Ferroptosis in Haematological Malignancies and Associated Therapeutic Nanotechnologies.

Haematological malignancies are heterogeneous groups of cancers of the bone marrow, blood or lymph nodes, and while therapeutic advances have greatly improved the lifespan and quality of life of those afflicted, many of these cancers remain incurable. The iron-dependent, lipid oxidation-mediated form of cell death, ferroptosis, has emerged as a promising pathway to induce cancer cell death, particularly in those malignancies that are resistant to traditional apoptosis-inducing therapies. Although promising findings have been published in several solid and haematological malignancies, the major drawbacks of ferroptosis-inducing therapies are efficient drug delivery and toxicities to healthy tissue. The development of tumour-targeting and precision medicines, particularly when combined with nanotechnologies, holds potential as a way in which to overcome these obstacles and progress ferroptosis-inducing therapies into the clinic. Here, we review the current state-of-play of ferroptosis in haematological malignancies as well as encouraging discoveries in the field of ferroptosis nanotechnologies. While the research into ferroptosis nanotechnologies in haematological malignancies is limited, its pre-clinical success in solid tumours suggests this is a very feasible therapeutic approach to treat blood cancers such as multiple myeloma, lymphoma and leukaemia.

Prognostic and predictive biomarker developments in multiple myeloma.

New approaches to stratify multiple myeloma patients based on prognosis and therapeutic decision-making, or prediction, are needed since patients are currently managed in a similar manner regardless of individual risk factors or disease characteristics. However, despite new and improved biomarkers for determining the prognosis of patients, there is currently insufficient information to utilise biomarkers to intensify, reduce or altogether change treatment, nor to target patient-specific biology in a so-called predictive manner. The ever-increasing number and complexity of drug classes to treat multiple myeloma have improved response rates and so clinically useful biomarkers will need to be relevant in the era of such novel therapies. Therefore, the field of multiple myeloma biomarker development is rapidly progressing, spurred on by new technologies and therapeutic approaches, and underpinned by a deeper understanding of tumour biology with individualised patient management the goal. In this review, we describe the main biomarker categories in multiple myeloma and relate these to diagnostic, prognostic and predictive applications.

Drug and Solute Transporters in Mediating Resistance to Novel Therapeutics in Multiple Myeloma.

Multiple myeloma remains an incurable malignancy of plasma cells. Novel therapies, notably proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs, have improved the survival of multiple myeloma patients; however, patients either present with, or develop resistance to, these therapies. Resistance to traditional chemotherapeutic agents can be caused by cellular drug efflux via adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-binding cassette (ABC) transporters, but it is still not clear whether these transporters mediate resistance to proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs in multiple myeloma. Solute carrier (SLC) transporters also play a role in cancer drug resistance due to changes in cell homeostasis caused by their abnormal expression and changes in the solutes they transport. In this review, we evaluate resistance to novel therapies used to treat multiple myeloma, as mediated by drug and solute transporters.

Inhibition of P-Glycoprotein Does Not Increase the Efficacy of Proteasome Inhibitors in Multiple Myeloma Cells.

P-Glycoprotein is a well-known drug transporter associated with chemotherapy resistance in a number of cancers, but its role in modulating proteasome inhibitor efficacy in multiple myeloma is not well understood. The second-generation proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib is thought to be a substrate of P-glycoprotein whose efficacy may correlate with P-glycoprotein activity; however, research concerning the first-in-class proteasome inhibitor bortezomib is inconsistent. We show that while P-glycoprotein gene expression increases with the disease stages leading to multiple myeloma it does not affect the survival of newly diagnosed patients treated with bortezomib. Moreover, RNA-seq on LP-1 cells demonstrated minimal basal P-glycoprotein expression which did not increase after exposure to bortezomib or carfilzomib. Only one (KMS-18) of nine multiple myeloma cell lines expressed P-glycoprotein, including RPMI-8226 cells that are resistant to bortezomib or carfilzomib. We hypothesized that by inhibiting P-glycoprotein multiple myeloma cell sensitivity to proteasome inhibitors would increase; however, the sensitivity of multiple myeloma cells lines to proteasome inhibition was not enhanced by the specific P-glycoprotein inhibitor tariquidar. In addition, targeting glucosylceramide synthase with eliglustat did not inhibit P-glycoprotein activity nor improve proteasome inhibitor efficacy except at a high concentration. To confirm these negative findings, tariquidar did not substantially increase the cytotoxicity of bortezomib or carfilzomib in P-glycoprotein-expressing K562/ADM cells. We conclude the following: P-glycoprotein expression may not correlate with the survival of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with proteasome inhibitors. P-glycoprotein is poorly expressed in many multiple myeloma cell lines, and its inhibition does not appreciably enhance the efficacy of proteasome inhibitors.