively killed by drozitumab þ anti-Fc when examined under a microscope (data not shown).DAPI staining results showed that CASP8 but not CASP8mt
transiently transfected into the resistant Rh4 cells led tosignificantly reduced cell viability following drozitumab þanti-Fc treatment (Fig. 4C). Immunoblots showed thatalthough both wild-type and mutant caspase-8 wereexpressed at comparable levels, drozitumabþ anti-Fc treat-ment only induced the cleavage of caspase-8 and PARP inCASP8, but not CASP8mt, transfected cells (Fig. 4C).Furthermore, the introduction of CASP8, but not CASP8mt,led to significantly increased nuclear fragmentation ondrozitumabþ anti-Fc treatment (Fig. 4D). Thus, our resultsindicate that caspase-8 is both necessary and sufficient formediating drozitumabþ anti-Fc-induced apoptosis in RMScells.
Drozitumab is effective against RMS in vivo with aselectivity predicted from in vitro studies
The antitumor activity of drozitumab, without the helpof the anti-Fc antibody, was evaluated in a xenograft mousein which RMS cells were inoculated intramuscularly. After
Preclinical Evaluation of DR5 Antibody Drozitumab in RMS
www.aacrjournals.org Clin Cancer Res; 17(10) May 15, 2011 3187
Research. on June 2, 2018. © 2011 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst March 8, 2011; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874
about 4 to 5 weeks, when tumors became just visible(1–2 mm), the mice were randomized and treated witheither control antibody (Placebo) or drozitumab alone,once weekly, for up to 10 weeks. Although drozitumabtreatment had minimal effects on the resistant Rh41 cellline, it exhibited remarkable antitumor activity against thesensitive Rh18 cells (Fig. 5A). Pathological analysis andTUNEL assay of tumors obtained 4 days after drozitumab
treatment showed a significant number of apoptotic cellsfollowing drozitumab treatment (Fig. 5B). Kaplan–Meieranalysis showed improved survival only with the sensitiveRh18 cells (Fig. 5C). Four months after the termination ofdrozitumab administration, half of the mice inoculatedwith Rh18 cells remained free from visible tumors(Fig. 5C). Thus, the results indicate a significant antitumoractivity of drozitumab with a selectivity predicted from
Casp 8
A
B
C
DRh18 (Casp8+)
Xen
og
raft
Tis
sue
mic
roar
ray
Rh18 (Casp8–)
ERMS (Casp8+)
Casp8 IHC DR5 IHC
Signal Ave WI Signal Ave WI CasesSubtypes
Alveolar +
+
–
–+
+
+
+
–+
2
6
4
33
140
117
11
8180
230
253
108
5287
Embryonal
Pleomorphic
ERMS (Casp8–)
FLIP
PARP
Casp 3
Casp 10
Casp -8
DRO+α-Fc
Total lysate IP elution
RH18
+ – + – + – + –
RH41 RH18 RH41
57
43
FADD
Patient #1R
h4R
h18
Rh2
8R
h30
Rh3
6R
h41
RD
A20
4A
673
RM
S13
HS
729T
CT
R
MD
A23
1
#2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8
SK
M
Casp-8
FADD
Casp-3
DR5
GAPDH
β-actin
DR5
β-actin
α-Tubulin
FADD
Figure 3. Caspase-8 expression is associated with drozitumab (DRO) sensitivity in RMS cells. A, immunoblot analysis of RMS cell lines for theexpression of proteins relevant to DISC and its effectors. B, both sensitive Rh18 and resistant Rh41 cells were treated with drozitumab þ anti-Fc for 10minutes. Following IP via DR5, both the total cell lysate and the precipitated DISC complex were analyzed for FADD and caspase-8 by immunoblot.C, analysis of the expression of proteins relevant to DR5-DISC and its effectors in a panel of RMS tumor samples. Patients 1 and 3 represent ERMS;patients 4, 5, 6, and 8 represent alveolar RMS; patients 2 and 7are RMS of unknown subtype; SKM is normal skeletal muscle. D, caspase-8 staining (brown)of control RMS xenografts, Rh18 and Rh4, and 2 representative ERMS tumors from an RMS tissue array. The staining results for caspase-8 and DR5 of18 RMS cases are summarized in the table: 11 were DR5þ/casp-8þ, 4 were DR5þ/casp-8�, 3 were DR5�/casp-8�. Further details can be found inSupplementary Table S1. WI (see Materials and Methods).
