Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Cwll Differentiation& Stem Cells

Differentiation

Dutch French Spanish Portuguese Italian German Japanese Chinese Korean Russian Arabic Bookmark and Share this Article

learn more...


Cell differentiation is a measure of the maturity of a cell. Cells that are fully differentiated (fully mature) resemble their parent cells in form and function, and they proliferate very slowly, if at all. In contrast, immature cells are poorly differentiated, do not yet resemble their parents, and are able to proliferate at a higher rate. Most cancer cells are less differentiated, less mature, than normal cells, allowing cancer cells to proliferate readily. The degree to which a cell differentiates is regulated by gene expression. Therefore, by manipulating gene expression, one can alter the degree of differentiation. A number of natural compounds, discussed below, can induce differentiation in cancer cells, thereby decreasing their proliferation rate and causing them to display fewer malignant characteristics.

Stem Cells

The least differentiated and most prolific cells within the body are called stem cells. In a healthy organism, stem cells act as a source of new cells during tissue repair. Stem cells are capable of both self-renewal (self-replacement) and clonal expansion and so are virtually immortal. Not surprisingly, stem cells are present in high numbers in tissues that constantly renew their population, such as the bone marrow and intestinal lining. Bone marrow cells have a turnover rate of approximately five days, as opposed to several years for some vascular cells. Although stem cells in normal tissues have a high ability to proliferate, their proliferation is tightly regulated, occurring only under specific circumstances.

Small numbers of stem cells are also present in malignant tumors. Unlike stem cell proliferation in normal tissues, that in cancerous tissue is largely unregulated. Furthermore, the daughter cells do not fully differentiate (i.e., acquire the functions of more mature cells), and so the proliferation rate of the offspring remains high. For these reasons, stem cells are the prime targets of cytotoxic chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Tumors can be described by the degree to which their cells have undergone differentiation; this is referred to as the “grade” of a tumor. Tumors that are poorly differentiated generally grow faster and are assigned a higher grade. The opposite is true for tumors that are well differentiated. If tumor cells do not differentiate at all, the tumor is called anaplastic (literally, not formed). The grading system usually uses a scale of 1 to 3 or 1 to 4, with anaplastic tumors having the highest grade. For example, a well-differentiated tumor may be classified as grade 1, whereas a poorly differentiated one may be grade 4. Most tumors, except perhaps the most anaplastic, contain enough cells that sufficiently differentiate so that a pathologist can determine the tissue of origin. For example, at least a few cells from a bone cancer will differentiate into mature and identifiable bone cells.

Natural Compounds That Induce Differentiation

The cells of most cancers have the potential to differentiate into more mature cells. In other words, many, if not all, cancer cells retain the capacity to express some normal characteristics and, under some circumstances, to suppress malignant behavior.2 Natural compounds and certain drugs can induce differentiation in cancer cells, although some cancers are more easily induced to differentiate than others. The greatest successes so far have been in inducing leukemia cells to differentiate.3 Cells must be in the cell cycle before they will respond to differentiating agents; that is, they must be actively dividing and not in the G0 resting phase .

Leukemia cells are particularly sensitive to differentiating agents in large part because they have a high rate of proliferation relative to cells of other cancers. In contrast to leukemia and other fast-growing cancers, success in inducing the cells of most solid tumors to differentiate has been more sporadic.

We note here that, contrary to popular belief, cancer cells do not generally proliferate at a high rate relative to normal cells. Fast-growing cancers such as leukemias proliferate at roughly the rate of fast-growing normal cells such as bone marrow or hair cells. Fast-growing cancer cells and fast growing normal cells enter the cell cycle about once every two weeks or less, and in some cases once every few days. The cells of other cancers and those of most normal tissues proliferate much more slowly. Often, the rate of a tumor’s growth is measured as its doubling time, the time required for it to double in volume. To provide some examples, the doubling rate of breast cancer is generally about 40 to 100 days, that of lung cancer about 60 to 270 days, of colorectal cancer about 630 days on the average, and that of prostate cancer is commonly greater than 740 days. In general, tumors in younger patients have a faster doubling rate than those in older patients; likewise, tumors arising from metastases tend to have a faster doubling rate than primary tumors. All of these relatively slow-growing cancers are less susceptible to differentiating agents than the faster-growing ones.

We have then the seemingly contradictory result that drugs or other compounds that increase cancer cell proliferation can, when used in combination with differentiating agents, increase cell differentiation and in so doing, ultimately reduce proliferation. As we will later see, some chemotherapy drugs and natural compounds, apart from those that induce differentiation, may also be more effective at inhibiting cancer when cells are actively proliferating; agents that increase proliferation may therefore make these more effective too.

NATURAL COMPOUNDS THAT INDUCE DIFFERENTIATION IN VITRO
Arctigenin
ATRA (vitamin A)
Boswellic acid
Bromelain and other proteolytic enzymes
CAPE
Flavonoids (including apigenin, luteolin, quercetin, genistein,
and daidzein)
Emodin
EPA and DHA
Monoterpenes
Resveratrol
1,25-D3 (vitamin D3)

Not surprisingly, most of the differentiation studies using natural compounds have been conducted on leukemia cells. Still, melanoma, colon, breast, lung, bladder, and brain cancer cells have also been reported to differentiate in some cases.8,_9 Natural compounds that induce differentiation in vitro are listed above.

Of the compounds listed, ATRA (an active metabolite of vitamin A) and 1,25-D3 (the active metabolite of vitamin D3) have received the most research attention. The majority of compounds listed in Table 3.1 induce differentiation within the concentration range of roughly 1 to 50 mM, the exceptions being ATRA and 1,25-D3, which induce differentiation within the concentration range of about 0.01 to 1 mM. This is still above the normal plasma concentrations for these two compounds, however. Some of the compounds listed have also been reported to induce differentiation in vivo. For example, intraperitoneal administration of daidzein (at 25 to 50 mg/kg per day) reduced tumor volume and induced differentiation of leukemia cells held in chambers in mice.10 The equivalent human oral dose is about 1.1 to 2.3 grams per day. The same intraperitoneal dose of boswellic acid also induced differentiation of leukemia cells in mice.11,_12 The equivalent human oral dose is about 340 to 680 milligrams per day. Combinations of ATRA and vitamin D3 at high doses have also been reported to be effective in animals

GnRH Receptor Blockers fir Hormone Therapy

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor blockers (antagonists) are the latest addition to the hormonal therapy armamentarium for patients with prostate cancer. In contrast to the GnRH agonists, GnRH blockers have an immediate onset of action and do not cause an initial surge in testosterone levels that can lead to clinical flare in patients with advanced disease. Degarelix (Firmagon is a new GnRH blocker that has recently been approved by the EMEA and US FDA for the treatment of men with hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer. In this article, we briefly review the Phase III trial data for degarelix 240/80 mg (licensed dose) versus leuprolide 7.5 mg that led to these recent approvals.

Written by:
Boccon-Gibod L, Iversen P, Persson BE

Tumor antigens (TA) are promising candidates for targeted treatment of PCa.

The choice of the antigen in the dendritic cell-based vaccine therapy for prostate cancer - Abstract Show Comments PDF Print E-mail
Monday, 28 December 2009

Laboratory of Tumor Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.

Tumor antigens (TA) are promising candidates for targeted treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). Critical issues in the preparation of dendritic cell (DC)-based TA vaccines are the DC maturation state and the appropriateness of the TA. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate acide pshosphatase (PAP) presented by DC have produced encouraging results and PAP-loaded DCs are at late-stage development for PCa patients. TAs indispensable for tumor survival and propagation are now emerging as first choice TAs for future vaccines. The increased expression and enzymatic activity of prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA) by aggressive prostate tumors is indicative of a unique, selective advantage on the part of cells expressing them. Human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) and survivin are both involved in tumor cell survival and considered universal TAs. The T cell epitope potential of peptides derived from these TAs has been defined by computer-assisted prediction programs and has been tested in vitro and in vivo in terms of their ability to recruit cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL) and to be recognised as CTL targets. Results, reviewed here, show that anti-tumor immunity can be induced in vivo by DC loaded with both whole TAs and TA peptides. The promising, but still limited clinical success suggests further exploration of this immune therapy in the more appropriate setting of minimal disease. In advanced stages, vaccine can still be effective when combined with systemic or local cytoreductive therapies, which may overcome antigen specific tolerance and subvert the tumor immunosuppressive environment.

Written by:
Matera L. Are you the author?

Reference:
Cancer Treat Rev. 2009 Nov 30. Epub ahead of print.
doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.11.002

PubMed Abstract
PMID:19954892

the survival disadvantage for black men with prostate cancer.

Tuesday, 29 December 2009

Department of Family Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA.

kensch@med.wayne.edu This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

To compare overall and prostate cancer-specific survival, using the Detroit Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data, among 8679 Detroit area black and white men with localized or regional stage prostate cancer diagnosed from 1988 to 1992 to determine whether racial disparities in long-term survival remained after adjusting for treatment type and socioeconomic status (SES).

The cases were geocoded to the census block-group, and SES data were obtained from the 1990 U.S. Census. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratio of death from any cause. The median follow-up was 16.5 years.

Of the 7770 localized stage cases (22% black and 78% white) and 909 regional cases (24% black and 76% white), black men were more likely to receive nonsurgical treatment (P < .001) and to be of low SES (P < .0001). The survival analyses were stratified by stage. For both stages, black men had poorer survival than white men in the unadjusted model. The adjustment for age and tumor grade had little effect on the survival differences, but adjustment for SES and treatment removed the survival differences.

Low SES and nonsurgical treatment were associated with a greater risk of death among men with prostate cancer, explaining much of the survival disadvantage for black men with prostate cancer.

Written by:
Schwartz K, Powell IJ, Underwood W 3rd, George J, Yee C, Banerjee M. Are you the author?

Reference:

Sunday, December 27, 2009

t relapse-free survival was over 90% in patients treated with salvage radiotherapy (RT) plus

Researchers from the Mayo Clinic have reported that relapse-free survival was over 90% in patients treated with salvage radiotherapy (RT) plus two years of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for post-prostatectomy relapse. The details of this study were presented at the 2009 meeting of the American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology in the first week in November, 2009.[1]

Previous studies have evaluated RT salvage therapy for men who failed radical prostatectomy. Patients who relapse after radical prostatectomy and receive radiation therapy have a variable prognosis that has been poorly defined in previous studies. In one review the outcomes of 501 men who had recurrent prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy and had received salvage radiation therapy were evaluated. It was reported that 50% of patients treated with salvage therapy after failing prostatectomy were alive without progression of disease with a median follow-up of almost four years. It was also reported that half the patients remained progression-free with a median follow-up of 45 months. Only 4% of patients had died of prostate cancer during this period of observation. In another study, researchers from M. D. Anderson Cancer Center reported that radiation therapy—with or without hormonal therapy—for men with biochemical failure following prostatectomy was effective salvage therapy. They reported that 84% of men with favorable characteristics and 62% with unfavorable characteristics had five-year control of PSA. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Duke University have reported that salvage radiotherapy following biochemical recurrence improves prostate cancer-specific survival in men with a PSA doubling time of less than six months.

The current study involved 75 men who had biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy who were treated with RT plus two years of ADT. These patients consisted of two groups:

  • Group 1: Patients with a PSA relapse alone after having undetectable postoperative levels (n=46)
  • Group 2: Patients with PSA relapse with clinically palpable or biopsy-proven recurrence (n=26)

The median follow-up in this study was 6.4 years:

  • All patients achieved undetectable PSA levels.
  • Relapse-free survival and freedom from PSA relapse was 92% at five years and 79% at seven years.
  • Relapse-free survival at seven years was 81% for patients in Group 1 and 76% for patients in Group 2.
  • Survival at seven years was 93% at five and seven years.
  • There were 13 PSA relapses, with two having distant disease but none with a local clinical recurrence.

Comments: These are very impressive results, which suggest that patients who fail radical prostatectomy have an extremely good prognosis with salvage RT and ADT. These results could possibly affect the decision of patients with localized prostate cancer to undergo surgery in preference to RT as primary therapy. If the two treatments initially produce equivalent results, it’s possible that salvage RT after failure of surgery is better than salvage therapy for RT failures

Friday, December 18, 2009

Provenge Trial Sites w/Responsible Individuals

Dendreon: Trial Sites

P09-1 (OpenACT - Open-Label Active Cellular ImmunoTherapy)

  • Principal Investigator - Chadi Nabhan, M.D.

Institutional Site - Oncology Specialists, S.C., Chicago, IL

Contact Name - Susan Foss, RN
Contact Phone - (847) 268-8576
Contact Email - sfoss@oncmed.net

  • Principal Investigator - Myron Murdock, M.D.

Institutional Site - Myron I. Murdock, M.D., LLC, Baltimore, MD

Contact Name - Lori Murrill
Contact Phone - (301) 474-1111
Contact Email - fin0025murdock@yahoo.com

  • Principal Investigator - Andrew Armstrong, M.D.

Institutional Site - GU Oncology Research Program, Durham, NC

Contact Name - Karla Morris, RN
Contact Phone - (919) 668-8375
Contact Email - karla.morris@duke.edu

  • Principal Investigator - Raymond Lance, M.D.

Institutional Site - Urology of Virginia / Sentara, Norfolk, VA

Contact Name - Jennifer Kucenski
Contact Phone - (757) 457-5123
Contact Email - JEKUCENS@sentara.com

  • Principal Investigator - John Corman, M.D.

Institutional Site - Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA

Contact Name - Kathryn Dahl, RN
Contact Phone - (206) 341-0578
Contact Email - kathryn.dahl@vmmc.org

  • Principal Investigator - Simon Hall, M.D.

Institutional Site - Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

Contact Name - Cynthia Knauer
Contact Phone - (212) 241-8121
Contact Email - Cynthia.Knauer@mountsinai.org

  • Principal Investigator - Daniel Petrylak, M.D.

Institutional Site - Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY

Contact Name - Katherine Resto-Garces
Contact Phone - (212) 305-0546
Contact Email - kr2115@columbia.edu

P07-1 - NeoACT (Neoadjuvant Active Cellular Immunotherapy)

  • Principal Investigator - Lawrence Fong, M.D.

Institutional Site - University of California, San Francisco, CA

Contact Name - Julie Russell, RN
Contact Phone - 415-353-7085
Contact Email - julie.russell@ucsfmedctr.org

Contact Name - Jay Trovato, RN
Contact Phone - 415-353-9268
Contact Email - jay.trovato@ucsfmedctr.org

  • Principal Investigator - John Corman, M.D.

Institutional Site - Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA

Contact Name - Kathryn Dahl, RN
Contact Phone - (206) 341-0578
Contact Email - kathryn.dahl@vmmc.org

P07-2 (ProACT — treatment of Prostate cancer with Active Cellular Immunotherapy)

  • Principal Investigator - John Corman, M.D.

Institutional Site - Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA

Contact Name - Kathryn Dahl, RN
Contact Phone - (206) 341-0578
Contact Email - kathryn.dahl@vmmc.org

  • Principal Investigator - Brendan Curti, M.D.

    Institutional Site - Providence Medical Center, Portland, OR

    Contact Name - Theresa Ratzow, RN
    Contact Phone - (503) 215-2604
    Contact Email - theresa.ratzow@providence.org

    TRPM8

    • Principal Investigator - Anthony W. Tolcher, M.D., FRCP(C)

    Institutional Site - South Texas Accelerated Research Therapeutics
    (START)

    Contact Name - Tracy Dufresne, RN, BSN, OCN, CCRP, Physician Referral Coordinator

    Contact Phone - 210-593-5265
    Contact Fax - 210-593-9828
    Contact Email - tracy.dufresne@start.stoh.com

  • Tuesday, December 15, 2009

    New European Study Confirms Effectiveness of PSA Test

    Prostate Cancer Deaths Cut by Up to 31% and Unnecessary Biopsies by 33%

    New data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) shows the PSA test reduces prostate cancer deaths by as much as 31 percent and unnecessary biopsies by as much as 33 percent.

