Variation in drug sensitivity of malignant mesothelioma cell lines with substantial effects of selenite and bortezomib, highlights need for individualized therapy

Background

Malignant mesothelioma cells have an epithelioid or sarcomatoid morphology, both of which may be present in the same tumor. The sarcomatoid phenotype is associated with worse prognosis and heterogeneity of mesothelioma cells may contribute to therapy resistance, which is often seen in mesothelioma. This study aimed to investigate differences in sensitivity between mesothelioma cell lines to anti-cancer drugs. We studied two novel drugs, selenite and bortezomib and compared their effect to four conventional drugs. We also investigated the immunoreactivity of potential predictive markers for drug sensitivity; Pgp, MRP-1, ERCC1, RRM1, TS, xCT and proteasome 20S subunit.

Materials and methods

We treated six mesothelioma cell lines with selenite, bortezomib, carboplatin, pemetrexed, doxorubicin or gemcitabine as single agents and in combinations. Viability was measured after 24 and 48 hours. Immunocytochemistry was used to detect predictive markers.

Results

As a single agent, selenite was effective on four out of six cell lines, and in combination with bortezomib yielded the greatest response in the studied mesothelioma cell lines. Cells with an epithelioid phenotype were generally more sensitive to the different drugs than the sarcomatoid cells. Extensive S-phase arrest was seen in pemetrexed-sensitive cell lines. MRP-1 predicted sensitivity of cell lines to treatment with carboplatin and xCT predicted pemetrexed effect.

Conclusions

The observed heterogeneity in sensitivity of mesothelioma cell lines with different morphology highlights the need for more individualized therapy, requiring development of methods to predict drug sensitivity of individual tumors. Selenite and bortezomib showed a superior effect compared to conventional drugs, motivating clinical testing of these agents as future treatment regime components for patients with malignant mesothelioma.

Harmonisation of ethics committees' practice in 10 European countries

BACKGROUND

The Directive 2001/20/EC was an important first step towards consistency in the requirements and processes for clinical trials across Europe. However, by applying the same rules to all types of drug trials and transposing the Directive's principles into pre-existing national legislations, the Directive somewhat failed to meet its facilitation and harmonization targets. In the field of ethics, the Directive 2001/20/EC conditioned the way of understanding and transposing the "single opinion" process in each country. This led to a situation in which two models of research ethics committees organisation systems exist, being the model in which the "single opinion" is considered to be the decision made by a single ethics committee more effective and simpler in terms of administrative and logistic workload.

METHOD

A survey was conducted in 10 European countries. Members of the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network working party number 1, with expertise in the field of ethics, responded.

RESULTS

There is a major heterogeneity in the composition of ethics committees among the surveyed countries based on the number of members, proportion of experts versus lay members and expertise of the scientific members. A harmonized education of the ethics committees' membership based in common curricula is recommended by the majority of countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the efforts for harmonization of the European Clinical Trial Directive, from an ethical point of view, there remains a plurality of ethics committees' systems in Europe. It is important to comprehend the individual national systems to understand the problems they are facing.