Kang et al.
Clin Cancer Res; 17(10) May 15, 2011 Clinical Cancer Research3188
Research. on June 2, 2018. © 2011 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst March 8, 2011; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874
in vitro cell-based assays, and this activity is associated withdrug-induced apoptosis of tumor cells.
Discussion
To achieve long-term control and a potential cure formetastatic RMS, a disease with consistently poor patientoutcome, requires the clinical evaluation of novel tar-geted therapies. Our study shows that TRAIL receptor DR5targeted agents, such as drozitumab, may have significanttherapeutic potential against RMS. Drozitumab inducesrapid apoptosis in vitro via DR5-dependent DISC assem-bly to activate caspase-8. It is very interesting that drozi-tumab þ anti-Fc is effective against more than half of theRMS cell lines tested, with a potency comparable withthat of the most sensitive breast cancer cell line MDA-231(16, 28), yet with no detectable activity against primaryhuman skeletal muscle cells. Our results show that thedeterminants of a response to drozitumab, the expression
of DR5 and caspase-8, are commonly present in RMStumors, but not in normal skeletal muscle. This resultsuggests that normal cells will be able to escape thecytotoxic effect of drozitumab, thereby lowering thepotential for side effects in vivo.
We extended our cell culture studies using an in vivointramuscular xenograft mouse model. The once weeklyadministration of drozitumab results in the regression ofestablished tumors because of RMS cell apoptosis and isassociated with the long-term survival and potential cure ofhalf of the treated animals. In the breast cancer MDA-231mammary fat pad xenograft model described by Zinono-sand colleagues, single agent drozitumab also achievedlong-term control and cure of freshly inoculated tumor cells(28). It is important to point out that a recent clinical trialwith TRAIL ligand in patients with advanced cancersshowed documentable antitumor activity in sarcomapatients, without evidence of activity in patients with carci-nomas (18). Until now, drozitumab has not undergone
Figure 4. Caspase-8 is bothnecessary and sufficient formediating drozitumab (DRO) þanti-Fc-induced apoptosis ofRMS cells. A, sensitive Rh18 cellswere treated with drozitumab þanti-Fc in the presence of acaspase-8 specific peptideblocker for 72 hours followed bycell viability measurement. B,sensitive Rh18 cells were treatedwith drozitumab þ anti-Fc for 3hours, with or without thecaspase-8 specific inhibitor. Celllysates were analyzed byimmunoblotting for activatedcaspase-8 and PARP. C, resistantRh4 cells were transfected withCASP8 and caspase-defectiveCASP8mt (C360S) for 2 days. Thecells were then treated withdrozitumab þ anti-Fc for 3 daysand analyzed for cell viability(upper). The cells were alsoanalyzed for caspase-8 and PARPcleavage after 5 hours oftreatment with drozitumab þ anti-Fc (lower). D, resistant Rh4 cellswere transfected with CASP8 andCASP8mt (C360S) for 2 days.Following drozitumab þ anti-Fctreatment for 4 hours, the cellswere fixed and analyzed fornuclear fragmentation via DAPI(top). The percentage of apoptoticcells is shown (bottom). Statisticalsignificance (P value) betweendrozitumab þ anti-Fc and CASP8was determined using 2-wayANOVA.
