Ran signaling in melanoma: implications for the development of alternative therapeutic strategies.

We performed a comparative study between two human metastatic melanoma cell lines (A375 and 526), and melanocytes (FOM78) by gene expression profiling and pathway analysis, using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) software. Genes involved in Ran signaling were significantly over-represented (p ≤ 0.001) and up-regulated in melanoma cells. A melanoma-associated molecular pathway was identified, where Ran, Aurora Kinase A (AurkA) and TERT were up-regulated, while c-myc and PTEN were down-regulated. A consistent high Ran and AurkA gene expression was detected in about 48% and 53%, respectively, of 113 tissue samples from metastatic melanoma patients. AurkA down-regulation was observed in melanoma cells, by Ran knockdown, suggesting AurkA protein is a Ran downstream target. Furthermore, AurkA inhibition, by exposure of melanoma cells to MLN8054, a specific AurKA inhibitor, induced apoptosis in both melanoma cell lines and molecular alterations in the IPA-identified molecular pathway. These alterations differed between cell lines, with an up-regulation of c-myc protein level observed in 526 cells and a slight reduction seen in A375 cells. Moreover, Ran silencing did not affect the A375 invasive capability, while it was enhanced in 526 cells, suggesting that Ran knockdown, by AurkA down-regulation, resulted in a Ran-independent enhanced melanoma cell invasion. Finally, AurK A inhibition induced a PTEN up-regulation and its action was independent of B-RAF mutational status. These findings provide insights relevant for the development of novel therapeutic strategies as well as for a better understanding of mechanisms underlying therapy resistance in melanoma.

Concurrent vs sequential adjuvant chemotherapy and hormone therapy in breast cancer: a multicenter randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: The most appropriate timing of chemotherapy and hormone therapy administration is a critical issue in early breast cancer patients. The purpose of our study was to compare the efficacy of concurrent vs sequential administration of adjuvant chemotherapy and tamoxifen. METHODS: Women with node-positive primary breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive tamoxifen (20 mg/d for 5 years) during (concurrent arm) or after (sequential arm) adjuvant chemotherapy. Chemotherapy consisted of alternating regimens of cyclophosphamide, epidoxorubicin, and 5-fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil every 21 days for a total of 12 cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were toxic effects and disease-free survival (DFS). No provision for interim analyses was made in the original study protocol. Survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox regression models, adjusted for age, menopausal status, tumor stage, and lymph node and hormone receptor status, were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: From 1985 to 1992, 431 patients were randomly assigned and studied according to the intention-to-treat principle. After a maximum of 15.4 years of follow-up (median 12.3 years), the estimated actuarial 10-year OS was equivalent for the two study arms (concurrent arm: 111 patients, 66%, 95% CI = 59% to 72%; sequential arm: 114 patients, 65%, 95% CI = 59% to 72%, P = .86). No differences in DFS and toxic effects were evident. Four interim analyses were performed, but no alpha error adjustment was necessary because of the largely negative results of this final analysis (sequential vs concurrent arm: HR of death = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.78 to 1.44, P = .76; HR of relapse = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.52, P = .36). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences in OS, DFS, and toxic effects between concurrent and sequential adjuvant chemo- and hormone therapies were observed. Our study does not support the superiority of one schedule of chemo- and hormone-therapy administration over the other. However, because of the limited statistical power of the study, these results must be considered with caution.

Interaction of a traditional Chinese Medicine (PHY906) and CPT-11 on the inflammatory process in the tumor microenvironment.

BACKGROUND: Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has been used for thousands of years to treat or prevent diseases, including cancer. Good manufacturing practices (GMP) and sophisticated product analysis (PhytomicsQC) to ensure consistency are now available allowing the assessment of its utility. Polychemical Medicines, like TCM, include chemicals with distinct tissue-dependent pharmacodynamic properties that result in tissue-specific bioactivity. Determining the mode of action of these mixtures was previously unsatisfactory; however, information rich RNA microarray technologies now allow for thorough mechanistic studies of the effects complex mixtures. PHY906 is a long used four herb TCM formula employed as an adjuvant to relieve the side effects associated with chemotherapy. Animal studies documented a decrease in global toxicity and an increase in therapeutic effectiveness of chemotherapy when combined with PHY906. METHODS: Using a systems biology approach, we studied tumor tissue to identify reasons for the enhancement of the antitumor effect of CPT-11 (CPT-11) by PHY906 in a well-characterized pre-clinical model; the administration of PHY906 and CPT-11 to female BDF-1 mice bearing subcutaneous Colon 38 tumors. RESULTS: We observed that 1) individually PHY906 and CPT-11 induce distinct alterations in tumor, liver and spleen; 2) PHY906 alone predominantly induces repression of transcription and immune-suppression in tumors; 3) these effects are reverted in the presence of CPT-11, with prevalent induction of pro-apoptotic and pro-inflammatory pathways that may favor tumor rejection. CONCLUSIONS: PHY906 together with CPT-11 triggers unique changes not activated by each one alone suggesting that the combination creates a unique tissue-specific response.

Cancer and inflammation: promise for biologic therapy.

Cancers often arise as the end stage of inflammation in adults, but not in children. As such there is a complex interplay between host immune cells during neoplastic development, with both an ability to promote cancer and limit or eliminate it, most often complicit with the host. In humans, defining inflammation and the presence of inflammatory cells within or surrounding the tumor is a critical aspect of modern pathology. Groups defining staging for neoplasms are strongly encouraged to assess and incorporate measures of the presence of apoptosis, autophagy, and necrosis and also the nature and quality of the immune infiltrate. Both environmental and genetic factors enhance the risk of cigarette smoking, Helicobacter pylori, hepatitis B/C, human papilloma virus, solar irradiation, asbestos, pancreatitis, or other causes of chronic inflammation. Identifying suitable genetic polymorphisms in cytokines, cytokine receptors, and Toll-like receptors among other immune response genes is also seen as high value as genomic sequencing becomes less expensive. Animal models that incorporate and assess not only the genetic anlagen but also the inflammatory cells and the presence of microbial pathogens and damage-associated molecular pattern molecules are necessary. Identifying micro-RNAs involved in regulating the response to damage or injury are seen as highly promising. Although no therapeutic strategies to prevent or treat cancers based on insights into inflammatory pathways are currently approved for the common epithelial malignancies, there remains substantial interest in agents targeting COX2 or PPARgamma, ethyl pyruvate and steroids, and several novel agents on the horizon.

18th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society for Biological Therapy of Cancer. 30 October-2 November 2003, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

The 18th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society for Biological Therapy of Cancer (iSBTc) was held at the Hyatt Regency, Bethesda, MD, close to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) campus. The meeting was organised on behalf of the society by Neil Berinstein from Aventis Pasteur, Toronto, Canada, Janice P Dutcher from Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center, Bronx, NY and Francesco M Marincola from the NIH, Bethesda, MD. The 2003 meeting included 57 oral presentations and > 100 poster presentations. There were > 800 registrants to the Annual Meeting and the multiple satellite symposia. The iSBTc, formerly the Society of Biological Therapy (SBT), was founded by R Oldham in 1984. Its membership has been rapidly growing of late, with > 500 members at present. The purpose of the iSBTc is to bring together those diverse individuals actively investigating biologic agents and biological response modifiers in the treatment of cancer, including clinicians and basic scientists from industry, government and academia. The President of the Society is Dr Michael B Atkins from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA and the Vice President is Ulrich Keilholz from UKBF, Free University Berlin, Germany.