Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Clinical Significance and Predictive Value of Prostaglandin E2 Receptors (EPR) 1 – 4 in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma

KOJIRO OHBA, YASUYOSHI MIYATA, SHIN-ICHI WATANABE, TOMAYOSHI HAYASHI, HIROSHI KANETAKE, SHIGERU KANDA and HIDEKI SAKAI
Anticancer Research February 2011, 31 (2) 597-605;
KOJIRO OHBA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YASUYOSHI MIYATA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: int.doc.miya@m3.dion.ne.jp
SHIN-ICHI WATANABE
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TOMAYOSHI HAYASHI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIROSHI KANETAKE
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SHIGERU KANDA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIDEKI SAKAI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: The clinical significance of prostaglandin E2 receptor (EPR) expression in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tissues remains unclear. Patients and Μethods: Four subtypes of EPRs were examined in 112 human RCC tissues by immunohistochemical and Western blot analysis. The relationships between EPR immunoreactivity score (IS) and various pathological features and survival were then analyzed. Results: The IS of EP4R was significantly higher (p<0.001) in cancer cells (mean=2.7 and SD=2.1) than in normal kidney tissues (1.8 and 1.2). EP4R expression correlated with pT stage, metastasis, and grade. EP2R expression was also associated with metastasis. Expressions of both EP2R and EP4R were found to be significant predictors for cause-specific survival on Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (p=0.006 and 0.023, respectively). Conclusion: EP2R and EP4R may play important roles in malignant behavior. EP4R in particular was closely associated with pathological features, implicating this receptor as a potential therapeutic target in patients with RCC.

  • Prostaglandin E2 receptor
  • renal cell carcinoma
  • pathological features
  • survival
  • immunohistochemistry

Cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 plays crucial roles in carcinogenesis, tumor growth, and progression of various malignancies (1-4). In addition, COX-2 expression in cancer cells is up-regulated compared to adjacent normal cells in several human tissues (5-8). COX-2 has therefore been proposed as a useful therapeutic target in malignancies. Indeed, COX-2 inhibitors may reduce the risk of carcinogenesis in several types of cancer including colon (9), lung (10), and prostate cancer (11), and are also further expected to have anti-tumorigenic effects. However, COX-2 inhibitors may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease including myocardial infarction (12, 13). Whilst such opinions are controversial, many oncologists are hesitant to use COX-2 inhibitors clinically because of the risk of limited success and severe side-effects. Thus, more effective and safer strategies are still needed to inhibit tumorigenesis.

COX-2 is a key enzyme in the conversion of arachidonic acid to prostaglandins (PGs), of which PGE 2 is the most well known due to its potent biological activity. Like COX-2, PGE 2 has also received attention in recent years because it is overexpressed in various cancer tissues and is associated with tumor growth and progression (14-16). Previous pharmacological and animal studies reported that the major antitumor action of COX-2 inhibitors is mediated through inhibition of PGE 2 (17, 18). Thus, further understanding of the pathological function of PGE 2 would also contribute to future cancer treatment strategies.

The biological activities of PGE 2 are mediated through their respective receptors, which are called E prostanoid receptors (EPRs) and are divided into four subtypes: EP1R, EP2R, EP3R, and EP4R (19). Several studies have associated tumor development and progression with EPR expression levels in various malignancies (20-24), with the EPR expression pattern varying with cancer type. For example, EP1R expression has been linked to carcinogenesis and tumor development in colon (17), breast (25), and prostate cancer (26), while PGE 2 was implicated in modulating cancer cell function via EP2R and EP4R activities in endometrial adenocarcinoma (23) and cervical adenocarcinoma (24). Another study also demonstrated EP3R expression as a critical factor in PGE 2-mediated tumor development in lung adenocarcinoma (21). EP4R is also thought to contribute to tumor growth, progression and/or carcinogenesis in colon cancer (27), gallbladder cancer (22), and in transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract (28). To our knowledge, EPR expression has not been reported in human renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and any relationship between clinicopathological features or prognosis and expression of EPRs remains unknown.

In recent years, various molecular targeting therapies including antiangiogenic agents have been used for patients with RCC, especially those with advanced tumors. However, although such agents often show high antitumoral effects compared to conventional therapies, many oncologists and urologists are still seeking new antitumoral strategies because resistance to such therapies typically develops within 12 months (29, 30). The present study was designed to clarify the significance of EPR expression in human RCC tissue. We also investigated the relationship between EPR expression and various clinicopathological features and survival in patients with RCC. The findings of this study have important implications for developing new preventative and treatment strategies for RCC patients.

Patients and Methods

Patients. The subjects of the present study were 112 consecutive patients who underwent radical nephrectomy for RCC at Nagasaki University Hospital from 1992 to 2005. Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, such as immunotherapy, or those with sarcomatous RCC were excluded from the study. In addition, some patients refused preservation of renal tissues in any other form except for formalin-fixation and paraffin embedding, and were thus excluded from the study. All patients underwent preoperative ultrasonography, computed tomography of the abdomen, bone scanning, and lung radiography to identify metastases. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the bone and abdomen and computed tomography of the lung and brain were performed as necessary. Pathological staging was assessed by the 2002 tumor node metastasis (TNM) classification, with the grade determined using the criteria of Fuhrman et al. (31). Several pathologists performed the pathological examinations, with the final diagnosis judged by the chief pathologist (T.H.). We also examined EPR expression in 30 samples of normal kidney obtained from adjacent regions at least 2 cm from the tumor margins. In a preliminary study, we confirmed similar expression levels for EPRs in 30 pathological specimens and 20 normal kidney tissues free of hydronephrosis (obtained surgically from patients with ureteric tumors). The Human Ethics Review Committee of Nagasaki University Hospital approved the study protocol.

The study subjects were 79 males and 33 females with a mean (SD) age at surgery of 60.1 (12.3) years. Among these 112 patients, 87 (77.6%) had low pT stage (pT1=69 and pT2=18 patients) and 25 (22.3%) had high pT stage (pT3=24 and pT4=1 patients). Six patients had lymph node metastases, 17 had distant metastases; and 5 patients had both lymph node metastases and distant metastases. With regard to the nuclear grade, there were 52 tumors in G1, 48 in G2, 11 in G3, and 1 in G4. As for prognostic implications, 17 patients (15.2%) died of RCC during the follow-up period (mean=53.3, SD=36.8 months).

Immunohistochemistry. Five-μm-thick sections from formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded specimens were deparaffinized in xylene and rehydrated. For all antibodies, antigen retrieval was performed at 95°C for 40 minutes in 0.0 1 M sodium citrate buffer (pH 6.0). All sections were then immersed in 3% hydrogen peroxide for 30 minutes to block endogenous peroxidase activity. All primary antibodies of EPRs were obtained from Cayman Chemical Corporation (Ann Arbor, MI, USA). Sections were incubated with primary antibodies at 4°C overnight. The sections were then treated with peroxidase using the labeled polymer method with Dako EnVision+TM Peroxidase (Dako Corp, Carpinteria, CA, USA) for 60 minutes. The peroxidase reaction was visualized using a liquid DAB substrate kit (Zymed Laboratories, San Francisco, CA, USA). A consecutive section from each sample processed without the primary antibody was used as a negative control. The normal renal tissue samples served as a positive control for the EPRs. In addition, control sections were also incubated with antisera in the presence of a 100-fold excess of human recombinant EPR protein (Cayman Chemical).

Evaluation. Three to five representative areas of each slide were evaluated, including at least 500 cancer cells and 200 proximal tubular cells according to a method described previously (32). In brief, the staining intensity was scored on a semiquantitative four-point scale as follows: 0, negative; 1, weak; 2, moderate; 3, strong. In addition, a semiquantitative estimate of the percentage of immunoreactive cells was determined using a scale of 0-4 (0, no staining; 1, 1-10% cells stained; 2, 11-50% cells stained; 3, 51-80% cells stained; 4, 81-100% cells stained). Finally, values for the quantity and staining intensity scores were then multiplied, giving results that ranged from 0 to 12 (immunoreactivity score=IS). These analyses were carried out using a Nikon E-400 microscope and digital images were captured using a digital camera (Nikon DU100, Japan) at ×200 magnification. In addition, a computer-aided image analysis system (Win ROOF, version 5.0, MITANI Corp, Japan) to calculate these variables. Slides were evaluated twice at different times by three investigators (K.O., Y.M., and S.W.) who were blinded to the pathological characteristics, and average levels were used for statistical analyses. Prostate cancer tissue with confirmed high expression of EPRs from a previous study (26) was used as positive control. A consecutive section from each sample processed without the primary antibody was used as a negative control.

Western blot analysis. Immunohistochemical staining of each EPR was confirmed by Western blot analysis of part of the same specimen. In this study, frozen tissues preserved at −80°C were used. They were firstly examined under a microscope to ensure that at least 90% of each sample comprised tumor or that they included normal glomerular and tubular cells. Tissues were thawed in ice-cold lysis buffer [150 mM NaCl, 100 mM Tris (pH 8.0), 1% Tween 20, 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 10 μg/ml aprotinin, 10 μg/ml trypsin, and 10 μg/ml leupeptin], sonicated for 3 min on ice, and then centrifuged at 10,000 × g for 10 min at 4°C to sediment the particulate material. Protein concentrations were measured using Bio-Rad (Hercules, CA, USA) reagent. Electrophoresis was carried out using 10% polyacrylamide gels with 4.5% stacking gel before transfer to nitrocellulose membranes for immunoblotting. The membranes were blocked in 5% skim milk in TBS and 0.1% Tween 20, and then incubated with the primary antibody (Cayman Chemical Corporation) overnight at 4°C. The membranes were treated with horseradish peroxidase-conjugated secondary antibody for 1 hour. Protein detection was performed with an enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) kit according to the manufacturer's protocol. Levels of EPR protein expression were normalized to that of β-actin, which was used as a loading control.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Relationships among immunoreactivity scores for EPRs and various pathological features.

