Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘health’

Development of Chemoresistance to Targeted Therapies: Alterations of Cell Signaling, & the Kinome [11.4.1.2]

 

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

UPDATED 5/24/2026

Curated articles on mechanisms of resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors

 

Oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinase signaling is driven by the Golgi protein GOLPH3 and its interaction with MYO18A

19 May 2026
Vol 19, Issue 938
Editor’s summary

Many cancers are driven by signaling mediated by receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) upon activation by growth factors. Starost et al. found that RTK signaling was enhanced by the Golgi-localized oncoprotein GOLPH3 and its binding partner MYO18A. Together, these proteins were required for the delivery of EGFR (which is frequently mutated in lung cancer), insulin receptor, and other RTKs to the plasma membrane and for the responsiveness of different cell types to growth factors. These findings identify growth factor signaling as a potential mechanism underlying the oncogenicity of GOLPH3. Moreover, they provide a possible alternate targeting strategy for limiting the growth of RTK-driven cancers that have developed resistance to RTK inhibitors. —Wei Wong
Abstract

Receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) signaling drives cancer and is a validated therapeutic target. Modulators of RTK signaling can reveal mechanisms of oncogenesis and offer new therapeutic targets. Golgi phosphoprotein 3 (GOLPH3) is a Golgi-localized oncoprotein that promotes signaling downstream of mTOR. Here, examination of RTK signaling indicated that GOLPH3 acted at the level of the RTK and increased all downstream signaling. We found that GOLPH3 enhanced the delivery of RTKs to the plasma membrane. This role was shared with its binding partner myosin 18A (MYO18A) and depended on the interaction of GOLPH3 with MYO18A. The GOLPH3-MYO18A complex at the Golgi apparatus was required and rate-limiting for RTK signaling across the cell types and receptors assessed. Our findings provide insight into the relationship between the function of GOLPH3 at the Golgi and its role as a cancer driver, highlighting its potential as a therapeutic target in cancer.

The advent of molecular targeted therapies like Imatinib (Gleevec), and other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) has been transformative to cancer therapy. However, as with all chemotherapeutics, including radiation therapy, the development of chemo-resistance toward personalized, molecular therapies has been disastrous to the successful treatment of cancer. The fact that chemo-resistance develops to personalized therapies was a serious disappointment to clinicians (although most expected this to be the case) but more surprisingly it was the rapidity of onset and speed of early reported cases which may have been the biggest shocker.

A post on resistance to other TKIs (to EGFR and ALK) can be seen here: http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/11/01/resistance-to-receptor-of-tyrosine-kinase/

Original article

History of Development of Resistance to Imatinib (Gleevec)

The Melo group published a paper in Blood showing that short exposure to STI571 (imatinib; trade name Gleevec®) could result in drug resistant clones

Selection and characterization of BCR-ABL positive cell lines with differential sensitivity to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor STI571: diverse mechanisms of resistance. Blood. 2000 Aug 1;96(3):1070-9.

Mahon FX1, Deininger MW, Schultheis B, Chabrol J, Reiffers J, Goldman JM, Melo JV.

Abstract

Targeting the tyrosine kinase activity of Bcr-Abl with STI571 is an attractive therapeutic strategy in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). A few CML cell lines and primary progenitors are, however, resistant to this compound. We investigated the mechanism of this resistance in clones of the murine BaF/3 cells transfected with BCR-ABL and in 4 human cell lines from which sensitive (s) and resistant (r) clones were generated by various methods. Although the resistant cells were able to survive in the presence of STI571, their proliferation was approximately 30% lower than that of their sensitive counterparts in the absence of the compound. The concentration of STI571 needed for a 50% reduction in viable cells after a 3-day exposure was on average 10 times higher in the resistant (2-3 micromol/L) than in the sensitive (0.2-0.25 micromol/L) clones. The mechanism of resistance to STI571 varied among the cell lines. Thus, in Baf/BCR-ABL-r, LAMA84-r, and AR230-r, there was up-regulation of the Bcr-Abl protein associated with amplification of the BCR-ABL gene. In K562-r, there was no Bcr-Abl overexpression, but the IC(50) for the inhibition of Bcr-Abl autophosphorylation was increased in the resistant clones. Sequencing of the Abl kinase domain revealed no mutations. The multidrug resistance P-glycoprotein (Pgp) was overexpressed in LAMA84-r, indicating that at least 2 mechanisms of resistance operate in this cell line. KCL22-r showed neither Bcr-Abl up-regulation nor a higher threshold for tyrosine kinase inhibition by STI571. We conclude that BCR-ABL-positive cells can evade the inhibitory effect of STI571 by different mechanisms, such as Bcr-Abl overexpression, reduced intake mediated by Pgp, and, possibly, acquisition of compensatory mutations in genes other than BCR-ABL.

mellobcrablresistamplification

FISH analysis of AR230 and LAMA84 sensitive and resistant clones, with probes for the ABL (red signal) and theBCR (green signal) genes. BCR-ABL is identified as a red–green or yellow fused signal. Adapted from Mahon et al., Blood 2000; 96(3):1070-9.

This rapid onset of imatinib resistance also see in the clinic and more prominent in advance disease

From NCCN 2nd Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies – Update on Primary Therapy, Second-Line Therapy, and New Agents for Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (Slides with Transcript)

http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/564097

There is some evidence that even looking earlier makes some sense in determining what the prognosis is. This is from Timothy Hughes’ group in Adelaide, and he is looking at an earlier molecular time point, 3 months after initiation of therapy. And what you have done here is you have taken the 3-month mark and you have said, “Well, based on your response at 3 months, what is your likelihood that in the future you will either get a major molecular response or become resistant?”

3monthimitanibresist

If you look at the accumulation of imatinib resistance to find if it is either initially not responding or becoming resistant after a good response, it goes up with type of disease and phase of disease. So if you look at patients who have early chronic phase disease — that is, they start getting imatinib less than a year from the diagnosis — their chance of failure is pretty low. With later disease — they are in a chronic phase but they have had disease more than a year before they get imatinib — it is higher. If you see patients with accelerated phase or blast crisis, the chances are that they will fail sometime in the future.

speed of imitinib resistance

Therefore, because not all resistant samples show gene amplification of Bcr/Abl and the rapidity of onset of resistance, many feel that there are other mechanisms of resistance at play, like kinome plasticity.

Kinome Plasticity Contributes to TKI resistance

Beyond gene amplification, other mechanisms of imitanib and other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) include alterations in compensatory signaling pathways. This can be referred to as kinome plasticity and is explained in the following abstracts from the AACR 2015 meeting.

Systems-pharmacology dissection of a drug synergy in imatinib-resistant CML

Georg E Winter, Uwe Rix, Scott M Carlson, Karoline V Gleixner, Florian Grebien, Manuela Gridling, André C Müller, Florian P Breitwieser, Martin Bilban, Jacques Colinge, Peter Valent, Keiryn L Bennett, Forest M White & Giulio Superti-Furga. Nature Chemical Biology 8,905–912(2012)

Occurrence of the BCR-ABLT315I gatekeeper mutation is among the most pressing challenges in the therapy of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Several BCR-ABL inhibitors have multiple targets and pleiotropic effects that could be exploited for their synergistic potential. Testing combinations of such kinase inhibitors identified a strong synergy between danusertib and bosutinib that exclusively affected CML cells harboring BCR-ABLT315I. To elucidate the underlying mechanisms, we applied a systems-level approach comprising phosphoproteomics, transcriptomics and chemical proteomics. Data integration revealed that both compounds targeted Mapk pathways downstream of BCR-ABL, resulting in impaired activity of c-Myc. Using pharmacological validation, we assessed that the relative contributions of danusertib and bosutinib could be mimicked individually by Mapk inhibitors and collectively by downregulation of c-Myc through Brd4 inhibition. Thus, integration of genome- and proteome-wide technologies enabled the elucidation of the mechanism by which a new drug synergy targets the dependency of BCR-ABLT315I CML cells on c-Myc through nonobvious off targets.

nchembio.1085-F2kinomegleevecresistance

Please see VIDEO and SLIDESHARE of a roundtable Expert Discussion on CML

Curated Content From the 2015 AACR National Meeting on Drug Resistance Mechanisms and tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Session Title: Mechanisms of Resistance: From Signaling Pathways to Stem Cells
Session Type: Major Symposium
Session Start/End Time: Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 10:30 AM -12:30 PM
Location: Terrace Ballroom II-III (400 Level), Pennsylvania Convention Center
CME: CME-Designated
CME/CE Hours: 2
Session Description: Even the most effective cancer therapies are limited due to the development of one or more resistance mechanisms. Acquired resistance to targeted therapies can, in some cases, be attributed to the selective propagation of a small population of intrinsically resistant cells. However, there is also evidence that cancer drugs themselves can drive resistance by triggering the biochemical- or genetic-reprogramming of cells within the tumor or its microenvironment. Therefore, understanding drug resistance at the molecular and biological levels may enable the selection of specific drug combinations to counteract these adaptive responses. This symposium will explore some of the recent advances addressing the molecular basis of cancer cell drug resistance. We will address how tumor cell signaling pathways become rewired to facilitate tumor cell survival in the face of some of our most promising cancer drugs. Another topic to be discussed involves how drugs select for or induce the reprogramming of tumor cells toward a stem-like, drug resistant fate. By targeting the molecular driver(s) of rewired signaling pathways and/or cancer stemness it may be possible to select drug combinations that prevent the reprogramming of tumors and thereby delay or eliminate the onset of drug resistance.
Presentations:
Chairperson
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 10:30 AM -12:30 PM
David A. Cheresh. UCSD Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA
Introduction
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 10:30 AM -10:40 AM
Resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Heterogeneity and therapeutic strategies.
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 10:40 AM -10:55 AM
Jeffrey A. Engelman. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
Discussion
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 10:55 AM -11:00 AM
NG04: Clinical acquired resistance to RAF inhibitor combinations in BRAF mutant colorectal cancer through MAPK pathway alterations
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 11:00 AM -11:15 AM
Ryan B. Corcoran, Leanne G. Ahronian, Eliezer Van Allen, Erin M. Coffee, Nikhil Wagle, Eunice L. Kwak, Jason E. Faris, A. John Iafrate, Levi A. Garraway, Jeffrey A. Engelman. Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
Discussion
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 11:15 AM -11:20 AM
SY27-02: Tumour heterogeneity and therapy resistance in melanoma
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 11:20 AM -11:35 AM
Claudia Wellbrock. Univ. of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
Discussion
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 11:35 AM -11:40 AM
SY27-03: Breast cancer stem cell state transitions mediate therapeutic resistance
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 11:40 AM -11:55 AM
Max S. Wicha. University of Michigan, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
Discussion
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 11:55 AM -12:00 PM
SY27-04: Induction of cancer stemness and drug resistance by EGFR blockade
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 12:00 PM -12:15 PM
David A. Cheresh. UCSD Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA
Discussion
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 12:15 PM -12:20 PM
General Discussion
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 12:20 PM -12:30 PM

Targeting Macromolecular Signaling Complexes 
Room 115, Pennsylvania Convention Center

Drug Resistance 
Hall A (200 Level), Pennsylvania Convention Center
Resistance to Pathway-Targeted Therapeutics 1 
Section 33

Molecular Mechanisms of Sensitivity or Resistance to Pathway-Targeted Agents 
Room 118, Pennsylvania Convention Center

Targeting Signaling Pathways in Cancer 
Room 204, Pennsylvania Convention Center
Exploiting the MAPK Pathway in Cancer 
Room 115, Pennsylvania Convention Center

PLEASE see the attached WORD file which includes ALL abstracts, posters, and talks on this subject from the AACR 2015 national meeting BELOW

 AACR2015resistancekinome

Other posts related to, Cancer, Chemotherapy, Gleevec and Resistance on this Open Access Journal Include

Imatinib (Gleevec) May Help Treat Aggressive Lymphoma: Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

Treatments for Acute Leukemias [2.4.4A]

Therapeutic Implications for Targeted Therapy from the Resurgence of Warburg ‘Hypothesis’

Hematologic Malignancies [6.2]

Overview of Posttranslational Modification (PTM)

Novel Modeling Methods for Genomic Data Analysis & Evolutionary Systems Biology to Design Dosing Regimens to Minimize Resistance

Mechanisms of Drug Resistance

Using RNA-seq and targeted nucleases to identify mechanisms of drug resistance in acute myeloid leukemia

An alternative approach to overcoming the apoptotic resistance of pancreatic cancer

Resistance to Receptor of Tyrosine Kinase

Read Full Post »

Why Does Cytotoxic Chemotherapy Still Remain a Mainstay in Many Chemotherapeutic Regimens? [6.1.1]

 

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

At the 2015 AACR National Meeting, Drs. Anthony Letai, Dr. Michael Hermann, Dr. Rene Bernards, and Dr. Guido Kroemer gave The 2015 Stanley J. Korsmeyer Memorial Symposium: Cell Death and Cancer Therapy: Why Has Conventional Chemotherapy Been So Successful?

Cytotoxic chemotherapy, for which the mechanism of action is centered on the ability of the drug to kill a cell by either necrosis, genotoxic, apoptosis, or autophagy mechanisms rather than just halting cell growth, is still, in this era of personalized and cytostatic therapies, is still a mainstay in many treatment regimens for a majority of cancers. Treatment regimens such as MOPP (mechlorethamine, Oncovin, procarbazine, prednisone), CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil) , carboplatin with taxol, and even with personalized therapies, which usually are given in combination with a cytotoxic agent. However treatment regimens containing these cytotoxic chemotherapeutics show some of the best survival rates. The abstract for the Symposium is given below:

In this current era of precisely targeted therapies and –omics technologies, it is often forgotten that no medical therapy has cured, and continues to cure, more people of cancer than conventional chemotherapy. Notwithstanding its superior performance across many cancer types, the mechanism of the therapeutic index of conventional agents, largely targeting ubiquitous elements like DNA and microtubules, is poorly understood. The textbook explanation of conventional chemotherapy’s working by killing supposedly rapidly dividing cancer cells lacks clinical evidence and flies in the face of many obvious clinical counter-examples. In the session,m the speakers will describe how conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy preferentially kills cancer cells. Moreover, they will describe how clinical response to chemotherapy might be better predicted.

This post is presented as the speakers titles and a brief curation of their papers related to the subject matter.

Anthony G. Letai, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. Conventional chemotherapy cures people by exploiting apoptotic priming.

