Differential Inhibitory Effects on Human Endometrial Carcinoma Cell Growth of Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Analogues

Abstract

In addition to its function as a key hormone in the regulation of the pituitary–gonadal axis, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) probably also affects various extrapituitary tissues. LHRH binding sites andin vitroantiproliferative effects of LHRH analogues have been reported in human endometrial cancer. The effects of the LHRH agonist leuproreline and LHRH antagonist antide were studied on the cell growth, DNA synthesis, and cell cycle distribution of the human endometrial cancer cell lines HEC-1A and HEC-1B by the sulforhodamine B (SRB) method, [3H]thymidine assay incorporation, and propidium iodide DNA staining, respectively. In the presence of 1.0–100 μM leuproreline the proliferation of HEC-1A cells was significantly reduced as early as 3 days after drug exposure, with a minimum growth value of 69.9 ± 3.6% (mean ± SE) at the highest concentration tested (100 μM). Similar antiproliferative effects were obtained following a 6-day treatment with the LHRH antagonist antide. Also, inhibitory effects on [3H]thymidine incorporation into the DNA of the HEC-1A cell line were noted after a 6-day exposure to both LHRH analogues, in the above-mentioned concentration range. Cell cycle analysis of HEC-1A cells cultured in the presence of 10 μM leuproreline and antide showed a slight accumulation of cells in the G0/G1phase, while the proportions of cells in the S and G2/M phases concomitantly decreased. No significant effects on proliferation, DNA synthesis, and cell cycle distribution were observed in HEC-1B cells with either leuproreline or antide (up to 100 and 10 μM, respectively) after a 6-day exposure. Both Northern blot analysis and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction failed to detect expression of mRNA for the LHRH receptor in both HEC-1A and HEC-1B cell lines. In addition, the LHRH analogues did not affect the intracellular free calcium concentration, indicating that the classic signal transduction for LHRH is absent or impaired in HEC-1A cells. The observed direct inhibitory actions on HEC-1A cells support the concept that the two LHRH analogues may exert biological effects via cellular effectors distinct from the “classic” LHRH receptor. Although the mechanism by which these direct actions are produced is still obscure, these results might help to establish the basis for new approaches to the therapy of endometrial cancer.