Cancer Forums and News by PhD's


News | Forums Register

Go Back   Cancer Forums and News by PhD's > Cancer Forums and News

Cancer News

Breast
Colon
Kidney
Leukemia
Liver
Lung
Melanoma
Mesothelioma
Myeloma
Neck
Pancreatic
Prostate


Cancer Review

Breast
Colon
Kidney
Leukemia
Liver
Lung
Melanoma
Mesothelioma
Myeloma
Pancreatic
Prostate


 
New Combination Therapy Promotes Cancer Cell Death
By Dross at 2007-07-17 02:16
New Combination Therapy Promotes Cancer Cell Death

PHILADELPHIA – Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine identified a combination therapy as a way to sensitize resistant human cancer cells to a treatment currently being tested in clinical trials They propose that the therapy may help to selectively eliminate cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact, providing a cancer treatment with fewer side effectsterm. The Penn team reports their findings in the July issue of Cancer Cell.

To test the ability of the combined therapy in treating cancerous tumors, senior author Wafik S. El-Deiry, MD, PhD, and colleagues administered TRAIL, a tumor necrosis factor, and sorafenibterm, an inhibitor currently used to treat renal cancer, to mice  with colon carcinomas. The sorafenib and TRAIL therapy reduced the size of tumors in mice with few side effects, demonstrating the potential effectiveness of the combined treatment on human colon cancers.

“Cancer cells will do whatever it takes to survive in harsh environments,” explains El-Deiry, Professor of Medicine, Genetics, and Pharmacology. To kill hearty cancer cells, El-Deiry and other scientists are working on ways to alter them so they become more susceptible to cell death.

In ongoing clinical trials, doctors are giving cancer patients extra doses of TRAIL (TNF-a-related apoptosis-inducing ligand), a molecule naturally produced by the body’s immune system that promotes cell death, to help kill off cancer cells. While TRAIL-based therapy is promising, over 50 percent of all cancer cells show resistance to TRAIL. To create a more potent form of targeted cancer therapy, El-Deiry’s research team began searching for ways to reverse TRAIL resistance in cancer cells.

Recently, El-Deiry’s research group found that TRAIL-resistant cells avoid death by  producing “survival” proteins called cIAP2 and Mcl-1. The oncogene c-Myc in part hampers a cancer cell’s survival strategy by blocking the function of an intermediate protein that oversees cIAP2 and Mcl-1 production. Without these survival proteins, cancer cells are unable to resist the death initiated by TRAIL.

In search of drugs that perform a similar cancer-cell death function to c-Myc, El-Deiry’s lab turned to sorafenib, which is also being considered for the treatment of a variety of cancers. Like c-Myc, the researchers found that sorafenib blocked the intermediate and survival proteins when combined with TRAIL, causing TRAIL-resistant colon and lung cancer cell lines to die.

“Our findings are exciting because TRAIL in combination with sorafenib appears to be much less toxic than current chemotherapyterm drugs,” explains El-Deiry. “Plus, sorafenib is already available in a pill form.”

While enthusiastic about his recent findings, El-Deiry notes sorafenib may be working to increase cell sensitivity to TRAIL through more biochemical pathways than the intermediate alone.

“The ability of sorafenib to work through multiple pathways may be beneficial to cancer treatments because cancer may be altering multiple targets,” says El-Deiry.

In the future, El-Deiry plans to explore additional pathways sorafenib may be working through to increase TRAIL sensitivity and to compare the effectiveness of other drugs.

 “In addition to proposing a combination therapy that’s rational, non-toxic, and effective in preclinical trials, our findings open up new avenues of molecular exploration for designing targeted anti-cancer therapies,” said El-Deiry.

Co-authors include M. Stacey Ricci, Seok-Hyun Kim, Kazuhiro Ogi, John P. Plastaras, Wenge Wang, Zhaoyu Jin, Yingqiu Y. Liu, David T. Dicker, and Keith T. Flaherty from Penn; Charles D. Smith from Pennsylvania State University; Jianhua Ling and Paul J. Chiao from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The National Cancer Institute and the Littlefield-AACR award provided funding for this work.

This release can be viewed at www.pennhealth.com/news.



2 comments | 1249 reads

by gdpawel on Thu, 2007-07-19 23:11
In some cases drugs kill tumor cells without killing microvascular cells in the same time frame. In other cases they kill microvascular cells without killing tumor cells. In yet other cases they kill both types of cells or neither type of cells. The ability of these agents to kill tumor and/or microvascular cells in the same tumor specimen is highly variable among the different agents.

A major modification of the DISC (cell death) assay allows for the study of anti-microvascular drug effects of standard and targeted agents, such as Avastin, Nexavar and others. The Microvascularity Viability Assay is based upon the principle that microvascular (endothelial and associated) cells are present in tumor cell microclusters obtained from solid tumor specimens. The assay which has a morphological endpoint, allows for visualization of both tumor and microvascular cells and direct assessment of both anti-tumor and anti-microvascular drug effect. CD31 cytoplasmic staining confirms morphological identification of microcapillary cells in a tumor microcluster.

The principles and methods used in the Microvascularity Viability Assay include: 1. Obtaining a tissue, blood, bone marrow or malignant fluid specimen from an individual cancer patient. 2. Exposing viable tumor cells to anti-neoplastic drugs. 3. Measuring absolute in vitro drug effect. 4. Finding a statistical comparision of in vitro drug effect to an index standard, yielding an individualized pattern of relative drug activity. 5. Information obtained is used to aid in selecting from among otherwise qualified candidate drugs.

It is the only assay which involves direct visualization of the cancer cells at endpoint, allowing for accurate assessment of drug activity, discriminating tumor from non-tumor cells, and providing a permanent archival record, which improves quality, serves as control, and assesses dose response in vitro.

Photomicrographs of the assay can show that some clones of tumor cells don't accumulate the drug. These cells won't get killed by it. The Assay measures the net effect of everything which goes on (Funtional Profiling methodology). Are the cells ultimately killed, or aren't they?

Over the past few years, researchers have put enormous efforts into genetic profiling as a way of predicting patient response to targeted therapies. However, no gene-based test can discriminate differing levels of anti-tumor activity occurring among different targeted therapy drugs. Nor can an available gene-based test identify situations in which it is advantageous to combine a targeted drug with other types of cancer drugs. So far, only "functional profiling" has demonstrated this critical ability.

Not only is this an important predictive test that is available today, but it is also a unique tool that can help to identify newer and better drugs, evaluate promissing drug combinations, and serve as a "gold standard" correlative model with which to develop new DNA, RNA and protein-based tests that better predict for drug activity.

This assay was presented (.pdf file below) at the 41st Annual Meeting of the European Society for Clinical Investigation in Uppsala, Sweden on April 18, 2007. Literature citation: Eur J Clin Invest, Volume 37(suppl. 1):60, April 2007

[url]http://weisenthal.org/Weisenthal_ESCIa.pdf

by gdpawel on Mon, 2011-02-21 03:34
Following the description of apoptosis in the British Journal of Cancer in 1972, scientists around the world incorporated the concept of programmed cell death into their cancer research.

What is less understood is the fact that apoptosis is not synonymous with programmed cell death.

Programmed cell death is a fundamental feature of multicellular organism biology. Mutated cells incapable of performing their normal functions self-destruct in service of the multicellular organism as a whole.

While apoptosis represents an important mechanism of programmed cell death, it is only one of several cell death pathways.

Apoptotic cell death occurs with certain mutational events, DNA damage, oxidative stress and withdrawal of some growth factors particularly within the immune system.

Non-apoptotic programmed cell death includes: programmed necrosis, para-apoptosis, autophagic cell death, nutrient withdrawal, and subtypes associated with mis-folded protein response, and PARP mediated cell death.

While apoptotic cell death follows a recognized cascade of caspase mediated enzymatic events, non-apoptotic cell death occurs in the absence of caspase activation.

With the recognition of programmed cell death as a principal factor in carcinogenesis and cancer response to therapy, there has been a growing belief that the measurement of apoptosis alone will provide the insights needed in cancer biology.

This oversimplification underestimates the complexity of cell biology and suggests that cancer cells have but one mechanisms of response to injury. It has previously been shown that cancer cells that suffer lethal injury and initiate the process of apoptosis can be treated with caspase inhibitors to prevent caspase-mediated apoptosis.

Of interest, these cells are not rescued from death. Instead, these cells committed to death, undergo a form of non-apoptotic programmed cell death more consistent with necrosis. Thus, commitment to death overrides mechanism of death.

Labs that focus on measurements of caspase activation can only measure apoptotic cell death. While apoptotic cell death is of importance in hematologic cancers and some solid tumors, it does not represent the mechanism of cell death in all tumors.

This is why cell-based functional profiling labs measure all cell death events by characterizing metabolic viability at the level of cell membrane integrity, ATP content, or mitochondrial function.

While caspase activation is of interest, comparably easy to measure and useful in many leukemias and lymphomas, it does not represent cancer cell death in all circumstances and can be an unreliable parameter in many solid tumors.

Source: Cell Function Analysis

read full thread
 
Search

sponsored links




Donate


Newsletter



Subscribe to our newsletter to receive info on our site or upcoming clinical trials
Email

Confirm your email address

HTML format
State

Please select the newsletters you want to sign up to:

  • Cancerfocus
    Receive updates from Cancerfocus.
  • Breast
  • Colon
  • Kidney
  • Leukemia
  • Liver
  • Lung
  • Melanoma
  • Mesothelioma
  • Myeloma
  • Neck
  • Pancreatic
  • Prostate





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:38 PM.