150
100
50
0DMSO 1 10
DRO + anti-Fc (100 ng/mL) DRO+α-Fc
DRO+α-Fc
Casp-8
PARP
b-Actin
Inhibitor – – + +
– + – +
– –+ – + +
– –– + + +– +– – – +
PARP
Casp-8
Ctrl
Ctrl
b-actin
Placebo + anti-Fc (100 ng/mL)
A B
C D
100Caspase-8 inhibitor (μmol/L)
Rel
ativ
e vi
abili
ty (
%)
150
100
50
10
20
30
40
0
0
CASP8mt CASP8
DRO + anti-Fc (100 ng/mL)
DRO+anti-Fc
CASP8mtCASP8
P < 0.0001
P < 0.0001
Rh4-ctrl Rh4-CASP8 Rh4-CASP8mt
CASP-8wt
CASP-8mt
Placebo + anti-Fc (100 ng/mL)
DRO + anti-FcPlacebo + anti-Fc
Rel
ativ
e vi
abili
ty (
%)
Apo
ptot
ic c
ells
(%
)
Preclinical Evaluation of DR5 Antibody Drozitumab in RMS
www.aacrjournals.org Clin Cancer Res; 17(10) May 15, 2011 3189
Research. on June 2, 2018. © 2011 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst March 8, 2011; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874
clinical studies in pediatric patients, but, our study providesa comprehensive preclinical evaluation of a DR5 targetedtherapeutic agent for pediatric RMS.
In addition to determining the specific types of sensitivecancers, the identification of predictive biomarkers is acritical component in the development of targeted thera-pies. As the antibodies targeting the various death receptorshave different specificities to TRAIL ligand, and may not besensitive to decoy receptors or to receptor glycosylation, it isimportant to identify biomarkers representative of aresponse to those antibodies. Our results provide the firstanalysis of a predictive biomarker for a death-receptor-targeted therapeutic antibody in RMS. The sensitivity ofRMS to drozitumab is strongly associated with the expres-sion of caspase-8; whereas there is no correlation with itssister protein, caspase-10. Drozitumab induces the rapidassembly of DISC and the associated cleavage of caspase-8in sensitive RMS cells. The activity of caspase-8 is essentialfor mediating drozitumab-induced RMS cell death. In fact,the expression of a wild type caspase-8, but not a protease-defective mutant, converts a resistant RMS cell line to asusceptible one. A lack of caspase-8 expression was foundin some primary tumor samples, and previous studies have
showed that CASP8 is frequently methylated in RMS, (30)which may be related to its silencing. Our study suggeststhat caspase-8 deficiency could be used as a biomarker toexclude patients with RMS from DR5 targeted antibodytherapy.
It was evident to us that cross-linking drozitumab withan anti-Fc antibody was essential for restoring its activityin vitro because the single-agent drozitumab was ineffec-tive. A similar requirement for cross-linking was pre-viously showed with both drozitumab (20) andconatumumab (22). It was also clear that an independentmonoclonal antibody can be as effective without cross-linking, as in the case of the mouse anti-DR5 antibody(Table 1). Although these human DR5 antibodies wereeffective against tumors in previous in vivo studies (20,22) and in ours, other components might be necessary foractivity, that is, Fcg receptor-dependent in vivo cross-linking of drozitumab (A. Ashkenazi, personal commu-nication). Therefore, the penetration of Fc-receptorpositive macrophages and neutrophils into a tumorand the affinity of a patient’s Fc-receptor to these engi-neered human antibodies may significantly affect theeffectiveness of the DR5 antibodies. There may be a need
10 Rh18
A
C
BDROPlacebo 2X 10X
H/E
Tunel 20X8
6
4
Siz
e o
f tu
mo
r (m
m)
2
010 20 30
Time (days)
Time (days)
40
20 Rh41DROPlacebo
15
10
Siz
e o
f tu
mo
r (m
m)
2
00 5 10 15 20 25
100
Rh18 Rh41
Rh18 cells
DR
OP
lace
bo
DRO
Placebo
50
Su
rviv
al (
%)
00 50 100
Days
Antibody
150 200
100
DRO
Placebo
50
Su
rviv
al (
%)
00 20 40
DaysAntibody
60 80
–2
Rh4-
Figure 5. Drozitumab (DRO) haspotent antitumor activity and aspecificity predicted by our in vitroresults. A, both sensitive Rh18 andresistant Rh41 were inoculatedintramuscularly into SCID mice.After 4 to 5 weeks, when tumorsjust became palpable, mice weretreated with 10 mg/kg i.p.drozitumab or placebo antibodyalone once weekly. The size of thetumors was measured and shown(n ¼ 10). B, mice with sensitiveRh18 tumors were treated withdrozitumab or placebo for 4 days.Tumors were resected, andstained with H&E and TUNEL forapoptotic cells. C, Kaplan–Meiersurvival analysis of the Rh18- orRh41-tumor bearing mice treatedwith drozitumab or placebo. Theadministration of drozitumab forRh18 was stopped after 10 weeksand the mice were followed foranother 18 weeks withouttreatment until all mice thatdeveloped visible tumors died.
