Lack of effect of TP53 status on fluorodeoxyuridine-mediated radiosensitization

MLH1 deficiency enhances radiosensitization with 5-fluorodeoxyuridine by increasing DNA mismatches

The antitumor drug 5-fluoro-2'-deoxyuridine (FdUrd) also sensitizes tumor cells to ionizing radiation in vitro and in vivo. Although radiosensitization with FdUrd requires dTTP depletion and S-phase arrest, the exact mechanism by which these events produce radiosensitization remains unknown. We hypothesized that the depletion of dTTP produces DNA mismatches that, if not repaired before irradiation, would result in radiosensitization. We evaluated this hypothesis in mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient HCT116 0-1 cells that lack the expression of the required MMR protein MLH1 (inactive MLH1), and in MMR-proficient (wild-type MLH1) HCT116 1-2 cells. Although HCT116 0-1 cells were less sensitive to FdUrd (IC(50) = 3.5 microM) versus HCT116 1-2 cells (IC(50) = 0.75 microM), when irradiation followed FdUrd (IC(50)) the MLH1-inactivated cells exhibited greater radiosensitization compared with MMR-wild-type cells [radiation enhancement ratio (RER) = 1.8 +/- 0.28 versus 1.1 +/- 0.1, respectively] and an increase (> or =8-fold) in nucleotide misincorporations. In SW620 cells and HCT116 1-2 MLH1-wild-type cells, FdUrd (IC(50)) did not produce radiosensitization nor did it increase the mutation frequency, but after short hairpin RNA-directed suppression of MLH1 this concentration produced excellent radiosensitization (RER = 1.6 +/- 0.10 and 1.5 +/- 0.06, respectively) and an increase in nucleotide misincorporations (8-fold and 6-fold, respectively). Incubation with higher concentrations of FdUrd (IC(90)) after suppression of MLH1 produced a further increase in ionizing radiation sensitivity in both SW620 and HCT116 1-2 cells (RER = 1.8 +/- 0.03 and 1.7 +/- 0.13, respectively) and nucleotide misincorporations (>10-fold in both cell lines). These results demonstrate an important role for MLH1 and implicate mismatches in radiosensitization by FdUrd.

Antimetabolite radiosensitizers

Radiosensitization with antimetabolites has improved clinical outcome for patients with solid malignancies, especially cancers of the GI tract, cervix, and head and neck. Fluorouracil (FU) and hydroxyurea have been widely used clinically during the last four decades, and promising results have been observed more recently with gemcitabine. Although the antimetabolites all target DNA replication, they differ with respect to the mechanisms by which they produce radiosensitization. The antimetabolite radiosensitizers may inhibit thymidylate synthase (TS) or ribonucleotide reductase, and the nucleoside/nucleobase analogs can be incorporated into DNA. Radiosensitization can result from chemotherapy-induced increase in DNA double-strand breaks or inhibition of their repair. Studies of repair pathways involved in radiosensitization with antimetabolites implicate base excision repair with the TS inhibitors, homologous recombination with gemcitabine, and mismatch repair with FU and gemcitabine. Gemcitabine can also stimulate epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) phosphorylation; inhibiting this effect with EGFR inhibitors can potentiate cytotoxicity and radiosensitization. Additional work is necessary to determine more precisely the processes by which antimetabolites act as radiation sensitizers and to define the optimal sequencing of these agents with EGFR inhibitors to provide better guidance for clinical protocols combining these drugs with radiotherapy.

The molecular basis of radiosensitivity and chemosensitivity in the treatment of breast cancer

The molecular basis of sensitivity to therapeutic radiation and chemotherapy is a complex product of cellular and tissue responses. Certain genetic factors can be highlighted as being of special importance in the response of breast cancers to treatment. The breast cancer susceptibility genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, determine the phenotype of the tumor, with BRCA1- or BRCA2-deficient tumors showing marked sensitivity to ionizing radiation and drugs that produce double-strand breaks. However, the extent to which loss of BRCA1 or BRCA2 function occurs in sporadic cancer has not yet been determined. The ATM protein plays a significant role in determining the response to therapy, but how frequently the function of ATM is disrupted in breast cancer is debated. Although the p53 protein is a major determinant of the response to ionizing radiation and cytotoxic drugs, there is no consistency in how p53 affects the survival of cells, because an impairment of DNA repair is offset by reduced apoptosis. Growth factors that sustain the proliferation of breast cancer cells may impact the response to therapy by inhibiting apoptosis. Loss of cell-cycle checkpoint responses may result in increased sensitivity, particularly if the checkpoint controls the G2 transition. Overexpression of cyclin D, which shortens the duration of the G1 transition, is associated with mild radiation resistance, perhaps by inhibiting apoptosis. Overall, there is much more to be understood in the complex response of breast cancers to therapy, and many other proteins play important roles in the response to treatment. The focus of our investigation is on those genetic alterations in tumors that affect the response to therapy, which will ultimately allow strategies to achieve therapeutic gain.