Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘stroma’


Metabolic insight into cancer cell survival

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

Revised 4/20/2016

AACR 2016: Novel Epigenetic Drug Therapeutics Revealed

http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/aacr-2016-epigenetic-drug-therapeutics/81252634/

As the 2016 American Association for Cancer Research meeting begins to downshift toward a close, the presentation sessions certainly did not suffer from a lack of enthusiasm from attendees or high-quality research from presenters. Of particular note was a major symposium that discussed next-generation epigenetic therapeutics.

In the past several years, there have been a variety of epigenetic targets exploited by newly developed drug compounds, many of which have already progressed into clinical trials. Often these compounds will target specific classes of epigenetic regulators like acetylases and histone demethylases, for instance, the small-molecule inhibitors of protein interacting bromodomains—implicated in a diverse range of cancers—and methyltransferase inhibitors, such as lysyl demethylases (KDM).

However, for all of their recently achieved success, researchers are continually searching for increasingly rapid methods to validate epigenetic drug targets. Session Chairperson Udo Oppermann, Ph.D., principal investigator at the University of Oxford, stressed that open access research and continued investigator cooperation were key factors for driving rapid development of novel therapeutics in the field. Anecdotally, Dr. Oppermann noted that if biologists were a bit more like the international cooperative teams of physicists that discovered the Higgs boson or gravitational waves, many biological endeavors would advance rather quickly.

After providing the audience with a brief introduction to the symposium’s topic, Dr. Oppermann described his current research on histone demethylase inhibitors in multiple myeloma and the connection to metabolic pathways. He surmised that tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle-derived metabolites can link cellular metabolism to cancer—impacting epigenetic landscapes. Specifically, the TCA intermediates are inhibitors of KDMs, ultimately controlling epigenetic and metabolic regulation.

Furthermore, Dr. Oppermann’s group was able to show that treatment of myeloma cell lines with the potent and specific histone demethylase inhibitor GSK-J4 was able to reverse the Myc-driven metabolic dependency, forcing a selected amino acid depletion. This deficiency led to the integrated stress response and the activation of proapoptotic genes. This work helps to solidify further the potent nature of GSK-J4 in cancer while simultaneously uncovering the metabolic mechanisms that cancer cells employ to keep their overproliferative phenotypes progressing forward.

Next, Tomasz Cierpicki, Ph.D., assistant professor at the University of Michigan, described his work on targeting leukemic stem cells with small-molecule inhibitors of the protein regulator of cytokinesis 1 (PRC1). Dr. Cierpicki took the audience through his research design, which was to target BMI1, an oncogene that determines the proliferative capacity and self-renewal potential of normal and leukemic stem cells. BMI1 has been implicated in a variety of tumors and is essential for the Polycomb Repressive Complex 1 (PRC1). Moreover, BMI1 interacts with the RING1B protein to form an active E3 ubiquitin ligase that targets histone H2A, modifying epigenetic regulation mechanisms.

Dr. Cierpicki’s laboratory looked at inhibitors of the RING1B–BMI1 E3 ligase complex as potential therapeutic agents targeting cancer stem cells. Using an array of techniques from fragment screening to medicinal chemistry, the researchers were able to identify potent compounds that bound to RING1B–BMI1 and inhibit its E3 ubiquitin ligase activity with low micromolar affinities. When testing in vitro, the inhibitors revealed robust downregulation of H2A ubiquitination. Dr. Cierpicki and his colleagues found that the RING1–BMI1 inhibitor blocked the self-renewal capacity of the stem cells and induced cellular differentiation—validating RING ligases as a novel epigenetic drug target.

Finishing up the session was William Sellers, M.D., vice president and global head of oncology for the Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research. Dr. Sellers’ research is focused on what genes are necessary for epigenetic regulation of cancer and how they are linked to essential metabolic processes. He and his colleagues accomplished their studies through the use of large-scale shRNA screening across a diverse set of 390 cancer cell lines.

Utilizing deep small hairpin RNA (shRNA) screening libraries, at 20 shRNAs per genome, provided the investigators with highly robust gene-level data, which resulted in the emergence of several distinct classes of cancer-dependent genes. For example, Dr. Sellers’ group found that several known oncogenes fell into the genetic dependence class, whereas other genes were sorted into lineage, paralog, and collateral synthetic lethality dependent classes.

An interesting example from Dr. Sellers’ work was the link his laboratory discovered between polyamine metabolism and salvage and the protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5). In particular, the loss of methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP)—which has been observed in many solid tumors and hematologic malignancies—resulted in the accumulation of S-methyl-5′-thioadenosine (MTA), which specifically inhibited the epigenetic mechanisms of PRMT5. The culmination Dr. Sellers’ analysis led to the finding that PRMT5 is a novel target for therapeutic development in MTAP deleted cancers.

These three presentations represented some of the excellent, cutting-edge research that is not only looking to develop novel drug therapeutics but also trying to uncover the underlying molecular mechanisms of epigenetic regulation and cancer.

 

 

 

A Metabolic Twist that Drives Cancer Survival

http://www.technologynetworks.com/Metabolomics/news.aspx?ID=190262

A novel metabolic pathway that helps cancer cells thrive in conditions that are lethal to normal cells has been identified.

 

“It’s long been thought that if we could target tumor-specific metabolic pathways, it could lead to effective ways to treat cancer,” said senior author Dr. Ralph DeBerardinis, Associate Professor of CRI and Pediatrics, Director of CRI’s Genetic and Metabolic Disease Program, and Chief of the Division of Pediatric Genetics and Metabolism at UT Southwestern. “This study finds that two very different metabolic processes are linked in a way that is specifically required for cells to adapt to the stress associated with cancer progression.”

The study, available online today in the journal Nature, reveals that cancer cells use an alternate version of two well-known metabolic pathways called the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP) and the Krebs cycle to defend against toxins. The toxins are reactive oxygen species (ROS) that kill cells via oxidative stress.

This work builds on earlier studies by Dr. DeBerardinis’ laboratory that found the Krebs cycle, a series of chemical reactions that cells use to generate energy, could reverse itself under certain conditions to nourish cancer cells.

Dr. DeBerardinis said most normal cells and tumor cells grow by attaching to nutrient-rich tissue called a matrix. “They are dependent on matrix attachment to receive growth-promoting signals and to regulate their metabolism in a way that supports cell growth, proliferation, and survival,” he said.

Detachment from the matrix results in a sudden increase in ROS that is lethal to normal cells, he added. Cancer cells seem to have a workaround.

The destruction of healthy cells when detached from the matrix was reported in a landmark 2009 Nature study by Harvard Medical School cell biologist Dr. Joan Brugge. Intriguingly, that same study found that inserting an oncogene – a gene with the potential to cause cancer – into a normal cell caused it to behave like a cancer cell and survive detachment, said Dr. DeBerardinis, who also is affiliated with the Eugene McDermott Center for Human Growth & Development, holds the Joel B. Steinberg, M.D. Chair in Pediatrics, and is a Sowell Family Scholar in Medical Research at UT Southwestern.

“Another Nature study, this one from CRI Director Dr. Sean Morrison’s laboratory in November 2015, found that the rare skin cancer cells that were able to detach from the primary tumor and successfully metastasize to other parts of the body had the ability to keep ROS levels from getting dangerously high,” Dr. DeBerardinis said. Dr. Morrison, also a CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator, holds the Mary McDermott Cook Chair in Pediatrics Genetics at UT Southwestern.

Working under the premise that the two findings were pieces of the same puzzle, a crucial part of the picture seemed to be missing, he said.

It was known for decades that the PPP was a major source of NADPH, which provides a source of reducing equivalents (that is, electrons) to scavenge ROS; however, the PPP produces NADPH in a part of the cell called the cytosol, whereas the reactive oxygen species are generated primarily in another subcellular structure called the mitochondria.

“If you think of ROS as fire, then NADPH is like the water used by cancer cells to douse the flames,” Dr. DeBerardinis said. But how could NADPH from the PPP help deal with the stress of ROS produced in a completely different part of the cell? “What we did was to discover how this happens,” Dr. DeBerardinis said.

The current study in Nature demonstrates that cancer cells use a “piggybacking” system to carry reducing equivalents from the PPP into the mitochondria. This movement involves an unusual reaction in the cytosol that transfers reducing equivalents from NADPH to a molecule called citrate, similar to a reversed reaction of the Krebs cycle, he said. The citrate then enters the mitochondria and stimulates another pathway that results in the release of reducing equivalents to produce NADPH right at the location of ROS creation, allowing the cancer cells to survive and grow without the benefit of matrix attachment.

“We knew that both the PPP and Krebs cycle provide metabolic benefits to cancer cells.  But we had no idea that they were linked in this unusual fashion,” he said. “Strikingly, normal cells were unable to transport NADPH by this mechanism, and died as a result of the high ROS levels.”

Dr. DeBerardinis stressed that the findings were based on cultured cell models, and more research will be necessary to test the role of the pathway in living organisms. “We are particularly excited to test whether this pathway is required for metastasis, because cancer cells need to survive in a matrix-detached state in the circulation in order to metastasize,” he said.

CRI scientists find novel metabolic twist that drives cancer survival
http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/news-releases/year-2016/april/cancer-metabolism.html

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/04/09/programmed-cell-death-and-cancer-therapy/5 days ago Cancer Cell Survival Driven by Novel Metabolic Pathway … This new study describes an alternate version of two wellknown metabolic pathways, the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP) and the Krebs cycle,…

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/abs/nature10642.html Jan 19, 2012 Nature | Letter …. DeBerardinis, R. J. et al. Beyond aerobic …. Andrew R. Mullen,; Pei-Hsuan Chen,; Tzuling Cheng &; Ralph J. DeBerardinis ..   

Haematopoietic stem cells require a highly regulated protein – Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7498/abs/nature13035.html May 1, 2014 Nature | Article. Print; Share/ ….. synthesis. Nature Methods 6, 275–277 (2009) …. Robert A. J. Signer,; Jeffrey A. Magee &; Sean J. Morrison …       
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v527/n7577/abs/nature15726.html Nov 12, 2015 Nature | Article ….. Multistep nature of metastatic inefficiency: dormancy of solitary cells after successful extravasation and ….. Sean J. Morrison …     
Deep imaging of bone marrow shows non-dividing stem Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7571/abs/nature15250.html   Oct 1, 2015 Nature | Letter. Print; Share/ …… Morrison, S. J. & Scadden, D. T. The bone marrow niche for ….. Kiranmai S. Kocherlakota &; Sean J. Morrison …
https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/category/cancer-biology-innovations-in-cancer-therapy/genomic-expression/Glutamine and cancer: cell biology, physiology, and clinical opportunities …. Metabolism of glutamine-derived α-ketoglutarate in the TCA cycle serves … known as hexosamines, that are used to glycosylate growth factor receptors and …… of two wellknown metabolic pathways, the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP )
The Mitochondrial Warburg Effect: A Cancer Enigma – IBC Journal
http://www.ibc7.org/article/file_down.php?pid=48&mode=article This feature of cancer cells is known as the Warburg effect, named … new paradigm of collaboration and a well-designed systemic approach will supply … Krebs cycle. … The pentose phosphate pathway uses glucose to produce ribose, which is used … glucose is taken up into cells, it is used in two main metabolic pathways

 

New paper offers intriguing insights into tumor metabolism     William G. Gilroy    August 19, 2009

Posted In: Research

A paper appearing in this week’s edition of the journal Nature by a team of researchers that includes University of Notre Dame biologist Zachary T. Schafer has important new implications for understanding the metabolism of tumors.

Schafer, an assistant professor of biological sciences and Coleman Junior Chair of Cancer Biology, points out that in the early stages of tumor formation some cells become detached from their normal cellular matrix. These “homeless” cells tend to develop certain defects that stop them from becoming cancerous. In a process known as apoptosis, these precancerous cells essentially kill themselves, allowing them to be destroyed by immune system cells.

The prevailing wisdom among researchers has been that apoptosis was the only way that cells could die.

In studies conducted prior to the research described in the Nature paper, it was found that even when apoptosis was inhibited in detached, precancerous cells, they still eventually died. Intrigued by these results, a team of researchers led by Joan S. Brugge, Louise Foote Pfieffer Professor of Cell Biology at Harvard Medical School, and Schafer decided to take a closer look.

They report in this week’s Nature paper that they found that even when apoptosis was inhibited in detached cells endowed with a cancer-causing gene, they still were incapable of absorbing glucose, their primary energy source. Additionally, the cells displayed signs of oxidative stress, which is a harmful accumulation of oxygen-derived molecules called reactive oxygen species (ROS). The research also revealed decreased ATP production, a key factor in energy transport in the cells.

Schafer notes that this combination of loss of glucose transport, decreased ATP production and heightened oxidative stress reveal a manner of cell death that hadn’t been previously demonstrated to play a role in this context.

In the next phase of the study, Schafer engineered the cells to express a high level of HER2, a gene known to be hyperactive in many breast cancer tumors. He also treated the cells with antioxidants to relieve oxidative stress.

Both approaches helped the cells survive. The HER2-treated cells regained glucose transport, avoided oxidative stress and recovered ATP levels.
Most surprisingly, the antioxidants restored metabolic activity in the cells by allowing fatty acids to be effectively used instead of glucose as an energy source, providing them with a chance to survive.

“Our results raise the possibility that antioxidant activity might allow early stage tumor cells to survive where they would otherwise die from these metabolic defects,” Schafer said.

He also cautions that while the antioxidant findings were surprising, their research was done solely in cell cultures and more research needs to be done before there are clear implications for individuals and their diets.

The paper does, however, offer important new clues about the metabolism of tumor cells and important information that may lead to drugs that can developed to target them.

 

Antioxidant and Oncogene Rescue of Metabolic Defects Caused by
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2931797/Aug 19, 2009
Nature. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 Sep 2. Published in … Y. Irie,1 Sizhen Gao,1 Pere Puigserver,1,2 and Joan S. Brugge1,*.

http://www.nature.com/cdd/journal/v10/n8/full/4401251a.html
Proteasome inhibitors have been shown to be effective in cancer treatment, an ability … a specific inhibitor of 26S proteasome, also reduced cell viability ( 80% with 10 mu …
be a consequence of the increased generation of ROS caused by MG132. …. vectors endowed with the wild type forms of RB or p53 genes (Figure 1f).

 

The Metastasis-Promoting Roles of Tumor-Associated Immune Cells

Tumor metastasis is driven not only by the accumulation of intrinsic alterations in malignant cells, but also by the interactions of cancer cells with various stromal cell components of the tumor microenvironment. In particular, inflammation and infiltration of the tumor tissue by host immune cells, such as tumor-associated macrophages, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, and regulatory T cells have been shown to support tumor growth in addition to invasion and metastasis. Each step of tumor development, from initiation through metastatic spread, is promoted by communication between tumor and immune cells via the secretion of cytokines, growth factors and proteases that remodel the tumor microenvironment. Invasion and metastasis requires neovascularization, breakdown of the basement membrane, and remodeling of the extracellular matrix for tumor cell invasion and extravasation into the blood and lymphatic vessels. The subsequent dissemination of tumor cells to distant organ sites necessitates a treacherous journey through the vasculature, which is fostered by close association with platelets and macrophages. Additionally, the establishment of the pre-metastatic niche and specific metastasis organ tropism is fostered by neutrophils and bone marrow-derived hematopoietic immune progenitor cells and other inflammatory cytokines derived from tumor and immune cells, which alter the local environment of the tissue to promote adhesion of circulating tumor cells. This review focuses on the interactions between tumor cells and immune cells recruited to the tumor microenvironment, and examines the factors allowing these cells to promote each stage of metastasis.

 

Once established, tumors are quite adept at preventing anti-tumor immune responses, and several defense mechanisms to circumvent immune detection have been described including antigen loss, down-regulation of major histocompatibility molecules (MHC), deregulation or loss of components of the endogenous antigen presentation pathway, and tumor-induced immune suppression mediated through cytokine secretion or direct interactions between tumor ligands and immune cell receptors [2]. These mechanisms contribute to the process of immunoediting in which tumor cell subpopulations susceptible to immune recognition are lysed and eliminated, while resistant tumor cells proliferate and increase their frequency in the developing neoplasia [3]. However, tumors not only effectively escape immune recognition, they also actively subvert the normal anti-tumor activity of immune cells to promote further tumor growth and metastasis.

During early stages of cancer development, infiltrating immune cell populations are primarily tumor suppressive, but depending on the presence of accessory stromal cells, the local cytokine milieu, and tumor-specific interactions, these immune cells can undergo phenotypic changes to enhance tumor cell dissemination and metastasis. For instance, CD4+ T cells, macrophages, and neutrophils have all been shown to possess opposing properties depending on the inflammatory state of the tumor environment, the tissue context, and other cellular stimuli intrinsic to the altered tumor cells [4, 5]. These features are dependent upon the inherent plasticity of immune cells in response to stimulatory or suppressive cytokines [6]. Notably, the switch from a Th1 tumor-suppressive phenotype such as CD4+ “helper” T cells, which aid cytotoxic CD8+ T cells in tumor rejection, to a Th2 tumor-promoting “regulatory” phenotype, which blocks CD8+ T-cell activity, is a characteristic outcome in the inflammatory, immune-suppressive tumor microenvironment [5, 7]. Likewise, M1 macrophages and N1 neutrophils are known to have pronounced anti-tumor activity; however, these immune cells are often subverted to a tumor-promoting M2 and N2 phenotype, respectively, in response to immune-suppressive cytokines secreted by tumor tissue [8].

 

The crosstalk that occurs between tumor and immune cells within the tumor microenvironment, the circulation, or at distant metastatic sites has been clearly shown to foster metastatic dissemination. Immune cells as well as the suppressive factors that they secrete represent potential targets for therapeutic intervention. Regardless of their source, cytokines, chemokines, proteases, and growth factors are some of the main factors contributing to immunosuppression and immune-mediated tumor progression. These molecules can be produced by immune, stromal, or malignant cells and can act in paracrine and autocrine fashion to promote each stage of tumor cell invasion and metastasis by enhancing inflammation, angiogenesis, tumor proliferation, and recruitment of additional immunosuppressive and tumor-promoting immune cells. These secreted factors provide the malignant cells with an abundant source of growth and survival signals that perpetuate a supportive microenvironment for tumor metastasis and represent some of the most attractive targets for directed anti-tumor therapy. Immune pathways provide numerous soluble targets for cancer treatment, and indeed, many drugs to target immune-suppressive molecules are moving forward in clinical trials. For instance, the anti-RANKL (Denosumab) antibody has been shown to effectively inhibit bone metastasis in prostate cancer patients [201], while a variety of neutralizing antibodies to IL-1β and IL-1 receptor have been shown to have efficacy in treating metastasis in pre-clinical animal models [202]. Several agents that target IL-1 or other immune-suppressive cytokines are already approved for the treatment of some inflammatory diseases and are prime candidates for human trails [202]. Additionally, other proteins involved in tumor progression that are induced directly or indirectly by immune cell populations, such as EMT-associated transcription factors, adhesion molecules, and tumor receptors and ligands which mediate immune suppression, could also be targeted with small molecules or blocking antibodies. Antibodies against two surface molecules expressed by suppressive lymphoid cells, anti-CTLA-4 (ipiliumimab) [203, 204] and anti-PD-1 have been recently gaining increasing support from clinical trials for their effective treatment for many forms of cancer including advanced melanoma and prostate cancer [205, 206]. Specifically, anti-CTLA-4 has been shown to be particularly efficacious in metastatic melanoma, while anti-PD-1 has only just begun a comprehensive evaluation in clinical trials [204, 207]. Likewise, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) to prevent or treat chronic inflammation and lymphangiogenesis [208210], and anti-coagulants to prevent platelet aggregation on circulating tumor cells [211] are just two examples of a multitude of therapeutic agents that could be utilized to prevent immune-mediated tumor progression at unique stages of metastasis. Of course, new methods or biomarkers for the detection of patients at risk of tumor progression or metastasis are also desperately needed to tailor personalized therapy for patients to obtain the best possible clinical outcome.

 

  1. https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/category/cancer-and-therapeutics/Mar 26, 2016 This turns your immune systems ability to attack and kill cancer cells back on” …. the rare skin cancer cells that were able to detach from theprimary tumor and successfully metastasize to other parts of the body had the ability to keep ROS levels from getting dangerously high,” Dr. DeBerardinis remarked.

  2. https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/tag/histone-deacetylase-inhibitors-hdac/The HDAC-inhibiting agent romidepsin significantly increased T-cell tumor … skin cancer cells that were able to detach from the primary tumor and successfully … of the body had the ability to keep ROS levels from getting dangerously high,” Dr. …. Sensitivity for EGFR or KRAS was higher in patients with multiplemetastatic …

  3. https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/category/cancer-biology-innovations-in-cancer-therapy/genomic-expression/In a study involving 320 patients, the researchers were able to infer cell death in …. Glutamine and cancer: cell biology, physiology, and clinical opportunities … On the other hand, GLS2 expression is enhanced in some neuroblastomas, …… of the body had the ability to keep ROS levels from getting dangerously high,” Dr.

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Author and curator: Ritu Saxena, Ph.D.

This post attempts to integrate three posts and to embed all comments made to all three papers, allowing the reader a critically thought compilation of evidence-based medicine and scientific discourse.

Dr. Dror Nir authored a post on October 16th titled “Knowing the tumor’s size and location, could we target treatment to THE ROI by applying imaging-guided intervention?” The article attracted over 20 comments from readers including researchers and oncologists debating the following issues:

  • imaging technologies in cancer
  • tumor size, and
  • tumor response to treatment.

The debate lead to several new posts authored by:

This post is a compilation of the views of authors representing different specialties including research and medicine. In medicine: Pathology, Oncology Surgery and Medical Imaging, are represented.

Dr. Nir’s post talked about an advanced technique developed by the researchers at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Canada for cancer lesions’ detection and image-guided cancer treatment in the specific Region of Interest (ROI). The group was successfully able to show the feasibility and safety of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) – controlled transurethral ultrasound therapy for prostate cancer in eight patients.

The dilemma of defining the Region of Interest for imaging-based therapy

Dr. Bernstein, one of the authors at Pharmaceuticalintelligence.com, a Fellow of the American College of Pathology, reiterated the objective of the study stating that “Their study’s objective was to prove that using real-time MRI guidance of HIFU treatment is possible and it guarantees that the location of ablated tissue indeed corresponds to the locations planned for treatment.” He expressed his opinion about the study by bringing into focus a very important issue i.e., given the fact that the part surrounding the cancer tissue is in the transition state, challenge in defining a ROI that could be approached by imaging-based therapy. Regarding the study discussed, he states – “This is a method demonstration, but not a proof of concept by any means.  It adds to the cacophany of approaches, and in a much larger study would prove to be beneficial in treatment, but not a cure for serious prostate cancer because it is unlikely that it can get beyond the margin, and also because there is overtreatment at the cutoff of PSA at 4.0. I think that the pathologist has to see the tissue, and the standard in pathology now is for any result that is cancer, two pathologists or a group sitting together should see it. It’s not an easy diagnosis.”

“The crux of the matter in terms of capability is that the cancer tissue, adjacent tissue, and the fibrous matrix are all in transition to the cancerous state. It is taught to resect leaving “free margin”, which is better aesthetically, and has had success in breast surgery. The dilemma is that the patient may return, but how soon?” concludes Dr. Larry.

Dr. Nir responded, “The philosophy behind lumpectomy is preserving quality of life. It was Prof. Veronesi (IEO) who introduced this method 30 years ago noticing that in the majority of cases; the patient will die from something else before presenting recurrence of breast cancer. It is well established that when the resection margins are declared by a pathologist (as good as he/she could be) as “free of cancer”, the probability of recurrence is much lower than otherwise. He explains further, “The worst enemy of finding solutions is doing nothing while using the excuse of looking for the “ultimate solution.” Personally, I believe in combining methods and improving clinical assessment based on information fusion. Being able to predict, and then timely track the response to treatment is a major issue that affects survival and costs!

In this discussion my view is expressed, below.

  • The paper that discusses imaging technique had the objective of finding out whether real-time MRI guidance of treatment was even possible and if yes, whether the treatment could be performed in accurate location of the ROI? The data reveals they were pretty successful in accomplishing their objective and of course that gives hope to the imaging-based targeted therapies.
  • Whether the ROI is defined properly and if it accounts for the real tumor cure, is a different question. Role of pathologists and the histological analysis and what they bring to the table cannot be ruled out, and the absence of a defined line between the tumor and the stromal region in the vicinity is well documented. However, that cannot rule out the value and scope of imaging-based detection and targeted therapy. After all, it is seminal in guiding minimally invasive surgery.
  • As another arm of personalized medicine-based cure for cancer, molecular biologists at MD Anderson have suggested molecular and genetic profiling of the tumor to determine genetic aberrations on the basis of which matched-therapy could be recommended to patients.
  • When phase I trial was conducted, the results were encouraging and the survival rate was better in matched-therapy patients compared to unmatched patients. Therefore, every time there is more to consider when treating a cancer patient and who knows a combination of views of oncologists, pathologists, molecular biologists, geneticists, surgeons would device improvised protocols for diagnosis and treatment. It is always going to be complicated and generalizations would never give an answer. Smart interpretations of therapies – imaging-based or others would always be required!

To read additional comments, including those from Dr. Williams, Dr. Lev-Ari, refers to:

Knowing the tumor’s size and location, could we target treatment to THE ROI by applying imaging-guided intervention? Author and Reporter: Dror Nir, Ph.D.

Dr. Lev-Ari in her paper linked three fields that bear weight in the determination of Tumor Response to Therapy:

  • Personalized Medicine
  • Cancer Cell Biology, and
  • Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS)

Her objectives were to address research methodology, the heterogeneity innate to Cancer Cell Biology and Treatment choice in the Operating Room — all are related to the topic at hand: How to deliver optimal care with least invasive intervention course.

Any attempt aimed at approaching this desirable result, called Personalized Medicine,  involves engagement in three strategies:

  • prediction of Patient’s reaction to Drug induction
  • design of Clinical Trials to validate drug efficacy on small subset of patients predicted to react favorable to drug regimen, increasing validity and reliability
  • Genetical identification of patients at no need to have a drug administered if non sensitivity to the drug has been predicted

These method are to be applied to a list of 56 leading Cancer types.

While the executive task of the clinician remains to assess the differentiation in Tumor Response to Treatment, pursuit of  individualized histopathology, as well as tumor molecular, genetic and functional characteristics has to take into consideration the “total” individual patients’ characteristics: age, co-morbidities, secondary risks and allergies to drugs.

In Dr. Lev-Ari’s paper Minimally Invasive Treatment (MIT) is compared with Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) applied for tumor resection.  In many cases MIS is not the right surgical decision, yet, it is applied for a corollary of patient-centered care considerations. At present, facing the unknown of the future behavior of the tumor as its response to therapeutics bearing uncertainty related to therapy outcomes.

Forget me not – says the ‘Stroma’

Dr. Brücher, the author of review on tumor response criteria, expressed his views on the topic. He remembers that 10 years ago, every cancer researcher stated – “look at the tumor cells only – forget the stroma”. However, the times have changed, “now, everyone knows that it is a system we are looking at, and viewing and analyzing only tumor cells is really not enough.”

He went on to state “if we would be honest, we would have to declare that all data, which had been produced 8-13 years ago, dealing with laser capture microdissection, would need a rescrutinization, because the influence of the stroma was ‘forgotten’.”

He added, “the surgeon looks at the ‘free margin’ in a kind of reductionable model, the pathologist is more the control instance. I personally see the pathologist as ‘the control instance’ of surgical quality. Therefore, not the wish of the surgeon is important, the objective way of looking into problems or challenges. Can a pathologist always state if a R0-resection had been performed?”

What is the real RO-resection?

There have been many surrogate marker analysis, says Dr. Brücher, and that a substantially well thought through structured analysis has never been done: mm by mm and afterwards analyzing that by a ROC analysis. For information on genetic markers on cancer, refer to the following post by Dr. Lev-Ari’s: Personalized Medicine: Cancer Cell Biology and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS)

He also stated that there is no gold standard to compare the statistical ROC analysis to. Often it is just declared and stated but it is still not clear what the real RO-resection is?

He added, “in some organs it is very difficult and we all (surgeons, pathologists, clinicians) that we always get to the limit, if we try interpreting the R-classification within the 3rd dimension.”

Dr. Brücher explains regarding resectability classification, “If lymph nodes are negative it does not mean, lymph nodes are really negative. For example, up to 38% upper GI cancers have histological negative lymph nodes, but immunohistochemical positive lymph nodes. And, Stojadinovic et al have also shown similar observations at el in colorectal cancer. So the 4th dimension of cancer – the lymph nodes / the lymphatic vessel invasion are much more important than just a TNM classification, which unfortunately does often not reflect real tumor biology.”

The discussion regarding the transition state of the tumor surrounding tissue and the ‘free margin’ led to a bigger issue, the heterogeneity of tumors.

Dr. Bernstein quoted a few lines from the review article titled “Tumor response criteria: are they appropriate?, authored by Dr Björn LDM Brücher et al published in Future Oncology in 2012.

  • Tumor heterogeneity is a ubiquitous phemomenon. In particular, there are important differences among the various types of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers in terms of tumor biology, treatment response and prognosis.
  • This forms the principal basis for targeted therapy directed by tumor-specific testing at either the gene or protein level. Despite rapid advances in our understanding of targeted therapy for GI cancers, the impact on cancer survival has been marginal.
  • Can tumor response to therapy be predicted, thereby improving the selection of patients for cancer treatment?
  • In 2000, the NCI with the European Association for Research and Treatment of Cancer, proposed a replacement of 2D measurement with a decrease in the largest tumor diameter by 30% in one dimension. Tumor response as defined would translate into a 50% decrease for a spherical lesion
  • We must rethink how we may better determine treatment response in a reliable, reproducible way that is aimed at individualizing the therapy of cancer patients.
  • We must change the tools we use to assess tumor response. The new modality should be based on empirical evidence that translates into relevant and meaningful clinical outcome data.
  • This becomes a conundrum of sorts in an era of ‘minimally invasive treatment’.
  • Integrated multidisciplinary panel of international experts – not sure that that will do it.

Dr. Bernstein followed up by authoring a separate post on tumor response. His views on tumor response criteria have been quoted in the following paragraphs:

Can tumor response to therapy be predicted?

The goal is not just complete response. Histopathological response seems to be related post-treatment histopathological assessment but it is not free from the challenge of accurately determining treatment response, as this method cannot delineate whether or not there are residual cancer cells. Functional imaging to assess metabolic response by 18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET also has its limits, as the results are impacted significantly by several variables:

• tumor type
• sizing
• doubling time
• anaplasia?
• extent of tumor necrosis
• type of antitumor therapy and the time when response was determined.

The new modality should be based on individualized histopathology as well as tumor molecular, genetic and functional characteristics, and individual patients’ characteristics, a greater challenge in an era of ‘minimally invasive treatment’.

This listing suggests that for every cancer the following data has to be collected (except doubling time). If there were five variables, the classification based on these alone would calculate to be very sizable based on Eugene Rypka’s feature extraction and classification.

But looking forward, time to remission and disease free survival are additionally important. Treatment for cure is not the endpoint, but the best that can be done is to extend the time of survival to a realistic long term goal and retain a quality of life.

For detailed discussion on the topic of tumor response and comments refer to the following posts:

What can we expect of tumor therapeutic response?

Author: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

Judging ‘Tumor response’-there is more food for thought

Reporter: Ritu Saxena, Ph.D.

Additional Sources:

Research articles:

Brücher BLDM  et al. Tumor response criteria: are they appropriate? Future Oncol. August Vol. 8, No. 8, Pages 903-906 (2012).

Brücher BLDM, Piso P, Verwaal V et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: overview and basics. Cancer Invest.30(3),209–224 (2012).


Brücher BLDM, Swisher S, Königsrainer A et al. Response to preoperative therapy in upper gastrointestinal cancers. Ann. Surg. Oncol.16(4),878–886 (2009).


Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer47(1),207–214 (1981).


Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J. Natl Cancer Inst.92(3),205–216 (2000).


Brücher BLDM, Becker K, Lordick F et al. The clinical impact of histopathological response assessment by residual tumor cell quantification in esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. Cancer106(10),2119–2127 (2006).

Read Full Post »