Kang et al.
Clin Cancer Res; 17(10) May 15, 2011 Clinical Cancer Research3190
Research. on June 2, 2018. © 2011 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst March 8, 2011; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874
to obtain alternative human antibodies that do not needFc-receptor for its activity, as in the case of the mousemonoclonal antibody used in this study. Alternatively,in vitro cross-linking of these human antibodies to formdimers (31) may significantly enhance their activity.In summary, we report that the high degree of RMS
sensitivity to TRAIL is specifically mediated through theDR5 receptor. The DR4 receptor is expressed at a lower leveland is generally absent from the surface of most RMS celllines. These results also provide a rationale for the use of ananti-DR5, but not an anti-DR4, antibody for the treatmentof these malignancies. The therapeutic antibody againstDR5, drozitumab, is selective and is effective in vitro, in thepresence of an anti-Fc antibody, against the majority ofRMS cell lines with an activity profile similar to TRAIL orthe mouse DR5 antibody. There is a strong correlationbetween caspase-8 expression and sensitivity to drozitu-mab treatment in RMS. Drozitumab induces rapid assem-bly of the DISC and cleavage of caspase-8 in RMS cells thatexpress this caspase. Caspase-10 is not involved in TRAIL ordrozitumab sensitivity in RMS. In addition, our resultsshow that caspase-8 is both necessary and sufficient formediating the sensitivity to drozitumab, which is depen-dent on its protease activity. Moreover, both DR5 andcaspase-8 are frequently expressed in RMS tumors. Further-more, drozitumab is effective in vivo against RMS withspecificity predicted from the in vitro analysis, and mayoffer value in providing long-term control or a cure for
RMS. Thus, our study provides the basis for the clinicalevaluation of DR5 targeted agents against RMS and pre-sents a biomarker for correlative studies.
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views orpolicies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor doesmention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations implyendorsement by the U.S. Government. All authors declare no conflict ofinterest.
Acknowledgments
We are very grateful to Genentech, Inc. and Avi Ashkenazi for providingdrozitumab and placebo antibody, Drs. Michael Lenardo and Lixin Zhengfor CASP8 and CASP8mt (C360S) expression plasmids, Lee Helman for RMStumors, Linnia Mayeenuddin and Jennifer Crawford for reading the manu-script, and Arnulfo Mendoza and Danielle O’Mard for excellent technicalassistance.
Grant Support
This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the U.S.National Cancer Institute (NCI). This project was also funded in part withfederal funds from the NCI, NIH, under contract N01-CO-12400.
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by thepayment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby markedadvertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicatethis fact.
Received October 28, 2010; revised January 27, 2011; accepted February23, 2011; published OnlineFirst March 8, 2011.
References1. Dagher R, Helman L. Rhabdomyosarcoma: an overview. Oncologist
1999;4:34–44.2. Paulino AC, Okcu MF. Rhabdomyosarcoma. Curr Probl Cancer
2008;32:7–34.3. Wachtel M, Schafer BW. Targets for cancer therapy in childhood
sarcomas. Cancer Treat Rev 2010;36:318–27.4. Mayeenuddin LH, Yu Y, Kang Z, Helman LJ, Cao L. Insulin-like growth
factor 1 receptor antibody induces rhabdomyosarcoma cell death viaa process involving AKT and Bcl-x(L). Oncogene 2010;36:6366–77.
