We are grateful to Drs Grugan and Nakagawa for their careful review of our recent study (Cancer Cell 2008;13:441–453) and appreciate their detailed discussion. However, we would like to clarify a few points regarding the role of the primary tumor and the evolutionary model of cancer progression. First, we did not state “that the primary tumor cannot be used to estimate prognosis.” Primary tumors can and have often been used to predict prognosis. As mentioned by Drs Grugan and Nakagawa, predictive gene expression signatures have been identified as well as informative protein markers. However, a closer look into how these signatures are usually obtained and on the genes that the signatures comprise, provides evidence that the signatures do not describe the molecular mechanisms that are active during early systemic progression. Linking outcome with gene expression results in lists of genes that carry prognostic information, but do not define the functional processes involved in metastasis. Not surprisingly, most if not all signatures are proliferation signatures (Nat Rev Cancer 2007;7:545–553). Proliferation certainly is fundamental for metastasis, but mechanisms involved might differ between clones and depend, for example, on the microenvironment (availability of growth factors, cellular signals, oxygen, nutrients). Our data suggest that different genomes are selected during early metastasis. High proliferation at the primary site is likely to support the generation of variant cells fit to survive and thrive at distant sites. Therefore, our findings do not contradict the suitability of primary tumors to predict outcome. However, they do challenge the contention that therapy targets that are identified in primary tumors will necessarily be present and essential in disseminated cancer cells. Thus, we deem primary tumors to be less reliable surrogate markers for the selection of adjuvant therapies. Molecular processes and thereby molecular targets involved in dissemination, (ectopic) survival, and colonization apparently differ for cells being selected at the primary site and at distant sites. The divergent genetic aberrations might reflect selection processes during homing but also during survival and early colonization. Second, Drs Grugan and Nakagawa might have misunderstood our paper on early dissemination of breast cancer (Cancer Cell 2008;13:58–68). We did not observe an increase of DTCs in bone marrow of breast cancer patients with larger tumor size. In contrast, we were puzzled by the lack of such a significant association in >600 patients. Although cell numbers in primary tumors increase several hundred fold from T1 stage to stage T3/4, no such increase is observed for DTCs in bone marrow. Thus, if also true for other cancers, this finding might suggest that indeed sessile cells are selected within a colony (primary tumor or metastasis) and that dissemination peaks transiently at a certain stage of cancer development. Again, this would fit into an evolutionary model of cancer progression and would make a more careful analysis of early systemic cancer necessary. Primary tumors and metastases are important for our understanding of cancer because they arose from clones that have successfully established colonies. However, varying selection pressures (such as those exerted by different anatomic sites or adjuvant therapies) favor different clones. Thus, searching the Achilles' heel of metastatic precursor cells to prevent metastases may benefit from the direct analysis of disseminated cancer cells. HER2 Amplification in Micrometastatic Esophageal Cancer Cells Predicts PrognosisGastroenterologyVol. 135Issue 3PreviewStoecklein NH, Hosch SB, Bezler M, et al. (Department of Pathology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany). Direct genetic analysis of single disseminated cancer cells for prediction of outcome and therapy selection in esophageal cancer. Cancer Cell 2008;13:441–453. Full-Text PDF
Read full abstract