MET activation confers resistance to cetuximab, and prevents HER2 and HER3 upregulation in head and neck cancer
Ofra Novoplansky
The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorMatthew Fury
Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
Search for more papers by this authorManu Prasad
The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorKsenia Yegodayev
The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorJonathan Zorea
The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorLimor Cohen
The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorRaphael Pelossof
Computational Biology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
Search for more papers by this authorLiz Cohen
The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorNora Katabi
Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
Search for more papers by this authorFabiola Cecchi
NantOmics 9600 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD
Search for more papers by this authorBen-Zion Joshua
Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorAron Popovtzer
Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel
The Head and Neck Cancer Radiation Clinic, Institute of Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorJose Baselga
Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain
Search for more papers by this authorMaurizio Scaltriti
Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Moshe Elkabets
The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Correspondence to: Moshe Elkabets, The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel, Tel.: +972-86428846, Fax: +972-86477626, E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorOfra Novoplansky
The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorMatthew Fury
Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
Search for more papers by this authorManu Prasad
The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorKsenia Yegodayev
The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorJonathan Zorea
The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorLimor Cohen
The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorRaphael Pelossof
Computational Biology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
Search for more papers by this authorLiz Cohen
The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorNora Katabi
Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
Search for more papers by this authorFabiola Cecchi
NantOmics 9600 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD
Search for more papers by this authorBen-Zion Joshua
Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorAron Popovtzer
Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel
The Head and Neck Cancer Radiation Clinic, Institute of Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorJose Baselga
Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain
Search for more papers by this authorMaurizio Scaltriti
Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Moshe Elkabets
The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Correspondence to: Moshe Elkabets, The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel, Tel.: +972-86428846, Fax: +972-86477626, E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
An understanding of the mechanisms underlying acquired resistance to cetuximab is urgently needed to improve cetuximab efficacy in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Here, we present a clinical observation that MET pathway activation constitutes the mechanism of acquired resistance to cetuximab in a patient with HNSCC. Specifically, RNA sequencing and mass spectrometry analysis of cetuximab-sensitive (CetuxSen) and cetuximab-resistant (CetuxRes) tumors indicated MET amplification and overexpression in the CetuxRes tumor compared to the CetuxSen lesion. Stimulation of MET in HNSCC cell lines was sufficient to reactivate the MAPK pathway and to confer resistance to cetuximab in vitro and in vivo. In addition to the direct role of MET in reactivation of the MAPK pathway, MET stimulation abrogates the well-known cetuximab-induced compensatory feedback loop of HER2/HER3 expression. Mechanistically, we showed that the overexpression of HER2 and HER3 following cetuximab treatment is mediated by the ETS homologous transcription factor (EHF), and is suppressed by MET/MAPK pathway activation. Collectively, our findings indicate that evaluation of MET and HER2/HER3 in response to cetuximab in HNSCC patients can provide the rationale of successive line of treatment.
Abstract
What's new?
Resistance to cetuximab is a major obstacle in the treatment of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), though the underlying mechanisms of resistance remain unclear. In the present study, analyses of tumor samples from an HNSCC patient with exceptional clinical response to cetuximab monotherapy implicate MET pathway activation as a causative factor in acquired cetuximab resistance. Experiments in vitro and in vivo show that MET confers resistance to cetuximab via activation of the MAPK pathway. MET stimulation further limits cetuximab-induced HER2/HER3 overexpression, highlighting the importance of HER2/HER3 and MET evaluation when monitoring patient reponse to cetuximab.
Supporting Information
Filename | Description |
---|---|
ijc32170-sup-0001-Figures.pdfPDF document, 3.9 MB |
Figure S1: Detailed summary of the history of the disease and treatment in the case report Figure S2: RNAseq gene expression analysis (A) and Locus analysis (B) of genes expressed differentially between the CetuxRes and the CetuxSen tumors. Figure S3: (A) MET expression in the upper aerodigestive cell lines compared to other tumor cell lines extracted from the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE), and MET expression level (RMA, log2) in the HNSCC cell lines used in this study (B) 5-day proliferation assay testing cetuximab (12.5ug/ml) efficacy in CAL33 and HSC2 and the FaDu HNSCC cell lines, with and without rHGF (50 ng/ml) and the MET inhibitors PHA-665752 (1uM) or MGCD265 (1uM). Statistical significance was calculated using one-way ANOVA (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). (C) 5-day proliferation assay testing cetuximab (12.5ug/ml) efficacy in FaDu shCont and FaDu shMET with and without rHGF (50 ng/ml), low panel - Western blot of MET (D) Western blot for the indicated protein levels following 24 h treatment of cetuximab (12.5ug/ml), with different duration of rHGF (50 ng/ml) stimulation (E) Protein expression (Protein Array -Pathscan) of the SNU1076 HNSCC cell line treated with cetuximab (12.5ug/ml) for 24 h with and without rHGF (50 ng/ml) and the MET inhibitor PHA-665752 (1uM). Results are presented according to the cetuximab inhibition level. (F) Western blot for the indicated protein levels following 24 h treatment of cetuximab (12.5ug/ml), with and without rHGF (50 ng/ml) and the MET inhibitor PHA-665752 (1uM), in the CAL33 HNSCC cell lines and densitometry of phosphorylated ERK normalized to total ERK. Statistical significance was calculated using an unpaired t-test with Welch's correction (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01). (G) Densitometry of phosphorylated ERK normalized to total ERK Statistical significance was calculated using one way ANOVA test (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01) Figure S4: (A) Excised tumors and the mice after 25-day treatments. (B) Tumor weight (mg) at the end point (day 25). Statistical significance was calculated using one-way ANOVA (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01). Figure S5: (A) Quantification of the Proteome Profiler™ Antibody Arrays (R&D systems) pixel density for the indicated phospho-RTK in the SNU1076 HNSCC cell line following 24 h treatment of cetuximab (12.5ug/ml), with and without rHGF (50 ng/ml). (B) Dotplot analysis of mRNA expression levels of MET and ERBB2/ERBB3obtained from the TCGA dataset of HNSCC. (C) 5-day proliferation assay testing cetuximab (12.5ug/ml) efficacy in SNU1076 and HSC4 HNSCC cell lines, HER2/3 blockers afatininb (500 nM) and lapatinib (500 nM) with and without rHGF (50 ng/ml) and the MET inhibitors PHA-665752 (1uM) . Representative experiment of two, each experiment was performed in biological triplicate. (D) Western blot for the indicated protein levels following 24 h treatment of cetuximab (12.5ug/ml), with and without rHGF (50 ng/ml) and the MEK1/2 inhibitor PD-0325901 (25 nM), in the HSC4 HNSCC cell line. (E) Western blot for the indicated protein levels following 24 h treatment of cetuximab (12.5ug/ml), with and without rHGF (50 ng/ml) and the MEK1/2 inhibitor PD-0325901 (25 nM), AKT inhibitor MK22016 (1 uM), and STAT3 inhibitor CAS 1041438–68-9 (25 nM) in the SNU1076 HNSCC cell line Figure S6: (A) Correlation between mRNA expression level (log2) of HER2 or HER3 with EHF (top panels) or Foxo3 (bottom panels), in the HNSCC datasets of TCGA. Blue dots indicate that neither of the genes is mutated. (B) mRNA levels of HER2 and HER3 following 24 h treatment of cetuximab (12.5ug/ml), with either siCT or siFOXO3 in SNU1076 HNSCC. (C) Western blot for the indicated protein levels following 24 h treatment of cetuximab (12.5ug/ml), with either siCT, siEHF, or siFoxo3 in SNU1076 HNSCC. (D) Densitometry of ERBBs normalized to total actin. (E) mRNA levels of HER2 and HER3 following 24 h treatment of cetuximab (12.5ug/ml), with either siCont or siEHF in H1975 lung cancer cell line. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
- 1Wiegand S, Zimmermann A, Wilhelm T, et al. Survival after distant metastasis in head and Neck Cancer. Anticancer Res 2015; 35: 5499–502.
- 2Trotti A, Bellm LA, Epstein JB, et al. Mucositis incidence, severity and associated outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: a systematic literature review. Radiother Oncol 2003; 66: 253–62.
- 3Bonner JA, Harari PM, Giralt J, et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 567–78.
- 4Vermorken JB, Mesia R, Rivera F, et al. Platinum-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab in head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1116–27.
- 5Vermorken JB, Trigo J, Hitt R, et al. Open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of cetuximab as a single agent in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who failed to respond to platinum-based therapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 2171–7.
- 6Ciardiello F, Tortora G. EGFR antagonists in cancer treatment. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1160–74.
- 7The YY. EGFR family and its ligands in human cancer. Signalling mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities. European journal of cancer 2001; 37(Suppl 4): S3–8.
- 8Normanno N, De Luca A, Bianco C, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling in cancer. Gene 2006; 366: 2–16.
- 9Yarden Y, Shilo BZ. SnapShot: EGFR signaling pathway. Cell 2007; 131: 1018.
- 10Harris TJ, McCormick F. The molecular pathology of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2010; 7: 251–65.
- 11Scaltriti M, Baselga J. The epidermal growth factor receptor pathway: a model for targeted therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12: 5268–72.
- 12Hitt R, Irigoyen A, Cortes-Funes H, et al. Phase II study of the combination of cetuximab and weekly paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck. Ann Oncol 2012; 23: 1016–22.
- 13Leemans CR, Braakhuis BJ, Brakenhoff RH. The molecular biology of head and neck cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2011; 11: 9–22.
- 14Ang KK, Berkey BA, Tu X, et al. Impact of epidermal growth factor receptor expression on survival and pattern of relapse in patients with advanced head and neck carcinoma. Cancer Res 2002; 62: 7350–6.
- 15Mendelsohn J. The epidermal growth factor receptor as a target for cancer therapy. Endocr Relat Cancer 2001; 8: 3–9.
- 16Tinhofer I, Klinghammer K, Weichert W, et al. Expression of amphiregulin and EGFRvIII affect outcome of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck receiving cetuximab-docetaxel treatment. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17: 5197–204.
- 17Sok JC, Coppelli FM, Thomas SM, et al. Mutant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFRvIII) contributes to head and neck cancer growth and resistance to EGFR targeting. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12: 5064–73.
- 18Arena S, Bellosillo B, Siravegna G, et al. Emergence of multiple EGFR extracellular mutations during Cetuximab treatment in colorectal Cancer. Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 2015; 21: 2157–66.
- 19Pietrantonio F, Vernieri C, Siravegna G, et al. Heterogeneity of acquired resistance to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2017; 23: 2414–2422.
- 20Bertotti A, Papp E, Jones S, et al. The genomic landscape of response to EGFR blockade in colorectal cancer. Nature 2015; 526: 263–7.
- 21Bossi P, Bergamini C, Siano M, et al. Functional genomics uncover the biology behind the responsiveness of head and Neck squamous cell Cancer patients to Cetuximab. Clin Cancer Res 2016; 22: 3961–70.
- 22Iida M, Brand TM, Starr MM, et al. Overcoming acquired resistance to cetuximab by dual targeting HER family receptors with antibody-based therapy. Mol Cancer 2014; 13: 242.
- 23Brand TM, Iida M, Wheeler DL. Molecular mechanisms of resistance to the EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab. Cancer Biol Ther 2011; 11: 777–92.
- 24Wheeler DL, Huang S, Kruser TJ, et al. Mechanisms of acquired resistance to cetuximab: role of HER (ErbB) family members. Oncogene 2008; 27: 3944–56.
- 25Wang D, Qian G, Zhang H, et al. Her3 targeting sensitizes hnscc to cetuximab by reducing her3 activity and her2/her3 dimerization: evidence from cell line and patient-derived xenograft models. Clin Cancer Res 2017; 23: 677–86.
- 26Leonard B, Brand TM, O'Keefe RA, et al. BET inhibition overcomes receptor tyrosine kinase-mediated cetuximab resistance in HNSCC. Cancer research 2018; 78: 4331–4343.
- 27Sergina NV, Rausch M, Wang D, et al. Escape from HER-family tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy by the kinase-inactive HER3. Nature 2007; 445: 437–41.
- 28Yonesaka K, Zejnullahu K, Okamoto I, et al. Activation of ERBB2 signaling causes resistance to the EGFR-directed therapeutic antibody cetuximab. Sci Transl Med 2011; 3: 99ra86.
- 29Zhou B-BS, Peyton M, He B, et al. Targeting ADAM-mediated ligand cleavage to inhibit HER3 and EGFR pathways in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Cell 2006; 10: 39–50.
- 30Chandarlapaty S, Sawai A, Scaltriti M, et al. AKT inhibition relieves feedback suppression of receptor tyrosine kinase expression and activity. Cancer Cell 2011; 19: 58–71.
- 31Chakrabarty A, Sanchez V, Kuba MG, et al. Feedback upregulation of HER3 (ErbB3) expression and activity attenuates antitumor effect of PI3K inhibitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012; 109: 2718–23.
- 32Brand TM, Iida M, Stein AP, et al. AXL mediates resistance to cetuximab therapy. Cancer Res 2014; 74: 5152–64.
- 33Gherardi E, Birchmeier W, Birchmeier C, et al. Targeting MET in cancer: rationale and progress. Nat Rev Cancer 2012; 12: 89–103.
- 34Knowles LM, Stabile LP, Egloff AM, et al. HGF and c-met participate in paracrine tumorigenic pathways in head and neck squamous cell cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 3740–50.
- 35Krumbach R, Schuler J, Hofmann M, et al. Primary resistance to cetuximab in a panel of patient-derived tumour xenograft models: activation of MET as one mechanism for drug resistance. Eur J Cancer 2011; 47: 1231–43.
- 36Stabile LP, He G, Lui VW, et al. C-Src activation mediates erlotinib resistance in head and neck cancer by stimulating c-met. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19: 380–92.
- 37Hartmann S, Bhola NE, Grandis JR. HGF/met signaling in head and Neck Cancer: impact on the tumor microenvironment. Clin Cancer Res 2016; 22: 4005–13.
- 38Madoz-Gurpide J, Zazo S, Chamizo C, et al. Activation of MET pathway predicts poor outcome to cetuximab in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer. J Transl Med 2015; 13: 282.
- 39Engelman JA, Zejnullahu K, Mitsudomi T, et al. MET amplification leads to gefitinib resistance in lung cancer by activating ERBB3 signaling. Science 2007; 316: 1039–43.
- 40Straussman R, Morikawa T, Shee K, et al. Tumour micro-environment elicits innate resistance to RAF inhibitors through HGF secretion. Nature 2012; 487: 500–4.
- 41Bardelli A, Corso S, Bertotti A, et al. Amplification of the MET receptor drives resistance to anti-EGFR therapies in colorectal cancer. Cancer Discov 2013; 3: 658–73.
- 42Dobin A, Davis CA, Schlesinger F, et al. STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics 2013; 29: 15–21.
- 43Hembrough T, Thyparambil S, Liao WL, et al. Selected reaction monitoring (SRM) analysis of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in formalin fixed tumor tissue. Clin Proteomics 2012; 9: 5.
- 44Catenacci DV, Liao W-L, Thyparambil S, et al. Absolute quantitation of met using mass spectrometry for clinical application: assay precision, stability, and correlation with MET gene amplification in FFPE tumor tissue. PloS one 2014; 9: e100586.
- 45Giordano TJ, Shedden KA, Schwartz DR, et al. Organ-specific molecular classification of primary lung, colon, and ovarian adenocarcinomas using gene expression profiles. Am J Pathol 2001; 159: 1231–8.
- 46Kwak EL, Ahronian LG, Siravegna G, et al. Molecular heterogeneity and receptor Coamplification drive resistance to targeted therapy in MET-amplified Esophagogastric Cancer. Cancer Discov 2015; 5: 1271–81.
- 47Misale S, Di Nicolantonio F, Sartore-Bianchi A, et al. Resistance to anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer: from heterogeneity to convergent evolution. Cancer Discov 2014; 4: 1269–80.
- 48Seiwert TY, Jagadeeswaran R, Faoro L, et al. The MET receptor tyrosine kinase is a potential novel therapeutic target for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Res 2009; 69: 3021–31.
- 49Siravegna G, Mussolin B, Buscarino M, et al. Clonal evolution and resistance to EGFR blockade in the blood of colorectal cancer patients. Nat Med 2015; 21: 795–801.
- 50Hembrough T, Thyparambil S, Liao WL, et al. Application of selected reaction monitoring for multiplex quantification of clinically validated biomarkers in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue. J Mol Diagn 2013; 15: 454–65.
- 51Nuciforo P, Thyparambil S, Aura C, et al. High HER2 protein levels correlate with increased survival in breast cancer patients treated with anti-HER2 therapy. Mol Oncol 2016; 10: 138–147.
- 52Eder JP, Vande Woude GF, Boerner SA, et al. Novel therapeutic inhibitors of the c-met signaling pathway in cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 2207–14.
- 53Ponzetto C, Bardelli A, Zhen Z, et al. A multifunctional docking site mediates signaling and transformation by the hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor receptor family. Cell 1994; 77: 261–71.
- 54Elkabets M, Pazarentzos E, Juric D, et al. AXL mediates resistance to PI3Kalpha inhibition by activating the EGFR/PKC/mTOR axis in head and neck and esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. Cancer Cell 2015; 27: 533–46.
- 55Muranen T, Selfors LM, Worster DT, et al. Inhibition of PI3K/mTOR leads to adaptive resistance in matrix-attached cancer cells. Cancer Cell 2012; 21: 227–39.
- 56Zhu CH, Huang Y, Oberley LW, et al. A family of AP-2 proteins down-regulate manganese superoxide dismutase expression. J Biol Chem 2001; 276: 14407–13.
- 57Lv Y, Sui F, Ma J, et al. Increased expression of EHF contributes to thyroid tumorigenesis through transcriptionally regulating HER2 and HER3. Oncotarget 2016; 7: 57978–90.
- 58Shi J, Qu Y, Li X, et al. Increased expression of EHF via gene amplification contributes to the activation of HER family signaling and associates with poor survival in gastric cancer. Cell Death Dis 2016; 7: e2442.
- 59Garrett JT, Olivares MG, Rinehart C, et al. Transcriptional and posttranslational up-regulation of HER3 (ErbB3) compensates for inhibition of the HER2 tyrosine kinase. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2011; 108: 5021–6.
- 60Krig SR, Miller JK, Frietze S, et al. ZNF217, a candidate breast cancer oncogene amplified at 20q13, regulates expression of the ErbB3 receptor tyrosine kinase in breast cancer cells. Oncogene 2010; 29: 5500–10.
- 61Lievre A, Bachet JB, Le Corre D, et al. KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to cetuximab therapy in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 2006; 66: 3992–5.
- 62Pirker R, Pereira JR, von Pawel J, et al. EGFR expression as a predictor of survival for first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of data from the phase 3 FLEX study. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 33–42.
- 63Diaz LA Jr, Williams RT, Wu J, et al. The molecular evolution of acquired resistance to targeted EGFR blockade in colorectal cancers. Nature 2012; 486: 537–40.
- 64Sequist LV, Waltman BA, Dias-Santagata D, et al. Genotypic and histological evolution of lung cancers acquiring resistance to EGFR inhibitors. Science translational medicine 2011; 3: 75ra26.
- 65Xu H, Stabile LP, Gubish CT, et al. Dual blockade of EGFR and c-met abrogates redundant signaling and proliferation in head and neck carcinoma cells. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17: 4425–38.
- 66Garner AP, Bialucha CU, Sprague ER, et al. An antibody that locks HER3 in the inactive conformation inhibits tumor growth driven by HER2 or neuregulin. Cancer Res 2013; 73: 6024–35.
- 67Brenne K, Nymoen DA, Hetland TE, et al. Expression of the Ets transcription factor EHF in serous ovarian carcinoma effusions is a marker of poor survival. Hum Pathol 2012; 43: 496–505.
- 68Seiwert T, Sarantopoulos J, Kallender H, et al. Phase II trial of single-agent foretinib (GSK1363089) in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Invest New Drugs 2013; 31: 417–24.