| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Regular Articles |
From the Institute of Pathology*
and theDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics,
Charité Hospital, Berlin; the EpidemiologyUnit,
Institute of Public Health, TechnicalUniversity of Berlin, Berlin; and the Institute ofPathology,
Rheinisch WestfälischeTechnische Hochschule, Aachen, Germany
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract Materials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Cyclooxygenases (COXs) are involved in control of inflammatory reactions and catalyze the rate-limiting step in the biosynthesis of prostaglandins, the conversion of arachidonic acid to prostaglandin H2. There are two COX isoenzymes encoded by different genes: COX-1 is expressed constitutively in many cell types and is regarded as a housekeeping gene, whereas COX-2 is highly inducible by inflammatory stimuli.2 Cyclooxygenases are the targets for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as aspirin or sulindac. Epidemiological studies show that NSAIDs reduce the incidence and mortality of colorectal carcinoma and several other types of cancer.3-6 Furthermore, in animal experiments inhibition of COX-2 reduced the incidence of colon carcinoma in rats treated with chemical carcinogens7 as well as in APC knockout mice.8 COX-2 is expressed in other carcinomas as well, such as gastric or pancreatic adenocarcinomas,9 hepatocellular carcinomas,10 adenocarcinomas of the lung,11 and squamous carcinomas of the head and neck.12
Cyclooxygenases, especially COX-2, are important for normal ovarian function. COX-2 (-/-) female mice show defective ovulation and are infertile,13,14 whereas COX-1 (-/-) mice are fertile.15 Despite the importance of cyclooxygenases in ovarian physiology, the impact of COX-1 and COX-2 expression on prognosis of malignant ovarian tumors has not been investigated so far. In the present study we investigated the expression and regulation of cyclooxygenases (COX-1 and COX-2) in five ovarian carcinoma cell lines as well as in human primary ovarian carcinomas.
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The human ovarian carcinoma cell lines OVCAR-3,16 SKOV-3,17 and CAOV-317 have been isolated from ovarian adenocarcinomas and were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Rockville, MD). OAW-4218 has been established from ascites of a patient with a serous cystadenocarcinoma of the ovary, and was from ECACC, Salisbury, UK. The cell line ES-219 has been isolated from a poorly differentiated ovarian clear-cell carcinoma and was from ATCC. Cell lines were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum.
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Confluent monolayers of cells were incubated in medium without serum for 24 hours and subsequently stimulated with recombinant human interleukin (IL)-1ß (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN) or phorbol ester (TPA; Sigma, St. Louis, MO) for 6 hours. Total RNA was prepared with RNeasy Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). Tissue from ovarian carcinomas was dissected by a senior pathologist in the operating room from surgical specimens sent for frozen section analysis and was immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at -80°C until analysis. Tissue samples were homogenized, total RNA was prepared with RNeasy Kit, and residual DNA was digested with DNase. For polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis of RNA, cDNA was made by reverse transcription and PCR reactions were performed. Cycling conditions were 35 cycles of denaturation, annealing, and extension (94°C for 45 seconds, 54°C for 45 seconds, and 72°C for 120 seconds). The primers used were human COX-1 sense 5'-TGCCCAGCTCCTGGCCCGCCGCTT-3' and antisense 5'-GTGCATCAACACAGGCGCCTCTTC-3' (generating a 303-bp band), human COX-2 sense 5'-TTCAAATGAGATTGTGGGAAAATTGCT-3' and antisense 5'-AGATCATCTCTGCCTGAGTATCTT-3'(generating a 304-bp band),20 GAPDH sense 5'-ACCACAGTCCATGCCATCAC-3' and antisense 5'-TCCACCACCCTGTTGCTGTA-3' (generating a 452-bp band).
Immunoblotting
Cells grown to confluency in 60-mm Petri dishes were incubated in medium without serum for 24 hours and subsequently stimulated with 10 ng/ml of IL-1ß or 10 nmol/L of TPA for 24 hours. Cells were lysed in 100 µl of 62.5 mmol/L Tris-HCl (pH 6.8) containing 2% sodium dodecyl sulfate, 10% glycerol, 50 mmol/L dithiothreitol, and 0.1% bromophenol blue. One hundred µg of protein/sample were loaded on a 10% polyacrylamide gel. Proteins were blotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (Biometra, Göttingen, Germany), washed in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), and incubated in blocking buffer [1x Tris-buffered saline, 0.1% Tween-20, 5% I-block (Tropix, Bedford, MA)] for 1 hour at 21°C. Membranes were washed three times with PBS/0.1% Tween-20 and incubated overnight at 4°C with a monoclonal anti-COX-1 (Cayman Chemical, Ann Arbor, MI) or anti-COX-2 antibody (Cayman Chemical) diluted 1:1000 in blocking buffer, followed by incubation with alkaline phosphatase-conjugated goat anti-rabbit secondary antibody (Tropix, Bedford, MA). Bands were visualized using the CDP star RTU luminescence system (Tropix).
To evaluate the specificity of the COX-2 antibody for the bands of different sizes, blocking experiments were performed using the COX-2 blocking peptide (Cayman Chemical). According to the manufacturer’s instructions, we preincubated the COX-2 antibody for 1 hour in the presence of the blocking peptide (10 µg/ml) before immunoblotting.
PGE2 Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)
Cells (1 x 105)/well in 12-well plates were stimulated with IL-1ß (5 ng/ml) or TPA (10 nmol/L) with or without 10 µmol/L of NS–398 (Alexis) in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium and 10% fetal calf serum. After 24 hours supernatants were harvested and centrifuged at 5000 rpm for 10 minutes before blocking the cyclooxygenase by addition of 10 µg/ml of indomethacin (Sigma). Samples were stored at -80°C. Samples of ascitic fluid were centrifuged at 900 rpm and stored at -80°C until analysis.
Concentration of PGE2 in cell culture supernatants and ascitic fluid was determined using a specific ELISA (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The concentration of PGE2 was estimated from the absorbance of the calculated standard curve. The results were expressed as pg/ml.
Study Population
Immunohistochemical examination was performed retrospectively on tissue samples taken for routine diagnostic purposes. For determination of expression of COX-2 in benign and malignant ovarian tumors, 119 patients with ovarian lesions who were diagnosed at the Institute of Pathology, Charité Hospital, Berlin, and the Institute of Pathology, RWTH, Aachen, between 1989 and 2000 were included in the study. The cases were selected based on the availability of tissue and were not stratified for known preoperative or pathological prognostic factors. The tissue specimens included 86 invasive ovarian carcinomas, 19 tumors of low malignant potential (LMP) (borderline tumors, atypical proliferating tumors), 12 benign cystadenomas, as well as 2 samples of normal ovaries. COX-1 expression was determined in 101 cases (75 invasive ovarian carcinomas, 16 LMP tumors, 8 cystadenomas, 2 normal ovaries). For further statistical evaluation and survival analysis, only the patients with invasive ovarian carcinomas were included. The duration of follow-up ranged from 0.30 to 121.7 months (mean, 32.5 months).
Histopathological Examination
Tissue samples were fixed in 4% neutral buffered formaldehyde and embedded in paraffin. Routine hematoxylin and eosin sections were performed for histopathological evaluation. The stage of tumors was assessed according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system. All cases were re-evaluated for histological type and grade by the same pathologist (SH). For grading of tumors the Silverberg grading system composed of architectural, nuclear, and mitotic features was used.21
Immunohistochemistry
Immunohistochemical staining was performed according to standard procedures. We used the mouse anti-human COX-2 monoclonal antibody from Cayman Chemical Company, which has been widely used for immunohistochemical staining of COX-2 and has been evaluated by blocking experiments with the specific peptide.22 For investigation of COX-1, the mouse anti-COX-1 monoclonal antibody was used (Cayman Chemical). Briefly, slides were boiled in citrate buffer in a pressure cooker for 5 minutes and incubated with the monoclonal COX-1 (1:200) or COX-2 antibody (1:1000) overnight at 4°C, followed by incubation with a biotinylated anti-mouse secondary antibody and the multilink biotin-streptavidin-amplified detection system (Biogenex, San Ramon, CA). Staining was visualized using a fast-red chromogen system (Immunotech, Hamburg, Germany). The intensity of the COX-1 or COX-2 immunostaining in tumor cells was evaluated independently by two pathologists (SH and CD), who were blinded to patient outcome, and scored as COX-1- or COX-2-negative or -positive. Tumors were scored as positive for COX if there was either a diffuse staining or a focal expression in several clusters of cells. Cases with a minimal expression of COX in few single cells were scored as negative. For preliminary analysis, we evaluated the cases with a particularly strong expression of COX-2 as a separate group. We did not detect any differences between cases with strong and moderate expression of COX-2. For this reason both groups were combined and subsequent statistical analysis was performed comparing positive and negative cases.
Statistical Analysis
The statistical significance of the correlation between expression of COX-1 or COX-2 and several clinicopathological parameters was assessed by Fisher’s exact test. The probability of overall survival as a function of time was determined by the Kaplan-Meier method. Different survival curves were compared by the log rank test. Multivariate survival analysis was performed using the Cox regression model. Generally, P values <0.05 were considered as significant. For the statistical evaluation the SPSS software Version 10.0 was used.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
We determined expression of COX-2 mRNA by reverse transcriptase
(RT)-PCR in five ovarian carcinoma cell lines (OVCAR-3, SKOV-3, CAOV-3,
ES-2, and OAW-42). Cells were incubated with IL-1ß (10 mg/ml) or the
phorbol ester TPA (10 nmol/L). As shown in Figure 1
, expression of COX-2 mRNA was induced
by IL-1ß and TPA in OVCAR-3 cells and by TPA in CAOV-3 cells. The
cell line ES-2 showed a constitutive expression of COX-2. Neither
SKOV-3 (Figure 1)
nor OAW-42 (not shown) expressed COX-2 mRNA. The
expression of COX-1 mRNA was detected in all cell lines and was not
changed by IL-1ß or TPA.
|
72 kd was induced in OVCAR-3 cells
by IL-1ß and TPA and in CAOV-3 cells by TPA (Figure 2)
. As shown in mRNA analysis, ES-2 cells
had a constitutive expression of COX-2 protein. Interestingly, the
apparent molecular weight of the COX-2 protein was slightly lower in
ES-2 cells (60 kd), suggesting a different glycosylation of the
protein. To demonstrate the specificity of the various bands we
performed blocking experiments with a specific COX-2 peptide. The bands
of different sizes in COX-2 Western blots of different cell lines
disappeared after preincubation of the antibody with a COX-2 peptide
(data not shown).
|
as well as OAW-42 (not shown) did not express COX-2
protein. Although COX-1 was expressed constitutively on the mRNA level
in all cell lines, only OVCAR-3 and ES-2 showed an expression of COX-1
protein. PGE2 Production of Ovarian Carcinoma Cell Lines
Using specific ELISA, we measured production of
PGE2 in ovarian carcinoma cells. Parallel to the
induction of COX-2 mRNA and protein, we found an increase of
PGE2 in supernatant of OVCAR-3 cells stimulated
with IL-1ß (Figure 3A)
as well as of
CAOV-3 cells treated with TPA (Figure 3B)
. Inhibition of COX-2 by the
specific inhibitor NS-398 at concentrations of 50 µmol/L reduced
PGE2 levels. The other cell lines, including
ES-2, did not produce PGE2, even after
stimulation with IL-1ß or TPA.
|
An expression of COX-2 mRNA was detected by RT-PCR in seven of
eight ovarian carcinomas as well as in one LMP tumor (Figure 4)
. One G1 serous-papillary carcinoma was
negative for COX-2, whereas one G2 clear-cell ovarian carcinoma and one
G3 serous papillary ovarian carcinoma showed a very weak expression of
COX-2. Additionally, we investigated one sample of a malignant mixed
Mullerian tumor that was negative for COX-2. All cases expressed COX-1
mRNA (Figure 4)
. For six cases, COX-2 expression was also investigated
by immunohistochemistry. Three of the cases showed
identical results in RT-PCR and immunohistochemistry. In the remaining
three cases COX-2 mRNA expression was detected by RT-PCR, but tumors
were negative for COX-2 protein by immunohistochemistry. This may be
explained by the increased sensitivity of RT-PCR. On the other hand,
part of the COX-2 signal in RT-PCR may be contributed by inflammatory
cells in the tumor stroma.
|
We measured levels of PGE2 in
samples of ascitic fluid from patients with ovarian carcinomas
(n = 5), other malignancies
(n = 5), as well as liver cirrhosis
(n = 6). Samples of patients with ovarian
carcinomas showed significantly increased levels of
PGE2 (mean plus SEM: 2287 ± 705 pg/ml)
compared to ascitic fluid of patients with other carcinomas (337
± 116 pg/ml; P = 0.03, Student’s t-test)
or liver cirrhosis (172 ± 58 pg/ml; P = 0.03)
(Figure 5)
.