    "This new ERSPC research provides scientifically-based data to show that taking the PSA test can save your life," said ZERO's CEO Skip Lockwood. "The PSA test is as important to men as a mammogram is to women. Everyone has the right to know if they have cancer."


    The Life-Saving Benefits of PSA Screening

    The PSA test is today's best tool for early diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer, and men should continue to be tested to protect their health.


    Prostate Cancer Testing Is Best Option for Men

    Thanks to PSA testing, more than 90 percent of prostate cancers are caught before they spread to other areas of the body.


    Amgen's Denosumab Reduces Bone Cancer Risk

    Amgen's Denosumab outpaced Novartis AG's Zometa in reducing the risk of serious bone complications among patients with advanced breast and prostate cancer, new study finds.


    [Advertisement]

    Friday, December 11, 2009

    Impact of Coparative Effectiveness Research

    So far, Congress has considered four comparative effectiveness research (CER) bills in the 111th Congress, and included funding for CER in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (Recovery Act) passed in February 2009. Part of the funding provided in the Recovery Act was used to establish the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which issued its first “Report to the President and the Congress” on June 30, 2009. The Council Report defined CER as:

    [T]he conduct and synthesis of research comparing the benefits and harms of different interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat and monitor health conditions in “real world” settings. The purpose of this research is to improve health outcomes by developing and disseminating evidence-based information to patients, clinicians, and other decision-makers, in order to respond to their expressed needs about which interventions are most effective for which patients under specific circumstances.

    In order to provide this information, the Report stated that CER must “assess a comprehensive array of health-related outcomes for diverse patient populations and subgroups,” and that the interventions compared “may include medications, procedures, medical and assistive devices and technologies, diagnostic testing, behavioral change, and delivery system strategies.”

    It is important to note that the definition provided by the Council includes only clinical comparative effectiveness, without taking into account the costs associated with those treatments. Nevertheless, the provision of funding by the federal government to support this research has led to debate about whether CER should be provided by the federal government and whether CER will in fact affect medical treatment and reduce health care spending. To achieve these changes, “the results of comparative effectiveness analyses would ultimately have to change the behavior of doctors and patients.” It is perhaps this concern — federally-funded health care research intended to affect the behavior of doctors and patients — that have led some to fear that federal government involvement in CER will lead to “government rationing of medical care.”

    Rationing care

    Possibly in response to such concerns expressed prior to enactment of the Recovery Act, the Recovery Act CER provisions specifically prohibit the Council from mandating “coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer,” and likewise provides that none of the reports or recommendations made by the Council “shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.” Nevertheless, the Report of the Council expresses intent to “provide information that helps clinicians and patients choose which option best fits a patient’s needs and preferences” and to help them determine “which interventions work best for specific types of patients (eg, the elderly, racial and ethnic minorities).”

    Providing information to physicians and patients about the comparative effectiveness of certain types of treatments is not, however, the same as mandating clinical decision-making; nor does it necessarily involve requiring or prohibiting coverage by public or private payers of specified treatments analyzed in the CER. As required by the Recovery Act on June 30, 2009, the Institute of Medicine released its recommendations on which study topics related to certain diseases, research methods, and health care models should be priorities for CER funding. The Report notes that although “the overall value of a strategy can be understood best by considering costs and benefits together,” and that “[m]any stakeholders thought CER might persuade payers to support or improve reimbursement for particular services,” the committee “did not discuss leveraging research findings to payment policy.”

    However, even if payers were to use CER results to make coverage determinations, it is not clear that these determinations would negatively impact the availability of health care services. Presumably, the coverage determinations would be based on what is “effective,” taking into consideration both cost and clinical effectiveness, rather than making coverage determinations based solely on cost, as insurance companies often do. And, as today, if a patient seeks or a provider recommends a service that is not covered by insurance, the patient may independently pay for that service.

    Physicians may want to consider the CER results when making treatment decisions. CER will inform physicians of the many varied treatment options available for particular conditions, and those options that tend to work most effectively with certain patients. CER will not, however, mandate that clinicians follow any specific recommendations, nor will CER prohibit clinicians from utilizing a method or service they deem most suitable, even if that method was deemed “ineffective” by CER.

    Jennifer Newberger is an Associate at Arnold & Porter LLP in Washington, DC. Allison Weber Shuren, MSN, JD, assigned, coordinated and edited this article prior to publication. Ms. Shuren may be reached at Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington

    Implantable Vaccine Shows Promise

    Implantable Cancer Vaccine Shows Promise

    Nov. 25 (HealthDay News) -- A cancer vaccine delivered in a fingernail-size implant eliminated melanoma tumors in mice, a new study reports.

    The method uses polymer disks, 8.5 millimeters in diameter, that are loaded with tumor-specific antigens and implanted under the skin to reprogram the immune system to attack tumors. The Harvard University scientists who developed the implant predicted that it would be more effective and easier to use than other cancer vaccines currently in clinical trials.

    "Inserted anywhere under the skin -- much like the implantable contraceptives that can be placed in a woman's arm -- the implants activate an immune response that destroys tumor cells," David J. Mooney, a bioengineering professor, said in a Harvard news release.

    The disks release cytokines, which are powerful recruiters of immune-system messengers called dendritic cells. The cells are able to enter the implant, where they're exposed to antigens specific to the type of tumor being targeted in a particular individual. The dendritic cells then "report" to nearby lymph nodes, where they tell immune system T cells to seek and destroy tumor cells.

    Because the method targets only tumor cells, there is no damage to healthy tissue, like there is with chemotherapy, the researchers noted.

    The successful test results with mice are reported in the Nov. 25 issue of Science Translational Medicine.


    SOURCE: Harvard University, news release, Nov. 25, 2009

    Wednesday, December 9, 2009

    PSA Velocity >0.4ng/ml per Year and Hi GradePCa

    Department of Urology, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

    A controversy of current prostate specific antigen based prostate cancer screening is the over detection of potentially insignificant prostate cancer. Because PSA kinetics were previously linked to prostate cancer specific mortality, we determined whether prostate specific antigen velocity is associated with clinically significant prostate cancer.

    A total of 1,073 men underwent radical prostatectomy from 1992 to 2008 with data available on prostate specific antigen velocity and tumor volume. Insignificant cancer was defined by the Ohori criteria as organ confined, tumor volume 0.5 cc or less and no primary or secondary Gleason pattern 4 or 5. We calculated the proportion of men with pathologically insignificant prostate cancer stratified by prostate specific antigen velocity.

    Preoperative prostate specific antigen velocity greater than 0.4 ng/ml per year was significantly associated with high grade disease (p = 0.008), positive surgical margins (p = 0.003) and seminal vesicle invasion (p = 0.007) at radical prostatectomy. Median tumor volume was also significantly higher in men with preoperative prostate specific antigen velocity greater than 0.4 ng/ml per year (3.1 vs 2.4 cc, p = 0.0001). Overall 69 men (6%) met the Ohori criteria for insignificant cancer. Patients with preoperative prostate specific antigen velocity greater than 0.4 ng/ml per year were 50% less likely to have insignificant disease (10% vs 5%, p = 0.003).

    A prostate specific antigen velocity threshold of 0.4 ng/ml per year was associated with the likelihood of insignificant prostate cancer. This suggests that prostate specific antigen velocity may be a useful adjunct in prostate cancer screening to increase specificity for identifying patients with clinically significant disease.

    Written by:
    Loeb S, Roehl KA, Helfand BT, Kan D, Catalona WJ. Are you the author?

    Reference:
    J Urol. 2009 Nov 12. Epub ahead of print.
    doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.156

    Docetaxel and PI-88 , Toxicity Problems

    Department of Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney New South Wales Haematology and Oncology Clinics, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

    Docetaxel (Taxotere) improve survival and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We studied the combination of PI-88, an inhibitor of angiogenesis and heparanase activity, and docetaxel in chemotherapy-naive CRPC.

    We conducted a multicentre open-label phase I/II trial of PI-88 in combination with docetaxel. The primary end point was PSA response. Secondary end points included toxicity, radiologic response and overall survival. Doses of PI-88 were escalated to the maximum tolerated dose; whereas docetaxel was given at a fixed 75 mg/m(2) dose every three weeks

    Twenty-one patients were enrolled in the dose-escalation component. A further 35 patients were randomly allocated to the study to evaluate the two schedules in phase II trial. The trial was stopped early by the Safety Data Review Board due to a higher-than-expected febrile neutropenia of 27%. In the pooled population, the PSA response (50% reduction) was 70%, median survival was 61 weeks (6-99 weeks) and 1-year survival was 71%.

    The regimen of docetaxel and PI-88 is active in CRPC but associated with significant haematologic toxicity. Further evaluation of different scheduling and dosing of PI-88 and docetaxel may be warranted to optimise efficacy with a more manageable safety profile.

    Written by:
    Khasraw M, Pavlakis N, McCowatt S, Underhill C, Begbie S, de Souza P, Boyce A, Parnis F, Lim V, Harvie R, Marx G. Are you the author?

    Undergo TURP to ID Prostate Cancer

    Tuesday, 08 December 2009

    Department of Urology, Cannizzaro Hospital, Catania, Italy.

    To evaluate prostate cancer (PCa) detection after repeated negative saturation biopsy, 75 patients, aged 53-78 years, underwent transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) because of persistent suspicion of cancer; median PSA was 11.8 ng ml(-1) and 58 men complained lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). In 12 (16%) and 3 (4%) men a T1a and T1b PCa was found with median PSA and Gleason score equal to 14.2 vs 23.6 ng ml(-1) and 5.6 vs 7 ng ml(-1). In case of persistent suspicion of PCa after repeated negative saturation biopsy, TURP may be proposed, aside from the coexistence of LUTS, to rule out a PCa, in younger patients with high PSA values (>/=20 ng ml(-1)).

    Written by:
    Pepe P, Fraggetta F, Galia A, Grasso G, Aragona

    Undergo TURP

    McClatchy-Tribune Information Services -- Unrestricted

    12-08-09

    Cancer rates and deaths from the most common forms of the disease are dropping, but not nearly as fast as experts would like.

    Incidence decreased about 1 percent a year from 1999 to 2006 and deaths dropped an average of 1.6 percent a year from 2001 to 2006 according to a report released today by the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Cancer Society and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.

    The decreases were driven largely by drops in incidence and death linked to the most common cancers in men and women, including lung, prostate, breast and colorectal. Meanwhile, incidence of some cancers -- including kidney, liver and skin -- has gone up.

    "It's very slow. I think the rate is unacceptable. It's a drop in the bucket," said Dr. Michael Caligiuri, director of Ohio State University's Comprehensive Cancer Center.

    Take, for instance, colorectal cancer. Only about half of those who should be undergoing colonoscopies actually get them, he said.

    Economics explains some of that, but not all, Caligiuri said.

    "We need to study this. We need to talk to the people who got it done and talk to the people who didn't get it done and say, 'Why didn't you do this?'

    "(Doctors) need to look at ourselves and say 'What are we doing that is preventing these other 50 percent from not getting screening?' "

    Better screening and wider-spread use of optimal treatment could drive down colorectal cancer death rates much more significantly, according to the report written by Brenda Edwards of the NCI's surveillance research program.

    In terms of what individuals can do, much attention in this report -- and in the field of cancer research overall -- is given to lifestyle changes, particularly reduction in obesity. Being overweight or obese is thought to contribute to a variety of cancers, including colon.

    After decades of efforts to lower tobacco use, Edwards points out, reductions in lung cancer incidence have been seen.

    Also yesterday, a group of experts spoke about cancer prevention efforts as part of the American Association for Cancer Research conference on the topic in Houston.

    "Diet is one of those relatively few modifiable risk factors that is associated with a change in cancer incidence and tumor behavior," said John Milner, chief of the National Cancer Institute's nutritional science research group.

    Thirty percent of cancers are related to dietary habits, he said.

    "There's a lot we can do to prevent cancer as we become more fit and turn around the obesity epidemic," said Dr. Tim Byers, associate dean of the Colorado School of Public Health and interim director of the Colorado Cancer Center.

    In addition to looking at the connection between weight and cancer, there is a lot of focus on specific dietary compounds and how they influence cancer incidence.

    "There's probably not enough fish in the sea for all of us to eat as much fish as we should get," said Elaine Hardman, associate professor of medicine at Marshall University School of Medicine.

    Much of Hardman's work focuses on fats found in fish and nuts.

    The good news: the fats found in fish originate in plants, said Hardman, who has studied mice that are fed canola oil.

    Some research is even pointing to a connection between the nutrients absorbed before birth and subsequent cancer susceptibility, she said. To see more of The Columbus Dispatch, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.columbusdispatch.com. Copyright (c) 2009, The Columbus Dispatch, Ohio Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

    All Contents Copyright © 1995-2009 Life Extension Foundation All rights reserved.

    Life Extension

    These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These

    Sunday, December 6, 2009

    From: "jacqueline strax"
    To:
    Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 2:59 AM
    Subject: [PPML] Serial biopsies are associated with an increased risk of ED
    in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance.


    >J Urol. 2009 Dec;182(6):2664-9.
    >
    > Serial prostate biopsies are associated with an increased risk of erectile
    > dysfunction in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance.
    >
    > Fujita K, Landis P, McNeil BK, Pavlovich CP.
    >
    > Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
    > Maryland 21224, USA.
    >
    > PURPOSE: We determined whether serial prostate needle biopsies predispose
    > men to erectile dysfunction and/or lower urinary tract symptoms over time.
    > MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with prostate cancer on an active surveillance
    > protocol were administered the 5-item Sexual Health Inventory for Men and
    > International Prostate Symptom Score questionnaires on protocol entry, and
    > at a cross-sectional point in 2008. All men had at least 1, 10 to 12-core
    > prostate biopsy at protocol entry and yearly surveillance biopsies
    > thereafter were recommended. RESULTS: Of 333 men 231 returned the followup
    > questionnaires. Correlations were found between biopsy number and erectile
    > dysfunction, with increasing biopsy number associated with a decrease in
    > Sexual Health Inventory for Men score (p = 0.04) and a history of 3 or
    > more biopsies associated with a greater decrease in Sexual Health
    > Inventory for Men score than after 2 or fewer biopsies (p = 0.02).
    > Multivariable analysis for biopsy number, age, prostate volume and
    > prostate specific antigen showed that only biopsy number was associated
    > with decreasing Sexual Health Inventory for Men score (p = 0.02). When men
    > were stratified by baseline Sexual Health Inventory for Men, those without
    > preexisting erectile dysfunction (Sexual Health Inventory for Men score 22
    > to 25) trended toward steeper decreases in Sexual Health Inventory for Men
    > score after 3 or more biopsies (p = 0.06) than did men with baseline mild
    > to moderate erectile dysfunction (Sexual Health Inventory for Men score 8
    > to 21). No correlation was found between biopsy number and International
    > Prostate Symptom Score. CONCLUSIONS: Serial prostate biopsies appear to
    > have an adverse effect on erectile function in men with prostate cancer on
    > active surveillance but do not affect lower urinary tract symptoms.
    >
    > best
    > Jacquie Strax
    > http://www.psa-rising.com
    >

    Friday, December 4, 2009

    Low and High Fat Diets, Differences

    Thursday, 03 December 2009

    Urology Section, Department of Surgery, Veterans Administration, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System; Department of Urology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.

    A high fat Western diet and sedentary lifestyle may predispose men to prostate cancer through changes in serum hormones and growth factors. We evaluated the effect of a low fat diet on serum factors affecting prostate cancer cell growth by performing a prospective, randomized dietary intervention trial in men with prostate cancer.

    We randomized 18 men with prostate cancer who did not receive prior therapy to a low fat (15% kcal), high fiber, soy protein supplemented diet or a Western (40% kcal fat) diet for 4 weeks. Fasting serum was collected at baseline and after the intervention to measure prostate specific antigen, sex hormones, insulin, insulin-like growth factor I and II, insulin-like growth factor binding proteins, lipids and fatty acids. LNCaP cells (ATCC(R)) were cultured in medium containing pre-intervention and post-intervention human serum to assess the in vitro effect of the diet on prostate cancer cell proliferation.

    Subjects in each group were highly compliant with the dietary intervention. Serum from men in the low fat group significantly decreased the growth of LNCaP cells relative to Western diet serum (p = 0.03). There were no significant between group changes in serum prostate specific antigen, sex hormones, insulin, insulin-like growth factor I and II, and insulin-like growth factor binding proteins. Serum triglyceride and linoleic acid (omega-6) levels were decreased in the low fat group (p = 0.034 and 0.005, respectively). Correlation analysis revealed that decreased omega-6 and increased omega-3 fatty acid correlated with decreased serum stimulated LNCaP cell growth (r = 0.64, p = 0.004 and r = -0.49, p = 0.04, respectively).

    In this prospective, randomized dietary intervention trial a low fat diet resulted in changes in serum fatty acid levels that were associated with decreased human LNCaP cancer cell growth. Further prospective trials are indicated to evaluate the potential of low fat diets for prostate cancer prevention and treatment.

    Written by:
    Aronson WJ, Barnard RJ, Freedland SJ, Henning S, Elashoff D, Jardack PM, Cohen P, Heber D, Kobayashi N. Are you the author?

    Thursday, December 3, 2009

    Treatment of Estrogen Deficiency after HT

    Tuesday, 01 December 2009

    Department of Surgery (Urology), Durham VA Medical Center and Duke Prostate Center, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA.

    steve.freedland@duke.edu This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

    Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer and is increasingly used to treat asymptomatic patients with prostate-specific antigen recurrence after failed primary therapy. Although effective, ADT is associated with multiple adverse effects, many of which are related to the estrogen deficiency that occurs as a result of treatment. These include increased fracture risk, hot flashes, gynecomastia, serum lipid changes and memory loss. By providing clinicians with a greater awareness of the estrogen deficiency induced adverse effects from ADT, they can proactively intervene on the physical and psychological impact these effects have on patients.

    Written by:
    Freedland SJ, Eastham J, Shore N

    Value of Saturation Biopsies

    Saturation biopsies for prostate cancer: current uses and future prospects - Abstract Show Comments PDF Print E-mail
    Tuesday, 01 December 2009

    Cochin Hospital, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.

    Since its introduction, ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy has undergone significant evolution. Because of the low sensitivity of ultrasonography in detecting prostate cancer, tissue is sampled randomly within the gland. In an attempt to enhance cancer detection and characterization, the trend has been to increase the number of biopsy cores taken. Saturation biopsies of the prostate gland were first evaluated as a diagnostic tool. When performed as an initial procedure, saturation biopsies do not seem to improve cancer detection when compared to standard biopsy. However, saturation biopsies might be of clinical value in patients with previous negative standard biopsies but persistently rising PSA levels. As a staging tool, the use of saturation biopsies was proposed mainly to avoid overtreatment of clinically insignificant cancers. Results from clinical and autopsy studies have suggested that saturation biopsies are more accurate than standard biopsies in histological characterization of prostate cancer. Improving cancer characterization might require an increase in the number of cores taken, but knowing their precise location is paramount. Strict template guidance and three-dimensional techniques offer a more comprehensive approach than current ultrasound-guided approaches, and the advantage of precisely recording every core location. New imaging techniques, such as diffusion-weighted and spectroscopic MRI might also help in targeting prostate biopsies.

    Written by:

    Tuesday, December 1, 2009


    Randomized Trials of Prostate Cancer Screening


    by Dr. Stacy Loeb and Dr. Alan W. Partin | Reviews in Urology | Summer 2009

    Since the introduction of widespread prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening, there has been a considerable stage migration (1). Prior studies have shown that PSA screening reduces the risk of advanced disease compared with no screening (2)(3), but there were insufficient data to prove that screening saves lives. Until recently, randomized trials demonstrating Level I evidence have not been available to determine whether prostate cancer screening leads to a mortality benefit. In March 2009, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trials reported on mortality results.

    Screening and Prostate-Cancer Mortality in a Randomized European Study

    Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al.

    N Engl J Med 2009;360:13201328

    Schröder and colleagues reported on the mortality rates in 162,243 men aged 55 to 69 years from ERSPC. Men from 7 European countries were identified through population registries and randomized into screening and control arms. It is noteworthy that PSA screening was uncommon in Europe at the time this trial was initiated, such that this represented a population with relatively low levels of prescreening. Most centers performed screening at 4-year intervals and used a serum PSA level of 3 ng/mL as the threshold for biopsy, although digital rectal examination (DRE) was primarily used as an ancillary test for men with PSA levels greater than 3 ng/mL.

    The mean age was 60.8 years at randomization and men in the screening arm received an average of 2.1 PSA tests per person. The cumulative incidence of prostate cancer was 8.2% in the screening arm and 4.8% in the control arm. Thus, screening compared with no screening led to an expected increase in prostate cancer incidence.

    At a median follow-up of approximately 9 years, prostate cancer death occurred in 214 men from the screening arm versus 326 controls (adjusted rate ratio 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–0.98; P = .04) in the intent-to-screen analysis. A separate analysis of men who actually underwent screening in the first round (82% compliance) to those who did not demonstrated a 27% reduction in prostate cancer mortality. Of note, the difference in mortality emerged after 7 to 8 years, and appeared to increase over time. In addition to the reduction in mortality, the screening arm had a 41% lower rate of metastases at the time of diagnosis than the control arm.

    Despite the favorable mortality results, Schröder and colleagues also highlighted the potential harms of screening with respect to overdiagnosis. The prostate cancer incidence rate was 70% higher in the screening arm than the control arm. As a comparison, a systematic review of breast cancer screening similarly demonstrated a 15% to 20% relative reduction in cancer-specific mortality with mammography, with only a 30% increase in incidence (4).

    Overall, Schröder and colleagues estimated that 1410 men would need to be screened and an additional 48 men treated to prevent 1 prostate cancer death over 9 years. However, the number needed to treat to prevent 1 case of metastatic prostate cancer was approximately 25 compared with the ERSPC control group (F. H. Schröder, MD, personal communication, 2009), and only 15 compared with a population from Northern Ireland with virtually no screening (5).

    Mortality Results From a Randomized Prostate-Cancer Screening Trial

    Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, et al.

    N Engl J Med 2009;360:13101319

    The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial was designed by the National Cancer Institute to determine whether screening with PSA and DRE, flexible sigmoidoscopy, chest x-ray, and CA-125 with transvaginal ultrasound would reduce mortality from prostate, colorectal, lung, and ovarian cancer, respectively (6). Beginning in 1993, the prostate cancer portion of the trial randomized 76,693 men aged 55 to 74 years to screening or “usual care.” The screening protocol included annual DRE for 4 years and annual PSA testing for 6 years. Although participants were notified of abnormal test results (defined as a suspicious DRE or PSA > 4 ng/mL), the subsequent diagnostic workup and/or treatment was not mandated by the study protocol. As a result, a proportion of screened men who developed an abnormal PSA or DRE did not undergo prompt prostate biopsy (7), conditions that were designed to approximate a real-world setting.

    This updated report from Andriole and associates found no difference in prostate cancer mortality between men randomized to screening or no screening at 7 years (rate ratio 1.13; 95% CI, 0.75–1.70). Interestingly, prostate cancer incidence differed by only 17% between the screening and control arms at 10 years. A possible explanation underlying these findings is that 44% of participants had at least 1 PSA test within 3 years of study entry, and 52% of controls were screened (“contamination”) during the study period. Because these numbers were based upon self-report, it is possible that they represent underestimates (8) in light of the high prevalence of opportunistic PSA testing in the United States (9).

    Several differences between the ERSPC and PLCO studies should be highlighted, including the sample size (162,243 vs 76,693), screening intervals (every 4 years vs annual), PSA threshold for biopsy (3 ng/mL vs 4 ng/mL), and use of DRE (ancillary test vs annual for 4 years). Also, the rates of prescreening and contamination were both considerably lower in the ERSPC, and the median follow-up for prostate cancer mortality was longer (9 years vs 5–6 years). Many of these methodological differences may help to explain the disparate results between the studies. Nevertheless, the conflicting results of these trials and concerns over the benefit-to-harm ratio led Michael Barry to conclude in an accompanying editorial that PSA screening is the “controversy that refuses to die.”(10)

    Overall, the authors conclude based upon the ERSPC results that screening does lead to a reduction in prostate cancer mortality. Furthermore, the potential harms of screening might be reduced through more careful patient selection for both screening and treatment. In addition, the future discovery of better biomarkers for clinically significant prostate cancer and an ongoing reduction in treatment-related morbidity could further shift the risk-to-benefit ratio in favor of screening.

    References
    1. Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL, Basler JW. Detection of organ-confined prostate cancer is increased through prostate-specific antigen-based screening. JAMA. 1993;270:948–954. [PubMed]
    2. Aus G, Bergdahl S, Lodding P, et al. Prostate cancer screening decreases the absolute risk of being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer-results from a prospective, population-based randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol. 2007;51:659–664. [PubMed]
    3. van der Cruijsen-Koeter IW, Roobol MJ, Wildhagen MF, et al. Tumor characteristics and prognostic factors in two subsequent screening rounds with four-year interval within prostate cancer screening trial, ERSPC Rotterdam. Urology. 2006;68:615–620. [PubMed]
    4. Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;4 CD001877.
    5. van Leeuwen PJ, Connolly D, Napolitano G, et al. Metastasis-free survival in screen and clinical detected prostate cancer: a comparison between the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer and Northern Ireland. J Urol. 2009;181:798. Abstract 2203.
    6. Prorok PC, Andriole GL, Bresalier RS, et al. Design of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21(6 suppl):273S–309S. [PubMed]
    7. Pinsky PF, Andriole GL, Kramer BS, et al. Prostate biopsy following a positive screen in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. J Urol. 2005;173:746–750. discussion 750–751. [PubMed]
    8. Chan EC, Vernon SW, Ahn C, Greisinger A. Do men know that they have had a prostate-specific antigen test? Accuracy of self-reports of testing at 2 sites. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:1336–1338. [PubMed]
    9. Sirovich BE, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Screening men for prostate and colorectal cancer in the United States: does practice reflect the evidence? JAMA. 2003;289:1414–1420. [PubMed]
    10. Barry MJ. Screening for prostate cancer-the controversy that refuses to die. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1351–1354. [PubMed]