[<sup>18</sup>F]PARPi Imaging Is Not Affected by HPV Status In Vitro

Guru, Navjot; Demétrio De Souza França, Paula; Pirovano, Giacomo; Huang, Cien; Patel, Snehal G.; Reiner, Thomas

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6641397

Molecular Imaging

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Disclosure Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2021 | Article ID 6641397 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6641397

[¹⁸F]PARPi Imaging Is Not Affected by HPV Status In Vitro

Navjot Guru,¹Paula Demétrio De Souza França,^1,2Giacomo Pirovano,¹Cien Huang,¹Snehal G. Patel,³and Thomas Reiner^1,4,5

Academic Editor: Neil Vasdev

Received09 Oct 2020

Accepted18 Nov 2020

Published20 Jan 2021

Abstract

Background. Human papillomavirus- (HPV-) associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs) are clinically and pathologically distinct from HPV-negative tumors. Here, we explore whether HPV affects functional biomarkers, including γH2AX, RAD51, and PARP1. Moreover, the role of [¹⁸F]PARPi as a broadly applicable imaging tool for head and neck carcinomas is investigated. Methods. HPV-positive and HPV-negative cell lines were used to evaluate the γH2AX, RAD51, and PARP1 expression with immunoblotting and immunofluorescence. Effects of external beam ionizing radiation were investigated in vitro, and survival was investigated via colony-formation assay. [¹⁸F]PARPi uptake experiments were performed on HPV-negative and HPV-positive cell lines to quantify PARP1 expression. PARP1 IHC and γH2AX foci were quantified using patient-derived oropharyngeal tumor specimens. Results. Differences in DNA repair were detected, showing higher RAD51 and γH2AX expression in HPV-positive cell lines. Clonogenic assays confirm HPV-positive cell lines to be significantly more radiosensitive. PARP1 expression levels were similar, irrespective of HPV status. Consequently, [¹⁸F]PARPi uptake assays demonstrated that this tracer is internalized in cell lines independently from their HPV status. Conclusion. The HPV status, often used clinically to stratify patients, did not affect PARP1 levels, suggesting that PARP imaging can be performed in both HPV-positive and HPV-negative patients. This study confirms that the PET imaging agent [¹⁸F]PARPi could serve as a general clinical tool for oropharyngeal cancer patients.

1. Introduction

More than half a million patients were diagnosed with oral or oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in the United States in 2019 [1]. Squamous cell carcinomas constitute 90% of the head and neck cancers and are one of the most common cancers worldwide [2]. Although the incidence of head and neck cancers is decreasing in the United States, the rate of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) increased by 2.5% per year [3]. Oral and oropharyngeal tumors present different risk factors. Although the consumption of tobacco and alcohol are well-established risk factors, they do not explain, for example, the increased incidence of tongue OSCC in young women. Risk factors in those cases have not yet been defined [4]. Risk factors associated with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, on the other hand, are mainly associated with the infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) [4]. In those cases, usually younger patients in their 40s and 50s are affected [5–7]. Although HPV infection is responsible for approximately 80% of oropharyngeal cancer, tobacco and alcohol consumption are also associated.

The treatment plan for a head and neck cancer patient depends on various factors such as location of the tumor, stage of the disease, and size of the lesion [3]. Moreover, the abovementioned risk factors play a very important role in the management decisions. This is related to two clinical trials, ECOG 2399 and RTOG 0129, conducted in patients harboring SCC of the head and neck (HN), along with several retrospective studies, which demonstrated that HPV-positive OPSCCs have better prognosis and better response to chemo/radiotherapy when compared to HPV-negative patients [8, 9]. The findings prompted the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) to modify the staging system where now, patients are stratified based on their HPV status [10].

In order to understand the reason for the better outcomes observed on concurrent chemoradiotherapy by the HPV-positive group of patients, studies have attempted to correlate their enhanced radiosensitivity to the underlying mechanisms of DNA repair and cell cycle control [11–16]. In addition, high-risk HPV subtypes, HPV-16 and HPV-18, encode two viral oncoproteins E6 and E7 which disrupt normal host cell division by targeting p53 and the retinoblastoma protein (pRb), respectively [17]. HPV-16 E7 has been shown to induce an increase in DNA double-strand breaks and γH2AX nuclear foci, a DNA damage response marker [17]. Moreover, it has also been correlated with the overexpression of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), a single-strand DNA repair enzyme, and the increased level of RAD51, in response to radiation [18]. Further analysis of these markers through patient samples is performed in this study to understand these cellular mechanisms associated with the better prognosis of HPV-positive cancer.

Considering the importance of imaging in head and neck cancer treatment plans, we have recently published a paper stating the potential of fluorine-18 labeled poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase1 inhibitor ([¹⁸F]PARPi) as an alternative imaging tool in head and neck carcinomas that can provide high-contrast images compared to [¹⁸F]fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose ([¹⁸F]FDG) [19].

[¹⁸F]FDG is a glucose-mimicking metabolic tracer; therefore, it is retained not only in tumors but also in some normal tissues with high metabolism [20]. In contrast, [¹⁸F]PARPi is a DNA repair marker; therefore, it accumulates mostly in the nuclei of tumor cells, making it a good tracer for head and neck cancer imaging. PARP1 is a nuclear enzyme that plays an essential role in DNA damage repair. Several previous publications have demonstrated approaches to image PARP1 in vivo; see [21, 22] for an overview. The structure of [¹⁸F]PARPi is derived from the scaffold of Olaparib, an FDA-approved PARP1 inhibitor widely used as a therapeutic agent in gynecological malignancies [23]. [¹⁸F]PARPi has been previously shown to bind specifically to tumor areas with a minimal off-target uptake [24, 25].

As the HPV status affects DNA double-strand break repair, we aimed to address if the HPV status had an effect on PARP1 overexpression [26–30] and therefore on [¹⁸F]PARPi uptake in oral and oropharyngeal cancer. With the present study, we evaluated the diagnostic value of [¹⁸F]PARPi in oropharyngeal cancer which appears to be independent of a patient’s HPV status. However, further in vivo and patient data is required to further interrogate this.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Cell Culture and Reagents

All cell lines were grown in a monolayer culture at 37°C in a 5% CO₂ humidified atmosphere. We cultured three HPV-positive (UPCI:SCC 090, UPCI:SCC 154, and UPCI:SCC 152) and three HPV-negative (FaDu, Cal 27, and SCC 15) cell lines. All media contain 10% () fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 1% penicillin and streptomycin. Both UPCI:SCC 090 (ATCC, Manassas, VA) and UPCI:SCC 154 (ATCC, Manassas, VA) cell lines were grown in MEM with 2 mM L-glutamine. The UPCI:SCC 152 (ATCC, Manassas, VA) was grown in MEM with 2 mM of L-glutamine, 50 μg/mL of Gentamicin, and 11.2 mL/L of NEAA. Cal 27 (ATCC, Manassas, VA) cells were cultured in DMEM and the FaDu (ATCC, Manassas, VA) cells in MEM medium. The SCC 15 (ATCC, Manassas, VA) cell line was cultured in a 1 : 1 mixture of high glucose DMEM and F12 medium containing 1.2 g/L of sodium bicarbonate, 2.5 mM L-glutamine, 15 mM HEPES, and 0.5 mM of sodium pyruvate supplemented with 400 ng/mL of hydrocortisone 500 mL solution.

2.2. Western Blot

Cell pellets obtained from 80% confluent flasks were washed twice with PBS and lysed with 200 μL ice cold RIPA buffer with Triton X100 (Boston BioProducts, Ashland, MA), one Mini Complete Protease Inhibitor Cocktail tablet (Roche, Indianapolis, IN), and one PhosSTOP tablet (Roche, Indianapolis, IN). Protein quantification was performed using bicinchoninic acid (BCA) protein assay (Pierce, Rockford, IL). For the PARP1 and RAD51 expression, 20 μg of protein lysate was loaded on the gel. For γH2AX, 40 μg of total cellular lysate was loaded on the gel in order to be able to detect the specific signal. Also, the 0.45 μm pore size membrane was replaced with 0.20 μm nitrocellulose membrane (Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc., Germany) for γH2AX detection. The substitution was made because gamma-H2AX is a 17 kDa protein, smaller than all the other proteins detected in this study. During transfer processes, with the 0.45 μm pore size membrane, gamma-H2AX was eluted from the membrane resulting in no detection. Various methods were used to improve detection. The one that enabled detection was the replacement with the 0.20 μm pore size. Transfer time was lowered to 50 min because more extended periods led to the protein being eluted from the membrane. After optimization, 50 min was found to be the optimum time for the gamma-H2AX transfer process. Blocking was performed by 1% BSA in TBS-T solution. Proteins were detected using antibodies specific for PARP1 (1 : 1,000, Invitrogen; PA5-16452), γH2AX (1 : 1000, EMD Millipore; 05-636,) RAD51 (1 : 1000, Abcam; ab63801), β-actin (1 : 40,000; Cell Signaling Technology; 3700), and Vinculin (1 : 1000, Abcam; ab129002) with a corresponding horseradish peroxidase- (HRP-) conjugated secondary antibody (1 : 20,000, ab6721(rabbit), ab6789 (mouse), Abcam, USA). Loading control choice was based on the molecular size of the target protein, in order to not interfere with the protein of interest. When a membrane was probed for different proteins, the same loading control was used. Detection was performed using a chemiluminescent substrate (Thermo Scientific #34077, Super Signal West Pico, USA). The bands were visualized using an automated blot processing machine (Ewen-Parker X-ray Corporation, New York, USA) with a light-sensitive clear blue X-ray film (Thermo Scientific, , SB2324231, Belgium) with 1 min exposure time.

2.3. Immunofluorescence

cells from all six cell lines were plated on a 6-well plate. On the following day, the plated cells were irradiated with 2 Gy γ-rays in a cesium irradiator (J.L. Shepherd, San Fernando, CA). Before blocking, cells were washed with 300 μL of PBS. Using 3% paraformaldehyde (PFA) in a PBS solution, cells were fixed for 10 min at 2 different time points: 30 min and 24 h. Blocking was performed for at least 1 h in 300 μL PBS with 1% BSA, 0.1% Triton, and 1% Goat serum at room temperature. After blocking, cells were incubated with primary antibodies: γH2AX and RAD51 in 1% BSA for 24 h. After washing with PBS, cells were incubated with Alexa 488 goat anti-rabbit (1 : 1200, Invitrogen; A11070) and Alexa 594 goat anti-mouse (1 : 1200, Invitrogen; A11020) in 1% BSA for 1 h at room temperature in the dark. To mount the cover slip containing cells on the microscope slide, 20 μL of vector shield solution with DAPI (H-1200, Vector Labs) was used to counterstain the nuclei. Using an inverted confocal microscope (LSM 880, Zeiss Confocal, Germany), cells were imaged and the number of RAD51 and γH2AX foci present in the cells was quantified using an ImageJ plugin software. In order to detect foci in patient samples, 0.5 μg of γH2AX antibody and 0.1 μg, 0.2 μg, and 0.4 μg of RAD51 antibody were used. The patient data used in the manuscript was conducted under a protocol approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). No human approval was required for this study. IgG control was used to confirm specificity and control for false positive signals of the antibody. The slides were scanned (Pannoramic 250 Flash scanner, 3DHISTECH, Budapest, Hungary) at 40x magnification. Adjacent sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). Regions of interest (ROIs) were drawn on the H&E slides (tumor areas) and transported using CaseViewer (3DHistech, Hungary) to the consecutive slide, where immunofluorescence was carried out in order to analyze correct tumor areas. The images shown are representing one of the tumor areas in whole slide, and the mean number of foci includes foci count in all the tumor areas.

2.4. Cell Survival

In order to obtain a sufficient colony count, 800-3200 cells were seeded in 6-well plates in triplicates and exposed to known radiation doses. Cells were irradiated (IR) with 0, 2, 4, and 6 Gy using a cesium irradiator. Cells were allowed to grow for 21 days. After 21 days of incubation, the culture media were removed, and cells were stained in crystal violet (0.5%) in methanol for 2 min. Survival fractions were calculated based on the number of microscopic colonies where a colony is defined as >50 cells. The plating efficiency was calculated as previously reported [31]. The mean number of colonies was obtained from triplicates of three independent biological replicates for each cell line. The clonogenic survival curves fit to a linear-quadratic model were obtained as mentioned previously [31].

2.5. PARP1 Immunohistochemistry

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed by the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Molecular Cytology Core Facility (MCCF) and as previously described by our group [32].

2.6. [¹⁸F]PARPi Uptake Assay

Uptake of [¹⁸F]PARPi was tested in vitro (3 replicates) as previously described [33]. [¹⁸F]PARPi was synthesized as reported by our group [19] and obtained from the Radiochemistry and Molecular Imaging Probes Core, MSK. See Supplementary Fig. S1 for details. Briefly, 250k HPV-positive and HPV-negative cells were plated 24 h prior to the experiment (). Media was changed, and 1 h later, 370 kBq/well of [¹⁸F]PARPi were added to the cells. For blocking, cells were incubated with a 100-fold molar excess of Olaparib 1 h before adding [¹⁸F]PARPi. Media was removed, and cells were washed with PBS and lysed with 1 M sodium hydroxide (NaOH) after 1 h. The lysate was collected, and uptake was determined by measuring radioactivity on a Wizard² automatic γ-counter (PerkinElmer, Boston, MA).

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 8. Unless otherwise stated, data points represent mean values and error bars represent standard deviations of biological replicates. values were calculated using Student’s unpaired -test. Statistical significance was determined with , and the level of significance for each result was displayed as , , , and .

3. Results

3.1. Immunoblotting of PARP1, RAD51, and γH2AX Levels

A panel of cell lines was tested for levels of PARP1, RAD51, and γH2AX (Figure 1(a)). We observed an increase in the expression of PARP1 in both groups of cell lines, HPV-negative (, pre-IR , and post-IR ) and HPV-positive (pre-IR and post-IR ), after irradiation. No statistically significant results were observed when comparing these two groups of cell lines pre- and postirradiation (Figure 1(b), left panel). Interestingly, although PARP1 levels seemed elevated after irradiation, no such correlation was found when analyzing RAD51 expression (Figure 1(b), middle panel). For HPV-negative cell lines, RAD51 expression did not vary significantly (pre-IR and post-IR ), and for HPV-positive cell lines after irradiation, a decrease in the expression was observed where the expression for pre-IR was , compared to post-IR . The level of γH2AX expression in nonirradiated HPV-positive cell lines () was higher in HPV-negative cell lines () (Figure 1(b), right panel). The mean difference between γH2AX expression in irradiated cell lines decreased due to lower γH2AX levels in both HPV-positive () and HPV-negative cell lines ().

(a)

(b)

Figure 1

PARP1, RAD51, and ɣH2AX expression in HPV-negative and HPV-positive cell lines. (a) Western blot analysis of three HPV-negative (FaDu, Cal 27, and SCC 15) and three HPV-positive (SCC 090, SCC 154, and SCC 152) cell lines, both with and without external beam irradiation (2 Gy). Vinculin and β-actin served as loading controls. For irradiated cell lines, protein extraction was performed 24 h postirradiation. For irradiated PARP1 and RAD51 detection, the same gel was used; therefore, the same loading control is considered. (b) Quantification of PARP1, RAD51, and ɣH2AX from (a). Bars represent grouped of 3 HPV-/+ cell lines.

3.2. Immunofluorescence Analysis of γH2AX and RAD51 on HPV-Positive and HPV-Negative Cell Lines

In order to visualize and quantify the DNA strand breaks pre- and postirradiation, antibodies against γH2AX and RAD51 were used. The staining was performed on cells that were either nonirradiated or irradiated (30 min and 24 h postradiation) (Figure 2(a), Supplementary Fig. S2A). The mean number of foci was calculated for γH2AX (Figure 2(b)) and RAD51 (Figure 2(c)) to determine the difference in DNA damage in HPV-negative and HPV-positive cell lines. Heterogeneity within HPV-negative and HPV-positive cell lines was observed such as SCC 15 expressing a higher number of γH2AX foci pre- and postirradiation compared to all other cell lines. In HPV-negative cells, we observed an increase in residual double-strand breaks after radiation. We also observed a significantly higher number of gH2AX foci () at the 30 min postirradiation time point. Besides this, the mean number of the RAD51 focus count increased after irradiation and returned to baseline at 24 h. In HPV-positive cells, the mean number of gH2AX foci was closer to baseline, in both 30 min and 24 h postirradiation, compared to that of HPV-negative cells. Besides this, no difference was detected between pre and 30 min postirradiation in the RAD51 focus numbers. For the 24 h time point, instead of returning to baseline as HPV-negative cells did, the mean number of foci continued to show an increase.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 2

Effect of radiation on HPV-negative and HPV-positive cells. (a) Immunofluorescence staining using ɣH2AX and RAD51 antibodies performed on three HPV-negative (FaDu, Cal 27, and SCC 15) and three HPV-positive (SCC 090, SCC 154, and SCC 152), irradiated (2 Gy) and nonirradiated (0 Gy), cell lines. Representative images showing DAPI (blue), RAD51 (green), and ɣH2AX (red), 24 h postirradiation. IgG control in Supplementary Fig. S3. (b, c) Quantification of the mean number of ɣH2AX and RAD51 foci calculated per cell for different conditions (, Student -test).

3.3. Effect of Irradiation on Survival of HPV-Positive and HPV-Negative Cells

We evaluated the effect of radiation by performing clonogenic assays on HPV-positive () and HPV-negative () cell lines. Corroborating previously published literature [12, 15], we observed that HPV-positive cells are more radiosensitive than HPV-negative cells (Figures 3(a) and 3(b)). Significant differences between the surviving fractions were seen at 2, 4 (), and 6 Gy () radiation doses in FaDu, an HPV-negative cell line, and SCC 154, an HPV-positive cell line. This difference is also evident by the reduction in colony count. The surviving fraction remains significant at all doses between HPV-negative and HPV-positive cell lines (Figures 3(a) and 3(b), Supplementary Fig. S2B).

(a)

(b)

Figure 3

Effect of radiation on HPV-negative and HPV-positive cell survivability. (a) Examples of clonogenic growth observed in HPV-negative, FaDu, and HPV-positive SCC 154 cell lines at 0, 2, 4, and 6 Gy external beam irradiation. (b) Surviving fraction curve of three HPV-negative and three HPV-positive cell lines after 0, 2, 4, and 6 Gy irradiation. of three independent experiments with three replicates each. Statistical significance is shown between FaDu and SCC 154. and . Quantification for all cell lines is shown in Supplementary Fig. S2B.

3.4. PARP1 Expression in Human Oropharyngeal HPV-Negative and HPV-Positive Biospecimens

In order to investigate the expression of PARP1 in oropharyngeal cancer, HPV-negative () and HPV-positive () samples were derived from patients’ posttransoral resection of oropharyngeal tumors. None of the patients received presurgical adjuvant treatment. In order to evaluate the expression of PARP1, 3-5 fields of view from three tissue sites were randomly selected, deep margin (submucosa, muscle tissue), epithelium, and tumor, from the H&E and IHC scan of entire tissue for quantification (Figure 4(a)). Automated thresholding was conducted, and the PARP1-positive area was calculated (Figure 4(b)). We observed a statistical difference () between both deep margin and epithelium when compared to tumors in both HPV-positive and HPV-negative samples. No statistical significance was found between HPV-negative and HPV-positive tumor areas ( and , respectively).

(a)

(b)

3.5. Immunofluorescence in Human Biospecimens

To investigate levels of DSB, γH2AX, a double-strand break marker, was used in HPV-positive and HPV-negative oropharyngeal patient samples. Using H&E as a reference, random tumor sections were chosen, and a focus count was performed (Figure 5(a)). The images in the figure represent one of the tumor areas in the slide. For quantification (mean focus count), all the tumor areas were included. Quantification did not show any statistical difference in the number of γH2AX foci between HPV-negative and HPV-positive patient samples (Figure 5(b)).

(a)

(b)

3.6. [¹⁸F]PARPi Uptake Assay

In vitro internalization of [¹⁸F]PARPi was performed using three HPV-negative and three HPV-positive cell lines. In order to analyze the specificity, a 100-fold excess dose of Olaparib was used to outcompete the tracer uptake. A significant blockable signal was observed in all the cell lines () (Figure 6(a)) confirming specificity of the imaging agent. Mean counts per minute calculated between HPV-negative and HPV-positive cell lines did not show any statistically significant difference when compared to each other (Figure 6(b)).

(a)

(b)

4. Discussion

High-risk HPV subtypes, HPV-16 and HPV-18, encode two viral oncoproteins, E6 and E7, which play a role in disrupting normal host cell division by targeting p53 and the retinoblastoma protein (pRb), respectively [17]. HPV-16 E7 has been shown to induce an increase in DNA double-strand breaks and, consequently, in the expression of γH2AX [18]. Moreover, it has also been correlated with the overexpression of PARP1 [17] and RAD51 [18], in response to radiation. For this reason, we speculated that HPV status might affect the uptake of [¹⁸F]PARPi, a PET imaging agent for head and neck cancers, which binds specifically to PARP. In order to confirm the correlation of the HPV status with cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying favorable prognosis, we investigated γH2AX, RAD51, and PARP1 protein expressions in HPV-positive and HPV-negative cell lines and oropharyngeal carcinoma patient samples.

We observed higher expression levels of double-strand break biomarkers in HPV-positive cell lines compared to those in HPV-negative cell lines, confirming previous findings [18]. In response to radiation, a decline in expression level of both γH2AX and RAD51 was detected. This reduction can be attributed to the intrinsic radiosensitivity of HPV-positive cell lines which was confirmed through clonogenic assays. HPV-positive cell lines displayed significant radiosensitivity at all dose levels which show a higher cell death and a higher probability of getting washed away during the washing steps in immunofluorescence microscopy and western blot. The inconsistency observed in RAD51 levels can be related to the divergent role of RAD51 where, on the one hand, the E7 oncoprotein increases the level of RAD51 protein [18, 34]; on the other hand, p16^INK4A plays a role in decreased RAD51 recruitment, thus inhibiting homologous recombination repair [15]. Moreover, a recent study has demonstrated the role of the HPV16 E7 oncoprotein in promoting error-prone microhomology-mediated end-joining while suppressing canonical nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) [35]. Therefore, further in-depth studies are required to understand the effect of HPV status on RAD51 expression, to establish a consistent pattern and their relation to radiosensitivity.

Different studies have suggested the persistence of γH2AX foci in HPV-positive cell lines for the favorable prognosis in HPV-associated tumors and their increased radiosensitivity [16, 29]. However, similar results were not observed in this study. Also, patient sample size is a limiting factor; thus, clinical data with a larger sample size can be helpful in understanding the differences seen in HPV-positive and HPV-negative patients in response to therapy.

HPV correlation to single-strand DNA breaks was investigated through PARP expression. In immunoblotting, both HPV-negative and HPV-positive cell lines revealed an increasing trend in the expression of PARP1 in response to radiation. This observation aligns with the literature as radiation increases the formation of DNA breaks, and the expression of PARP1, being a DNA repair enzyme, increases [30, 36]. PARP1 IHC also showed significantly higher expression in tumor regions in both HPV-positive and HPV-negative oropharyngeal samples. Tumor regions displayed significantly higher PARP1 expression compared to deep margin and epithelium. While no significance was observed between tumor regions of the two cohorts, these results allowed us to explore the potential effect on the use of [¹⁸F]PARPi imaging in oropharyngeal carcinomas.

Our lab recently published a paper which demonstrated [¹⁸F]PARPi as a potential clinical tool for imaging [19]. There have been pitfalls associated with the [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT imaging due to its accumulation not only in the tumor area but also in normal cells [37]. The high physiologic uptake can be problematic in the head and neck region, which has complex anatomy and is intrinsically metabolically active [38, 39]. Considering the importance of imaging in head and neck cancers to design treatment plans, we here have demonstrated that the diagnostic performance of [¹⁸F]PARPi is probably independent of HPV status. Through [¹⁸F]PARPi uptake assays, we demonstrated similar internalization in HPV-negative and HPV-positive cell lines. Since HPV-positive tumors have an entirely different prognostic profile compared to HPV-negative tumors, ensuring that [¹⁸F]PARPi uptake will not be biased towards either cohort was a necessary factor to explore. This study suggests that [¹⁸F]PARPi is a valuable imaging tool in head and neck tumors with probably no need to stratify patients based on their HPV status. However, new studies, encompassing larger cohort sizes, are necessary to more accurately access the tracer’s capability of imaging both HPV-positive and HPV-negative patients. Since the current study was conducted solely in vitro, further in vivo and human studies are needed to interrogate the biological factors that may impact the uptake pattern and PARP expression.

5. Conclusions

We have demonstrated the ability of [¹⁸F]PARPi to image oropharyngeal tumors regardless of HPV status. Independence of HPV status and PARP allowed internalization of the tracer with no significant variability. Future experiments will focus on evaluating [¹⁸F]PARPi imaging in patient cohorts to determine its efficacy for imaging oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma with greater specificity.

Data Availability

The data is available on request.

Disclosure

S.P. and T.R. are shareholders of Summit Biomedical Imaging, LLC., S.P. and T.R. are coinventors on a filed U.S. patent (WO2016164771) that covers methods of use for PARPi-FL. T.R. is a coinventor on a U.S. patent (WO2012074840) covering the compositions of matter for PARPi-FL. T.R. is a paid consultant for Theragnostics, Inc. This arrangement has been reviewed and approved by MSK in accordance with its conflict of interest policies. The funding sources were not involved in study design, data collection and analysis, writing of the report, or the decision to submit this article for publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Contributions

N.G., P.D.S.F., G.P., and T.R. conceived of the study and designed the experiments. N.G. and G.P. carried out the experiments and collected the data. N.G., P.D.S.F., S.P., and C.H. collected and analyzed the patient data. N.G., P.D.S.F., G.P., and T.R analyzed the data and conducted statistical analysis of the data. N.G., P.D.S.F, G.P., and T.R. primarily wrote the manuscript. All authors carefully read and edited the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Radiochemistry and Molecular Imaging Probes Core, Pathology Core, and Molecular Cytology Core Facility at MSK. We also thank the Department of Surgery, Head and Neck team for their help in extracting patient data from the database. This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grants P30 CA008748 and R01 CA204441 (TR) and the Society of Memorial Sloan Kettering Imaging and Radiation Sciences Program.

Supplementary Materials

Figure S1: scheme representing [¹⁸F]PARPi synthesis. Figure S2: effect of external beam irradiation on HPV-negative and HPV-positive cell lines. Figure S3: ɣH2AX immunofluorescence staining IgG control. (Supplementary Materials)

References

R. L. Siegel, K. D. Miller, and A. Jemal, “Cancer statistics, 2020,” CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 7–30, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Sanderson, “Squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck commentary: head and neck carcinomas in the developing world,” BMJ, vol. 325, p. 827, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Mourad, T. Jetmore, A. A. Jategaonkar, S. Moubayed, E. Moshier, and M. L. Urken, “Epidemiological trends of head and neck cancer in the United States: a SEER population study,” Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, vol. 75, no. 12, pp. 2562–2572, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. C. Patel, W. R. Carpenter, S. Tyree et al., “Increasing incidence of oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma in young white women, age 18 to 44 years,” Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 1488–1494, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Chakraborty, C. Natarajan, and A. Mukherjee, “Advances in oral cancer detection,” Advances in Clinical Chemistry, vol. 91, pp. 181–200, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Fedele, “Diagnostic aids in the screening of oral cancer,” Head & Neck Oncology, vol. 1, no. 1, article 5, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. K. Zanoni, J. C. Migliacci, B. Xu et al., “A proposal to redefine close surgical margins in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral tongue,” JAMA Otolaryngology. Head & Neck Surgery, vol. 143, no. 6, pp. 555–560, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. F. Nguyen-Tan, Q. Zhang, K. K. Ang et al., “Randomized phase III trial to test accelerated versus standard fractionation in combination with concurrent cisplatin for head and neck carcinomas in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0129 trial: long-term report of efficacy and toxicity,” Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, vol. 32, pp. 3858–3866, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Fakhry, W. H. Westra, S. Li et al., “Improved survival of patients with human papillomavirus-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in a prospective clinical trial,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 100, pp. 261–269, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
S. H. Huang and B. O'Sullivan, “Overview of the 8th edition TNM classification for head and neck cancer,” Current Treatment Options in Oncology, vol. 18, no. 7, p. 40, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Ziemann, S. Seltzsam, K. Dreffke et al., “Roscovitine strongly enhances the effect of olaparib on radiosensitivity for HPV neg. but not for HPV pos. HNSCC cell lines,” Oncotarget, vol. 8, pp. 105170–105183, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Mirghani, F. Amen, Y. Tao, E. Deutsch, and A. Levy, “Increased radiosensitivity of HPV-positive head and neck cancers: molecular basis and therapeutic perspectives,” Cancer Treatment Reviews, vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 844–852, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. F. Pirotte, S. Holzhauser, D. Owens et al., “Sensitivity to inhibition of DNA repair by olaparib in novel oropharyngeal cancer cell lines infected with human papillomavirus,” PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 12, article e0207934, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. D. Güster, S. V. Weissleder, C.-J. Busch et al., “The inhibition of PARP but not EGFR results in the radiosensitization of HPV/p16-positive HNSCC cell lines,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 113, pp. 345–351, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Rieckmann, S. Tribius, T. J. Grob et al., “HNSCC cell lines positive for HPV and p16 possess higher cellular radiosensitivity due to an impaired DSB repair capacity,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 242–246, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. M. Nickson, P. Moori, R. J. Carter, C. P. Rubbi, and J. L. Parsons, “Misregulation of DNA damage repair pathways in HPV-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma contributes to cellular radiosensitivity,” Oncotarget, vol. 8, pp. 29963–29975, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Duensing and K. Münger, “The human papillomavirus type 16 E6 and E7 oncoproteins independently induce numerical and structural chromosome instability,” Cancer Research, vol. 62, pp. 7075–7082, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
J. W. Park, K. P. Nickel, A. D. Torres, D. Lee, P. F. Lambert, and R. J. Kimple, “Human papillomavirus type 16 E7 oncoprotein causes a delay in repair of DNA damage,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 113, pp. 337–344, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
P. D. de Souza França, S. Roberts, S. Kossatz et al., “Fluorine-18 labeled poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase1 inhibitor as a potential alternative to 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography in oral cancer imaging,” Nuclear Medicine and Biology, vol. 84-85, pp. 80–87, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Manca, E. Vanzi, D. Rubello et al., “(18)F-FDG PET/CT quantification in head and neck squamous cell cancer: principles, technical issues and clinical applications,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 43, pp. 1360–1375, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Carney, S. Kossatz, and T. Reiner, “Molecular imaging of PARP,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 58, pp. 1025–1030, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Strome, S. Kossatz, D. K. Zanoni, M. Rajadhyaksha, S. Patel, and T. Reiner, “Current practice and emerging molecular imaging technologies in oral cancer screening,” Molecular Imaging, vol. 17, p. 153601211880864, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Boussios, P. Karihtala, M. Moschetta et al., “Combined strategies with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for the treatment of ovarian cancer: a literature review,” Diagnostics (Basel), vol. 9, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Schöder, P. D. D. S. França, R. Nakajima et al., “Safety and feasibility of PARP1/2 imaging with (18)F-PARPi in patients with head and neck cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 26, pp. 3110–3116, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
R. J. Young, P. Demétrio De Souza França, G. Pirovano et al., “Preclinical and first-in-human-brain-cancer applications of [18F]poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor PET/MR,” Neuro-Oncology Advances, article vdaa119, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kossatz, G. Pirovano, P. D. D. S. França et al., “Validation of the use of a fluorescent PARP1 inhibitor for the detection of oral, oropharyngeal and oesophageal epithelial cancers,” Nature Biomedical Engineering, vol. 4, pp. 272–285, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
J. P. H. Chow, W. Y. Man, M. Mao et al., “PARP1 is overexpressed in nasopharyngeal carcinoma and its inhibition enhances radiotherapy,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 12, pp. 2517–2528, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Kossatz, C. Brand, S. Gutiontov et al., “Detection and delineation of oral cancer with a PARP1 targeted optical imaging agent,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, article 21371, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
A. N. Weaver, T. S. Cooper, M. Rodriguez et al., “DNA double strand break repair defect and sensitivity to poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibition in human papillomavirus 16-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma,” Oncotarget, vol. 6, no. 29, pp. 26995–27007, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kossatz, W. A. Weber, and T. Reiner, “Optical imaging of PARP1 in response to radiation in oral squamous cell carcinoma,” PLoS One, vol. 11, article e0147752, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
L. G. Mariotti, G. Pirovano, K. I. Savage et al., “Use of the γ-H2AX assay to investigate DNA repair dynamics following multiple radiation exposures,” PLoS One, vol. 8, article e79541, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
P. D. de Souza França, N. Guru, S. Roberts et al., “Fluorescence-guided resection of tumors in mouse models of oral cancer,” Scientific Reports, vol. 10, article 11175, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Pirovano, S. A. Jannetti, L. M. Carter et al., “Targeted brain tumor radiotherapy using an auger emitter,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 26, pp. 2871–2881, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
E. H. Choi and K. P. Kim, “E2F1 facilitates DNA break repair by localizing to break sites and enhancing the expression of homologous recombination factors,” Experimental & Molecular Medicine, vol. 51, pp. 1–12, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
J. E. Leeman, Y. Li, A. Bell et al., “Human papillomavirus 16 promotes microhomology-mediated end-joining,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 116, no. 43, pp. 21573–21579, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ray Chaudhuri and A. Nussenzweig, “The multifaceted roles of PARP1 in DNA repair and chromatin remodelling,” Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 18, pp. 610–621, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
G. C. Park, J.-L. Roh, K.-J. Cho et al., “(18) F-FDG PET/CT vs. human papillomavirus, p16 and Epstein-Barr virus detection in cervical metastatic lymph nodes for identifying primary tumors,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 140, pp. 1405–1412, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Al-Ibraheem, A. Buck, B. J. Krause, K. Scheidhauer, and M. Schwaiger, “Clinical applications of FDG PET and PET/CT in head and neck cancer,” Journal of Oncology, vol. 2009, Article ID 208725, 13 pages, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Hojgaard, A. K. Berthelsen, and A. Loft, “Head and neck: normal variations and benign findings in FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging,” PET Clinics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 141–145, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2021 Navjot Guru et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

24214

Downloads

1181

Citations

Molecular Imaging

[18F]PARPi Imaging Is Not Affected by HPV Status In Vitro

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Cell Culture and Reagents

2.2. Western Blot

2.3. Immunofluorescence

2.4. Cell Survival

2.5. PARP1 Immunohistochemistry

2.6. [18F]PARPi Uptake Assay

2.7. Statistical Analysis

3. Results

3.1. Immunoblotting of PARP1, RAD51, and γH2AX Levels

3.2. Immunofluorescence Analysis of γH2AX and RAD51 on HPV-Positive and HPV-Negative Cell Lines

3.3. Effect of Irradiation on Survival of HPV-Positive and HPV-Negative Cells

3.4. PARP1 Expression in Human Oropharyngeal HPV-Negative and HPV-Positive Biospecimens

3.5. Immunofluorescence in Human Biospecimens

3.6. [18F]PARPi Uptake Assay

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

Data Availability

Disclosure

Conflicts of Interest

Authors’ Contributions

Acknowledgments

Supplementary Materials

References

Copyright

[¹⁸F]PARPi Imaging Is Not Affected by HPV Status In Vitro

2.6. [¹⁸F]PARPi Uptake Assay

3.6. [¹⁸F]PARPi Uptake Assay