TY - JOUR
T1 - Altered Regulation of HIF-1α in Naive- and Drug-Resistant EGFR-Mutant NSCLC
T2 - Implications for a Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-Dependent Phenotype
AU - Nilsson, Monique B.
AU - Robichaux, Jacqulyne
AU - Herynk, Matthew H.
AU - Cascone, Tina
AU - Le, Xiuning
AU - Elamin, Yasir
AU - Patel, Sonia
AU - Zhang, Fahao
AU - Xu, Li
AU - Hu, Limei
AU - Diao, Lixia
AU - Shen, Li
AU - He, Junqin
AU - Yu, Xiaoxing
AU - Nikolinakos, Petros
AU - Saintigny, Pierre
AU - Fang, Bingliang
AU - Girard, Luc
AU - Wang, Jing
AU - Minna, John D.
AU - Wistuba, Ignacio I.
AU - Heymach, John V.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the Joan’s Legacy award; the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute; the Exon 20 group; the David Bruton, Jr. Endowment; the Rexanna Foundation for Fighting Lung Cancer; the LUNGevity Foundation ; the National Institutes of Health Cancer Center Support Grants (P30 CA016672, 1R01 CA190628, and 1R01 CA234183-01A1); the Lung Specialized Programs of Research Excellence grant 5 ( P50 CA070907 ); the Lung Cancer Moon Shot Program , the Hallman fund; the Standing Fund for EGFR inhibitor resistance; the Fox Lung EGFR Inhibitor Fund; the Hanlon Fund; the Richardson fund; the Kopelman Foundation; and the Margot Johnson Cancer Research Fund. Dr. Cascone is partially supported by the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Career Development Award 2018, the Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Foundation, the Physician Scientist Program, the T.J. Martell Foundation, and the Bob Mayberry Foundation .
Funding Information:
Disclosure: Dr. Heymach reports receiving grants, personal fees, and other fees from Spectrum; personal fees from Genentech during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Catalyst, Guardant Health, Foundation Medicine, Hengrui, Eli Lilly, Novartis, EMD Serono, Sanofi, Biotree, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. In addition, Dr. Heymach has a patent pending (PCT/US2019/022067), and also a patent (PCT/US2017/062326) and U.S. provisional patent application (numbers 62/423,732; 62/427,692; and 62/572,716), with royalties paid to The University of Texas System Board of Regents. Dr. Nilsson reports receiving personal fees from Spectrum during the conduct of the study. In addition, Dr. Nilsson has a patent pending (PCT/US2019/022067), and a patent (PCT/US2017/062326) and U.S. provisional patent application (numbers 62/423,732; 62/427,692; and 62/572,716), with royalties paid to The University of Texas System Board of Regents. Dr. Robichaux reports receiving grants and licensing fees from Spectrum and is an inventor on patents related to the treatment of EGFR- and HER2-mutant tumors. Dr. Cascone reports receiving personal fees and other fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, MedImmune/AstraZeneca, and other fees from Boehringer Ingelheim outside of the submitted work. Dr. Le reports receiving personal fees from EMD Serono, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and grants and personal fees from Eli Lilly outside of the submitted work. Dr. Saintigny reports receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, HTG Molecular Diagnostics, Illumina, OSE Immunotherapeutics, and Hitachi outside of the submitted work. Dr. Minna reports receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute and Margot Johnson Cancer Research Fund during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from the National Institutes of Health and The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center outside of the submitted work. Dr. Wistuba reports receiving grants and personal fees from Genentech/Roche, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Pfizer, HTG Molecular, Guardant Health, and Merck; personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Flame; and grants from Oncoplex, DepArray, Adaptive, Adaptimmune, EMD Serono, Takeda, Amgen, Karus, Johnson & Johnson, Iovance, 4D, Novartis, Oncocyte, and Akoya outside of the submitted work. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.This work was supported by the Joan's Legacy award; the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute; the Exon 20 group; the David Bruton, Jr. Endowment; the Rexanna Foundation for Fighting Lung Cancer; the LUNGevity Foundation; the National Institutes of Health Cancer Center Support Grants (P30 CA016672, 1R01 CA190628, and 1R01 CA234183-01A1); the Lung Specialized Programs of Research Excellence grant 5 (P50 CA070907); the Lung Cancer Moon Shot Program, the Hallman fund; the Standing Fund for EGFR inhibitor resistance; the Fox Lung EGFR Inhibitor Fund; the Hanlon Fund; the Richardson fund; the Kopelman Foundation; and the Margot Johnson Cancer Research Fund. Dr. Cascone is partially supported by the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Career Development Award 2018, the Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Foundation, the Physician Scientist Program, the T.J. Martell Foundation, and the Bob Mayberry Foundation.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - Introduction: The treatment of patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors in combination with EGFR inhibitors provides a greater benefit than EGFR inhibition alone, suggesting that EGFR mutation status may define a patient subgroup with greater benefit from VEGF blockade. The mechanisms driving this potentially enhanced VEGF dependence are unknown. Methods: We analyzed the effect of EGFR inhibition on VEGF and HIF-1α in NSCLC models in vitro and in vivo. We determined the efficacy of VEGF inhibition in xenografts and analyzed the impact of acquired EGFR inhibitor resistance on VEGF and HIF-1α. Results: NSCLC cells with EGFR-activating mutations exhibited altered regulation of VEGF compared with EGFR wild-type cells. In EGFR-mutant cells, EGFR, not hypoxia, was the dominant regulator of HIF-1α and VEGF. NSCLC tumor models bearing classical or exon 20 EGFR mutations were more sensitive to VEGF inhibition than EGFR wild-type tumors, and a combination of VEGF and EGFR inhibition delayed tumor progression. In models of acquired EGFR inhibitor resistance, whereas VEGF remained overexpressed, the hypoxia-independent expression of HIF-1α was delinked from EGFR signaling, and EGFR inhibition no longer diminished HIF-1α or VEGF expression. Conclusions: In EGFR-mutant NSCLC, EGFR signaling is the dominant regulator of HIF-1α and VEGF in a hypoxia-independent manner, hijacking an important cellular response regulating tumor aggressiveness. Cells with acquired EGFR inhibitor resistance retained elevated expression of HIF-1α and VEGF, and the pathways were no longer EGFR-regulated. This supports VEGF targeting in EGFR-mutant tumors in the EGFR inhibitor–naive and refractory settings.
AB - Introduction: The treatment of patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors in combination with EGFR inhibitors provides a greater benefit than EGFR inhibition alone, suggesting that EGFR mutation status may define a patient subgroup with greater benefit from VEGF blockade. The mechanisms driving this potentially enhanced VEGF dependence are unknown. Methods: We analyzed the effect of EGFR inhibition on VEGF and HIF-1α in NSCLC models in vitro and in vivo. We determined the efficacy of VEGF inhibition in xenografts and analyzed the impact of acquired EGFR inhibitor resistance on VEGF and HIF-1α. Results: NSCLC cells with EGFR-activating mutations exhibited altered regulation of VEGF compared with EGFR wild-type cells. In EGFR-mutant cells, EGFR, not hypoxia, was the dominant regulator of HIF-1α and VEGF. NSCLC tumor models bearing classical or exon 20 EGFR mutations were more sensitive to VEGF inhibition than EGFR wild-type tumors, and a combination of VEGF and EGFR inhibition delayed tumor progression. In models of acquired EGFR inhibitor resistance, whereas VEGF remained overexpressed, the hypoxia-independent expression of HIF-1α was delinked from EGFR signaling, and EGFR inhibition no longer diminished HIF-1α or VEGF expression. Conclusions: In EGFR-mutant NSCLC, EGFR signaling is the dominant regulator of HIF-1α and VEGF in a hypoxia-independent manner, hijacking an important cellular response regulating tumor aggressiveness. Cells with acquired EGFR inhibitor resistance retained elevated expression of HIF-1α and VEGF, and the pathways were no longer EGFR-regulated. This supports VEGF targeting in EGFR-mutant tumors in the EGFR inhibitor–naive and refractory settings.
KW - Epidermal growth factor receptor
KW - Hypoxia-inducible factor
KW - Non–small cell lung cancer
KW - Vascular endothelial growth factor
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85099290471&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85099290471&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.11.022
DO - 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.11.022
M3 - Article
C2 - 33309987
AN - SCOPUS:85099290471
SN - 1556-0864
VL - 16
SP - 439
EP - 451
JO - Journal of Thoracic Oncology
JF - Journal of Thoracic Oncology
IS - 3
ER -