Stromal features in carcinomas may provide a relatively consistent means to stratify patients afflicted with solid tumors. Stroma-derived transcriptome signatures can now be used to make predictions about patient survival, suggesting the potential for their clinical application in precision medicine to predict disease progression and emergence of therapeutic resistance. Clin Cancer Res; 19(18); 4905–7. ©2013 AACR.

See related article by Chen et al., p. 5127

Stroma–cancer interactions recapitulate highly conserved molecular programs that are active during embryonic development. In response to cancer growth and progression, stromal reactions are believed to be specific and nonrandom and initiate a series of reciprocal chain reactions that modulate cancer progression. In this issue of Clinical Cancer Research, Chen and colleagues have taken a computational approach to determine whether cancer stroma gene expression profiles are able to predict survival of ovarian, lung, colon, and prostate cancer patients. Unlike other groups attempting to define stromal responses to cancer epithelium using less well-defined stromal signatures from cancer cases (1), the group led by Dr. Robert B. West pioneered an approach that involves characterizing gene expression patterns of two relatively pure populations of stromal cells isolated from soft-tissue tumors, the desmoid-type fibromatosis (DTF), and the solitary fibrous tumor (SFT). They tested the hypothesis that DTF and STF molecular signatures offer prognostic insight in differentiating the survival of breast cancer patients. The West group published two earlier articles (2, 3) about their work using datasets from different institutions in which they concluded that patients with breast carcinomas expressing the DTF fibroblastic signature had significantly better prognosis than patients expressing the SFT signature. The current publication is an extension of the previous work in which the authors set out to test another hypothesis, i.e., whether the usefulness of the DTF fibroblastic signature is specific to breast cancer or can be applied to other solid tumors. They analyzed gene expression profiles of five ovary, five lung, two colon, and three prostate cancer microarray datasets, and conducted immunohistochemical (IHC) analyses of two selected stromal biomarkers, osteonectin (SPARC), and versican (CSPG2), with a focus on whether the DTF signature can predict survival in these malignancies. They concluded that, in contrast with breast cancer, the DTF signature predicts worse outcome in ovarian cancer (rather then better outcome in the case of breast carcinoma). In this study, the authors noted that significant variations exist in the publicly available datasets subjected to their statistical analyses. Within five ovarian cancer datasets, one with a smaller number of patients failed to show statistical significance in predicting survival outcomes. Colon cancer datasets were discrepant. One DTF signature dataset showed a correlation with better patient survival. The other showed a correlation with worse survival. Further investigation of a new set of colon cancer tissues using a different technical approach revealed that positive IHC staining for SPARC and CSPG2 as surrogates for the DTF signature predicted worse colon cancer survival.

Overall, the idea of harnessing stromal fibroblastic signatures, rather than epithelial signatures, to predict the progression and survival of cancer patients has received substantial endorsement in the published literature (4, 5). The main reason stromal signatures may elicit greater predictive power in comparison with cancer epithelium is that cancer-associated stroma presumably contains a normal genotype. Stromal reactions in response to cancer epithelium most likely only affect gene expression, not drastic and stochastic disruptions of the genome. Because cancer and stroma coevolve during cancer progression (6, 7), many genes expressed by stroma are also expressed by cancer epithelium (7). A promising opportunity for continuing progress in understanding the clinical significance of stromal signatures is represented in attempts to use this type of information to identify and quantify soluble or cellular blood-based biomarkers. Nevertheless, although Chen and colleagues provide new approaches toward clinical translation of stromal analyses in ovarian cancer using the more homogenous DTF signature, the authors' conclusion that the “DTF fibroblast signature is a common tumor stroma signature in different types of cancer including ovarian, lung and colon carcinomas” may not be fully warranted based on the findings presented.

The concept that tumor–stroma interactions play key roles in dictating cancer growth and differentiation originated from the rich developmental biology literature, which has shown that local organ development is profoundly programmed by embryonic connective stromal tissues (8). In the context of cancer, these interactions are reciprocal and in tissue recombinant model systems their consequences can be either an acceleration (9) or inhibition (10) of tumor growth, depending on the composition and receptor subtypes in the chimeras. Therefore, it is not surprising that some stromal molecular signatures correlate positively with survival in one type of cancer but correlate inversely with that of another tumor type, or are not correlated at all. The stromal and epithelial composition of tumors is heterogeneous, comprising a large number of cell types represented in different proportions and with different lineage relationships. Their reciprocal interactions and intrinsic plasticity when interacting with growth factors and extracellular matrices (Fig. 1) are yet another source of variability in transcriptomics analyses. It is likely that future studies will define the molecular features of this heterogeneity and apply accordingly the knowledge of mathematical modeling learned from the analysis of clinical specimens on an individualized basis for improved prediction of cancer- or progression-free survival (11).

Figure 1.

Reciprocal tumor–stroma interactions: the question of cellular heterogeneity and the potential for prediction of cancer progression and survival. Although DTF and SFT represent homogeneous, fibroblastic tumor stroma, other cell types, including inflammatory/immune cells, smooth muscle/myofybroblast, endothelium, and adipocytes, reside in the cancer-associated stromal compartment. This stromal element is known to interact in a reciprocal manner with mesenchyme, epithelium, and stem-like, and neuroendocrine cells in the cancer epithelial compartment. Novel technologies including advanced quantitative immunohistochemistry (qIHC) and in situ hybridization (qISH) methods could enhance the power of prediction of cancer progression and lethality.

Figure 1.

Reciprocal tumor–stroma interactions: the question of cellular heterogeneity and the potential for prediction of cancer progression and survival. Although DTF and SFT represent homogeneous, fibroblastic tumor stroma, other cell types, including inflammatory/immune cells, smooth muscle/myofybroblast, endothelium, and adipocytes, reside in the cancer-associated stromal compartment. This stromal element is known to interact in a reciprocal manner with mesenchyme, epithelium, and stem-like, and neuroendocrine cells in the cancer epithelial compartment. Novel technologies including advanced quantitative immunohistochemistry (qIHC) and in situ hybridization (qISH) methods could enhance the power of prediction of cancer progression and lethality.

Close modal

The disparity in results with the use of different public datasets could be viewed as a potential barrier for hypothesis testing. The number of patients in each database, the quality of specimens collected, the experimental protocols used to create such databases, including sample processing, instrumentation used for gene expression read-out, and bioinformatics methodology all contribute to variations in the quality of databases derived from patient material. In the study by Chen and colleagues, despite their use of multiple large datasets across several cancer types, significant disparities were noted in the predictive models developed, suggesting a lack of uniformity and unknown biases in the datasets. Hence, future studies must establish rigid criteria for database selection, incorporating or rejecting datasets using objective criteria that will increase the chances for prognostic success in a single patient. This type of study can be further strengthened by integrating transcriptome data with analyses of other molecular targets, such as quantitative protein data obtained using multiplex technologies. Methods are emerging allowing expression of proteins to be assessed quantitatively at the single-cell level using antibodies linked to quantum-dot nanoparticles with light emission at specific wavelengths. Because multiplex quantum-dot labeling technology has been validated by quantitative reverse-transcription PCR and Western blot (12), we suggest such technology may be applied together with microarray data for improved power of prediction of cancer patients' survival. Mass spectrometry–based proteomics technologies are also rapidly advancing and are becoming relevant to clinical medicine. In addition to exon-capture microarray transcriptomics, technologies to record miRNA and long noncoding RNAs are also now available and are being applied to clinical specimens. These additional targets, multiple RNA species representing a majority of the expressed genome as well as new quantitative protein-based methods, will likely increase the power of large datasets to predict more faithfully what lies in store for individual patients with cancer.

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Conception and design: L.W.K. Chung

Development of methodology: L.W.K. Chung

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): L.W.K. Chung

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): M.R. Freeman, L.W.K. Chung

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: M.R. Freeman, L.W.K. Chung, Q. Li

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): L.W.K. Chung

Study supervision: L.W.K. Chung

The authors thank Dr. Ruoxiang Wang, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, for his contribution of the figure used in this commentary.

This work is supported in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (NIH/NCI) 2P01CA098912, 1R01CA122602, Prostate Cancer Foundation Challenge Award and Board of Governors Endowed Cancer Research Chair (to L.W.K. Chung) and NIH/NCI R01 CA143777 (to M.R. Freeman).

1.
Chen
JL-Y
,
Espinosa
I
,
Lin
AY
,
Liao
OY-W
,
van de Rijn
M
,
West
RB
. 
Stromal responses among common carcinomas correlated with clinicopathologic features
.
Clin Cancer Res
2013
;
19
:
5127
35
.
2.
Beck
AH
,
Espinosa
I
,
Gilks
CB
,
van de Rijn
M
,
West
RB
. 
The fibromatosis signature defines a robust stromal response in breast carcinoma
.
Lab Invest
2008
;
88
:
591
601
.
3.
West
RB
,
Nuyten
DS
,
Subramanian
S
,
Nielsen
TO
,
Corless
CL
,
Rubin
BP
, et al
Determination of stromal signatures in breast carcinoma
.
PLoS Biol
2005
;
3
:
e187
.
4.
Ayala
G
,
Tuxhorn
JA
,
Wheeler
TM
,
Frolov
A
,
Scardino
PT
,
Ohori
M
, et al
Reactive stroma as a predictor of biochemical-free recurrence in prostate cancer
.
Clin Cancer Res
2003
;
9
:
4792
801
.
5.
Desmedt
C
,
Majjaj
S
,
Kheddoumi
N
. 
Characterization and clinical evaluation of CD10+ stroma cells in the breast cancer microenvironment
.
Clin Cancer Res
2012
;
18
:
1004
14
.
6.
Hill
R
,
Song
Y
,
Cardiff
RD
,
Van Dyke
T
. 
Selective evolution of stromal mesenchyme with p53 loss in response to epithelial tumorigenesis
.
Cell
2005
;
123
:
1001
11
.
7.
Sung
SY
,
Hsieh
CL
,
Law
A
,
Zhau
HE
,
Pathak
S
,
Multani
AS
, et al
Coevolution of prostate cancer and bone stroma in three-dimensional coculture: implications for cancer growth and metastasis
.
Cancer Res
2008
;
68
:
9996
10003
.
8.
Inaguma
Y
,
Kusakabe
M
,
Mackie
EJ
,
Pearson
CA
,
Chiquet-Ehrismann
R
,
Sakakura
T
. 
Epithelial induction of stromal tenascin in the mouse mammary gland: from embryogenesis to carcinogenesis
.
Dev Biol
1988
;
128
:
245
55
.
9.
Miller
GJ
,
Runner
MN
,
Chung
LW
. 
Tissue interactions and prostatic growth. II. Morphological and biochemical characterization of adult mouse prostatic hyperplasia induced by fetal urogenital sinus implants
.
Prostate
1985
;
6
:
241
53
.
10.
Feng
S
,
Wang
F
,
Matsubara
A
,
Kan
M
,
McKeehan
WL
. 
Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 limits and receptor 1 accelerates tumorigenicity of prostate epithelial cells
.
Cancer Res
1997
;
57
:
5369
78
.
11.
Beckman
RA
,
Schemmann
GS
,
Yeang
CH
. 
Impact of genetic dynamics and single-cell heterogeneity on development of nonstandard personalized medicine strategies for cancer
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2012
;
109
:
14586
91
.
12.
Hu
P
,
Chu
GC
,
Zhu
G
,
Luthringer
D
,
Prins
G
,
Habib
F
, et al
Multiplexed quantum dot labeling of activated c-Met signaling in castration-resistant human prostate cancer
.
PLoS One
2011
;
6
:
e28670
.

Supplementary data