|
Samples from a total of 119 patients were investigated for COX-2 immunoreactivity. The mean age of patients at surgery was 59.2 years (range, 28 to 85 years). Eighty-six patients (72.3%) had invasive ovarian carcinomas, 19 patients (16%) had tumors of low malignant potential (LMP tumors, borderline tumors, atypical proliferating tumors), 12 patients (10.1%) had benign ovarian cysts, and 2 patients (1.7%) had normal ovaries. Of the 19 LMP tumors, 14 were serous, 3 mucinous, 1 mixed serous-mucinous, and 1 transitional. Of the 86 invasive carcinomas, 48 (55.8%) were serous carcinomas, 6 (7%) mucinous carcinomas, 12 (14%) endometrioid carcinomas, 3 (3.5%) clear cell carcinomas, 3 (3.5%) transitional cell carcinomas, and 14 (16.3%) undifferentiated carcinomas. Of the patients with invasive carcinomas, 17 (19.8%) were in FIGO stage I, 9 (10.5%) in stage II, 56 (65.1%) in stage III, and 4 (4.7%) in stage IV. From 48 patients, lymph nodes were examined. Twenty-one (43.8%) of these patients were pN0 and 27 (56.3%) were pN1. Four patients (4.7%) had distant metastases at the time of diagnosis. Forty-two patients (48.8%) with invasive carcinomas died during the mean follow-up period of 32.5 months. The mean (median) survival time was 55.4 (41.2) months with a range of 43.6 to 67.3 (26.6 to 55.8) months. For determination of COX-1 immunoreactivity, a total of 101 cases were investigated. The percentage of different tumor types and tumor stages was similar to the samples investigated for COX-2.
COX-2 Immunostaining in Primary Ovarian Carcinomas, LMP Tumors, and Adenomas
Expression of COX-1 and COX-2 in normal ovaries and different
ovarian lesions is shown in Figure 6
and
Table 1
. Normal ovarian surface
epithelium (2 cases) as well as benign adenomas (12 cases) did not show
any expression of COX-2. LMP tumors were positive for COX-2 in 7
(36.8%) of 19 cases. An expression of COX-2 was observed in 36
(41.9%) of 86 invasive ovarian carcinomas. COX-2 immunoreactivity was
a granular cytoplasmatic staining.
|
|
.
|
. No
significant correlations were observed between COX-2 expression and
histological type, tumor stage, lymph node involvement, metastasis,
FIGO stage, histological grade, and age at diagnosis. Similarly, no
significant correlations were observed between expression of COX-1 and
the clinicopathological factors (data not shown). COX-2 Immunostaining and Patient Survival
We compared the survival among all patients with invasive ovarian
carcinoma in univariate analysis according to the expression status for
COX-2. The median survival time of the 50 patients with tumors negative
for COX-2 was 52.47 months, whereas that of the 36 patients with tumors
positive for COX-2 was 30.40 months (log rank test, P =
0.04) (Table 3
, Figure 7A
). In contrast to COX-2, expression of
COX-1 was not a significant prognostic parameter in ovarian carcinomas
(P = 0.89) (Table 3)
. Other significant
prognostic markers in univariate analysis were histological diagnosis
(P < 0.002), FIGO stage
(P < 0.002), metastasis
(P = 0.0002), histological grade
(P < 0.003), and age at diagnosis
(P < 0.02) (Table 3)
.
|
|
shows the different survival curves for patients younger than
age 60 (median survival, 52.77 months) and patients older than age 60
(median survival, 30.10 months). Comparing the survival of patients in
these two groups according to their COX-2 expression, we found that
expression of COX-2 is especially valuable as a prognostic factor for
patients younger than 60 years. As shown in Figure 7C
, for patients
younger than age 60 with tumors negative for COX-2 the median survival
time is not reached during the follow-up period of 110 months, whereas
patients in the same age group with tumors positive for COX-2 have a
median survival time of 34.63 months (P <
0.004). Patients younger than age 60 with tumors positive for COX-2
have a 5-year survival rate of only 25%, whereas patients in the same
age group with tumors negative for COX-2 have a 5-year survival rate of
55%. In contrast, for patients older than age 60 there are no
differences in median survival time between patients with tumors
negative for COX-2 (30.10 months) and tumors positive for COX-2 (36.13
months, P = 0.97) (Figure 7D)
.