Conventional chemotherapy has an amazing track record that is often under-appreciated in today’s world of genomics and targeted pathway inhibitors. Conventional chemotherapy is responsible for curing millions of cancer patients over the past 5 decades. That is, millions of patients have presented to their doctors with an otherwise fatal malignancy, were given a finite course of chemotherapy (largely DNA and microtubule perturbing agents) and had their cancer eradicated, never to return. Perhaps as remarkable as the magnitude of the achievement of conventional chemotherapy is the magnitude of our ignorance of why it should ever work, and why it works far better in some tumors than in others. Textbook explanations rely on concepts of differential proliferation rates in cancers that are incompletely supported in the clinical literature. Successful chemotherapy treatments usually kill via the mitochondrial pathway of apoptosis. We have found that simple functional measurements of the pre-treatment state of the tumor cell can be rapidly made with BH3 profiling. These measurements demonstrate that a major, if not the major, reason for a therapeutic index for cancer chemotherapy is that chemo-sensitive cancer cells are simply more primed for apoptosis than normal cells. Moreover, apoptotic priming can be measured to make clinical predictions regarding quality of response on an individualized basis. Enhancing pretreatment priming of cancer cells with selectively acting targeted agents is a promising strategy to extend the demonstrated curative power of conventional chemotherapy.

Maturation Stage of T-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Determines BCL-2 versus BCL-XL Dependence and Sensitivity to ABT-199

Triona Ni Chonghaile, Justine E. Roderick, Cian Glenfield, Jeremy Ryan, Stephen E. Sallan, Lewis B. Silverman, Mignon L. Loh, Stephen P. Hunger, Brent Wood, Daniel J. DeAngelo, Richard Stone, Marian Harris, Alejandro Gutierrez, Michelle A. Kelliher, Anthony Letai

Cancer Discov. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 March 1.

Published in final edited form as: Cancer Discov. 2014 September; 4(9): 1074–1087. Published online 2014 July 3. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-14-0353

 

High Mitochondrial Priming Sensitizes hESCs to DNA-Damage-Induced Apoptosis

Julia C. Liu, Xiao Guan, Jeremy A. Ryan, Ana G. Rivera, Caroline Mock, Vishesh Agrawal, Anthony Letai, Paul H. Lerou, Galit Lahav

Cell Stem Cell. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 October 3.

Published in final edited form as: Cell Stem Cell. 2013 October 3; 13(4): 483–491. Published online 2013 August 15. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2013.07.018

Correction in: volume 13 on page 634

 

Prolonged mitotic arrest triggers partial activation of apoptosis, resulting in DNA damage and p53 induction

James D. Orth, Alexander Loewer, Galit Lahav, Timothy J. Mitchison

Mol Biol Cell. 2012 February 15; 23(4): 567–576. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E11-09-0781

 

Stem cells: Balancing resistance and sensitivity to DNA damage

Julia C. Liu, Paul H. Lerou, Galit Lahav

Trends Cell Biol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 1.

Published in final edited form as: Trends Cell Biol. 2014 May; 24(5): 268–274. Published online 2014 April 7. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2014.03.002

 

Michael T. Hermann, MIT Koch Institute for Integrated Cancer Research, Cambridge MA. Using convential chemotherapy as targeted agents.

Exploiting the Synergy between Carboplatin and ABT-737 in the Treatment of Ovarian Carcinomas

Harsh Vardhan Jain, Alan Richardson, Michael Meyer-Hermann, Helen M. Byrne

PLoS One. 2014; 9(1): e81582. Published online 2014 January 6.

 

Rene Bernards, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Identifying responders to chemotherapies through functional genomics

MED12 Controls the Response to Multiple Cancer Drugs through Regulation of TGF-β Receptor Signaling

Sidong Huang, Michael Hölzel, Theo Knijnenburg, Andreas Schlicker, Paul Roepman, Ultan McDermott, Mathew Garnett, Wipawadee Grernrum, Chong Sun, Anirudh Prahallad, Floris H. Groenendijk, Lorenza Mittempergher, Wouter Nijkamp, Jacques Neefjes, Ramon Salazar, Peter ten Dijke, Hidetaka Uramoto, Fumihiro Tanaka, Roderick L. Beijersbergen, Lodewyk F.A. Wessels, René Bernards

Cell. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 June 5.

Published in final edited form as: Cell. 2012 November 21; 151(5): 937–950.

 

Sorafenib synergizes with metformin in NSCLC through AMPK pathway activation

Floris H Groenendijk, Wouter W Mellema, Eline van der Burg, Eva Schut, Michael Hauptmann, Hugo M Horlings, Stefan M Willems, Michel M van den Heuvel, Jos Jonkers, Egbert F Smit, René Bernards

Int J Cancer. 2015 March 15; 136(6): 1434–1444. Published online 2014 August 1.

 

The Corepressor CTBP2 Is a Coactivator of Retinoic Acid Receptor/Retinoid X Receptor in Retinoic Acid Signaling

Prashanth Kumar Bajpe, Guus J. J. E. Heynen, Lorenza Mittempergher, Wipawadee Grernrum, Iris A. de Rink, Wouter Nijkamp, Roderick L. Beijersbergen, Rene Bernards, Sidong Huang

Mol Cell Biol. 2013 August; 33(16): 3343–3353. doi: 10.1128/MCB.01213-12

 

Using Functional Genetics to Understand Breast Cancer Biology

Alan Ashworth, Rene Bernards

Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2010 July; 2(7): a003327. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a003327

 

 

SMARCE1 suppresses EGFR expression and controls responses to MET and ALK inhibitors in lung cancer

Andreas I Papadakis, Chong Sun, Theo A Knijnenburg, Yibo Xue, Wipawadee Grernrum, Michael Hölzel, Wouter Nijkamp, Lodewyk FA Wessels, Roderick L Beijersbergen, Rene Bernards, Sidong Huang

Cell Res. 2015 April; 25(4): 445–458. Published online 2015 February 6.

 

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: in search of gold standards for assessing functional genetic screen quality

Bastiaan Evers, Rene Bernards, Roderick L Beijersbergen

Mol Syst Biol. 2014 July; 10(7): 738. Published online 2014 July 1.

 

An Integrative Genomic and Proteomic Analysis of PIK3CA, PTEN, and AKT Mutations in Breast Cancer

Katherine Stemke-Hale, Ana Maria Gonzalez-Angulo, Ana Lluch, Richard M. Neve, Wen-Lin Kuo, Michael Davies, Mark Carey, Zhi Hu, Yinghui Guan, Aysegul Sahin, W. Fraser Symmans, Lajos Pusztai, Laura K. Nolden, Hugo Horlings, Katrien Berns, Mien-Chie Hung, Marc J. van de Vijver, Vicente Valero, Joe W. Gray, René Bernards, Gordon B. Mills, Bryan T. Hennessy

Cancer Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 August 1.

Published in final edited form as: Cancer Res. 2008 August 1; 68(15): 6084–6091.

 

CTF Meeting 2012: Translation of the Basic Understanding of the Biology and Genetics of NF1, NF2, and Schwannomatosis Toward the Development of Effective Therapies

Brigitte C. Widemann, Maria T. Acosta, Sylvia Ammoun, Allan J. Belzberg, Andre Bernards, Jaishri Blakeley, Antony Bretscher, Karen Cichowski, D. Wade Clapp, Eva Dombi, Gareth D. Evans, Rosalie Ferner, Cristina Fernandez-Valle, Michael J. Fisher, Marco Giovannini, David H. Gutmann, C. Oliver Hanemann, Robert Hennigan, Susan Huson, David Ingram, Joe Kissil, Bruce R. Korf, Eric Legius, Roger J. Packer, Andrea I McClatchey, Frank McCormick, Kathryn North, Minja Pehrsson, Scott R. Plotkin, Vijaya Ramesh, Nancy Ratner, Susann Schirmer, Larry Sherman, Elizabeth Schorry, David Stevenson, Douglas R. Stewart, Nicole Ullrich, Annette C. Bakker, Helen Morrison

Am J Med Genet A. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 September 1.

Published in final edited form as: Am J Med Genet A. 2014 March; 0(3): 563–578. Published

 

Analysis of the MammaPrint Breast Cancer Assay in a Predominantly Postmenopausal Cohort

Ben S. Wittner, Dennis C. Sgroi, Paula D. Ryan, Tako J. Bruinsma, Annuska M. Glas, Anitha Male, Sonika Dahiya, Karleen Habin, Rene Bernards, Daniel A. Haber, Laura J. Van’t Veer, Sridhar Ramaswamy Clin Cancer Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 May 7.

 

Guido Kroemer, INSERM U848- Institute Gustave-Roussy, Villejuif, France. A hallmark of successful cancer therapies: Reinstatement of immunosurvelliance.

Immune infiltrate in cancer Gautier Stoll, Laurence Zitvogel, Guido Kroemer

Aging (Albany NY) 2015 June; 7(6): 358–359. Published online 2015 June 25.

 

Corrigendum: “Combinatorial Strategies for the Induction of Immunogenic Cell Death”

Lucillia Bezu, Ligia C. Gomes-da-Silva, Heleen Dewitte, Karine Breckpot, Jitka Fucikova, Radek Spisek, Lorenzo Galluzzi, Oliver Kepp, Guido Kroemer

Front Immunol. 2015; 6: 275. Published online 2015 June 1. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00275

Corrects: Front Immunol. 2015; 6: 187.

 

Meta-analysis of organ-specific differences in the structure of the immune infiltrate in major malignancies

Gautier Stoll, Gabriela Bindea, Bernhard Mlecnik, Jérôme Galon, Laurence Zitvogel, Guido Kroemer

Oncotarget. 2015 May 20; 6(14): 11894–11909. Published online 2015 May 19

 

Other posts on this site on Cytotoxicity and Cancer include

Novel Approaches to Cancer Therapy [11.1]

Misfolded Proteins – from Little Villains to Little Helpers… Against Cancer

Multiple Lung Cancer Genomic Projects Suggest New Targets, Research Directions for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

A Synthesis of the Beauty and Complexity of How We View Cancer

Good and Bad News Reported for Ovarian Cancer Therapy

 

 

Read Full Post »

Bisphosphonates and Bone Metastasis [6.3.1]

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

bisophosphonates chemical

General Structure of Bisphosphonates

One of the hallmarks of advanced cancer is the ability to metastasize (tumor cells migrating from primary tumor and colonize in a different anatomical site in the body) and many histologic types of primary tumors have the propensity to metastasize to the bone. One of the frequent complications occurring from bone metastasis is bone fractures and severe pain associated with these cancer-associated bone fractures. An additional problem is cancer-associated hypercalcemia, which may or may not be dependent on bone-metastasis. The main humoral factor associated with cancer-related hypercalcemia is parathyroid hormone–related protein, which is produced by many solid tumors (Paget’s disease). Parathyroid hormone–related protein increases calcium by activating parathyroid hormone receptors in tissue, which results in osteoclastic bone resorption; it also increases renal tubular resorption of calcium {see (1) Bower reference for more information). This curation involves three areas:

  1. The Changing Views How Bone Remodeling Occurs
  2. Early Development of Agents that Alter Bone Remodeling and Early Use in Cancer Patients
  3. Recent Developments Regarding Use of Bisphosphonates in Cancer Patients

As there are numerous articles (1360; more than to manually curate) on “bone”, “metastasis” and “bisphosphonates” the following link is to a Pubmed search on the terms

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=bone+metastasis+bisphosphonates

In addition there are subset searches to show use of bisphosphonates in common cancers and files given below with numbers of articles:

Search terms with Pubmed link # citations
bone metastasis bisphosphonates 1360
+ breast 559
+ prostate 349
+ colon 9
+ lung 222
  1. The Changing Views How Bone Remodeling Occurs

Bone remodeling (or bone metabolism) is a lifelong process where mature bone tissue is removed from the skeleton (a process called bone resorption) and new bone tissue is formed (a process called ossification or new bone formation). These processes also control the reshaping or replacement of bone following injuries like fractures but also micro-damage, which occurs during normal activity. Remodeling responds also to functional demands of the mechanical loading.

In the first year of life, almost 100% of the skeleton is replaced. In adults, remodeling proceeds at about 10% per year.[1]

An imbalance in the regulation of bone remodeling’s two sub-processes, bone resorption and bone formation, results in many metabolic bone diseases, such as osteoporosis. Two main types of cells are responsible for bone metabolism: osteoblasts (which secrete new bone), and osteoclasts (which break bone down). The structure of bones as well as adequate supply of calcium requires close cooperation between these two cell types and other cell populations present at the bone remodeling sites (ex. immune cells).[4] Bone metabolism relies on complex signaling pathways and control mechanisms to achieve proper rates of growth and differentiation. These controls include the action of several hormones, including parathyroid hormone (PTH), vitamin D, growth hormone, steroids, and calcitonin, as well as several bone marrow-derived membrane and soluble cytokines and growth factors (ex. M-CSF, RANKL, VEGF, IL-6 family…). It is in this way that the body is able to maintain proper levels of calcium required for physiological processes.

Subsequent to appropriate signaling, osteoclasts move to resorb the surface of the bone, followed by deposition of bone by osteoblasts. Together, the cells that are responsible for bone remodeling are known as the basic multicellular unit (BMU), and the temporal duration (i.e. lifespan) of the BMU is referred to as the bone remodeling period.

For a good review on bone remodeling please see Bone remodelling in a nutshell

boneremodelPTHumich

bone remodeling 3

  1. Early Development of Agents that Alter Bone Remodeling and Early Use in Cancer Patients

Bisphosphonates had been first synthesized in the late 1800’s yet their development and approval for the indication of osteoporosis occurred over 100 years later, in the 1990’s. For a good review on the history of bisphosphonates please see the following review:

Historical perspectives on the clinical development of bisphosphonates in the treatment of bone diseases. Francis MD1, Valent DJ. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2007 Jan-Mar;7(1):2-8.

For a good reference on bisphosphonates as a class, as well as indication, contraindication and side effects see University of Washington web page at http://courses.washington.edu/bonephys/opbis.html

 

Please view slideshow in the following link: The Evolving Role of Bisphosphonates for Cancer Treatment-Induced Bone Loss presentation by Richard L. Theriault, DO, MBA at MD Anderson Cancer Center

bisphosphonatecancerslide1

  1. Recent Developments Regarding Use of Bisphosphonates in Cancer Patients

Bone Metastasis Treatment with Bisphosphonates; A review form OncoLink

Source: From University of Pennsylvania OncoLink® at http://www.oncolink.org/types/article.cfm?c=708&id=9629

Julia Draznin Maltzman, MD and Modified by Lara Bonner Millar, MD
The Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania
Last Modified: December 18, 2014

Introduction

Bone metastases are a common complication of advanced cancer. They are especially prevalent (up to 70%) in breast and prostate cancer. Bone metastases can cause severe pain, bone fractures, life-threatening electrolyte imbalances, and nerve compression syndromes. The pain and neurologic dysfunction may be difficult to treat and significantly compromises the patients’ quality of life. Bone metastases usually signify advanced, often incurable disease.