Statistical analysis. All data are expressed as mean±SD. Student's t-test was used for the analysis of continuous variables and Scheffé's test was used for multiple comparisons of the data. The chi-square test was used for categorical comparison of the data. Survival analysis was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log-rank test. Variables that achieved statistical significance (p<0.050) by univariate analysis were subsequently entered into a multivariate analysis using COX proportional hazard survival analysis (described as odds ratio [OR] with 95% confidence intervals [95% CI], together with the p-values). For statistical evaluation, pT stage and grade was divided into two groups: low pT stage, pT1 and 2; high pT stage, pT3 and pT4; and low grade, G1 and 2; high grade, G3 and 4. In addition, to evaluate the predictive value of each EPR by statistical analyses, IS values were divided into two groups: negative (median or less than median IS) and positive (above median IS). All statistical tests were two-sided and significance was defined as p<0.050. Analyses were performed on a personal computer with the statistical package StatView for Windows (version 5.0) .

Results

Expression of EPRs. Representative examples of immunohistochemical staining of each EP receptor are shown in Figure 1. All EPRs were mainly detected in the cell membrane and cytoplasm. There was no clear difference in EP1R and EP3R expression (Figure 1A, B, E, F) between normal renal tubular tissue (A) and RCC cells (B); the mean (SD) IS in normal cells and cancer cells was 2.4 (1.2) and 2.6 (1.9), respectively (p=0.356) for EP1R and 2.6 (1.3) and 2.8 (1.9), respectively for EP3R (p=0.547). EP2R expression in normal cells (mean IS=2.9 and SD=1.4, Figure 1C) tended to be lower than that in cancer cells (3.2 and 1.8, Figure 1D), although this difference did not reach significance (p=0.174). For EP4R expression, the mean (SD) IS was 1.8 (1.2) in normal tubules and 2.7 (2.1) in cancer cells (Figure 1G, H); which was significantly higher (p<0.001). In addition to normal tubular cells and cancer cells, some infiltrating cells, fibroblast-like cells, and endothelial cell were also immunopositive for all EPRs. However, we noticed no common feature or unique distribution for any of the EPRs.

There was no significant difference with respect to the relationship between histological type and EPR expression (Figure 2). The mean IS for EP1R in chromophobe RCC [3.1 (1.4)] was higher than that in conventional RCC [2.5 (1.9)], but this difference was not significant (p=0.620). Similarly, the IS for EP2R, EP3R, and E4R in papillary RCC was higher than that in conventional RCC, although again the differences were not significant (p=0.185, 0.225, and 0.182, respectively). Western blot analysis confirmed the up-regulation of EP4R in RCC tissues as indicated by the IS values (Figure 3). Normal tissue no.2, which had the highest IS (=9), had the strongest band by Western blot. However, this was the only normal tissue with such high IS.

Correlation with pathological features. Table I details the relationships between various pathological features and expression of each EPR in cancer cells. The IS of EP1R and EP3R was not associated with any pathological feature, including pT stage, presence of metastasis, and grade. On the other hand, IS of EP2R expression was significantly associated with the positive status of metastasis (p=0.001). In addition, the IS in G3 tumors was significantly higher than that in G1 tumors (p=0.014), whereas such a difference was not found between G1 and G2 or G2 and G3/4 tumors. Significant associations were found between EP4R expression and both the presence of metastasis and high grade. In addition, this score in pT2 tumors was significantly higher (p=0.036) than that in pT1 tumors, but there was no significant difference between p2 and pT3+4 (p=0.117).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

The expression of each EP receptor was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. EP1R expression in normal renal tubular cells (A) and renal cancer cells (B); EP2R in normal cells (C) and cancer cells (D); EP3R in normal cells (E) and cancer cells (F); EP4R in normal cells (G) and cancer cells (H). EPR immunoreactivities were mainly detected in the cytoplasm. Magnification, ×200.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Relationships among mean (SD) immunoreactivity scores of EPRs and pathological types of renal cell carcinoma. No significant differences were established. Data are mean±SD.

Predictive values for survival. Based on the above results, we then analyzed the predictive values of EP2R and ER4R expression for cause-specific survival in patients with RCC. As shown in Figure 4A, patients with EP2R-positive cells had worse survival than patients with EP2R-negative cells (log-rank p=0.006). Similarly, EP4R expression was associated with poorer cause-specific survival (log-rank p=0.023). No such significant relationship for survival was evident for EP1R expression (log-rank p=0.541) and EP3R expression (log-rank p=0.179). In this study, 37 patients were treated with immunotherapy after surgery. However, this factor did not affect cause-specific survival (log-rank p=0.143). Likewise, age and sex were not recognized as significant predictors of survival by similar analyses. On the other hand, pT stage, presence of metastasis, and grade were all identified as strong and significant predictive factors (p<0.001). Multivariate analysis including the above pathological factors showed that neither EP2R nor EP4R expression was a significant predictor (hazard ratio=2.9, 95% confidence internal=0.8-10.5, p=0.112; HR=1.3, 95% CI=0.3-5.4, p=0.700, respectively). Only the presence of metastasis was an independent and significant predictor of cause-specific survival in patients with RCC (HR=11.8, 95%CI=3.2-44.2, p<0.001).

Discussion

This is the first study to investigate the clinical significance of EPR expression in human RCC tissues. In fact, no detailed localization or expression analysis of any EPR in normal kidney tissues including proximal renal tubules has been reported. Recently, Herman et al. (33) detected EPR mRNA expression in proximal renal tubule cells, reporting that EP4R expression was significantly lower compared to that of the other EPRs (33). Our current results for normal kidney tissues showed a similar trend. We also showed that only EP4R expression was significantly different when compared between normal cells in proximal tubules and cancer cells, and that the IS for EP4R was positively associated with tumor grade. Therefore, we speculate that EP4R expression is important for carcinogenesis and malignant potential in patients with RCC, which is consistent with previous reports in other types of cancer (28, 34-36). However, it was surprising to find no significant difference in EP4R expression between pT2 and T3 and higher tumors, particularly given the previously reported correlation between enhanced expression of EP4R and cancer cell invasion in various types of cancer including ovarian and breast cancer (37, 38). In addition, EP4R signaling was reported to play a central role in matrix metalloproteinase-2-mediated malignant invasion (39), a process also known to be at play in human RCC tissues (40). Therefore, we had expected that EP4R expression in RCC tissues with invasion would be significantly higher than in those without invasion. The difference in the results might have been due to differences in the study designs such as number of patients, study population, and method of evaluation. Further research is required to clarify the pathological significance of EP4R in invasion of RCC cells.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Representative results of western blot analysis of EP4R expression in normal kidney and renal cell carcinoma tissues. The results were consistent with the determined immunoreactivity scores (IS).

Among the EPRs, EP2R is the most representative and well-known stimulator of tumor development and progression in various types of cancer based on previous reports (41-43). However, our results showed no significant difference in EP2R expression between normal and RCC tissues, and no association with pT stage. On the other hand, EP2R expression in metastasized tumor was significantly higher than in tumor without metastasis, and the expression in G3 tumor was significantly higher than in G1 tumor. Our results cannot explain this apparent contradiction. However, EP2R was reported to be associated with metastasis in lung cancer (44). Interestingly, one study showed that up-regulated EP2R signaling enhanced lymph node metastasis in breast cancer cells (38), while another associated EP2R overexpression with depth of invasion, but not with metastasis, in esophageal carcinoma (45). Thus, the pathological role of EP2R seems to be cancer-type dependent, and the tissue-specific effects probably reflect how EP2R expression and function are regulated. We maintain that EP2R plays a significant role in malignant potential, especially for metastasis in some tumor types.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves for EP2R (A) and EP4R for cause-specific survival.

With regard to the relationship between EPR expression and cause-specific survival, the results identified EP2R and EP4R expressions but not EP1R or EP3R as being significant predictors of survival in patients with RCC. Our findings are in accord with previous reports in other cancer types (44, 45). Based on our demonstrated association of EP4R expression with pT stage and presence of metastasis, the survival analysis result for EP4R expression was expected and conceivable. However, the basis for EP2R expression as a useful predictor of survival was less clear, but we speculate that correlation with metastasis is the cause of such a phenomenon. In fact the presence of metastasis is closely associated with cause-specific survival, and it is only considered to be an independent predictor by multivariate analysis. On the other hand, the expressions of EP2R and EP4R were not recognized as significant and independent predictors by a multivariate analysis model that included presence of metastasis. Thus, the presence of metastasis is a strong predictor for cause-specific survival in our study population of RCC, and this may have affected our results regarding survival.

Expressions of EP1R and EP3R in cancer cells were not significantly different from those in normal cells, and were not associated with clinicopathological features. In addition, they were not useful predictors of cause-specific survival. These results suggest that EP1R and EP3R are not important players in malignant behavior or prognosis in patients with RCC.

Interestingly, the EPR expression in this study did not correlate with the RCC histological type. There is general agreement that carcinogenic processes and malignant aggressiveness are affected by specific factors in some histological types such as the von-Hippel Lindau (VHL) gene in conventional RCC and c-Met in papillary RCC, and a previous study implicated EP1R in activating c-Met phosphorylation with enhanced cell invasion in human hepatocellular carcinoma (46). However, these factors do not seem to affect EPR expression in human cancer tissues. Finally, although our results did not address the mechanisms involved in EPR regulation, their expressions in RCC cells were unlikely to depend on the VHL gene or c-Met system.

Various trials and novel strategies are currently underway regarding the treatment of RCC, especially for advanced tumors, and the effective periods of almost all antiangiogenic drugs are typically one year (29, 30). Based on our results, EP2R and EP4R could both provide potential new therapeutic targets for RCC. However, we expect that EP4R would be a more effective and safer target in patients with RCC based on the lower EP4R expression in normal kidney tissues compared to RCC cells and the potential role of EP4R, but not EPR2, in malignant aggressiveness. Recent efforts to target the EP4R, such as by its selective inhibition, have demonstrated reduced tumor growth and metastasis (47, 48). Based on these previous reports and the present study, we therefore suggest selective inhibition of EP4R as the most promising potential therapeutic target in patients with RCC, but stress that inhibition of EP2R might also be useful in some RCC patients, such as in those with metastasis.

In summary, our investigation of the clinical and pathological significance of EPR expressions in human RCC tissue indicated that EP4R expression was associated with tumor growth and metastasis. Likewise, EP2R expression correlated with metastasis. Expression of EP2R and EP4R were also useful predictors of cause-specific survival. Based on these results, EP2R and EP4R might play important roles in tumor development and progression in patients with RCC. Furthermore, ER2R and EP4R could be used as potential therapeutic targets in RCC.

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr. Takumi Shimogama for excellent outstanding support. This study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japanese Government (to YM), but not from any commercial companies.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of Interest Statement

    We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

  • Received December 6, 2010.
  • Revision received January 12, 2011.
  • Accepted January 13, 2011.
  • Copyright© 2011 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Subbaramaiah K,
    2. Telang N,
    3. Ramonetti JT,
    4. Araki R,
    5. DeVito B,
    6. Weksler BB,
    7. Dannenberg AJ
    : Transcription of cyclooxygenase-2 is enhanced in transformed mammary epithelial cells. Cancer Res 56: 4424-4429, 1996.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Li G,
    2. Yang T,
    3. Yan J
    : Cyclooxygenase-2 increased the angiogenic and metastatic potential of tumor cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 299: 886-890, 2002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kase S,
    2. Osaki M,
    3. Honjo S,
    4. Adachi H,
    5. Tsujitani S,
    6. Kaibara N,
    7. Ito H
    : Expression of cyclo-oxygenase-2 is correlated with high intratumoral microvessel density and low apoptotic index in human esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. Virchows Arch 442: 129-135, 2003.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Chen Q,
    2. Shinohara N,
    3. Abe T,
    4. Harabayashi T,
    5. Nonomura K
    : Impact of cyclooxygenase-2 gene expression on tumor invasiveness in human renal carcinoma cell line. J Urol 172: 2153-2157, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Soslow RA,
    2. Dannenberg AJ,
    3. Rush D,
    4. Woerner BM,
    5. Khan KN,
    6. Masferrer J,
    7. Koki AT
    : COX-2 is expressed in human pulmonary, colonic, and mammary tumors. Cancer 89: 2637-2645, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ristimäki A,
    2. Honkanen N,
    3. Jänkälä H,
    4. Sipponen P,
    5. Härkönen M
    : Expression of cyclooxygenase-2 in human gastric carcinoma. Cancer Res 57: 1276-1280, 1997.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Wolff H,
    2. Saukkonen K,
    3. Anttila S,
    4. Karjalainen A,
    5. Vainio H,
    6. Ristimaki A
    : Expression of cyclooxygenase-2 in human lung carcinoma. Cancer Res 58: 4997-5001, 1998.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Tucker ON,
    2. Dannenberg AJ,
    3. Yang EK,
    4. Zhang F,
    5. Teng L,
    6. Daly JM,
    7. Soslow RA,
    8. Masferrer JL,
    9. Woerner BM,
    10. Koki AT,
    11. Fahey TJ 3rd.
    : Cyclooxygenase-2 expression is up-regulated in human pancreatic cancer. Cancer Res 59: 987-990, 1999.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Reddy BS,
    2. Rao CV,
    3. Seibert K
    : Evaluation of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor for potential chemopreventive properties in colon carcinogenesis. Cancer Res 56: 4566-4569, 1996.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Brown JR,
    2. BuBois RN
    : Cyclooxygenase as a target in lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 10: 4266s-4269s, 2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Lieberman R
    : Chemoprevention of prostate cancer: current status and feature directions. Cancer Metastasis Rev 21: 297-309, 2001.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Roumie CL,
    2. Choma NN,
    3. Kaltenbach L,
    4. Mitchel EF Jr..,
    5. Arbogast PG,
    6. Griffin MR
    : Non-aspirin NSAIDs, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and risk for cardiovascular events-stroke, acute myocardial infarction, and death from coronary heart disease. Pharmacoepidemiology Drug Saf 18: 1053-1056, 2009.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Baron JA,
    2. Sandler RS,
    3. Bresalier RS,
    4. Lanas A,
    5. Morton DG,
    6. Riddell R,
    7. Iverson ER,
    8. Demets DL
    : Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib: final analysis of the APPROVe trial. Lancet 372: 1756-1764, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Krysan K,
    2. Reckamp KL,
    3. Dalwadi H,
    4. Sharma S,
    5. Rozengurt E,
    6. Dohadwala M,
    7. Dubinett SM
    : Prostaglandin E 2 activates mitogen-activated protein kinase/Erk pathway signaling and cell proliferation in non-small cell lung cancer cells in an epidermal growth factor receptor-independent manner. Cancer Res 65: 6275-6281, 2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Rigas B,
    2. Goldman IS,
    3. Levine L
    : Altered eicosanoid levels in human colon cancer: J Lab Clin Med 122: 518-523, 1993
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Yoshimatsu K,
    2. Golijanin D,
    3. Paty PB,
    4. Soslow RA,
    5. Jakobsson PJ,
    6. DeLellis RA,
    7. Subbaramaiah K,
    8. Dannenberg AJ
    : Inducible microsomal prostaglandin E synthase is overexpressed in colorectal adenomas and cancer. Clin Cancer Res 7: 3971-3976, 2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Hansen-Petrik MB,
    2. McEntee MF,
    3. Jull B,
    4. Shi H,
    5. Zemel MB,
    6. Whelan J
    : Prostaglandin E 2 protects intestinal tumors from nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced regression in APCmin/+ mice. Cancer Res 62: 403-408, 2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Zweifel BS,
    2. Davis TW,
    3. Ornberg RL,
    4. Masferrer JL
    : Direct evidence for a role of cyclooxygenase 2-derived prostaglandin E 2 in human head and neck xenograft tumors. Cancer Res 62: 6706-6711, 2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Negishi M,
    2. Sugimoto Y,
    3. Ichikawa A
    : Molecular mechanisms of diverse action of prostanoid receptors. Biochim Biophys Acta 1259: 109-119, 1995.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Watanabe K,
    2. Kawamori T,
    3. Nakatsugi S,
    4. Ohta T,
    5. Ohuchida S,
    6. Yamamoto H,
    7. Maruyama T,
    8. Kondo K,
    9. Ushikubi F,
    10. Narumiya S,
    11. Sugimura T,
    12. Wakabayashi K
    : Role of the prostaglandin E receptor subtype EP1 in colon carcinogenesis. Cancer Res 59: 5093-5096, 1999.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Yano T,
    2. Zissel G,
    3. Muller-Qernheim J,
    4. Jae Sin S,
    5. Satoh H,
    6. Ichikawa T
    : Prostaglandin E 2 reinforces the activation of Ras signal pathway in lung adenocarcinoma cells via EP3. FEBS Lett 518: 154-158, 2002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Asano T,
    2. Shoda J,
    3. Ueda T,
    4. Kawamoto T,
    5. Todoroki T,
    6. Shimonishi M,
    7. Tanabe T,
    8. Sugimoto Y,
    9. Ichikawa A,
    10. Mutoh M,
    11. Tanaka N,
    12. Miwa M
    : Expression of cyclooxygenase-2 and prostaglandin E-receptors in carcinoma of the gallbladder: crucial role of arachidonate metabolism in tumor growth and progression. Clin Cancer Res 8: 1157-1167, 2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Jabbour HN,
    2. Milne SA,
    3. Williams AR,
    4. Anderson RA,
    5. Boddy SC
    : Expression of COX-2 and PGE synthase and synthesis of PGE(2) in endometrial adenocarcinoma: a possible autocrine/ paracrine regulation of neoplastic cell function via EP2/EP4 receptors. Br J cancer 85: 1023-1031, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Sales KJ,
    2. Katz AA,
    3. Davis M,
    4. Hinz S,
    5. Soeters RP,
    6. Hofmeyr MD,
    7. Millar RP,
    8. Jabbour HN
    : Cyclooxygenase-2 expression and prostaglandin E 2 synthesis are up-regulated in carcinomas of the cervix: a possible autocrine/paracrine regulation of neoplastic cell function via EP2/EP4 receptors. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86: 2243-2249, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Kawamori T,
    2. Uchiya N,
    3. Nakatsugi S,
    4. Watanabe K,
    5. Ohuchida S,
    6. Yamamoto H,
    7. Maruyama T,
    8. Kondo K,
    9. Sugimura T,
    10. Wakabayashi K
    : Chemopreventive effects of ONO-8711, a selective prostaglandin E receptor EP1 antagonists, on breast cancer development. Carcinogenesis 22: 2001-2004, 2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Miyata Y,
    2. Kanda S,
    3. Maruta S,
    4. Matsuo T,
    5. Sakai H,
    6. Hayashi T,
    7. Kanetake H
    : Relationship between prostaglandin E 2 receptors and clinicopathologic features in human prostate cancer tissue. Urology 68: 1360-1365, 2006.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Sheng H,
    2. Shao J,
    3. Washington MK,
    4. DuBois RN
    : Prostaglandin E 2 increases growth and motility of colorectal carcinoma cells. J Biol Chem 276: 18075-18081, 2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Miyata Y,
    2. Ohba K,
    3. Kanda S,
    4. Nomata K,
    5. Eguchi J,
    6. Hayashi T,
    7. Kanetake H
    : Pathological function of prostaglandin E 2 receptors in transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. Virchows Arch 448: 822-829, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Staehler M,
    2. Haseke N,
    3. Roosen A,
    4. Stadler T,
    5. Bader M,
    6. Siebels M,
    7. Karl A,
    8. Stief CG
    : Sorafenib after combination therapy with gemcitabin and doxorubicine in patients with sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: A prospective evaluation. Eur J Med Res 26: 287-291, 2010.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Bhatt RS,
    2. Wang X,
    3. Zhang L,
    4. Collins MP,
    5. Signoretti S,
    6. Alsop DC,
    7. Goldberg SN,
    8. Atkins MB,
    9. Mier JW
    : Renal cancer resistance to antiangiogenic therapy is delayed by restoration of angiostatic signaling. Mol Cancer Ther 9: 2793-2802, 2010.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Fuhrman SA,
    2. Lasky LC,
    3. Limas CL
    : Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 6: 655-663, 1982.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Golijanin D,
    2. Tan JY,
    3. Kazior A,
    4. Cohen EG,
    5. Russo P,
    6. Dalbagni G,
    7. Auborn KJ,
    8. Subbaramaiah K,
    9. Dannenberg AJ
    : Cyclooxygenase-2 and microsomal prostaglandin E synthase-1 are overexpressed in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Clin Cancer Res 10: 1024-1031, 2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Herman MB,
    2. Rajkhowa T,
    3. Cutuli F,
    4. Springate JE,
    5. Taub ML
    : Regulation of renal proximal tubule Na-K-ATPase by prosta-glandins. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 298: F1222-F1234, 2010.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Timoshenko AV,
    2. Xu G,
    3. Chakarabarti S,
    4. Lala PK,
    5. Chakraborty C
    : Role of prostaglandin E 2 receptors in migration of murine and human breast cancer cells. Exp Cell Res 289: 265-274, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Yang L,
    2. Huang Y,
    3. Porta R,
    4. Yanagisawa K,
    5. Gonzalez A,
    6. Segi E,
    7. Johnson DH,
    8. Narumiya S,
    9. Carbone DP
    : Host and Direct antitumoral effects and profound reduction in tumor metastasis with selective EP4 receptor antagonism. Cancer Res 66: 9665-9672, 2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Sharma SD,
    2. Meeran SM,
    3. Katiyar SK
    : Proanthyanidins inhibit in vitro and in vivo growth of human non-small cell lung cancer cells by inhibiting the prostaglandin E 2 and prostaglandin E 2 receptors. Mol Cancer Ther 9: 569-580, 2010.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Spinella F,
    2. Rosanò L,
    3. Di Castro V,
    4. Natali PG,
    5. Bagnato A
    : Endothelin-1-induced prostaglandin E 2-EP2, EP4 signaling regulates vascular endothelial growth factor production and ovarian carcinoma cell invasion. J Biol Chem 279: 46700-46705, 2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Pan MR,
    2. Hou MF,
    3. Chang HC,
    4. Hung WC
    : Cyclooxygenase-2 up-regulates CCR7 via EP2/EP4 receptor signaling pathways to enhance lymphatic invasion of breast cancer cells. J Biol Chem 283: 11155-11163, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Dohadwala M,
    2. Batra RK,
    3. Luo J,
    4. Lin Y,
    5. Krysan K,
    6. Pold M,
    7. Sharma S,
    8. Dubinett SM
    : Autocrine/paracrine prostaglandin E 2 production by non-small cell lung cancer cells regulates matrix metalloproteinase-2 and CD44 in cyclooxygenase-2-dependent invasion. J Biol Chem 277: 50828-50833, 2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Miyata Y,
    2. Koga S,
    3. Kanda S,
    4. Nishikido M,
    5. Hayashi T,
    6. Kanetake H
    : Expression of cycrooxygenase-2 in renal cell carcinoma: correlation with tumor cell proliferation, apoptosis, angiogenesis, expression of matrix metalloproteinase-2, and survival. Clin Cancer Res 9: 1741-1749, 2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Yu L,
    2. Wu WK,
    3. Li ZJ,
    4. Li HT,
    5. Wu YC,
    6. Cho CH
    : Prostaglandin E(2) promotes cell proliferation via protein kinase C/extracellular signal regulated kinase pathway-dependent induction of c-Myc expression in human esophageal squamous cell carcinoma cells. Int J Cancer 125: 2540-2546, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ansari KM,
    2. Sung YM,
    3. He G,
    4. Fisher SM
    : Prostaglandin receptor EP2 is responsible for cyclooxygenase-2 induction by prostaglandin E 2 in mouse skin. Carcinogenesis 28: 2063-2068, 2007.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Sinha P,
    2. Clements VK,
    3. Fulton AM,
    4. Ostrand-Rosenberg S
    : Prostaglandin E 2 promotes tumor progression by inducing myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Cancer Res 67: 4507-4513, 2007.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Alaa M,
    2. Suzuki M,
    3. Yoshino M,
    4. Tian L,
    5. Suzuki H,
    6. Nagato K,
    7. Fujiwara T,
    8. Wada H,
    9. Moriya Y,
    10. Hoshino H,
    11. Motohashi S,
    12. Yoshida S,
    13. Shibuya K,
    14. Hiroshima K,
    15. Nakatani Y,
    16. Abdrabou A,
    17. Elkholy M,
    18. Mahfouz T,
    19. Yoshino I
    : Prostaglandin E 2 receptor 2 overexpression in squamous cell carcinoma of the lung correlated with p16 INK4A methylation and an unfavorable prognosis. Int J Oncol 34: 805-812, 2009.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Kuo KT,
    2. Wang H-W,
    3. Chou T-Y,
    4. Hsu WH,
    5. Lin CH,
    6. Wang LS
    : Prognostic role of PGE 2 receptor EP2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 16: 352-360, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Han C,
    2. Michalopoulos GK,
    3. Wu T
    : Prostaglandin E 2 receptor EP1 transactivates EGFR/MET receptor tyrosine kinases and enhances invasiveness in human hepatocellular carcinoma cells. J cell Physiol 207: 261-270, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Hull MA,
    2. Ko SC,
    3. Hawcroft G
    : Prostaglandin EP receptors: targets for treatment and prevention of colorectal cancer? Mol Cancer Ther 3: 1031-1039, 2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Fulton AM,
    2. Ma X,
    3. Kundu N
    : Targeting prostaglandin E EP receptors to inhibit metastasis. Cancer Res 66: 9794-9797, 2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 31 (2)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 31, Issue 2
February 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Clinical Significance and Predictive Value of Prostaglandin E2 Receptors (EPR) 1 – 4 in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 3 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Clinical Significance and Predictive Value of Prostaglandin E2 Receptors (EPR) 1 – 4 in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma
KOJIRO OHBA, YASUYOSHI MIYATA, SHIN-ICHI WATANABE, TOMAYOSHI HAYASHI, HIROSHI KANETAKE, SHIGERU KANDA, HIDEKI SAKAI
Anticancer Research Feb 2011, 31 (2) 597-605;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Clinical Significance and Predictive Value of Prostaglandin E2 Receptors (EPR) 1 – 4 in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma
KOJIRO OHBA, YASUYOSHI MIYATA, SHIN-ICHI WATANABE, TOMAYOSHI HAYASHI, HIROSHI KANETAKE, SHIGERU KANDA, HIDEKI SAKAI
Anticancer Research Feb 2011, 31 (2) 597-605;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Pathological Complete Remission of Liver Metastases Correlates With Elimination of Tumor-infiltrating Tregs in Gastric Cancer
  • Prognostic Factors and Survival Score for Patients With Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study from a Regional Registry
  • Radiotherapy as Part of Treatment Strategies in Nasal Cavity and Paranasal Sinus Malignancies
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Anticancer Research

© 2021 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire