RESUMO
Gallbladder cancer is an aggressive disease with late diagnosis and no efficacious treatment. The Hippo-Yes-associated protein 1 (YAP1) signaling pathway has emerged as a target for the development of new therapeutic interventions in cancers. However, the role of the Hippo-targeted therapy has not been addressed in advanced gallbladder cancer (GBC). This study aimed to evaluate the expression of the major Hippo pathway components mammalian Ste20-like protein kinase 1 (MST1), YAP1 and transcriptional coactivator with PDZ-binding motif (TAZ) and examined the effects of Verteporfin (VP), a small molecular inhibitor of YAP1-TEA domain transcription factor (TEAD) protein interaction, in metastatic GBC cell lines and patient-derived organoids (PDOs). Immunohistochemical analysis revealed that advanced GBC patients had high nuclear expression of YAP1. High nuclear expression of YAP1 was associated with poor survival in GBC patients with subserosal invasion (pT2). Additionally, advanced GBC cases showed reduced expression of MST1 compared to chronic cholecystitis. Both VP treatment and YAP1 siRNA inhibited the migration ability in GBC cell lines. Interestingly, gemcitabine resistant PDOs with high nuclear expression of YAP1 were sensitive to VP treatment. Taken together, our results suggest that key components of the Hippo-YAP1 signaling pathway are dysregulated in advanced gallbladder cancer and reveal that the inhibition YAP1 may be a candidate for targeted therapy.
RESUMO
Introduction: Breast cancer can be classified into subtypes based on immunohistochemical markers, with Ki67 expression levels being used to divide luminal BC tumors in luminal A and B subtypes; however, Ki67 is not routinely determined due to a lack of standardization. Objective: To evaluate histological grade and Eliminate: the mitotic index to determine if they can be used as an alternative method to Ki67 staining for luminal subtype definition. Methods: We evaluated estrogen receptor positive breast cancer tissue samples. Pathological analysis included determination of Ki67. A low level of Ki67 was defined as <14% positive cells. Results: We evaluated 151 breast cancer samples; 24 (15,9%) were classified as I; 74 as HG II (49%), and 53 (35,1%) as HG III. The median value for Ki67 was 13% (range: <1% - 82%) and for MI was 2 (0-12). Histological grade I tumors exhibited Ki67 values significantly lower than HG II and III tumors (Anova, Tamhane test p=0,001). A higher Ki67 value was related to a higher MI (Rho Sperman p=0,336; R2= 0,0273). ROC curve analysis determined that a MI ≥ 3 had a sensibility of 61.9% and specificity of 66.7% in predicting a high Ki67 value (≥14%) (area under the curve: 0,691; p =0,0001). A HG I tumor or HG II-III with MI ≤2, had a high probability of corresponding to a LA tumor (76,3%), as defined using Ki67 expression, while the probability of a LB subtype was higher with HG II-III and a MI ≥3 (57.4%). Global discrimination was 68.1%. Conclusions: For the LA subtype, our predictive model showed a good correlation of HG and MI with the classification based on Ki67<14%. In the LB subtype, the model showed a weak correlation; therefore Ki67 determination seems to be needed for this group of patients.