5. Petak I, Douglas L, Tillman DM, Vernes R, Houghton JA. Pediatricrhabdomyosarcoma cell lines are resistant to Fas-induced apoptosisand highly sensitive to TRAIL-induced apoptosis. Clin Cancer Res2000;6:4119–27.
6. Lee JM, Bernstein A. Apoptosis, cancer and the p53 tumour sup-pressor gene. Cancer Metastasis Rev 1995;14:149–61.
7. Ashkenazi A. Directing cancer cells to self-destruct with pro-apoptoticreceptor agonists. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2008;7:1001–12.
8. Locksley RM, Killeen N, Lenardo MJ. The TNF and TNF receptorsuperfamilies: integratingmammalianbiology.Cell 2001;104:487–501.
9. Kischkel FC, Lawrence DA, Chuntharapai A, Schow P, Kim KJ,Ashkenazi A. Apo2L/TRAIL-dependent recruitment of endogenousFADD and caspase-8 to death receptors 4 and 5. Immunity2000;12:611–20.
10. Kischkel FC, Lawrence DA, Tinel A, LeBlanc H, Virmani A, Schow P,et al. Death receptor recruitment of endogenous caspase-10 andapoptosis initiation in the absence of caspase-8. J Biol Chem2001;276:46639–46.
11. Ashkenazi A, Herbst RS. To kill a tumor cell: the potential of proa-poptotic receptor agonists. J Clin Invest 2008;118:1979–90.
12. Hughes MA, Harper N, Butterworth M, Cain K, Cohen GM, MacFar-lane M. Reconstitution of the death-inducing signaling complexreveals a substrate switch that determines CD95-mediated deathor survival. Mol Cell 2009;35:265–79.
13. Gonzalvez F, Ashkenazi A. New insights into apoptosis signaling byApo2L/TRAIL. Oncogene 2010;29:4752–65.
14. Safa AR, Day TW, Wu CH. Cellular FLICE-like inhibitory protein(C-FLIP): a novel target for cancer therapy. Curr Cancer Drug Targets2008;8:37–46.
15. Wagner KW, Punnoose EA, Januario T, Lawrence DA, Pitti RM, Lan-caster K, et al. Death-receptor O-glycosylation controls tumor-cellsensitivity to the proapoptotic ligand Apo2L/TRAIL. Nat Med2007;13:1070–7.
16. Zhang Y, Zhang B. TRAIL resistance of breast cancer cells is asso-ciated with constitutive endocytosis of death receptors 4 and 5. MolCancer Res 2008;6:1861–71.
17. Jin Z, Li Y, Pitti R, Lawrence D, Pham VC, Lill JR, et al. Cullin3-basedpolyubiquitination and p62-dependent aggregation of caspase-8mediate extrinsic apoptosis signaling. Cell 2009;137:721–35.
18. Herbst RS, Eckhardt SG, Kurzrock R, Ebbinghaus S, O'Dwyer PJ,Gordon MS, et al. Phase I dose-escalation study of recombinanthuman Apo2L/TRAIL, a dual proapoptotic receptor agonist, inpatients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2839–46.
19. Luster TA, Carrell JA, McCormick K, Sun D, Humphreys R. Mapatu-mumab and lexatumumab induce apoptosis in TRAIL-R1 and TRAIL-R2 antibody-resistant NSCLC cell lines when treated in combinationwith bortezomib. Mol Cancer Ther 2009;8:292–302.
20. Adams C, Totpal K, Lawrence D, Marsters S, Pitti R, Yee S, et al.Structural and functional analysis of the interaction between theagonistic monoclonal antibody Apomab and the proapoptotic recep-tor DR5. Cell Death Differ 2008;15:751–61.
21. Jin H, Yang R, Ross J, Fong S, Carano R, Totpal K, et al. Cooperationof the agonistic DR5 antibody apomab with chemotherapy to inhibitorthotopic lung tumor growth and improve survival. Clin Cancer Res2008;14:7733–40.
22. Kaplan-Lefko PJ, Graves JD, Zoog SJ, Pan Y, Wall J, Branstetter DG,et al. Conatumumab, a fully human agonist antibody to death receptor
Preclinical Evaluation of DR5 Antibody Drozitumab in RMS
www.aacrjournals.org Clin Cancer Res; 17(10) May 15, 2011 3191
Research. on June 2, 2018. © 2011 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst March 8, 2011; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874
5, induces apoptosis via caspase activation in multiple tumor types.Cancer Biol Ther 2010;9:618–31.
23. Camidge DR, Herbst RS, Gordon MS, Eckhardt SG, Kurzrock R,Durbin B, et al. A phase I safety and pharmacokinetic study of thedeath receptor 5 agonistic antibody PRO95780 in patients withadvanced malignancies. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:1256–63.
24. Cao L, Yu Y, Bilke S, Walker RL, Mayeenuddin LH, AzorsaDO, et al. Genome-wide identification of PAX3-FKHR bindingsites in rhabdomyosarcoma reveals candidate target genesimportant for development and cancer. Cancer Res 2010;70:6497–508.
25. Cao L, Yu Y, Darko I, Currier D, Mayeenuddin LH, Wan X, et al.Addiction to elevated insulin-like growth factor I receptor and initialmodulation of the AKT pathway define the responsiveness of rhab-domyosarcoma to the targeting antibody. Cancer Res 2008;68:8039–48.
26. Franken NA, Rodermond HM, Stap J, Haveman J, van Bree C.Clonogenic assay of cells in vitro. Nature protocols 2006;1:2315–9.
27. Elrod HA, Fan S, Muller S, Chen GZ, Pan L, Tighiouart M, et al.Analysis of death receptor 5 and caspase-8 expression in primary andmetastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and their prog-nostic impact. PLoS One 2010;5:e12178.
28. Zinonos I, Labrinidis A, Lee M, Liapis V, Hay S, Ponomarev V, et al.Apomab, a fully human agonistic antibody to DR5, exhibits potentantitumor activity against primary and metastatic breast cancer. MolCancer Ther 2009;8:2969–80.
29. Siegel RM, Martin DA, Zheng L, Ng SY, Bertin J, Cohen J, et al. Death-effector filaments: novel cytoplasmic structures that recruit caspasesand trigger apoptosis. J Cell Biol 1998;141:1243–53.
30. Harada K, Toyooka S, Shivapurkar N, Maitra A, Reddy JL, Matta H,et al. Deregulation of caspase 8 and 10 expression in pediatric tumorsand cell lines. Cancer Res 2002;62:5897–901.
31. Ghetie MA, Podar EM, Ilgen A, Gordon BE, Uhr JW, Vitetta ES.Homodimerization of tumor-reactive monoclonal antibodies markedlyincreases their ability to induce growth arrest or apoptosis of tumorcells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997;94:7509–14.
Kang et al.
Clin Cancer Res; 17(10) May 15, 2011 Clinical Cancer Research3192
Research. on June 2, 2018. © 2011 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst March 8, 2011; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874
2011;17:3181-3192. Published OnlineFirst March 8, 2011.Clin Cancer Res Zhigang Kang, Jun-Jie Chen, Yunkai Yu, et al. the Expression of Caspase-8 Predictive of ResponsePotent Antitumor Activity against Rhabdomyosarcoma with Drozitumab, a Human Antibody to Death Receptor 5, Has
Updated version
10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874doi:
Access the most recent version of this article at:
Material
Supplementary
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/suppl/2011/05/18/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874.DC1
Access the most recent supplemental material at:
Cited articles
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/17/10/3181.full#ref-list-1
This article cites 31 articles, 14 of which you can access for free at:
Citing articles
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/17/10/3181.full#related-urls
This article has been cited by 4 HighWire-hosted articles. Access the articles at:
E-mail alerts related to this article or journal.Sign up to receive free email-alerts
SubscriptionsReprints and
To order reprints of this article or to subscribe to the journal, contact the AACR Publications
Permissions
Rightslink site. (CCC)Click on "Request Permissions" which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center's
.http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/17/10/3181To request permission to re-use all or part of this article, use this link
Research. on June 2, 2018. © 2011 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst March 8, 2011; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2874