We used a multivariate regression analysis based on the Cox
proportional hazard model to test the independent value of each
parameter predicting overall survival. The estimated prognostic value
of each variable in relation to overall survival among the 86 patients
studied is expressed as a P value. We used COX-2 expression
as well as the other prognostic markers of ovarian carcinomas that were
significant in univariate analysis. The variables used in Cox
regression analysis are shown in Table 4
.
Expression of COX-2 was an independent prognostic factor for poor
survival (relative risk, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.38 to 5.47). Other
independent prognostic factors associated with poor prognosis were
grade, FIGO stage, age at diagnosis >60 years, and undifferentiated
histological type.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Two previous studies have failed to detect expression of COX-2 in ovarian tissues. Ristimäki and colleagues23 found 12 cases of mucinous ovarian carcinomas that were negative for COX-2 mRNA by Northern blot. In their study no immunohistochemistry was performed on the ovarian carcinoma tissue. Because COX-2 is expressed only in a subset of tumors, this subset may have been missed because of the lower number of cases studied. In an immunohistological study, Dore and colleagues24 investigated 16 cases of ovarian carcinomas and found an expression of COX-1, but not of COX-2. These discrepancies may depend on the use of different antibodies or staining procedures. The antibody used in our study has been evaluated before using blocking experiments.22 Recently, two additional studies have shown an expression of COX-2 in ovarian carcinomas, consistent with our results. Klimp and colleagues25 found an expression of COX-2 in 15 of 18 ovarian carcinomas and in 10 of 15 borderline tumors. Similarly, Matsumoto and colleagues26 found an expression of COX-2 in 79% of 28 ovarian carcinomas and in 67% of 21 borderline tumors. In these previous studies, no survival analysis was performed. To our knowledge, this is the first study showing expression of COX-2 in ovarian carcinoma cell lines and this is the first study showing that COX-2 is an independent prognostic factor in ovarian carcinomas.
In addition to the expression of COX-2 in tumor tissue of ovarian carcinomas, we found significantly increased levels of PGE2 in ascites samples of patients with ovarian cancer. This indicates that PGE2 is present in vivo in the microenvironment of ovarian carcinomas. The production of PGE2 in ascitic fluid may be partly from COX-2 activity in ovarian carcinoma cells, but peritoneal macrophages may be additional sources of PGE2. Because the majority of ovarian carcinomas are positive for COX-1, it could also be possible that COX-1 activity contributes to the PGE2 in ascitic fluid. However, our experiments with ovarian carcinoma cell lines using the specific COX-2 inhibitor NS-398 suggest that the COX-2 isoform is the main source of PGE2 in ovarian carcinoma cells. Further experiments are needed to fully characterize the source of elevated levels of PGE2 in ascitic fluid from ovarian carcinoma patients. We have not been able to compare the PGE2 production in ascitic fluid with the expression of COX-1 and COX-2 in the corresponding tumors, because no material from these tumors was available for immunohistochemistry. Although we could only measure a comparably small set of samples in the present study, elevated levels of PGE2 have been described previously in primary tumors, metastases, and ascitic fluid of patients with ovarian carcinomas.27 The level of PGE2 in ascites might be relevant for patients’ response to therapy, because tumors without response to chemotherapy were found to contain higher levels of PGE2 and other prostaglandins than tumors responding to chemotherapy.28 Thus, it may be interesting to investigate whether COX-2 expression may be a predictive factor for response to chemotherapy as well.
In our immunohistochemical investigations expression of COX-2 was increased in ovarian carcinomas and LMP tumors compared to normal ovarian surface epithelium and cystadenomas. In invasive ovarian carcinomas, two subgroups could be identified based on the positive or negative expression of COX-2. We investigated survival time of patients of these two groups and found that expression of COX-2 was a predictor of short survival times in univariate and multivariate analysis. Other independent prognostic factors associated with poor prognosis were grade, FIGO stage, age at diagnosis, and histological type. It should be pointed out that because of the relatively small number of patients in some of the various subgroups the statistical power of the analysis may be insufficient to detect weaker prognostic factors or factors that are significant only in certain subgroups of tumors.
Comparing COX-2 expression in patients of different age groups, we found that COX-2 expression in tumor tissue is a highly significant prognostic factor for patients younger than age 60, but not for patients older than age 60. This might indicate that in younger patients hormonal influences on ovarian carcinoma cells act together with an expression of COX-2 to worsen the prognosis. It has been shown that estrogens increase COX-2 in rat myometrium,29 rat mammary glands,30 and human umbilical vein endothelial cells.31 On the other hand, estrogen decreased COX-2 expression in bovine endometrial cells.32 Thus, the regulation of COX-2 expression by estrogens seems to be dependent on the cell type and has not been studied in ovarian carcinoma cells.
Several epidemiological studies have investigated the role of regular NSAID-intake on prevention of ovarian cancer. Cramer and colleagues33 found a modest but nonsignificant inverse association with aspirin use for at least 6 months and ovarian cancer, whereas Tavani and colleagues34 found no association. In contrast, Rosenberg and colleagues35 found that use of NSAIDs 4 or more days per week for at least 5 years significantly reduced the risk of ovarian cancer (odds ratio, 0.5). As a conclusion, long-term use of comparably high doses of NSAIDs could have a protective effect against ovarian carcinoma. Based on the results of our study it would be interesting to investigate if the protection by NSAIDs might be more pronounced in patients younger than 60 years.
The cellular mechanisms responsible for the worse prognosis of tumors with an increased expression of COX-2 are not clear, so far. Several functions of inducible cyclooxygenase (COX-2) have been described in the biology of various carcinomas: increased cell proliferation,36 inhibition of apoptosis,37 stimulation of angiogenesis,38 as well as inhibition of immunosurveillance.39 There are only few studies on the impact of the level of COX-2 expression in tumor tissue on the prognosis of the patients and studies using multivariate analysis have not been performed. Khuri and colleagues40 showed in univariate analysis that COX-2 expression was a marker of poor prognosis in stage I non-small cell lung cancer. For colon carcinoma, COX-2 expression was a prognostic factor in univariate analysis and correlated with tumor neovascularization.41 In ovarian carcinomas, several studies have shown that microvessel density is not an independent prognostic indicator.42-44 Therefore, we did not measure microvessel density in the present study. Similarly, it has been shown that the apoptotic index is no independent prognostic indicator in ovarian carcinomas.45,46 However, in some studies apoptosis-related proteins such as p53, bcl-2, or bax have been shown to affect prognosis of ovarian carcinomas.46,47 Thus, it will be very interesting to investigate the correlation between COX-2 expression and different factors involved in apoptotic or necrotic cell death.
Studies on the function of COX-2 in other types of tumors support a role for COX-2 in tumor invasion. For example, COX-2 expression in gastric carcinoma was correlated with tumor invasion into lymphatic vessels as well as metastasis into lymph nodes.48 Similar results have been shown for pulmonary adenocarcinomas, where COX-2 expression was enhanced in metastases as compared to primary tumors.49 In colon carcinoma cell lines, transfection with COX-2 resulted in increased Matrigel invasion.50 Thus, it might be possible that ovarian carcinomas with a higher expression of COX-2 show an increased metastatic potential and thus a poorer prognosis compared to tumors negative for COX-2.
The determination of the status of COX-2 expression, in combination with other clinicopathological factors, may improve the prognostic evaluation of ovarian carcinoma patients and enhance the ability to prospectively identify individuals who are at risk for poor survival. However large-scale prospective and retrospective studies are needed to establish whether COX-2 expression is indeed of practical utility as a prognostic predictor. The development of new specific inhibitors of COX-2 leads to new concepts of primary and secondary chemoprevention of cancer.51 Based on the results of this study, it would be interesting whether ovarian carcinoma patients with tumors positive for COX-2 would benefit from treatment with selective COX-2 inhibitors.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Accepted for publication November 29, 2001.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  S. Donnini, F. Finetti, R. Solito, E. Terzuoli, A. Sacchetti, L. Morbidelli, P. Patrignani, and M. Ziche EP2 prostanoid receptor promotes squamous cell carcinoma growth through epidermal growth factor receptor transactivation and iNOS and ERK1/2 pathways FASEB J, August 1, 2007; 21(10): 2418 - 2430. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Stadlmann, U. Gueth, E. Wight, L. A Kunz-Schughart, A. Hartmann, and G. Singer Expression of peroxisome proliferator activated receptor {gamma} and cyclo-oxygenase 2 in primary and recurrent ovarian carcinoma J. Clin. Pathol., March 1, 2007; 60(3): 307 - 310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Y. Ting, B. F. Kimler, C. J. Fabian, and B. K. Petroff Characterization of a preclinical model of simultaneous breast and ovarian cancer progression Carcinogenesis, January 1, 2007; 28(1): 130 - 135. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Tsubochi, N. Sato, M. Hiyama, M. Kaimori, S. Endo, Y. Sohara, and T. Imai Combined Analysis of Cyclooxygenase-2 Expression With p53 and Ki-67 in Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer. Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2006; 82(4): 1198 - 1204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Siironen, A. Ristimaki, K. Narko, S. Nordling, J. Louhimo, S. Andersson, R. Haapiainen, and C. Haglund VEGF-C and COX-2 expression in papillary thyroid cancer. Endocr. Relat. Cancer, June 1, 2006; 13(2): 465 - 473. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. K. Yiu and A. Toker NFAT Induces Breast Cancer Cell Invasion by Promoting the Induction of Cyclooxygenase-2 J. Biol. Chem., May 5, 2006; 281(18): 12210 - 12217. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Lee, J. Frischer, A. Serur, J. Huang, J.-O Bae, Z. N. Kornfield, L. Eljuga, C. J. Shawber, N. Feirt, M. Mansukhani, et al. Inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 disrupts tumor vascular mural cell recruitment and survival signaling. Cancer Res., April 15, 2006; 66(8): 4378 - 4384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Bagnato, F. Spinella, and L. Rosano Emerging role of the endothelin axis in ovarian tumor progression Endocr. Relat. Cancer, December 1, 2005; 12(4): 761 - 772. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Shoji, M. Takahashi, N. Takasuka, N. Niho, T. Kitamura, H. Sato, T. Maruyama, Y. Sugimoto, S. Narumiya, T. Sugimura, et al. Prostaglandin E receptor EP3 deficiency modifies tumor outcome in mouse two-stage skin carcinogenesis Carcinogenesis, December 1, 2005; 26(12): 2116 - 2122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Vallbohmer, W. Zhang, M. Gordon, D. Y. Yang, J. Yun, O. A. Press, K. E. Rhodes, A. E. Sherrod, S. Iqbal, K. D. Danenberg, et al. Molecular Determinants of Cetuximab Efficacy J. Clin. Oncol., May 20, 2005; 23(15): 3536 - 3544. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Daikoku, D. Wang, S. Tranguch, J. D. Morrow, S. Orsulic, R. N. DuBois, and S. K. Dey Cyclooxygenase-1 Is a Potential Target for Prevention and Treatment of Ovarian Epithelial Cancer Cancer Res., May 1, 2005; 65(9): 3735 - 3744. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Heinonen, P. Bono, K. Narko, S.-H. Chang, J. Lundin, H. Joensuu, H. Furneaux, T. Hla, C. Haglund, and A. Ristimaki Cytoplasmic HuR Expression Is a Prognostic Factor in Invasive Ductal Breast Carcinoma Cancer Res., March 15, 2005; 65(6): 2157 - 2161. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Symowicz, B. P. Adley, M. M.M. Woo, N. Auersperg, L. G. Hudson, and M. S. Stack Cyclooxygenase-2 Functions as a Downstream Mediator of Lysophosphatidic Acid to Promote Aggressive Behavior in Ovarian Carcinoma Cells Cancer Res., March 15, 2005; 65(6): 2234 - 2242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Spinella, L. Rosano, V. Di Castro, P. G. Natali, and A. Bagnato Endothelin-1-induced Prostaglandin E2-EP2, EP4 Signaling Regulates Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Production and Ovarian Carcinoma Cell Invasion J. Biol. Chem., November 5, 2004; 279(45): 46700 - 46705. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Sirois, K. Sayasith, K. A. Brown, A. E. Stock, N. Bouchard, and M. Dore Cyclooxygenase-2 and its role in ovulation: a 2004 account Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2004; 10(5): 373 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Spinella, L. Rosano, V. Di Castro, M. R. Nicotra, P. G. Natali, and A. Bagnato Inhibition of Cyclooxygenase-1 and -2 Expression by Targeting the Endothelin A Receptor in Human Ovarian Carcinoma Cells Clin. Cancer Res., July 15, 2004; 10(14): 4670 - 4679. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T.-L. Erkinheimo, H. Lassus, P. Finne, B. P. van Rees, A. Leminen, O. Ylikorkala, C. Haglund, R. Butzow, and A. Ristimaki Elevated Cyclooxygenase-2 Expression Is Associated with Altered Expression of p53 and SMAD4, Amplification of HER-2/neu, and Poor Outcome in Serous Ovarian Carcinoma Clin. Cancer Res., January 15, 2004; 10(2): 538 - 545. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