Osteolytic vs. osteoblastic

Bony metastases are characterized as being either osteolytic or osteoblastic. Osteolytic means that the tumor caused bone break down or dissolution. This usually results in loss of calcium from bone. On X-rays these are seen as holes called “lucencies” within the bone. Diffuse osteolytic lesions are most characteristic of a blood cancer called Multiple Myeloma, however they may be present in patients with many other types of cancer.

Osteoblastic bony lesions, by contrast, are characterized by increased bone production. The tumor somehow signals to the bone to overproduce bone cells and result in rigid, inflexible bone formation. The cancer that typically causes osteoblastic bony lesions is prostate cancer. Most cancers result in either osteolytic or osteoblastic bony changes, but some malignancies can lead to both. Breast cancer patients usually develop osteolytic lesions, although at least 15-20 percent can have osteoblastic pathology.

Why the bone?

The bone is a common site of metastasis for many solid tissue cancers including prostate, breast, lung, kidney, stomach, bladder, uterus, thyroid, colon and rectum. Researchers speculate that this may be due to the high blood flow to the bone and bone marrow. Once cancer cells gain access to the blood vessels, they can travel all over the body and usually go where there is the highest flow of blood. Furthermore, tumor cells themselves secrete adhesive molecules that can bind to the bone marrow and bone matrix. This molecular interaction can cause the tumor to signal for increased bone destruction and enhance tumor growth within the bone. A recent scientific discovery showed that the bone is actually a rich source of growth factors. These growth factors signal cells to divide, grow, and mature. As the cancer attacks the bone, these growth factors are released and serve to further stimulate the tumor cells to grow. This results in a self-generating growth loop.

What are the symptoms of bone metastasis?

It must be recognized that the symptoms of bone metastasis can mimic many other disease conditions. Most people with bony pain do not have bone metastasis. That being noted, the most common symptom of a metastasis to the bone is pain. Another common presentation is a bone fracture without any history of trauma. Fracture is more common in lytic metastases than blastic metastases.

Some people with more advanced disease may come to medical attention because of numbness and tingling sensation in their feet and legs. They may have bowel and bladder dysfunction – either losing continence to urine and/or stool, or severe constipation and urinary retention. Others may complain of leg weakness and difficulty moving their legs against gravity. This would imply that there is tumor impinging on the spinal cord and compromising the nerves. This is considered an emergency called spinal cord compression, and requires immediate medical attention. Another less common presentation of metastatic disease to the bone is high levels of calcium in the body. High calcium can make patients constipated, result in abdominal pain, and at very high levels, can lead to confusion and mental status changes.

Diagnosis of bone metastasis

Once a patient experiences any of the symptoms of bone metastasis, various tests can be done to find the true cause. In some cases bone metastasis can be detected before the symptoms arise. X-rays, bone scans, and MRIs are used to diagnose this complication of cancer. X-rays are especially helpful in finding osteolytic lesions. These often appear as “holes” or dark spots in the bone on the x-ray film. Unfortunately, bone metastases often do not show up on plain x-rays until they are quite advanced. By contrast, a bone scan can detect very early bone metastases. This test is done by injecting the patient with a small amount of radio-tracing material in the vein. Special x-rays are taken sometime after the injection. The radiotracer will preferentially go to the site of disease and will appear as a darker, denser, area on the film. Because this technique is so sensitive, sometimes infections, arthritis, and old fractures can appear as dark spots on the bone scan and may be difficult to differentiate from a true cancer. Bone scans are also used to follow patients with known bone metastasis. Sometimes CT scan images can show if a cancer has spread to the bone. An MRI is most useful when examining nerve roots suspected of being compressed by tumor or bone fragments due to tumor destruction. It is used most often in the setting of spinal cord compromise.

There are no real blood tests that are currently used to diagnose a bone metastasis. There are, however, a number of blood tests that a provider can obtain that may suggest the presence of bone lesions, but the diagnosis rests with the combination of radiographic evidence, clinical picture, and natural history of the malignancy. For example, elevated levels of calcium or an enzyme called alkaline phosphatase can be related to bone metastasis, but these lab tests alone are insufficient to prove their presence.

Treatment

The best treatment for bony metastasis is the treatment of the primary cancer. Therapies may include chemotherapy, hormone therapy, radiation therapy, immunotherapy, or treatment with monoclonal antibodies. Pain is often treated with narcotics and other pain medications, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents. Physical therapy may be helpful and surgery may have an important role if the cancer resulted in a fracture of the bone.

Bisphosphonates

Bisphosphonates are s category of medications that decrease pain from bone metastasis and may improve overall bone health. Bisphosphonates man-made versions of a naturally occurring compound called pyrophosphate that prevents bone breakdown. They are a class of medications widely used in the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis and certain other bone diseases (such as Paget’s Disease), as well as in the treatment of elevated blood calcium. These drugs suppress bone breakdown by cells called osteoclasts, and, can indirectly stimulate the bone forming cells called osteoblasts. It is for this reason, and for the fact that bisphosphonates are very effective in relieving bone pain associated with metastatic disease, that they have transitioned to the oncology arena. However, treatment of bone metastases is not curative. There is increasing evidence that bisphosphonates can prevent bony complications in some metastatic cancers and may even improve survival in some cancers. Most researchers agree that these drugs are more helpful in osteolytic lesions and less so in osteoblastic metastasis in terms of bone restoration and health, but the bisphosphonates are able to alleviate pain associated with both types of lesions. The appropriate time to start treatment is once a bone metastasis has been identified on imaging.

Bisphosphonates can be given either orally or intravenously. The latter is the preferred route of administration for many oncologists as it is given monthly as a short infusion and does not have the gastrointestinal side effects that the oral bisphosphonates have. There are currently two approved and commonly used IV bisphosphonates –Pamidronate disodium (Aredia, Novartis) and zolendronic acid (Zometa, Novartis). Their side effect profile is fairly mild and includes a flu-like reaction during the first 48 hours after the infusion, kidney impairment and osteonecrosis of the jaw with long term use. Patients with renal impairment may not be candidates for this therapy.

Bisphophonates may have some level of anti-tumor activity in breast cancer. A recent Phase III clinical trial revealed that the addition of Zometa to endocrine therapy, improves disease-free survival, but not overall survival, in pre-menopausal patients with estrogen-receptor postive early breast cancer. Another trial called AZURE found no effect from the bisphosphonate zolendronic acid (Zometa, Novartis) on the recurrence of breast cancer or on overall survival. However, several other studies on bisphosphonates and breast cancer are ongoing, and for now, their use is not recommended in patients without metastases.

In addition to bisphosphonates, osteoclast inhibition can also be achieved through other means. Another medication, Denosumab (XGEVA, Amgen), targets a receptor called receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand (RANKL), is able to block osteoclast formation. A few studies comparing Denosumab to bisphosphonates have found Denosumab results in a longer time to skeletal events, on the order of a few months, compared to bisphosphonates, however many experts believe that the evidence is not strong enough to support one class of drug over another. The most common side effects of Denosumab are fatigue or asthenia, hypophosphatemia, hypocalcemia and nausea. Patients receiving bisphosphonates or denosumab should also be taking calcium and vitamin D supplementation.

The future

Skeletal metastases remain one of the more debilitating problems for cancer patients. Research is ongoing to identify the molecular mechanisms that result in both osteolytic and osteoblastic bone lesions. Perhaps the use of proteomics and gene array data may permit us to identify some factors specific to the tumor or to the bony lesion itself that could be used as therapeutic targets to teat or even prevent this complication.

In summary

  •  there is well established evidence in preclinical models that bisphosphonates:reduce the total tumor burden in bone
  • it is unclear as to the mechanisms of this preclinical finding as bisphosphonates have been shown to directly have antitumor activity
  • as the review by Holen I1, Coleman RE.show “Bisphosphonates as treatment of bone metastases” (abstract given below) there is conflicting clinical evidence of this effect found in preclinical models

Accelerated bone loss is a common clinical feature of advanced breast cancer, and anti-resorptive bisphosphonates are the current standard therapy used to reduce the number and frequency of skeletal-related complications experienced by patients. Bisphosphonates are potent inhibitors of bone resorption, acting by inducing osteoclast apoptosis and thereby preventing the development of cancer-induced bone lesions. In clinical use bisphosphonates are mainly considered to be bone-specific agents, but anti-tumour effects have been reported in a number of in vitro and in vivo studies. By combining bisphosphonates with chemotherapy agents, growth and progression of breast cancer bone metastases can be virtually eliminated in model systems. Recent clinical trials have indicated that there may be additional benefits from bisphosphonate treatment, including positive effects on recurrence and survival when added to standard endocrine therapy. Whereas the ability of bisphosphonates to reduce cancer-induced bone disease is well established, their potential direct anti-tumour effect remain controversial. Ongoing clinical trials will establish whether bisphosphonates can inhibit the development of bone metastases in high-risk breast cancer patients. This review summarizes the main studies that have investigated the effects of bisphosphonates, alone and in combination with other anti-cancer agents, using in vivo model systems of breast cancer bone metastases. We also give an overview of the use of bisphosphonates in the treatment of breast cancer, including examples of key clinical trials. The potential side effects and future clinical applications of bisphosphonates will be outlined.

References

  1. Bower M, Cox S. Endocrine and metabolic complications of advanced cancer. In: Doyle D, Hanks G, Cherny NI, Calman K, editors. Oxford textbook of palliative medicine. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2004. p. 688-90.

Henry DH, Costa L, Goldwasser F, et al. Randomized, double-blind study of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in the treatment of bone metastases in patients with advanced cancer (excluding breast and prostate cancer) or multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(9):1125-32.

Van Poznak CH, Temin S, Yee GC, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology executive summary of the clinical practice guideline update on the role of bone-modifying agents in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(9):1221-7.

West, H. Denosumab for prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors: incremental benefit, debatable value. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(9):1095-8.

Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Schippinger W et al.: Endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 360(7),679–691 (2009).

Treatment Guidelines by Cancer Organizations

ASCO Issues Updated Guideline on the Role of Bone-Modifying Agents in the Prevention and Treatment of Bone Metastases in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer

For Immediate Release

February 22, 2011

Contact:

Steven Benowitz
571-483-1370
steven.benowitz@asco.org

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) today issued an update to its clinical practice guideline on the use of bone-modifying agents, in particular, osteoclast inhibitors, to prevent and treat skeletal complications from bone metastases in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The new guideline includes recommendations on the use of a new drug option, denosumab (Xgeva), and addresses osteonecrosis of the jaw, an uncommon condition that may occur in association with bone-modifying agents. The updated guideline also provides new recommendations on monitoring of patients who undergo treatment with bone-modifying agents and highlights priorities for future research on these drugs.

ASCO’s Bisphosphonates in Breast Cancer Panel conducted a systematic review of the medical literature to develop the new recommendations. The updated guideline, American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update on the Role of Bone-Modifying Agents in Metastatic Breast Cancer, was published online today in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The guideline recommends that patients with breast cancer who have evidence of bone metastases be given one of three agents – denosumab, pamidronate or zoledronic acid – approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It does not support use of any one drug over the others. These drugs are all considered osteoclast inhibitors, but they belong to different drug families: pamidronate and zoledronic acid are part of a class of drugs called bisphosphonates, while denosumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa beta ligand (RANKL).

The guideline also recommends against initiating bone-modifying agents in the absence of bone metastases outside of a clinical trial. It notes that an abnormal bone scan result alone, without confirmation by a radiograph, CT or MRI scan, is not sufficient evidence to support treatment with these drugs.

“The updated recommendations take into account recent progress in controlling potential bone damage in metastatic breast cancer,” said Catherine Van Poznak, MD, co-chair of the Bisphosphonates in Breast Cancer Panel and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan. “We’ve established that a growing number of osteoclast inhibitors can have a positive effect and decrease of the risk of skeletal-related events in women with bone metastases. Because many factors – including medical and economic – must be considered when selecting a therapy for an individual, it’s good to have several effective choices.”

Bone is one of the most common sites to which breast cancer spreads. Bone metastases occur in approximately 70 percent of patients with metastatic disease. These metastases can cause bone cells (osteoclasts) to become overactive, which can result in excessive bone loss, disrupting the bone architecture and causing skeletal-related events (SREs), such as fracture, the need for surgery or radiation therapy to bone, spinal cord compression and hypercalcemia of malignancy.

This document updates guideline recommendations that were first issued in 2000 and revised in 2003, and focused on the use of bisphosphonates. The current guideline uses the more inclusive term, bone-modifying agents, to reflect a wider category of therapeutic agents such as monoclonal antibodies that use different mechanisms of action to prevent and treat damage from bone metastases. The guideline notes that research remains to be conducted to address several areas where questions remain.

“The guideline considers new data in a variety of areas, including studies showing that denosumab has equivalent effectiveness compared with other currently available drug therapies,” explained bisphosphonates panel co-chair Jamie Von Roenn, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University. “The guideline also provides guidance on preventing a rare, but significant complication of therapy with bone-modifying agents, osteonecrosis of the jaw.”

Denosumab is a human monoclonal antibody that targets a receptor, RANKL, involved in the regulation of bone remodeling. The guideline cites evidence from a randomized Phase III trial showing that denosumab appears to be comparable to zoledronic acid in reducing the risk of SREs in women with bone metastases from breast cancer. Denosumab is given subcutaneously, and can have side effects such as hypocalcemia.

The guideline also addresses the recently discovered osteonecrosis of the jaw. The first reports of this degenerative condition were published in the medical and dental literature in 2003. The committee recommended that all patients with breast cancer get dental evaluations and receive preventive dentistry care before beginning treatment with bone-modifying osteoclast inhibitors.

The panel updated its recommendations regarding the effects of bisphosphonates on kidney function, particularly for those taking either pamidronate or zoledronic acid, which have been associated with deteriorating kidney function. It said that clinicians should monitor serum creatinine clearance prior to each dose of pamidronate or zoledronic acid according to FDA-approved labeling.

The panel did not recommend using biochemical markers to monitor bone-modifying agent effectiveness and use outside of a clinical trial.

While many of the 2003 recommendations remain the same, the guideline notes several research directions to be addressed, including:

  • Duration of therapy with bone modifying agents, and the timing or intervals between delivery.
  • The development of a risk index for SREs, and better ways to stratify patient risk of SRE or risk of toxicity from a bone-modifying agent. Individual risk may guide selection of timing for use of a bone-modifying agent therapy.
  • Trials specifically examining whether stage IV breast cancer patients who do not have evidence of bone metastases would benefit from bone-modifying agents.
  • The role of biomarkers in treatment selection and monitoring drug effectiveness.
  • Understanding the optimal dosing of calcium and vitamin D supplementation in patients treated with bone-modifying agents.

The meta-analysis from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) was published in Lancet and suggested that “Adjuvant bisphosphonates reduce the rate of breast cancer recurrence in the bone and improve breast cancer survival, but there is definite benefit only in women who were postmenopausal when treatment began”.

Results

  • Of 18, 206 women in trials of 2-5 years of bisphosphonate3453 first recurrences, and 2106 subsequent deaths.
  • Overall, the reductions in recurrence (RR 0·94, 95% CI 0·87-1·01; 2p=0·08), distant recurrence (0·92, 0·85-0·99; 2p=0·03), and breast cancer mortality (0·91, 0·83-0·99; 2p=0·04) were of only borderline significance
  • Among premenopausal women, treatment had no apparent effect on any outcome, but among 11 767 postmenopausal women it produced highly significant reductions in recurrence (RR 0·86, 95% CI 0·78-0·94; 2p=0·002), distant recurrence (0·82, 0·74-0·92; 2p=0·0003), bone recurrence (0·72, 0·60-0·86; 2p=0·0002), and breast cancer mortality (0·82, 0·73-0·93; 2p=0·002). “This was iregardless of age or bisphosphonate type.

Lancet. 2015 Jul 23. pii: S0140-6736(15)60908-4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60908-4. Adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in early breast cancer: meta-analyses of individual patient data from randomised trials.

Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG).

This Study was reported at the 36th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS): Abstract S4-07. Presented December 12, 2013 and Medscape Medical News journalist Kate Johnson covered the finding with author interviews in the following article:

Bisphosphonates: ‘New Addition’ to Breast Cancer Treatment?

Kate Johnson

December 13, 2013

Editors’ Recommendations

SAN ANTONIO — Adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment significantly improves breast cancer survival and reduces bone recurrence in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer, according to a meta-analysis reported here at the 36th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“We have finally defined a new addition to standard treatment,” announced lead investigator Robert Coleman, MD, professor of oncology at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom. He emphasized that, as hypothesized, the benefits of this therapy were confined to postmenopausal women.

“There is absolutely no effect on mortality in premenopausal women, with a hazard ratio [HR] of 1.0,” he reported. “But for postmenopausal women, we see a 17% reduction in the risk of death [HR, 0.83], which is highly statistically significant.”

In terms of the absolute benefit, bisphosphonates decreased the breast cancer mortality rate from 18.3% to 15.2% in postmenopausal women (P = .004).

The separation of benefit by menopausal status was also seen in the bone recurrence data.

In premenopausal women, there is no significant effect on bone recurrence (HR, 0.93), whereas in postmenopausal women, there was a 34% reduction. The difference was “highly significant,” said Dr. Coleman.

“I personally believe adjuvant bisphosphonates should be standard treatment in postmenopausal women with breast cancer,” said Michael Gnant, MD, professor of surgery at the Medical University of Vienna, who was one of the study investigators. He spoke during a plenary session before the results were formally announced. (Please click this LINK to See VIDEO Interview with Dr. Gnant)

“This is an important analysis,” said Rowan Chlebowski, MD, PhD, medical oncologist from the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“There will be a substantial increase in the use of bisphosphonates,” he told Medscape Medical News after the presentation.

“The only question is whether people will accept this analysis as the final word.” Dr. Chlebowski explained that some people might criticize the study as being a post hoc analysis of previous findings.

“You might find some mixed feelings about whether this should be accepted, but I think this will get people thinking,” he said. Dr. Chlebowski previously reported a large observational study that demonstrated that postmenopausal women taking oral bisphosphonates for osteoporosis had a significantly lower risk for breast cancer.

Bisphosphonates were originally indicated for the treatment of osteoporosis, and include agents such as alendronate (Fosamax, Merck), ibandronate (Boniva, Genentech), risedronate (Actonel, sanofi-aventis), and zoledronic acid (Reclast, Novartis). But they are also indicated for bone-related use in breast cancer patients, Dr. Chlebowski pointed out.

Because bisphosphonates “also have an indication for preventing bone loss associated with aromatase inhibitor use, they are already approved in this setting, and would prevent recurrences. It will be interesting to see if guideline panels” like these findings, he noted.

Why Postmenopausal Women Benefit

In the plenary session, Dr. Gnant acknowledged that the data on bisphosphonates to date have been mixed.

There are “many trials showing controversial results” for bisphosphonates in the context of breast cancer, he said. “When we put them all together in an unselected population, some show beneficial effects and some do not.”

Dr. Gnant explained why bisphosphonates appear to be effective in older but not younger women. “When you confine your analysis to the low-estrogen environment, postmenopausal women, or women rendered menopausal by ovarian function suppression, we see that all these trials show a consistent benefit for these patients,” he said.

“Essentially, this low-estrogen hypothesis as a prerequisite for adjuvant bisphosphonate activity means that we believe these treatments can silence the bone marrow microenvironment. However, this only translates to relevant clinical benefits in low-estrogen environments,” he added.

More Study Details

The meta-analysis involved 36 trials of adjuvant bisphosphonates in breast cancer with 17,791 pre- and postmenopausal women.

The primary outcomes of the study were time to distant recurrence, local recurrence, and new second primary breast cancer (ipsilateral or contralateral), time to first distant recurrence (ignoring any previous locoregional or contralateral recurrences), and breast cancer mortality.

Planned subgroup analyses based on hypotheses generated from previous findings included site of recurrence, site of first distant metastasis, menopausal status, and type and schedule of bisphosphonate therapy, said Dr. Coleman.

With bisphosphonate therapy, there was a nonsignificant 1% reduction in breast cancer recurrence at 10 years in postmenopausal women, compared with premenopausal women (25.4% vs 26.5%), and “a small borderline advantage” for distant recurrence (20.9% vs 22.3%), he reported.

However, there was a significant benefit of bisphosphonates in bone recurrence in postmenopausal women (6.9% vs 8.4%; P = .0009), with no effect on nonbone recurrence.

There was no impact of bisphosphonates on local recurrence or cancer in the contralateral breast.

For distant recurrence, there was a 3.5% absolute benefit in postmenopausal women (18.4% vs 21.9%; P = .0003); for distant recurrence, there is was a significant improvement of 2.9% in bone recurrence (5.9% vs 8.8%; P < .00001).

There was no significant reduction in first distant recurrence outside bone, and risk reductions were similar, irrespective of estrogen-receptor status, node status, or use or not of chemotherapy.

“Adjuvant bisphosphonates reduce bone metastases and improve survival in postmenopausal women,” concluded Dr. Coleman. “We have statistical security in this result, with a 34% reduction in the risk of bone recurrence (P = .00001), and a 17% — or 1 in 6 — reduction in the risk of breast cancer death (P =.004).”

The analysis struck a clear line between pre- and postmenopausal women — something that was revealed in a subgroup analysis the AZURE trial, which Dr. Coleman was involved in (N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1396-1405).

Because of this, he was asked about the validity of basing the current analysis on the AZURE hypothesis-generating population.

“We repeated the analysis without the AZURE patients, because they are the hypothesis-generating population, and the P values and risk reductions did not change,” he explained.

Source: Medscape Medical News at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/817787#vp_1

Updated on 10/20/2015: Other articles for reference on Bisphosphonates and Metastasis

Clin Exp Metastasis. 2015 Oct;32(7):689-702. doi: 10.1007/s10585-015-9737-y. Epub 2015 Aug 1.

Human breast cancer bone metastasis in vitro and in vivo: a novel 3D model system for studies of tumour cell-bone cell interactions.

Author information

  • 1Academic Unit of Clinical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, Medical School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
  • 2Department of Human Metabolism, Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, Medical School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
  • 3Academic Unit of Clinical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, Medical School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK. p.d.ottewell@sheffield.ac.uk.

Abstract

Bone is established as the preferred site of breast cancer metastasis. However, the precise mechanisms responsible for this preference remain unidentified. In order to improve outcome for patients with advanced breast cancer and skeletal involvement, we need to better understand how this process is initiated and regulated. As bone metastasis cannot be easily studied in patients, researchers have to date mainly relied on in vivo xenograft models. A major limitation of these is that they do not contain a human bone microenvironment, increasingly considered to be an important component of metastases. In order to address this shortcoming, we have developed a novel humanised bone model, where 1 × 10(5) luciferase-expressing MDA-MB-231 or T47D human breast tumour cells are seeded on viable human subchaodral bone discs in vitro. These discs contain functional osteoclasts 2-weeks after in vitro culture and positive staining for calcine 1-week after culture demonstrating active bone resorption/formation. In vitro inoculation of MDA-MB-231 or T47D cells colonised human bone cores and remained viable for <4 weeks, however, use of matrigel to enhance adhesion or a moving platform to increase diffusion of nutrients provided no additional advantage. Following colonisation by the tumour cells, bone discs pre-seeded with MDA-MB-231 cells were implanted subcutaneously into NOD SCID mice, and tumour growth monitored using in vivo imaging for up to 6 weeks. Tumour growth progressed in human bone discs in 80 % of the animals mimicking the later stages of human bone metastasis. Immunohistochemical and PCR analysis revealed that growing MDA-MB-231 cells in human bone resulted in these cells acquiring a molecular phenotype previously associated with breast cancer bone metastases. MDA-MB-231 cells grown in human bone discs showed increased expression of IL-1B, HRAS and MMP9 and decreased expression of S100A4, whereas, DKK2 and FN1 were unaltered compared with the same cells grown in mammary fat pads of mice not implanted with human bone discs.

Cancer. 2000 Jun 15;88(12 Suppl):2979-88.

Actions of bisphosphonate on bone metastasis in animal models of breast carcinoma.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Bone, which abundantly stores a variety of growth factors, provides a fertile soil for cancer cells to develop metastases by supplying these growth factors as a consequence of osteoclastic bone resorption. Accordingly, suppression of osteoclast activity is a primary approach to inhibit bone metastasis, and bisphosphonate (BP), a specific inhibitor of osteoclasts, has been widely used for the treatment of bone metastases in cancer patients. To obtain further insights into the therapeutic usefulness of BP, the authors studied the effects of BP on bone and visceral metastases in animal models of metastasis.

METHODS:

The authors used two animal models of breast carcinoma metastasis that they had developed in their laboratory over the last several years. One model uses female young nude mice in which inoculation of the MDA-MB-231 or MCF-7 human breast carcinoma cells into the left cardiac ventricle selectively develops osteolytic or osteosclerotic bone metastases, respectively. Another model uses syngeneic female mice (Balb/c) in which orthotopic inoculation of the 4T1 murine mammary carcinoma cells develops metastases in bone and visceral organs including lung, liver, and kidney.

RESULTS:

BP inhibited the development and progression of osteolytic bone metastases of MDA-MB-231 breast carcinoma through increased apoptosis in osteoclasts and breast carcinoma cells colonized in bone. In a preventative administration, however, BP alone increased the metastases to visceral organs with profound inhibition of bone metastases. However, combination of BP with anticancer agents such as uracil and tegafur or doxorubicin suppressed the metastases not only in bone but also visceral organs and prolonged the survival in 4T1 mammary tumor-bearing animals. Of interest, inhibition of early osteolysis by BP inhibited the subsequent development of osteosclerotic bone metastases of MCF-7 breast carcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS:

These results suggest that BP has beneficial effects on bone metastasis of breast carcinoma and is more effective when combined with anticancer agents. They also suggest that the animal models of bone metastasis described here allow us to design optimized regimen of BP administration for the treatment of breast carcinoma patients with bone and visceral metastases.

Other posts related to Pain, Cancer, Bone Metabolism and Palliative Care on this Open Access Journal Include

Palliative Care_4.6

Requiem for Palliative Cardiology: The Voice of Dr. Esselstyn on Plant-Based Nutrition

Cancer and Nutrition

Thyme Oil Beats Ibuprofen for Pain Management.

Pain Management Drug Market: Insight Pharma Reports

New target for chronic pain treatment found

The Genetics of Pain: An Integrated Approach

Parathyroids and Bone Metabolism

Nitric Oxide in bone metabolism

Summary and Perspectives: Impairments in Pathological States: Endocrine Disorders, Stress Hypermetabolism and Cancer

Bone regeneration and nanotechnology

Osteocytes: A Special Issue in Bone

Bone remodelling in a nutshell

Read Full Post »

Opioids, Pain, And Palliative Care [6.3.9]

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

As written by Hrachya Nersesyan and Konstantin V Slavin in Current approach to cancer pain management: Availability and implications of different treatment options in Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2007 Jun; 3(3): 381–400

According to statistics published by the American Cancer Society in 2002, “50%–70% of people with cancer experience some degree of pain” (ACS 2002), which usually only intensifies as the disease progresses. Less than half get adequate relief of their pain, which negatively impacts their quality of life. The incidence of pain in advanced stages of invasive cancer approaches 80% and it is 90% in patients with metastases to osseous structures (Pharo and Zhou 2005).

Mediators of pain and inflammation are known to be secreted from tumor cells as well as infiltrating immune cells, activating and sensitizing primary afferent nociceptors (nociceptive pain) and damaging the nervous system (neuropathic pain). However, there has been difficulty in modeling cancer-induced pain in animals. This has hampered our understanding and therapeutic intervention of the clinical situation, especially concerning ovarian cancer patients.   It has been shown that 85% of ovarian cancer patients in palliative care (during last two months of life) still report severe pain although 54% of these women were given high intensity pain medications such as morphine, still the mainstream pain medication for severe cancer-associated pain. Admittedly, more research into the ability of cancer to provoke pain and sensitize the central nervous system, is warranted, as well as development of new methods of analgesia for cancer-associated pain at end-of-life. Therefore, in collaboration with several colleagues, in vivo models of nociceptive and neuropathic pain will be integrated with my co-developed in vivo tumor models of ovarian cancer. This tumor model allows for noninvasive monitoring of tumor burden without the need for anesthesia, as necessitated by imaging strategies to quantitate tumor burden, such as bioluminescence and MRI.

Even in an era of promising new cancer therapies, cancer pain is one of the highest concerns for the patient, their clinician, and surrounding loved ones, especially impacting quality of life during palliative care. Over half of cancer patients have reported severe pain in the course of their disease (List MA J Clin Oncol 2000 18:877-84) and the statistics are worse for ovarian cancer patients, regardless whether during treatment or in palliative care (see below review).

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Volume 33, Issue 1 , Pages 24-31, January 2007

Pain Management in the Last Six Months of Life Among Women Who Died of Ovarian Cancer

Sharon J. Rolnick, PhD, MPH, Jody Jackson, RN, BSN, Winnie W. Nelson, PharmD, MS, Amy Butani, BA, Lisa J. Herrinton, PhD, Mark Hornbrook, PhD, Christine Neslund-Dudas, MA, Don J. Bachman, MS, Steven S. Coughlin, PhD

HealthPartners Research Foundation (S.J.R., J.J., A.B.), Minneapolis, Minnesota; Applied Health Outcomes (W.W.N.), Palm Harbor, Florida; Division of Research (L.J.H., D.J.B.), Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California; Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research (M.H.), Portland, Oregon; Josephine Ford Cancer Center (C.N.-D.), Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan; and National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (S.S.C.), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Abstract Previous studies indicate that the symptoms of many dying cancer patients are undertreated and many suffer unnecessary pain. We obtained data retrospectively from three large health maintenance organizations, and examined the analgesic drug therapies received in the last six months of life by women who died of ovarian cancer between 1995 and 2000. Subjects were identified through cancer registries and administrative data. Outpatient medications used during the final six months of life were obtained from pharmacy databases. Pain information was obtained from medical charts. We categorized each medication based on the World Health Organization classification for pain management (mild, moderate, or intense). Of the 421 women, only 64 (15%) had no mention of pain in their charts. The use of medications typically prescribed for moderate to severe pain (“high intensity” drugs) increased as women approached death. At 5–6 months before death, 55% of women were either on no pain medication or medication generally used for mild pain; only 9% were using the highest intensity regimen. The percentage on the highest intensity regimen (drugs generally used for severe pain) increased to 22% at 3–4 months before death and 54% at 1–2 months. Older women (70 or older) were less likely to be prescribed the highest intensity medication than those under age 70 (44% vs. 70%, P<0.001). No differences were found in the use of the high intensity drugs by race, marital status, year of diagnosis, stage of disease, or comorbidity. Our finding that only 54% of women with pain were given high intensity medication near death indicates room for improvement in the care of ovarian cancer patients at the end of life.

Cancer pain is a complexity concerning not only the peripheral and central nervous systems but the cancer cell, the tumor microenvironment, and tumor infiltrating immune cells and inflammatory mediators. The goal of this article is to briefly introduce these factors governing pain in the cancer patient and a discussion of animal models of pain in relation to cancer.

Pain is considered as either termed nociceptive pain (activations and sensitization of primary afferent “nociceptor” neurons or neuropathic pain (damage to sensory nerves). Mediators of pain and inflammation are known to be secreted from tumor cells as well as infiltrating immune cells, activating and sensitizing primary afferent nociceptors (nociceptive pain) and damaging the nervous system (neuropathic pain).

For a great review please see Dr. Kara’s curation The Genetics of Pain: An Integrated Approach.

Palliative Care

For a good review please see the following LINK on Palliative Care

Palliative Care_4.6

Please See VIDEOs on Cancer, Pain and Palliative Care

https://youtu.be/88ri3VNOd2E

 

https://youtu.be/B1_Ui3f4AI4

https://youtu.be/-KOSinGapUg

From ACS Guideline: Developing a plan for pain control

The first step in developing a pain control plan is talking with your cancer care team about your pain. You need to be able to describe your pain to your family or friends, too. You may want to have your family or friends help you talk to your cancer care team about your pain, especially if you’re too tired or in too much pain to talk to them yourself.

Using a pain scale is a helpful way to describe how much pain you’re feeling. To use the Pain Intensity Scale shown here, try to assign a number from 0 to 10 to your pain level. If you have no pain, use a 0. As the numbers get higher, they stand for pain that’s getting worse. A 10 means the worst pain you can imagine.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No pain Worst pain

For instance, you could say, “Right now, my pain is a 7 on a scale of 0 to 10.”

You can use the rating scale to describe:

  • How bad your pain is at its worst
  • What your pain is like most of the time
  • How bad your pain is at its least
  • How your pain changes with treatment

Tell your cancer care team and your family or friends:

  • Where you feel pain
  • What it feels like – for instance, sharp, dull, throbbing, gnawing, burning, shooting, steady
  • How strong the pain is (using the 0 to 10 scale)
  • How long it lasts
  • What eases the pain
  • What makes the pain worse
  • How the pain affects your daily life
  • What medicines you’re taking for the pain and how much relief you get from them

NCCN Adult Cancer-Associated Pain Guidelines (see PDF)NCCN adult pain guidelines

NCCN gives a comprehensive guideline to Cancer Patient Pain Management for Caregivers, physicians, and educational materials for patients.

The attached PDF gives information on

  • Pain Definition and Pain Management Principles
  • Pain Screening, Rating and Assessment Guidelines
  • Management of Patients with Differing Opioid Tolerance
  • Opioid Titration Guidelines
  • Adjuvant Analgesia
  • Psychosocial Support

Table. Important Points in NCCN Guidelines for Pain Management

Pain Severity (pain scale level) guideline
All pain levels – Opioid maintenance, – psychosocial support, – caregiver education
Severe Pain (7-10) – Reevaluate opioid titration
Moderate (4-6) – Continue opioid titration

– Consider specific pain syndrome problem and consultation

– continue analgesic titration

Mild (0-3) Adjuvant analgesics

The clinical presentation of cancer pain depends on the histologic type of cancer, the location of the primary neoplasm, and location of metastases. (for example pain in breast cancer patients have different pain issues than patients with oral.cancer).

However, high grade serous ovarian cancer, the most clinically prevalent of this disease, usually presents as an ascitic carcinomatosis, spread throughout the peritoneum and mesothelium.

Ovarian cancer stem cells and mediators of pain

Although not totally accepted by the field, a discussion of ovarian cancer stem cells is warranted, especially in light of this discussion. Cancer stem cells are considered that subpopulation of cells in the bulk tumor exhibiting self-renewing capacity, generally resistant to chemotherapy, and therefore repopulate the tumor with new tumor cells. In this case, ovarian cancer stem cells could be more pertinent to the manifestations of pain than bulk tumor, as these cells would survive chemotherapy. This may be the case, as ovarian cancer pain may not be associated with overall tumor burden? Are there PAIN MEDIATORS secreted from ovarian cancer cells?

Some Known Pain Mediators Secreted from Ovarian Tumor Cells

Endothelin-1

Proteases and Protease-Activated Receptors

Hoogerwerf WA, Zou L, Shenoy M, Sun D, Micci MA, Lee-Hellmich H, Xiao SY, Winston JH, Pasricha PJ

J Neurosci. 2001 Nov 15; 21(22):9036-42.

Alier KA, Endicott JA, Stemkowski PL, Cenac N, Cellars L, Chapman K, Andrade-Gordon P, Vergnolle N, Smith PA.J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2008 Jan; 324(1):224-33.

Bradykinin

Sevcik MA, Ghilardi JR, Halvorson KG, Lindsay TH, Kubota K, Mantyh PW

J Pain. 2005 Nov; 6(11):771-5

Nerve Growth Factor

Tumor Necrosis Factor

Opioids: A Reference

Opioid analgesics: analgesia without loss of consciousness

Three main uses of opioids

  1. Analgesia
  2. Antitussive
  3. Diarrhea

1954 – nalorphine, partial antagonists had analgesic effect. Morphine: Morpheus – Greek God of dreams

1) opiates: opium alkaloids including morphine, codeine, thebaine, papavarine

2) synthetic: meperedine, methadone

Chemistry

  • Antagonist properties associated with replacement of the methyl substituent on nitrogen atom with large group (naloxone and nalorphine replaced with allyl group)
  • Pharmacokinetic properties affected by C3 and C6 hydroxyl substitutions
  • CH3 at phenolic OH at C3 reduces first pass metabolism by glucoronidation THEREFORE codeine and oxycodeine have higher oral availability
  • Acetylation of both OH groups on morphine : heroin penetrates BBB : rapidly hydrolyzed to give monoacetylmorphine and morphine

Pharmaookinetics

  • Well absorbed from s.c., i.m., oral
  • Codeine and hydrocodeine higher absorption from oral:parental ratio because of extensive first pass metabolism
  • Most opioids are well absorbed orally but DECREASE potency due to first pass
  • Variable plasma protein binding
  • Brain distribution is actually low but opioids are very potent
  • Well distributed and may accumulate in skeletal muscle
  • Fentynyl (lipophilic) may accumulate in fat

 

Metabolism

  • Most opioids converted to polar metabolites so excreted by kidney ;IMPORTANT prolonged analgesia in patients with renal disease
  • Esters like meperidine and herion metabolized by tissue esterases
  • Glucoronidated morphine may have analgesic properties

 

Receptors

All three (mu, kappa, and delta) activate pertussis toxin sensitive G protein {Gi}

Opioids quiet pain (nociceptive) neurons by inhibiting nerve conduction (decrease entry of calcium or increase entry of potassium)

There are four major subtypes of opioid receptors:[12]

Receptor Subtypes Location[13][14] Function[13][14]
delta (δ)
DOR
OP1 (I)
δ1,[15] δ2
kappa (κ)
KOR
OP2 (I)
κ1, κ2, κ3
mu (μ)
MOR
OP3 (I)
μ1, μ2, μ3 μ1:

μ2:

μ3:

  • possible vasodilation
Nociceptin receptor
NOP
OP4
ORL1
  • anxiety
  • depression
  • appetite
  • development of tolerance to μ-opioid agonists

Tolerance and Physical Dependence

Tolerance: gradual loss of effectiveness over repeated doses

Physical Dependence: when tolerance develops continued administration of drug required to prevent physical withdrawal symptoms

  • With opioids see tolerance most with the analgesic, sedative, and antitussive effects; not so much with antidiarrheal effects

Major effects of opioids on Organ Systems

  • CNS
    1. Analgesia – raise threshhold for pain
    2. Euphoria – pleasant floating feeling but sometimes dysphoria (agitation)
    3. Sedation –drowsiness but no amnesia; more frequent in elderly than young but can disrupt normal REM sleep
    4. Respiratory depression – ALL opioids produce significant resp. depression by inhibiting the brain stem; careful in patients with impaired respiratory function like COPD or increased intracranial pressure
    5. Cough suppression – tolerance can develop; may increase airway secretions
    6. Miosis – constriction of pupils; seen with ALL agonists; treat with atropine
    7. Rigidity – mostly seen with fentanyl; treat with opioid antagonist like nalozone
    8. Emesis; naseua, vomiting

 

  • Peripheral
    1. Cardiovascular – no real major effects; some specific compounds may have effects on blood pressure
    2. GI – Constipation most common; loperamide (Immodium); pentazocine may cause less constipation; problem for treating cancer patients for pain; opioid receptors do exist in the GI tract but effect may be CNS as well as local
    3. Biliary system – minor, may cause constriction of bile duct
    4. GU (genitourinary) – reduced urine output by increased antidiuretic hormone
    5. Uterus – may prolong labor
    6. Neuroendocrine – opioid analgesics can stimulate release of ADH, prolactin
    7. Other – opioid analgesics may cause flushing and warming of skin; release of histamine?

 

Specific Agents

Strong Agonists

  1. Phenanthrenes –all are used for analgesia
  • Morphine
  • Hydromorphone
  • Oxymorphone
  • Heroin
  1. Phenylheptylamine
  • Methadone – longer acting than morphine; tolerance and physical dependency slower to develop than with morphine; low doses of methadone may be used for heroin addict undergoing withdrawal
  1. Phenyllpiperidines
  • Meperidine
  • Fentanyl (also sufentanil) which is 5-7 more times potent than fentanyl. Negative inotropic (contractile force) effects on heart
  1. Levorphanol

Mild to Moderate Agonist

  1. Phenanthrenes – most given in combo with NSAID
  • Codeine – antitussive, some analgesia
  • Oxycodone
  • Dihydrocodone
  • Hydrocodone
  1. Propoxyphene – Darvon, low abuse and low analgesia compared to morphine
  2. Phenylpiperidines
  • Diphenoxylate –used for diarrhea; not for analgesia and no abuse potential
  • Loperamide – antidiarrheal (Imodium), low abuse potential

Mixed Agonist-Antagonist & Partial Agonists

  1. Nalbulphine – strong kappa agonist and mu antagonist.. Analgesic
  2. Buprenorphine – analgesic. Partial mu agonist has long duration. Slow dissocation from receptor makes resistant to naloxone reversal
  3. Buterphanol – analgesia with sedation, kappa agonist
  4. Pentazocine – kappa agonist with weak mu antagonism.Is an irritant so do no inject s.c.

Antagonists

  1. Naloxone – quick reversal of opioid agonist action (1-2 hours); not well absorbed orally; pure antagonist so no effects by itself; no tolerance problems; opioid antidote
  2. Naltrexone – well absorbed orally can be used in maintenance therapy because of long duration of action

Antitussives

  1. Codeine
  2. Dextromethorphan
  3. Levoproposyphen
  4. Noscapine

Other posts related to Pain, Cancer, and Palliative Care on this Open Access Journal Include

Palliative Care_4.6

Requiem for Palliative Cardiology: The Voice of Dr. Esselstyn on Plant-Based Nutrition

Cancer and Nutrition

Thyme Oil Beats Ibuprofen for Pain Management.

Pain Management Drug Market: Insight Pharma Reports

New target for chronic pain treatment found

The Genetics of Pain: An Integrated Approach

Read Full Post »

How NGS Will Revolutionize Reproductive Diagnostics: November Meeting, Boston MA, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 1: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Reproductive Genetic Dx | Nov. 18-19 | Boston, MA
Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
Reproductive Genetic Diagnostics
Advances in Carrier Screening, Preimplantation Diagnostics, and POC Testing
November 18-19, 2015  |  Boston, MA
healthtech.com/reproductive-genetic-diagnosticsMount Sinai Hospital’s Dr. Tanmoy Mukherjee to Present at Reproductive Genetic Diagnostics ConferenceTanmoy MukherjeePodcastNumerical Chromosomal Abnormalities after PGS and D&C
Tanmoy Mukherjee, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science, Mount Sinai Hospital
This review provides an analysis of the most commonly identified numerical chromosome abnormalities following PGS and first trimester D&C samples in an infertile population utilizing ART. Although monosomies comprised >50% of all cytogenetic anomalies identified following PGS, there were very few identified in the post D&C samples. This suggests that while monosomies occur frequently in the IVF population, they commonly do not implant.

In a CHI podcast, Dr. Mukherjee discusses the current challenges facing reproductive specialists in regards to genetic diagnosis of recurrent pregnancy loss, as well as how NGS is affecting this type of testing > Listen to Podcast

Register  SAVE up to $200, Register by October 9

Learn More  |  Present a Poster  |  Sponsorship & Exhibit Information  |  View Brochure

CONFERENCE-AT-A-GLANCE

ADVANCES IN NGS AND OTHER TECHNOLOGIES

Keynote Presentation: Current and Expanding Invitations for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)
Joe Leigh Simpson, MD, President for Research and Global Programs, March of Dimes Foundation

Next-Generation Sequencing: Its Role in Reproductive Medicine
Brynn Levy, Professor of Pathology & Cell Biology, CUMC; Director, Clinical Cytogenetics Laboratory, Co-Director, Division of Personalized Genomic Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Medical Center, and the New York Presbyterian Hospital

CCS without WGA
Nathan Treff, Director, Molecular Biology Research, Reproductive Medicine Associates of New Jersey, Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Adjunct Faculty Member, Department of Genetics, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey

Concurrent PGD for Single Gene Disorders and Aneuploidy on a Single Trophectoderm Biopsy
Rebekah S. Zimmerman, Ph.D., FACMG, Director, Clinical Genetics, Foundation for Embryonic Competence

Live Birth of Two Healthy Babies with Monogenic Diseases and Chromosome Abnormality Simultaneously Avoided by MALBAC-based Combined PGD and PGS
Xiaoliang Sunney Xie, Ph.D., Mallinckrodt Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University

Good Start GeneticsAnalytical Validation of a Novel NGS-Based Pre-implantation Genetic Screening Technology
Mark Umbarger, Ph.D., Director, Research and Development, Good Start Genetics


CLINICAL APPLICATIONS FOR ADVANCED TESTING TECHNOLOGIES

Expanded Carrier Screening for Monogenic Disorders
Peter Benn, Professor, Department of Genetics and Genome Sciences, University of Connecticut Health Center

Oocyte Mitochondrial Function and Testing: Implications for Assisted Reproduction
Emre Seli, MD, Yale School of Medicine

Preventing the Transmission of Mitochondrial Diseases through Germline Genome Editing
Alejandro Ocampo, Ph.D., Research Associate, Gene Expression Laboratory – Belmonte, Salk Institute for Biological Studies

Silicon BiosystemsRecovery and Analysis of Single (Fetal) Cells: DEPArray Based Strategy to Examine CPM and POC
Farideh Bischoff, Ph.D., Executive Director, Scientific Affairs, Silicon Biosystems, Inc.

> Sponsored Presentation (Opportunities Available)

Numerical Chromosomal Abnormalities after PGS and D&C
Tanmoy Mukherjee, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science, Mount Sinai Hospital

EMBRYO PREPARATION, ASSESSMENT, AND TREATMENT

Guidelines and Standards for Embryo Preparation: Embryo Culture, Growth and Biopsy Guidelines for Successful Genetic Diagnosis
Michael A. Lee, MS, TS, ELD (ABB), Director, Laboratories, Fertility Solutions

Current Status of Time-Lapse Imaging for Embryo Assessment and Selection in Clinical IVF
Catherine Racowsky, Professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School; Director, IVF Laboratory, Brigham & Women’s Hospital

The Curious Case of Fresh versus Frozen Transfer
Denny Sakkas, Ph.D., Scientific Director, Boston IVF

Why Does IVF Fail? Finding a Single Euploid Embryo is Harder than You Think
Jamie Grifo, M.D., Ph.D., Program Director, New York University Fertility Center; Professor, New York University Langone Medical Center

BEST PRACTICES AND ETHICS

Genetic Counseling Bridges the Gap between Complex Genetic Information and Patient Care
MaryAnn W. Campion, Ed.D., MS, CGC; Director, Master’s Program in Genetic Counseling; Assistant Dean, Graduate Medical Sciences; Assistant Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Boston University School of Medicine

Ethical Issues of Next-Generation Sequencing and Beyond
Eugene Pergament, M.D., Ph.D., FACMG, Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern; Attending, Northwestern University Medical School Memorial Hospital

Closing Panel: The Future of Reproductive Genetic Diagnostics: Is Reproductive Technology Straining the Seams of Ethics?
Moderator:
Mache Seibel, M.D., Professor, OB/GYN, University of Massachusetts Medical School; Editor, My Menopause Magazine; Author, The Estrogen Window
Panelists:
Rebekah S. Zimmerman, Ph.D., FACMG, Director, Clinical Genetics, Foundation for Embryonic Competence
Denny Sakkas, Ph.D., Scientific Director, Boston IVF
Michael A. Lee, MS, TS, ELD (ABB), Director of Laboratories, Fertility Solutions
Nicholas Collins, MS, CGC, Manager, Reproductive Health Specialists, Counsyl

Arrive Early and Attend Advances in Prenatal Molecular Diagnostics – Register for Both Events and SAVE!

Prenatal Molecular Dx | Nov. 16-18 | Boston, MA

CHI, 250 First Avenue, Suite 300, Needham, MA, 02494, Tel: 781-972-5400 | Fax: 781-972-5425

 

 

Read Full Post »

NIMHD welcomes nine new members to the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) has announced the appointment of nine new members to the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NACMHD), NIMHD’s principal advisory board. Members of the council are drawn from the scientific, medical, and lay communities, so they offer diverse perspectives on minority health and health disparities.

The NACMHD, which meets three times a year on the National Institutes of Health campus, Bethesda, Maryland, advises the secretary of Health and Human Services and the directors of NIH and NIMHD on matters related to NIMHD’s mission. The council also conducts the second level of review of grant applications and cooperative agreements for research and training and recommends approval for projects that show promise of making valuable contributions to human knowledge.

The next meeting of the NACMHD will be held on Thursday, Sept. 10, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. on the NIH campus. The meeting will be available on videocast at http://www.videocast.nih.gov.

NIMHD Director Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable, M.D., is pleased to welcome the following new members

Margarita Alegría, Ph.D., is the director of the Center for Multicultural Mental Health Research at Cambridge Health Alliance and a professor in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. She has devoted her career to researching disparities in mental health and substance abuse services, with the goal of improving access to and equity and quality of these services for disadvantaged and minority populations.

Maria Araneta, Ph.D., a perinatal epidemiologist, is a professor in the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at the University of California, San Diego. Her research interests include maternal/pediatric HIV/AIDS, birth defects, and ethnic health disparities in type 2 diabetes, regional fat distribution, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic abnormalities.

Judith Bradford, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Population Research in LGBT Health and she co-chairs The Fenway Institute, Boston. Dr. Bradford has participated in health research since 1984, working with public health programs and community-based organizations to conduct studies on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and racial minority communities and to translate the results into programs to reduce health disparities.

Linda Burhansstipanov, Dr.P.H., has worked in public health since 1971, primarily with Native American issues. She is a nationally recognized educator on cancer prevention, community-based participatory research, navigation programs, cultural competency, evaluation, and other topics. Dr. Burhansstipanov worked with the Anschutz Medical Center Cancer Research Center — now the University of Colorado Cancer Research Center — in Denver for five years before founding Native American Cancer Initiatives, Inc., and the Native American Cancer Research Corporation.

Sandro Galea, M.D., a physician and epidemiologist, is the dean and a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health. Prior to his appointment at Boston University, Dr. Galea served as the Anna Cheskis Gelman and Murray Charles Gelman Professor and chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City. His research focuses on the causes of brain disorders, particularly common mood and anxiety disorders, and substance abuse.

Linda Greene, J.D., is Evjue Bascom Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin–Madison Law School. Her teaching and academic scholarship include constitutional law, civil procedure, legislation, civil rights, and sports law. Most recently, she was the vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at the University of California, San Diego.

Ross A. Hammond, Ph.D., a senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., is also director of the Center on Social Dynamics and Policy. His primary area of expertise is using mathematical and computational methods from complex systems science to model complex dynamics in economic, social, and public health systems. His current research topics include obesity etiology and prevention, tobacco control, and behavioral epidemiology.

Hilton Hudson, II, M.D., is chief of cardiothoracic surgery at Franciscan Healthcare, Munster, Indiana and a national ambassador for the American Heart Association. He also is the founder of Hilton Publishing, Inc., a national publisher dedicated to producing content on solutions related to health, wellness, and education for people in underserved communities. Dr. Hilton’s book, “The Heart of the Matter: The African American Guide to Heart Disease, Heart Treatment and Heart Wellness” has impacted at-risk patients nationwide.

Brian M. Rivers, Ph.D., M.P.H., currently serves on the research faculty at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. He is also an assistant professor in the Department of Oncologic Sciences at the University of South Florida College of Medicine, Tampa. Dr. Rivers’ research efforts include examination of unmet educational and psychosocial needs and the development of communication tools, couple-centered interventions, and evidence-based methods to convey complex information to at-risk populations across the cancer continuum.

NIMHD is one of NIH’s 27 Institutes and Centers. It leads scientific research to improve minority health and eliminate health disparities by conducting and supporting research; planning, reviewing, coordinating, and evaluating all minority health and health disparities research at NIH; promoting and supporting the training of a diverse research workforce; translating and disseminating research information; and fostering collaborations and partnerships. For more information about NIMHD, visit http://www.nimhd.nih.gov.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

Read Full Post »

CRISPR/Cas9 Finds Its Way As an Important Tool For Drug Discovery & Development

  UPDATED 6/11/2021

CRISPR Diagnostics: CRISPR-dx Comes of Age: Tool in Drug Development

The past five years has seen a rapid expansion of the ability of CRISPR based tools toward diagnostic testing. Recently, CRISPR has been used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in patients. An article in the journal Science describes the different classes of CRISPR diagnostics in use today .

Update near end of post

UPDATED 8/08/2020

Association to Causation: Using GWAS to Identify Druggable Targets

A Gen Webinar Thursday, August 6, 2020; 11:00am – 12:30pm EST

See at end of post

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

 

2.1.2.1

CRISPR/Cas9 Finds Its Way As an Important Tool For Drug Discovery & Development, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 2: CRISPR for Gene Editing and DNA Repair

The RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease from the microbial clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) adaptive immune system can be used to facilitate efficient genome engineering in eukaryotic cells by simply specifying a 20-nt targeting sequence within its guide RNA.

CRISPR/Cas systems are part of the adaptive immune system of bacteria and archaea, protecting them against invading nucleic acids such as viruses by cleaving the foreign DNA in a sequence-dependent manner. Although CRISPR arrays were first identified in the Escherichia coli genome in 1987 (Ishino et al., 1987), their biological function was not understood until 2005, when it was shown that the spacers were homologous to viral and plasmid sequences suggesting a role in adaptive immunity (Bolotin et al., 2005; Mojica et al., 2005; Pourcel et al., 2005). Two years later, CRISPR arrays were confirmed to provide protection against invading viruses when combined with Cas genes (Barrangou et al., 2007). The mechanism of this immune system based on RNA-mediated DNA targeting was demonstrated shortly thereafter (Brouns et al., 2008; Deltcheva et al., 2011; Garneau et al., 2010; Marraffini and Sontheimer, 2008).

Jennifer Doudna, PhD Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology and Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute has recently received numerous awards and accolades for the discovery of CRISPR/Cas9 as a tool for mammalian genetic manipulation as well as her primary intended research target to understand bacterial resistance to viral infection.

A good post on the matter and Dr. Doudna can be seen below:

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/06/13/215-245-6132014-jennifer-doudna-the-biology-of-crisprs-from-genome-defense-to-genetic-engineering/

In Delineating a Role for CRISPR-Cas9 in Pharmaceutical Targeting inheritable metabolic disorders in which may benefit from a CRISPR-Cas9 mediated therapy is discussed. However this curation is meant to focus on CRISPR/CAS9 AS A TOOL IN PRECLINICAL DRUG DEVELOPMENT.

 

Three Areas of Importance of CRISPR/Cas9 as a TOOL in Preclinical Drug Discovery Include:

  1. Gene-Function Studies: CRISPR/CAS9 ability to DEFINE GENETIC LESION and INSERTION SITE
  2. CRISPR/CAS9 Use in Developing Models of Disease
  3. CRISPR/CAS9 Use as a Diagnostic Tool
  • Using CRISPR/Cas9 in PRECLINICAL TOXICOLOGY STUDIES

I.     Gene-Function Studies: CRISPR/CAS9 ability to DEFINE GENETIC LESION and INSERTION SITE

The advent of the first tools for manipulating genetic material (cloning, PCR, transgenic technology, and before microarray and other’omic methods) allowed scientists to probe novel, individual gene functions as well as their variants and mutants in a “one-gene-at-a time” process. In essence, a gene (or mutant gene) was sequenced, cloned into expression vectors and transfected into recipient cells where function was evaluated.

However, some of the experimental issues with this methodology involved

  • Most transfections experiments result in NON ISOGENIC cell lines – by definition the insertion of a transgene alters the genetic makeup of a cell line. Simple transfection experiments with one transgene compared to a “null” transfectant compares non-isogenic lines, possibly confusing the interpretation of gene-function studies. Therefore a common technique is to develop cell lines with inducible gene expression, thereby allowing the investigator to compare a gene’s effect in ISOGENIC cell lines.
  1. Use of CRSPR in Highthrough-put Screening of Genetic Function

A very nice presentation and summary of CRSPR’s use in determining gene function in a high-throughput manner can be found below

www.rna.uzh.ch/events/journalclub/20140429JCCaihong.pdf

  1. Determining Off-target Effects of Gene Therapy Simplified with CRSPR

In GUIDE-seq: First genome-wide method of detecting off-target DNA breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases (from This Journal’s series on Live Meeting Coverage) at a 2014 Koch lecture

Shengdar Q Tsai and J Keith Joung describe

an approach for global detection of DNA double-stranded breaks (DSBs) introduced by RGNs and potentially other nucleases. This method, called genome-wide, unbiased identification of DSBs enabled by sequencing (GUIDE-seq), relies on capture of double-stranded oligodeoxynucleotides into DSBs. Application of GUIDE-seq to 13 RGNs in two human cell lines revealed wide variability in RGN off-target activities and unappreciated characteristics of off-target sequences. The majority of identified sites were not detected by existing computational methods or chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq). GUIDE-seq also identified RGN-independent genomic breakpoint ‘hotspots’.

SOURCE http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nbt.3117.html

II. CRISPR/Cas9 Use in Developing Models of Disease

 

  1. Developing Animal Tumor Models

In a post this year I discussed a talk at the recent 2015 AACR National Meeting on a laboratories ability to use CRISPR gene editing in-vivo to produce a hepatocarcinoma using viral delivery. The post can be seen here: Notes from Opening Plenary Session – The Genome and Beyond from the 2015 AACR Meeting in Philadelphia PA; Sunday April 19, 2015

1) In this talk Dr. Tyler Jacks discussed his use of CRSPR to generate a mouse model of liver tumor in an immunocompetent mouse. Some notes from this talk are given below

  1. B) Engineering Cancer Genomes: Tyler Jacks, Ph.D.; Director, Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research
  • Cancer GEM’s (genetically engineered mouse models of cancer) had moved from transgenics to defined oncogenes
  • Observation that p53 -/- mice develop spontaneous tumors (lymphomas)
  • then GEMs moved to Cre/Lox systems to generate mice with deletions however these tumor models require lots of animals, much time to create, expensive to keep;
  • figured can use CRSPR/Cas9 as rapid, inexpensive way to generate engineered mice and tumor models
  • he used CRSPR/Cas9 vectors targeting PTEN to introduce PTEN mutations in-vivo to hepatocytes; when they also introduced p53 mutations produced hemangiosarcomas; took ONLY THREE months to produce detectable tumors
  • also produced liver tumors by using CRSPR/Cas9 to introduce gain of function mutation in β-catenin

See an article describing this study by MIT News “A New Way To Model Cancer: New gene-editing technique allows scientists to more rapidly study the role of mutations in tumor development.”

The original research article can be found in the August 6, 2014 issue of Nature[1]

And see also on the Jacks Lab site under Research

2)     In the Upcoming Meeting New Frontiers in Gene Editing multiple uses of CRISPR technology is discussed in relation to gene knockout/function studies, tumor model development and

New Frontiers in Gene Editing

Session Spotlight:
BUILDING IN VIVO MODELS FOR DRUG DISCOVERY

Genome Editing Animal Models in Drug Discovery
Myung Shin, Ph.D., Senior Principal Scientist, Biology-Discovery, Genetics and Pharmacogenomics, Merck Research Laboratories

Recent advances in genome editing have greatly accelerated and expanded the ability to generate animal models. These tools allow generating mouse models in condensed timeline compared to that of conventional gene-targeting knock-out/knock-in strategies. Moreover, the genome editing methods have expanded the ability to generate animal models beyond mice. In this talk, we will discuss the application of ZFN and CRISPR to generate various animal models for drug discovery programs.

In vivo Cancer Modeling and Genetic Screening Using CRISPR/Cas9
Sidi Chen, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow, Laboratories of Dr. Phillip A. Sharp and Dr. Feng Zhang, Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT and Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT

Here we describe a genome-wide CRISPR-Cas9-mediated loss-of-function screen in tumor growth and metastasis. We mutagenized a non-metastatic mouse cancer cell line using a genome-scale library. The mutant cell pool rapidly generates metastases when transplanted into immunocompromised mice. Enriched sgRNAs in lung metastases and late stage primary tumors were found to target a small set of genes, suggesting specific loss-of-function mutations drive tumor growth and metastasis.

FEATURED PRESENTATION: In vivo Chromosome Engineering Using CRISPR-Cas9
Andrea Ventura, M.D., Ph.D., Assistant Member, Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

We will discuss our experience using somatic genome editing to engineer oncogenic chromosomal rearrangements in vivo. More specifically, we will present the results of our ongoing efforts aimed at modeling cancers driven by chromosomal rearrangements using viral mediated delivery of Crispr-Cas9 to adult animals.

RNAi and CRISPR/Cas9-Based in vivo Models for Drug Discovery
Christof Fellmann, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow, Laboratory of Dr. Jennifer Doudna, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, The University of California, Berkeley

Genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs) are a powerful tool to study disease initiation, treatment response and relapse. By combining CRISPR/Cas9 and “Sensor” validated, tetracycline-regulated “miR-E” shRNA technology, we have developed a fast and scalable platform to generate RNAi GEMMs with reversible gene silencing capability. The synergy of CRISPR/Cas9 and RNAi enabled us to not only model disease pathogenesis, but also mimic drug therapy in mice, providing us capability to perform preclinical studies in vivo.

In vivo Genome Editing Using Staphylococcus aureus Cas9
Fei Ann Ran, Ph.D., Post-doctoral Fellow, Laboratory of Dr. Feng Zhang, Broad Institute and Junior Fellow, Harvard Society of Fellows

The RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease from the bacterial CRISPR/Cas system has been adapted as a powerful tool for facilitating targeted genome editing in eukaryotes. Recently, we have identified an additional small Cas9 nuclease from Staphylococcus aureus that can be packaged with its guide RNA into a single adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector for in vivo applications. We demonstrate the use of this system for effective gene modification in adult animals and further expand the Cas9 toolbox for in vivo genome editing.

OriGene, Making the Right Tools for CRISPR Research
Xuan Liu, Ph.D., Senior Director, Marketing, OriGene

CRISPR technology has quickly revolutionized the scientific community. Its simplicity has democratized the genome editing technology and enabled every lab to consider its utility in gene function research. As the largest tool box for gene functional research, OriGene created a large collection of CRISPR-related tools, including various all-in-one vectors for gRNA cloning, donor vector backbones, genome-wide knockout kits, AAVS1 insertion vectors, etc. OriGene’s high quality products will accelerate CRISPR research.

  1. Transgenic Animals : Custom Mouse and Rat Model Generation Service Using CRISPR/Cas9 by AppliedStem Cell Inc. (http://www.appliedstemcell.com/)

A critical component of producing transgenic animals is the ability of each successive generations to pass on the transgene. In her post on this site, A NEW ERA OF GENETIC MANIPULATION  Dr. Demet Sag discusses the molecular biology of Cas9 systems and their efficiency to cause point mutations which can be passed on to subsequent generations

This group developed a new technology for editing genes that can be transferable change to the next generation by combining microbial immune defense mechanism, CRISPR/Cas9 that is the latest ground breaking technology for translational genomics with gene therapy-like approach.

  • In short, this so-called “mutagenic chain reaction” (MCR) introduces a recessive mutation defined by CRISPR/Cas9 that lead into a high rate of transferable information to the next generation. They reported that when they crossed the female MCR offspring to wild type flies, the yellow phenotype observed more than 95 percent efficiency.

The advantage of CRISPR/Cas9 over ZFNs or TALENs is its scalability and multiplexibility in that multiple sites within the mammalian genome can be simultaneously modified, providing a robust, high-throughput approach for gene editing in mammalian cells.

Applied StemCell, Inc. offers various services related to animal models including conventional transgenic rats, and phenotype analysis using knock-in, knock-out strategies.

Further explanation of their use of CRSPR can be found at the site below:

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/10/29/gene-editing-at-crispr-speed-services-and-tools/

In addition, ReproCELL Inc., a Tokyo based stem cell company, uses CRSPR to develop

· Tailored disease model cells (hiPSC-Disease Model Cells)

  • 2 types of services
  • ReproUNUS™-g:human iPS cell derived functional cells involving gene editing by CRISPR/Cas9 system
  • eproUNUS™-p:patient derived iPS cell derived functional cells

III. Using CRISPR/Cas9 in PRECLINICAL TOXICOLOGY STUDIES

As of now it is unclear as to the strategy of pharma in how to use this technology for toxicology testing however a few companies have licensed the technology to use across their R&D platforms including

A recent paper used a sister technique TALEN to generate knock-in pigs which suggest that it would be possible to generate pigs with human transgenes, especially in human liver isozymes in orer to study hepatotoxicity of drugs.

Efficient bi-allelic gene knockout and site-specific knock-in mediated by TALENs in pigs

Jing Yao, Jiaojiao Huang, Tang Hai, Xianlong Wang, Guosong Qin, Hongyong Zhang, Rong Wu, Chunwei Cao, Jianzhong Jeff Xi, Zengqiang Yuan, Jianguo Zhao

Sci Rep. 2014; 4: 6926. Published online 2014 November 5. doi: 10.1038/srep06926

UPDATED 8/08/2020

Association to Causation: Using GWAS to Identify Druggable Targets

A Gen Webinar Thursday, August 611:00am – 12:30pm

This webinar is available at https://www.genengnews.com/resources/webinars/association-to-causation-using-gwas-to-identify-druggable-target/

Speakers:

Martin Kampmann, PhD

matinkampmann ucsf

Associate Professor
UCSF
Investigator
Chan Zuckerberg Biohub

Kevin Holden, PhD

kevinholdn sythego

Head of Science
Synthego

Abhi Saharia, PhD

abhisharia sythego

VP, Commercial Development
Synthego

Human genetics provides perhaps the single best opportunity to innovate and improve clinical success rates, through the identification of novel drug targets for complex disease. Even as correlation identifies multiple genetic variants associated with disease, it is challenging to conduct requisite functional studies to identify the causal variants, especially since most association signals map to non-coding regions of the genome.

Genetic editing technologies, such as CRISPR, have enabled the modeling of associated variants at their native loci, including non-coding loci, empowering the identification of underlying biological mechanisms of disease with potential causal genes. However, genome editing is largely manual today severely limiting scale, and forcing the use of rational filters to prioritize which variants to investigate functionally.

In this GEN webinar, we will discuss several strategies enabling large-scale functional investigation of disease-associated variants in a cost- and time-effective manner, including different types of pooled CRISPR-based screens and the development of a fully automated genome engineering platform. We will also review how optimization of genome engineering on this platform enables the engineering of disease-associated variants at scale in pluripotent cells.

  • They will be presenting on use of wide scale CRSPR screens to validate druggable targets
  • The presenters will also discuss new platforms for these wide scale screens

Martin Kampmann, PhD UCSF

  • Multiple genetic variants associated with disease
  • Big gap between accumulation of genetic variant information and functions of these variants
  • CRSPRi or CRSPa (siRNA coupled or enhancer coupled CRSPR guides)
  • Arrayed screens: multiplate guide RNAs and phenotype measured (phenotype can be morphology, complex biological systems like organoids or non autonomous functions
  • Using pooled screens and use of suitable cell model critical for this strategy
  • For example in iPSC vs. neurons has different expression patterns upon same CRSPR of UBA1
  • Advantage is using CRSPR to take iPSC from diseased variant patient to make a corrected isogenic control then introduce gRNAs and use modifier screens to determine phenotypes
  • Generated a platform called CRISPRbrain.org to do bioinformatics on various experiments with different guide RNAs (CRSPRs)

Abhi Saharia, PhD Syntheco

  • Target identification with CSRSPR at Scale
  • Nature medicine paper did GWAS and found 27 SNV associated with high risk disease and a rational filter focused on 1 SNV in noncoding region but why study a single variant and if studied all 27 would they have been able to identify a more representative druggable set?
  • Goal is to reduce or eliminate these rational filters
  • HALO (scalable RNA guide), ECLIPSE platform (automated generation of modified cell lines, BIOINFORMATIC platform (integrated informatics)
  • Syntheco uses an electroporation with ribonucleic proteins (RNP) to give highest efficiency and minimizes off target as complex is only in cells for a short period of time
  • They confirm they are doing single cell cloning by using automated microscopy to confirm single cell growth in each cloning well

Kevin Holden, Head of Science at Syntheco

  • Engineering iPSc genetically modified cells at scale
  • The closer you get to your target site the more efficient your CRSPR so a big factor when making guides, especially for knock-in CRSPR
  • Adding a small molecule non homologous end joining inhibitor increases efficiency to 95%
  • Cold shocking the cells also assists in homologous repair
  • Use cleavage resistant templates

III. CRISPR/CAS9 AS A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL

     In the journal Science, Omar Abudayyeh and Jonathan Gootenberg discuss how CRISPR-based diagnostic (CRISPR-dx) tools offer a solution, and multiple CRISPR-dx products for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome have been authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  In addition they discuss the work by Jiao et al. in combining this technique to develop a rapid and sensitive SARS-CoV2 diagnostic test.

Omar O. AbudayyehJonathan S. Gootenberg. Science  28 May 2021: CRISPR Diagnostics
Vol. 372, Issue 6545, pp. 914-915; DOI: 10.1126/science.abi9335

Summary

Although clinical diagnostics take many forms, nucleic acid–based testing has become the gold standard for sensitive detection of many diseases, including pathogenic infections. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) has been widely adopted for its ability to detect only a few DNA or RNA molecules that can unambiguously specify a particular disease. However, the complexity of this technique restricts application to laboratory settings. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has underscored the need for the development and deployment of nucleic acid tests that are economical, easily scaled, and capable of being run in low-resource settings, without sacrifices in speed, sensitivity or specificity. CRISPR-based diagnostic (CRISPR-dx) tools offer a solution, and multiple CRISPR-dx products for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome have been authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On page 941 of this issue, Jiao et al. (1) describe a new CRISPR-based tool to distinguish several SARS-CoV-2 variants in a single reaction.

Although clinical diagnostics take many forms, nucleic acid–based testing has become the gold standard for sensitive detection of many diseases, including pathogenic infections. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) has been widely adopted for its ability to detect only a few DNA or RNA molecules that can unambiguously specify a particular disease. However, the complexity of this technique restricts application to laboratory settings. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has underscored the need for the development and deployment of nucleic acid tests that are economical, easily scaled, and capable of being run in low-resource settings, without sacrifices in speed, sensitivity or specificity. CRISPR-based diagnostic (CRISPR-dx) tools offer a solution, and multiple CRISPR-dx products for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome have been authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On page 941 of this issue, Jiao et al. (1) describe a new CRISPR-based tool to distinguish several SARS-CoV-2 variants in a single reaction.

There are multiple types of CRISPR systems comprising basic components of a single protein or protein complex, which cuts a specific DNA or RNA target programmed by a complementary guide sequence in a CRISPR-associated RNA (crRNA). The type V and VI systems and the CRISPR-associated endonucleases Cas12 (23) and Cas13 (45) bind and cut DNA or RNA, respectively. Furthermore, upon recognizing a target DNA or RNA sequence, Cas12 and Cas13 proteins exhibit “collateral activity” whereby any DNA or RNA, respectively, in the sample is cleaved regardless of its nucleic acid sequence (46). Thus, reporter DNAs or RNAs, which allow for visual or fluorescent detection upon cleavage, can be added to a sample to infer the presence or absence of specific DNA or RNA species (48).

Initial versions of CRISPR-dx utilizing Cas13 alone were sensitive to the low picomolar range, corresponding to a limit of detection of millions of molecules in a microliter sample. To improve sensitivity, preamplification methods, such as recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA), PCR, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), or nucleic acid sequence–based amplification (NASBA), can be used with Cas12 or Cas13 to enable a limit of detection down to a single molecule (8). This preamplification approach, applicable to both Cas12 and Cas13 (67), enabled a suite of detection methods and multiplexing up to four orthogonal targets (7). Additional developments expanded CRISPR-dx readouts beyond fluorescence, including lateral flow (7), colorimetric (9), and electronic or material responsive readouts (10), allowing for instrument-free approaches. In addition, post–collateral-cleavage amplification methods, such as the use of the CRISPR-associated enzyme Csm6, have been combined with Cas13 to further increase the speed of CRISPR-dx tests (7). As an alternative to collateral-cleavage–based detection, type III CRISPR systems, which involve large multiprotein complexes capable of targeting both DNA and RNA, have been used for SARS-CoV-2 detection through production of colorimetric or fluorometric readouts (11).

FDA-authorized CRISPR-dx tests are currently only for use in centralized labs, because the most common CRISPR detection protocols require fluid handling steps and two different incubations, precluding their immediate use at the point of care. Single-step formulations have been developed to overcome this limitation, and these “one-pot” versions of CRISPR-dx are simple to run, operate at a single temperature, and run without complex equipment, producing either fluorescence or lateral flow readouts. The programmability of CRISPR makes new diagnostic tests easier to develop, and within months of the release of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, many COVID-19–specific CRISPR tests were reported and distributed around the world.

The broader capability for Cas enzyme–enhanced nucleic acid binding or cleavage has led to several other detection modalities. Cas9-based methods for cleaving nucleic acids in solution for diagnostic purposes have been combined with other detection platforms, such as destruction of undesired amplicons for preparation of next-generation sequencing libraries (12), or selective removal of alleles for nucleotide-specific detection (13). Alternatively, the programmable cleavage event from the Cas nuclease can be used to initiate an amplification reaction (14). Cas9-based DNA targeting has also been used for nucleotide detection in combination with solid-state electronics, promising an amplification-free platform for detection. In this platform, called CRISPR-Chip, the Cas9 protein binds nucleotide targets of interest (often in the context of the native genome) to graphene transistors, where the presence of these targets alters either current or voltage (15). By utilizing additional Cas9 orthologs and specific guide designs, CRISPR-Chip approaches have been tuned for single–base-pair sensitivity (15). Because they are integrated with electronic readers, CRISPR-Chip platforms may allow facile point-of-care detection with handheld devices.

 

Different classes of CRISPR diagnostics. GRAPHIC: ERIN DANIEL


Jiao et al. use a distinct characteristic of type II CRISPR systems, which involve Cas9, to develop a new type of noncollateral based CRISPR detection. Unlike Cas12s and Cas13, Cas9-crRNA complex formation requires an additional RNA known as the trans-activating CRISPR RNA (tracrRNA). By sequencing RNAs bound to Cas9 from Campylobacter jejuni in its natural host, the authors identified unexpected crRNAs, called noncanonical crRNA (ncrRNA), that corresponded to endogenous transcripts. Upon investigation of this surprising observation, it became clear that the tracrRNA was capable of hybridizing to semi-complementary sequences from a variety of RNA sources, leading to biogenesis of ncrRNAs of various sizes. Recognizing that they could program tracrRNAs to target a transcript of interest, the authors generated a reprogrammed tracrRNA (Rptr) that could bind and cleave a desired transcript, converting a piece of that transcript into a functional guide RNA. By then creating fluorescent DNA sensors that would be cleaved by the Rptr and ncrRNAs, the sensing of RNA by Cas9 could be linked to a detectable readout. This platform, called LEOPARD (leveraging engineered tracrRNAs and on-target DNAs for parallel RNA detection), can be combined with gel-based readouts and enables multiplexed detection of several different sequences in a single reaction (see the figure).

Jiao et al. also combined LEOPARD with PCR in a multistep workflow to detect SARS-CoV-2 genomes from patients with COVID-19. Although more work is needed to integrate this Cas9-based detection modality into a single step with RPA or LAMP to create a portable and sensitive isothermal test, an advantage of this approach is the higher-order multiplexing that can be achieved, allowing multiple pathogens, diseases, or variants to be detected simultaneously. More work is also needed to combine this technology with extraction-free methods for better ease of use; alternative readouts to gel-based readouts, such as lateral flow and colorimetric readouts, would be beneficial for point-of-care detection.

In just 5 years, the CRISPR-dx field has rapidly expanded, growing from a set of peculiar molecular biology discoveries to multiple FDA-authorized COVID-19 tests and spanning four of the six major subtypes of CRISPR systems. Despite the tremendous promise of CRISPR-dx, substantial challenges remain to adapting these technologies for point-of-care and at-home settings. Simplification of the chemistries to operate as a single reaction in a matter of minutes would be revolutionary, especially if the reaction could be run at room temperature without any complex or expensive equipment. These improvements to CRISPR-dx assays can be achieved by identification or engineering of additional Cas enzymes with lower-temperature requirements, higher sensitivity, or faster kinetics, enabling rapid and simple amplification-free detection with single-molecule sensitivity.

Often overlooked is the necessity for a sample DNA or RNA preparation step that is simple enough to be added directly to the CRISPR reaction to maintain a simple workflow for point-of-care testing. In addition, higher-order multiplexing developments would allow for expansive testing menus and approach the possibility of testing for all known diseases. As these advancements are realized, innovative uses of CRISPR-dx will continue in areas such as surveillance, integration with biomaterials, and environmental monitoring. In future years, CRISPR-dx assays may become universal in the clinic and at home, reshaping how diseases are diagnosed.

References and Notes

Other related articles on CRISPR/Cas9 were published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal, include the following:

Search Results for ‘CRISPR’

Where is the most promising avenue to success in Pharmaceuticals with CRISPR-Cas9?

CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing tool for Staphylococcus aureus Cas9 complex (SaCas9) @ MIT’s Broad Institute

Delineating a Role for CRISPR-Cas9 in Pharmaceutical Targeting

Using CRISPR to investigate pancreatic cancer

Simple technology makes CRISPR gene editing cheaper

RNAi, CRISPR, and Gene Editing: Discussions on How To’s and Best Practices @14th Annual World Preclinical Congress June 10-12, 2015 | Westin Boston Waterfront | Boston, MA

CRISPR/Cas9: Contributions on Endoribonuclease Structure and Function, Role in Immunity and Applications in Genome Engineering

CRISPR-CAS editing brings cloning of woolly mammoth one step closer to reality

GUIDE-seq: First genome-wide method of detecting off-target DNA breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases

The Patents for CRISPR, the DNA editing technology as the Biggest Biotech Discovery of the Century

CRISPR: Applications for Autoimmune Diseases @UCSF

Read Full Post »

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence would like to announce their First Volume of their BioMedical E-Book Series A: eBooks on Cardiovascular Diseases

 

Perspectives on Nitric Oxide in Disease Mechanisms

Nitric Oxide coverwhich is now available on Amazon Kindle at

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DINFFYC

This book is a comprehensive review of Nitric Oxide, its discovery, function, and related opportunities for Targeted Therapy written by  Experts, Authors, Writers.  This book is a series of articles delineating the basic functioning of the NOS isoforms, their production widely by endothelial cells, and the effect of NITRIC OXIDE production by endothelial cells, by neutrophils and macrophages, the effect on intercellular adhesion, and the effect of circulatory shear and turbulence on NITRIC OXIDE production. The e-Book’s articles have been published on the  Open Access Online Scientific Journal, since April 2012.  All new articles on this subject, will continue to be incorporated, as published, in real time in the e-Book which is a live book.

 

We invite e-Readers to write an Article Reviews on Amazon for this e-Book.

 

All forthcoming BioMed e-Book Titles can be viewed at:

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/biomed-e-books/

 

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence, launched in April 2012 an Open Access Online Scientific Journal is a scientific, medical and business multi expert authoring environment in several domains of  life sciences, pharmaceutical, healthcare & medicine industries. The venture operates as an online scientific intellectual exchange at their website http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com and for curation and reporting on frontiers in biomedical, biological sciences, healthcare economics, pharmacology, pharmaceuticals & medicine. In addition the venture publishes a Medical E-book Series available on Amazon’s Kindle platform.

Analyzing and sharing the vast and rapidly expanding volume of scientific knowledge has never been so crucial to innovation in the medical field. WE are addressing need of overcoming this scientific information overload by:

  • delivering curation and summary interpretations of latest findings and innovations on an open-access, Web 2.0 platform with future goals of providing primarily concept-driven search in the near future
  • providing a social platform for scientists and clinicians to enter into discussion using social media
  • compiling recent discoveries and issues in yearly-updated Medical E-book Series on Amazon’s mobile Kindle platform

This curation offers better organization and visibility to the critical information useful for the next innovations in academic, clinical, and industrial research by providing these hybrid networks.

Table of Contents for Perspectives on Nitric Oxide in Disease Mechanisms

Chapter 1: Nitric Oxide Basic Research

Chapter 2: Nitric Oxide and Circulatory Diseases

Chapter 3: Therapeutic Cardiovascular Targets

Chapter 4: Nitric Oxide and Neurodegenerative Diseases

Chapter 5: Bone Metabolism

Chapter 6: Nitric Oxide and Systemic Inflammatory Disease

Chapter 7: Nitric Oxide: Lung and Alveolar Gas Exchange

Chapter 8. Nitric Oxide and Kidney Dysfunction

Chapter 9: Nitric Oxide and Cancer 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Metabolic Genomics and Pharmaceutics, Vol. 1 of BioMed Series D available on Amazon Kindle

Metabolic Genomics and Pharmaceutics, Vol. 1 of BioMed Series D available on Amazon Kindle

Reporter: Stephen S Williams, PhD

Article ID #180: Metabolic Genomics and Pharmaceutics, Vol. 1 of BioMed Series D available on Amazon Kindle. Published on 8/15/2015

WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence would like to announce the First volume of their BioMedical E-Book Series D:

Metabolic Genomics & Pharmaceutics, Vol. I

SACHS FLYER 2014 Metabolomics SeriesDindividualred-page2

which is now available on Amazon Kindle at

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B012BB0ZF0.

This e-Book is a comprehensive review of recent Original Research on  METABOLOMICS and related opportunities for Targeted Therapy written by Experts, Authors, Writers. This is the first volume of the Series D: e-Books on BioMedicine – Metabolomics, Immunology, Infectious Diseases.  It is written for comprehension at the third year medical student level, or as a reference for licensing board exams, but it is also written for the education of a first time baccalaureate degree reader in the biological sciences.  Hopefully, it can be read with great interest by the undergraduate student who is undecided in the choice of a career. The results of Original Research are gaining value added for the e-Reader by the Methodology of Curation. The e-Book’s articles have been published on the Open Access Online Scientific Journal, since April 2012.  All new articles on this subject, will continue to be incorporated, as published with periodical updates.

We invite e-Readers to write an Article Reviews on Amazon for this e-Book on Amazon.

All forthcoming BioMed e-Book Titles can be viewed at:

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/biomed-e-books/

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence, launched in April 2012 an Open Access Online Scientific Journal is a scientific, medical and business multi expert authoring environment in several domains of  life sciences, pharmaceutical, healthcare & medicine industries. The venture operates as an online scientific intellectual exchange at their website http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com and for curation and reporting on frontiers in biomedical, biological sciences, healthcare economics, pharmacology, pharmaceuticals & medicine. In addition the venture publishes a Medical E-book Series available on Amazon’s Kindle platform.

Analyzing and sharing the vast and rapidly expanding volume of scientific knowledge has never been so crucial to innovation in the medical field. WE are addressing need of overcoming this scientific information overload by:

  • delivering curation and summary interpretations of latest findings and innovations on an open-access, Web 2.0 platform with future goals of providing primarily concept-driven search in the near future
  • providing a social platform for scientists and clinicians to enter into discussion using social media
  • compiling recent discoveries and issues in yearly-updated Medical E-book Series on Amazon’s mobile Kindle platform

This curation offers better organization and visibility to the critical information useful for the next innovations in academic, clinical, and industrial research by providing these hybrid networks.

Table of Contents for Metabolic Genomics & Pharmaceutics, Vol. I

Chapter 1: Metabolic Pathways

Chapter 2: Lipid Metabolism

Chapter 3: Cell Signaling

Chapter 4: Protein Synthesis and Degradation

Chapter 5: Sub-cellular Structure

Chapter 6: Proteomics

Chapter 7: Metabolomics

Chapter 8:  Impairments in Pathological States: Endocrine Disorders; Stress

                   Hypermetabolism and Cancer

Chapter 9: Genomic Expression in Health and Disease 

 

Summary 

Epilogue

 

 

Read Full Post »

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Intelligence Presentation at The Life Sciences Collaborative

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D. Website Analytics: Adam Sonnenberg, BSc Leaders in Pharmaceutical Intelligence presented their ongoing efforts to develop an open-access scientific and medical publishing and curation platform to The Life Science Collaborative, an executive pharmaceutical and biopharma networking group in the Philadelphia/New Jersey area.

Our Team

Slide1

For more information on the Vision, Funding Deals and Partnerships please see our site at http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/vision/

Slide2

For more information about our Team please see our site at http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/contributors-biographies/

Slide5

For more information of LPBI Deals and Partnerships please see our site at http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/joint-ventures/

Slide4

For more information about our BioMed E-Series please see our site at http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/biomed-e-books/

E-Book Titles by LPBI

LPBI book titles slide Slide8Slide3

Slide6

For more information on Real-Time Conference Coverage including a full list of Conferences Covered by LPBI please go to http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/press-coverage/

For more information on Real-Time Conference Coverage and a full listing of Conferences Covered by LPBI please go to:

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/press-coverage/ Slide7

Slide10

The Pennsylvania (PA) and New Jersey (NJ) Biotech environment had been hit hard by the recession and loss of anchor big pharma companies however as highlighted by our interviews in “The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene” and other news outlets, additional issues are preventing the PA/NJ area from achieving its full potential (discussions also with LSC)

Slide9Download the PowerPoint slides here: Presentationlsc

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »