Mesothelioma Blog

Cancer stem cells are believed to be the driving force behind a tumor’s growth. It is also believed that the resistance of cancer stem cells is one of the major hurdles in formulating effective cancer treatment programs.

Now, researchers report that they have identified drugs that are specifically designed to kill these cancer stem cells.

Lead researcher, Piyush Gupta of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Broad Institute, suggests that cancer stem cells are quite likely the cells responsible for cancer recurrences following treatment. As such, the promise of drugs that directly kill these kinds of cells would mean that cancer could one day be much easier to cure.

From the outset, the goal of Gupta’s team was to identify chemical compounds that specifically attacked cancer stem cells. Sifting through 16,000 contenders, they eventually found success via a chemical called salinomycin.

In tests performed on lab rats, the team found that salinomycin was 100 times more effective in killing breast cancer stem cells than paclitaxel, a common chemo drug currently in use.

While the news is promising, the team stresses that salinomycin may or may not lead to effective cancer treatment. Other compounds geared towards killing cancer stem cells have yet to be tested, and the safety of salinomycin in humans is unknown. As such, the next step in research involves additional tests in lab mice to determine if clinical trials among humans are safe enough to conduct.

If successful, Dr. Gupta foresees a future cancer treatment regimen that includes dual therapies – traditional chemotherapy that wipes out the majority of tumor cells, and drug treatment that kills resistant strains of cancer stem cells.

Regardless of the safety and effectiveness of salinomycin, the discovery provides researchers with a new avenue of research that could lead to additional insights into cancer treatment in the future.

Resources:
 http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticN…
 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2…

Overwhelmingly, lung cancer is directly linked to cigarette smoking. However, every year a small percentage of people diagnosed with lung cancer are non-smokers (about 10 to 15 percent of all cases).

Little is known about how or why lung cancer develops in the absence of cigarette smoke, but a new study sheds some new light on the subject. Thanks to the study (headed by the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center and National Cancer Institute), it appears that a small molecule known as miR-21 may be a contributing factor.

The study, which involved examining lung tumors of patients who were non-smokers, found increased levels of miR-21. More over, the molecule, which is a microRNA, was exceptionally elevated in individuals who expressed a mutation in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene. The EGFR gene mutation is a commonality among many non-smoking lung cancer patients.

Elevated miR-21 molecules were not found to be present, on average, in lung cancer cases related to smoking patients.

Researchers note that they believe miR-21 is not just a biomarker of lung cancer, but rather a contributing factor. Due to this fact, researchers may eventually find effective treatment methods that inhibit the production of miR-21 molecules. Two early experiments – one attempting to disarm miR-21 production and another blocking the EGFR pathways themselves – have both already delivered promising results.

Doctors caution that there is a long way to go before a potential new treatment is available. Still they remain cautiously optimistic about the potential benefits of the new discovery.

Resource:
 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200…
 http://health.usnews.com/articles/health…

Thalidomide has undergone a bit of a renaissance in the past few years. Though banned approximately 50 years for the purpose of morning sickness due to major birth defects, doctors are now investigating the drug as a possible cancer treatment.

Though thalidomide has shown promising results for a number of cancers, it appears that the drug is not successful in treating small cell lung cancers. The findings are based on a 2-year study based out of the University College and Middlesex Hospitals in London. The study results were published in the July 16 edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Thalidomide was initially considered as a potential treatment for cancer because it is an anti-angiogenic drug. As such, it suppresses the ability to grow new blood vessels. Cancers require the formation of such blood vessels to help feed a growing tumor with oxygen.

In the London study, more than 700 patients were randomized between two groups. The first group was given a treatment regiment that incorporated both chemotherapy and a daily dose of 100 to 200 mg of thalidomide. The second group received chemotherapy and a placebo.

After two years, researchers were disappointed to find no statistical difference of survival times between the two groups. In fact, thalidomide patients actually fared slightly worse, with an average survival rate of 10.1 months, as opposed to 10.5 months in the control group.

More over, thalidomide patients were found to be twice as likely to develop blood clots.

Given the high participant size and length of research, experts now consider thalidomide a closed door in terms of lung cancer treatment.

While researchers will now have to turn their focus to new treatment options for small cell lung cancer, thalidomide still shows promise in treating other cancers, such as myeloma, malignant mesothelioma and prostate cancer.

Resources:
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/815402…
 http://www.forbes.com/feeds/hscout/2009/…

An alarming number of results reported by clinical cancer studies may be biased due to conflicts of interest, according to a recent comprehensive analysis of major medical journals.

The analysis, which will be published in the June 15, 2009 issue of the American Cancer Society’s CANCER Journal, looked at more than 1,500 completed cancer studies to check for potential bias and conflicts of interest.

Of the most concern are studies that are funded in some way by pharmaceutical companies. Other potential conflicts of interest include consulting fees paid to authors and co-authorship by industry employees. In total, 29 percent of the cancer studies reviewed were found to have conflicts of interest simply by looking at authorship credits. Additionally, 17 percent of the studies specifically declared industry funding.

Other findings gleaned from the review include:

In cases where a conflict of interest was present, randomized clinical trials were more likely to link a survival advantage to the medical treatment
Cancer studies funded with industry money were primarily concerned with treatment 62 percent of the time, as opposed to 36 percent of the time for non-industry funded studies.
20 percent of industry-funded studies focused on epidemiology, prevention, risk factors, screening and diagnostics, as opposed to 47 percent for non-industry funded studies.

It has long been a requirement for researchers to disclose potential conflicts of interest in research papers and articles. However, such conflicts have become increasingly difficult to track, thanks in part to factors such as consulting fees and personal stock purchases.

Unfortunately, this review shows that conflicts of interest are rampant among oncology studies, and negative side effects could result. The authors call for improved scrutiny and more rigorous testing standards. However, with funding often scarce for research programs, it seems unlikely that industry-funded programs will disappear anytime soon.

Resources:
 http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2…
 http://health.usnews.com/articles/health…

Researchers have long known that cancer cases are a rarity among individuals with Down Syndrome. Now, a team of scientists claims to have discovered the science behind the facts – a surplus production of a particular cancer-suppressing protein.

Down Syndrome occurs when individuals are born with an extra copy of a 21st chromosome. Though the additional chromosome can cause significant abnormalities, it appears that it also helps increase the production of RCAN1 proteins.

The discovery was led by researchers at Harvard University and aided by the use of stem cells culled from the skin of an individual with Down Syndrome.

The RCAN1 protein, as described in the study, appears to hinder the growth of new blood vessels required to feed cancer tumors. Scientists theorize that it is because of this hurdle to angiogenesis that individuals with Down Syndrome are approximately 10 times less likely to acquire a types of cancer that involve a solid tumor.

Though RCAN1 protein appears to play an integral role in cancer suppression among individual’s with Down Syndrome, it is likely only one of several gene expressions on the 21st chromosome that combine to reduce the risk of cancer.

While researchers continue to look at Down Syndrome cells for more insight into the matter, the next big step is to transfer the positive effects of RCAN1 into a viable and effective drug. Ideally, doctors report, the drug would target endothelial cells, just as RCAN1 does.

Resources:
 http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedic…
 http://in.reuters.com/article/health/idI…
 http://www.usnews.com/articles/science/2…

Approximately 61 percent of all breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, radiation or anti-estrogen drug therapy reported taking supplements that included antioxidants, according to a new study.

However, researchers are growing increasingly concerned that antioxidants such as vitamin C, vitamin E, beta carotene and selenium may actually hinder the effectiveness of traditional cancer treatments. The reason being that antioxidants are praised for cleaning up free radicals in the body – the very molecules that cancer treatments target to fight off cancer. Additionally, several studies have shown that antioxidants not only promote the health and growth of healthy cells, but cancerous cells as well.

Despite repeated warnings from oncologists for breast cancer patients to reduce their intake of antioxidants, many women continue to ingest mega doses in the form of multivitamins or antioxidant supplements. The disconnect often comes from the widely believed fact that antioxidants help reduce cancer treatment side effects and improve overall health.

While these benefits may, indeed, occur following treatment, doctors are cautioning against the intake of antioxidants until treatment has concluded.

Studies show that cancer patients are more likely to take high doses of vitamins and minerals beyond multivitamins. A study performed by a team of researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle found that 64 to 81 percent of cancer survivors reported taking high levels of vitamins. This is higher than the national average, which is estimated at 50 percent.

The American Cancer Society recommends that vitamins and supplements not be taken during cancer treatment.

Resources:
 http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/08…
 http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/…

A new study suggests that ginger is an effective all-natural solution for treating nausea and vomiting following cancer treatment.

Chemotherapy is a treatment process that often comes with a variety of side effects. Nausea is one of the most common of these side effects, with as many as 70 percent of all chemotherapy patients complaining about the symptom.

Standard anti-nausea medicine has been available to combat queasiness for quite some time. However, these drugs are more effective at preventing vomiting than off-setting the actual feelings of nausea.

Ginger has been used as an herbal remedy for stomach problems for thousands of years. This fact led a team of researchers to investigate the effects of ginger capsules on chemotherapy patients. The study, which involved 614 participants and was based out of the University of Rochester Medical Center, yielded promising results. Patients given ginger capsules rated their level of nausea as half as severe when compared to patients who were given a placebo.

The ginger capsules were given three days before and three days after chemotherapy. Patients were instructed to take three capsules, twice daily. The dosage of each pill varied depending on the treatment group. Patients who received lower doses of the herb – 0.5 gram and 1 gram a day – reported the lowest levels of nausea.

All patients taking place in the study were also given traditional anti-vomiting drugs.

The team of researchers is impressed with the findings. Especially since the benefits of ginger appear to come with absolutely zero side effects. Though earlier studies had suggested that ginger might cause blood thinning, the University of Rochester study found no such relationship.

Resources:
 http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009…
 http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/healt…
 http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNew…

For patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), it seems that concurrent chemoradiation may be the most effective treatment option. At least, that is what a new study based out of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor suggests.

In the study, 237 patients with inoperable stage III NSCLC were randomized into three different treatment groups – radiation alone, sequential chemotherapy and radiation and concurrent chemoradiation.

Of all three trial segments, the concurrent chemoradiation group faired the best with a median survival duration of 15.8 months. Patients that received only radiation survived a median average of 7.4 months. Those given sequential chemoradiation survived 14.9 months, on average.

While the results are certainly beneficial when it comes to treatment planning for lung cancer, the team behind the study reiterates that long-term survival rates remain poor. Only 19.5 percent of concurrent chemoradiation patients survived for 5 years. For radiation alone and sequential chemoradiation, the numbers are 3.3 percent and 7.5 percent, respectively.

The University of Michigan team now hopes to use the data gleaned from this study to help create more personalized high-dose radiation therapies. To accomplish this, they are looking into the benefits of PET imaging throughout the course of treatment.

Personalized cancer treatment is a promising treatment method that is gaining popularity for a number of types of cancer.

The team’s current study was published in the April issue of the International Journal of Radiation * Biology * Physics.

Source:
 http://oncolink.org/resources/article.cf…

Today, the standard for monitoring cancer progression is through the collection of a biopsy. Biopsies are incredibly accurate in their determination of tumor progression, but they are limited by their ability to only offer a snapshot of a cancer’s progression.

In order to gauge long-term progression of cancer, several biopsies must be taken over an extended period of time. In many cases, this not only subjects the patient to invasive surgeries, but limits the ability of doctors to monitor progression in between biopsies.

Now, a new device promises to offer long-term, continuous monitoring of a cancer’s growth and how it responds to treatment. The device, which was developed by professors at MIT, works by being implanted directly into the patient. According to Michael Cima, developer of the implant device, “what this does is basically take the lab and put it in the patient.”

Indeed, Cima and his team report in the April edition of Biosensors and Bioelectronics that they successfully tracked a tumor marker in mice for one month.

Eventually, Cima hopes that the device will provide up-to-the-minute reports on a tumor’s progression. Such a success would help doctors determine such pertinent facts as whether or not a specific treatment is slowing tumor growth or if the cancer is about to metastasize.

Cima’s implant is a 5-mm cylindrical device that is made out of a common implant polymer known as polyethylene. The device includes magnetic nanoparticles that are coated with antibodies. These antibodies are specific to certain molecules in the body, and cause these targets to enter the implant and clump to particles inside. The clumps can then be detected via MRI.

According to Cima, such a device that tests for pH levels may be made commercially available within a few years. Later down the road, more advanced devices that test for specific hormones or drugs may also become available.

Resource:
 http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/cance…

Lung cancer is the cause of more deaths each year than any other form of cancer. Approximately 161,840 die each year from the malicious disease.

The cause for these high rates of death is partly due to the difficulty related to diagnosing the illness. As of now, there are no viable screening or early-detection processes for lung cancer. This means that the majority of diagnosed cancer cases are already in an advanced stage, which makes them incredibly difficult to treat.

In an effort to bring improved accuracy to lung cancer diagnosis, researchers at Vanderbilt University have been looking for ways to identify lung cancer earlier. As a result of these efforts, two new approaches show promise in accelerating lung cancer diagnosis and giving patients a better chance for survival.

Key to both new methods is a unique set of molecular biomarkers that indicate the early presence of lung cancer. These biomarkers can be identified by looking at either tissue or blood samples.

In early studies, the identification of these molecular biomarkers was validated in patients who had already been diagnosed with lung cancer. Now, larger trials are in the works to determine the effectiveness of each method on patients who have yet to receive a confirmed lung cancer diagnosis.

The researchers have high hopes that the screening methods will serve as a better indicator of which patients require surgery. As of now, patients typically must undergo x-ray or CT scans to identify abnormal growths on the lungs. Oftentimes, small abnormalities on the lungs are nothing more than small nodules of non-cancerous material. As such, invasive surgery is frequently necessary to confirm a lung cancer diagnosis.

Due to these obstacles, a good number of people diagnosed with lung cancer do not actually have the disease. In one study, as many as one in five individuals diagnosed with lung cancer did not actually have the disease. These individuals were subsequently subjected to surgery unnecessarily.

Resources:
 http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedic…