Archive for the ‘Human osteosarcoma research’ Category

Breast Cancer Redefined into 10 Genetic Subtypes, May Lead to Better Treatment

Comments Off
Posted 20 Apr 2012 — by James Street
Category Breast Cancer, genetic research

A group of scientists have reclassified breast cancer as having 10 genetic subtypes, instead of having four as previously thought, in a breakthrough study that could change the way that breast cancer is currently diagnosed and treated.

By Christine Hsu | April 18, 2012

A group of scientists have reclassified breast cancer as having 10 genetic subtypes, instead of having four as previously thought, in a breakthrough study that could change the way that breast cancer is currently diagnosed and treated.

The discovery published in April 18 the journal Nature, which found breast cancer to be a culmination of at least 10 diseases also identified several completely new genes that drive breast cancer, offering potential targets for new kinds of drugs.

These newly identified genes that impact the function of cell signaling pathways, networks that control cell growth and division, could enable researchers to pinpoint how these gene faults disrupt important cell processes to cause cancer.

Researchers said that the latest findings mean that people should now see cancer as an “umbrella term” for a larger number of diseases.

The findings will also allow doctors to better predict survival times in patients and personalize treatment to match specific tumor types, said co-author Carlos Caldas at Cancer Research UK’s Cambridge Research Institute.

“Essentially we’ve moved from knowing what a breast tumor looks like under a microscope to pinpointing its molecular anatomy,” Caldas said in a statement.

“This research won’t affect women diagnosed with breast cancer today. But in the future, breast cancer patients will receive treatment targeted to the genetic fingerprint of their tumor.”

Breast cancer accounts for 16 percent of all female cancer cases, making it the most common cancer among women worldwide, according to the World Health Organization.

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in the United States conducted a study last year and found that the breast cancer cases around the world have more than doubled in the last 30 years, from 641,000 cases in 1980 to 1.6 million cases in 2010, a growing rate that dramatically exceeds the global population growth.

Researchers at Cancer Research UK’s Cambridge Research Institute and the BC Cancer Agency in Vancouver analyzed the genetic material, DNA and RNA, of 2,000 frozen tumor samples from patients diagnosed with the disease at five different hospitals for mutations and other changes and grouped them into 10 subtypes with common genetic features that correlate with survival.

Researchers explained that the combined analysis of DNA and RNA, which translates DNA into proteins, uncover the identity of oncogenes, genes that drive cancer, and of tumor suppressor genes, which protect against the disease.

The current method of diagnosing and treating women with breast cancer involves analyzing tumor samples for the presence of biomarkers such as estrogen receptors or the cell surface receptor HER2, Caldas said in a news conference.

While the results of current test only determine which of the four existing subtypes of breast cancer a patient has, depending on the presence of two hormone receptors ER and HER-2, which ultimately influences the treatment and prognosis the patient receives, the new classification of 10 subtypes means that patients will know more precisely which type of cancer they have and as newer and more targeted drugs are developed, patients should be able to receive more effective or tailored treatments.

Caldas said that seven of the new subtypes found in the study were defined as ER-positive and HER-2 negative, and cancer survival time for each of the seven genetic subtypes varied widely from 80 percent to less than 40 percent after 15 years from diagnosis.

Researchers said that more research is needed to determine how tumors in each subgroup behave, like how they grow and how fast they spread. Other research is needed in the laboratory and in patients to find the most effective way to treat each of the 10 subtypes of the disease.

“The new molecular map of breast cancer points us to new drug targets for treating breast cancer and also defines the groups of patients who would benefit most,” co-author Professor Samuel Aparicio at the BC Cancer Agency in Vancouver said in a statement. “The size of this study is unprecedented and provides insights into the disease such as the role of immune response, which will stimulate other avenues of research.”

“This landmark study will completely change the way we look at breast cancer. It’s the result of decades of research by our scientists to identify the causes and drivers of the disease, which included a pivotal role in decoding the well-known BRCA genes,” Harpal Kumar, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive added.

Test for single genetic fault can help tailor cancer treatment for children

Comments Off
Posted 31 Mar 2012 — by James Street
Category genetic research, PAX3/FOXO1 fusion gene, rhabdomyosarcoma

March 27, 2012 in Cancer

A study led by Dr Janet Shipley from The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) in London in collaboration with Dr Mauro Delorenzi from the SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics in Lausanne has shown that a simple genetic test could help predict the aggressiveness of rhabdomyosarcoma tumours in children. The test, which should be introduced into clinical practice, would lead to changes in treatment for many patients, allowing some children to escape potentially long-term side-effects whilst giving others the intense treatments they need to increase their chances of survival. The results of the study are published online today in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Until now, the PAX3/FOXO1 fusion gene only served as a classification agent for tumour histology but never as a . The research team found that children who have a tumour called rhabdomyosarcoma with this particular genetic fault have significantly poorer survival rates than other rhabdomyosarcoma patients. This fusion gene can thus be very useful in the prognosis of patient’s survival.

More than that, it can provide better information about how aggressively the tumour is likely to behave and help doctors to tailor treatment for each patient. So far, children diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma were treated with a combination of and surgery and sometimes radiotherapy. These treatments have helped improve , but they can also cause serious and long-term side-effects including the potential to develop another cancer later in life. But not all patients need such intense treatment. Dr Shipley says: “Our previous studies have raised issues with the current system of predicting patients’ risk, which is based on the appearance of patients’ tumours. Our new study finds that a simple genetic test should be incorporated into standard clinical practice as it significantly improves our ability to predict tumour . This fusion could be used alongside other standard clinical measures to divide patients into one of four risk-groups, so that treatment can be tailored accordingly. Importantly, this will mean some patients who were previously categorised as high-risk could be able to avoid the side-effects associated with intense treatment, while others should receive the intense treatment they need to increase their chance of survival.”

The study required high level statistics expertise

To analyse the data for thousands of genes from 225 rhabdomyosarcoma samples, Dr Shipley called onto the expertise of the Bioinformatics Core Facility Group at the SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics in Lausanne, which is led by Dr. Mauro Delorenzi. This group provides statistical and analysis support for either national and international academic and private teams. Dr. Edoardo Missiaglia and Dr. Pratyaksha Wirapati performed the analysis of the data provided in the frame of this study and constructed and evaluated systems to score the aggressiveness of the individual case of rhabdomyosarcoma. Their work allowed to identify a panel of 15 genes whose altered activity level could be used to predict how patients responded to treatment. However, it was also found that most of these gene changes are linked to the presence of the PAX3/FOXO1 fusion gene: the detection of which is much simpler and cheaper than that of altered gene activity levels. Dr Delorenzi says: “We showed that by making a good use of the information about the presence or absence of the fusion of the two gene PAX3 and FOXO1, alongside other standard clinical measures, we could create a risk scoring system that is very informative on the aggressiveness of a tumour; it is so good that the additional use of the complex gene activity information does not appear to help to further improve it.”

Using the new system, 31 per cent of patients in the study who would previously have been classified as intermediate risk would be reassigned to a lower risk group, while a further 29 per cent of intermediate-risk would be moved to a higher risk group. Combining the test with two existing standard measures of risk for rhabdomyosarcomas – the patient’s age at diagnosis and the tumour’s stage of development – gave a simple but highly effective prognostic test.

The research team now intends to validate their findings using a larger European and independent data set. If confirmed, their method could be used in future clinical trials to assist clinicians in treatment decision. Dr Missiaglia adds: “In the same work we also show evidence that the information of 5 other genes might give important additional information in a subgroup, but since this is rare we do not yet have enough cases to be sure and this should be further tested on new data that are not yet available”.

Provided by Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics

New medical device headed to KU could be ‘revolutionary’ tool for breast cancer

Comments Off
Posted 19 Mar 2012 — by James Street
Category Breast Cancer, Gamma Ray, Gamma Ray, Physics and Engineering

KU Cancer Center to conduct trials on GammaPod, a device said to eliminate small breast tumors without surgery.

By ALAN BAVLEY

The Kansas City Star

It hasn’t been tried on a single patient yet, and already doctors are calling this new radiation therapy device for breast cancer “paradigm-changing” and “revolutionary.”

It’s the GammaPod, coming later this year to the University of Kansas Cancer Center.

Enthusiastic doctors say this $3 million-plus piece of technology could make it possible for the first time to eradicate early-stage breast tumors without surgery; they’ll be nuked to oblivion by just a week of intensely focused radiation treatments. No risk of scars, infections or breast deformities.

That’s sure to pique the interest of the roughly 150,000 women who undergo lumpectomies each year in the United States.

But don’t get your hopes up just yet, more skeptical doctors counsel. Nobody before has been able to destroy breast tumors with radiation alone. And it will take years of clinical trials before there’s proof that GammaPod works as well as the conventional combination of an operation to remove a lump in the breast followed by about six weeks of radiation therapy.

So far, the GammaPod has stayed under the media’s radar, deliberately, its manufacturer says, to avoid raising public expectations prematurely.

That’s likely to change later this year when the devices are delivered first to the University of Maryland, where it was invented, then to KU and the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and shortly after that, to Allegheny General Hospital/Western Pennsylvania Hospital in Pittsburgh and Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

These five medical centers will conduct the first clinical trials of the GammaPod to develop the evidence that will be needed before it can be considered a worthwhile alternative to surgery.

But like other high-tech marvels that promise to make medical treatment safer, less painful and more convenient, GammaPods could proliferate at hospitals around the country long before all the data are in.

As early as next year, the GammaPod’s manufacturer, Xcision Medical Systems of Columbia, Md., expects to ask the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to green-light commercial sales of the device. FDA rules allow devices to be sold without clinical trials to back them up.

“Our goal is to make this commercially available in community settings around the world,” said Xcision vice president Will Wells. “A 10 percent (U.S.) market penetration after a few years would be about right.”

That translates into sales of about 200 GammaPod systems in just the first three years that it’s on the market, Wells estimated.

That comes as no surprise to Donald Patrick, a health policy researcher at the University of Washington and co-author of the book “Hope or Hype: The Obsession with Medical Advances and the High Cost of False Promises.”

“All sorts of things are touted as effective. The public demands them,” Patrick said. “We want something that’s easy and helps us live forever. That’s the American way — anything new.”

• • •

Medical devices that have entered the market before there was substantial evidence they improved care range from $1 million surgical robots to $100 million proton cancer therapy centers.

The GammaPod uses a proven technology called stereotactic body radiation therapy to successfully obliterate inoperable brain tumors and hard-to-reach lung and liver cancers. While the technology has never been used on breast tumors, that may not stop Xcision from getting swift FDA approval to go to market.

The FDA usually considers new stereotactic radiation devices as similar to existing ones, said Jim Keller, vice president of the nonprofit ECRI Institute, which does research on the effectiveness of medical devices. As long as a manufacturer can show that its new device is as safe and effective as others already on the market, FDA will give its assent without additional tests on patients.

Stereotactic radiation devices generally are approved for treatment of “lesions, tumors or conditions anywhere in the body,” Keller said.

But ultimately, the FDA’s ruling, Keller said, will “come down to their marketing claims, how the manufacturer plans to market the clinical effects.”

Wells of Xcision is mindful of what he says.

“We don’t want to create a buzz around something we can’t deliver,” he said. “This is early on. It’s best for us to gain data … as to not hype or overdraw our own technology prematurely.”

That hasn’t stopped others from being bolder.

“We can deliver a high enough dose to (neutralize) the tumor,” the GammaPod’s inventor, Cedric Yu, said in a University of Maryland press release from 2010.

“The traditional three-month ordeal can be shortened to three treatments only,” Yu said. “You don’t need surgery. You don’t need standard radiation. No needle, knife, pain, anesthesia, and no scar.”

By last November, in a keynote address to a University of Maryland breast cancer conference, Yu was calling his device “a paradigm-changing technology.”

“I don’t use this word lightly, but I would consider this device revolutionary,” said radiation oncologist Parvesh Kumar, the associate director of clinical research at KU Cancer Center. “This is absolutely huge.”

Kumar will lead research on the GammaPod at KU.

If it’s successful at eradicating tumors, the GammaPod would free women not only from the complications of breast surgery, but the costs as well, about $20,000 to $30,000 for a lumpectomy, Kumar estimated.

The cost of GammaPod treatments would likely be similar to that of conventional radiation, about $20,000 to $40,000, he said.

• • •

 

The five medical centers receiving the first GammaPods are developing a detailed five-year experimental plan called a protocol for testing the device, Kumar said.

The initial patients will be post-menopausal women with less-aggressive, early-stage breast cancer. Only women most likely to have a favorable outcome from treatment — those with small tumors and cancer that hasn’t spread to lymph nodes — will be admitted to the clinical trial.

At first, women in the study will undergo a conventional lumpectomy and receive GammaPod treatments either before or after their operation, Kumar said. Treatments given before surgery will show the researchers how effective the radiation is at killing breast tumors and allow them to determine what dose is needed.

Women will lie face down on the GammaPod’s specially designed table. Through a large gap in the table, a cup will lock onto the breast to keep it absolutely stationary and precisely positioned for the radiation.

From beneath the table, beams of radiation will strike the tumor from different directions. None of the individual beams will be strong enough to harm the healthy tissue they pass through before reaching the tumor. But the combined strength of the beams bombarding the tumor will be calculated to give it a lethal dose.

“We think there will be virtually no toxicity” beyond the tumor, Kumar said. And nothing in the protocol will result in a poorer outcome for patients than conventional treatment, he said.

But with standard therapy already shown to be effective, entering the protocol for the GammaPod is “perhaps not for the faint of heart,” advised Phillip Devlin, an associate professor of radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School.

“To date, there is no therapy that replaces surgery in the treatment of early breast cancer,” Devlin said.

In the 1950s, researchers tried using high doses of radiation to get rid of breast tumors without surgery, Devlin said. The radiation damaged healthy breast tissue but didn’t kill the tumors.

“One shouldn’t forget history,” he said.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy has worked to good effect against tumors in other organs, Devlin said. It’s not unreasonable to think it might work against breast tumors.

“But it’s a hypothesis to test.” he said. Meanwhile, “the current paradigm (of surgery and radiation) saves a lot of women.”

How will hospitals use their GammaPods before clinical trials can determine whether it eradicates breast tumors?

“That’s a great question, but I can’t answer it,” said Wells of Xcision. “We make a (radiation) system…the actual prescription is not something we dictate.”

To reach Alan Bavley, call 816-234-4858 or send email to abavley@kcstar.com.

Taking a Leap in Cancer Diagnostics: Clarient Enters New Era in Molecular Tumor Testing, Drug Discovery Research

Comments Off
Posted 13 Mar 2012 — by James Street
Category ALK, Biomarkers, BRAF, Diagnostic, EGFR, genetic research, Kras, Molecular, PI3K
Anita T. Shaffer
Published Online: Friday, March 9th, 2012

When Kenneth J. Bloom, MD, began his career in pathology more than 25 years ago, the field of genomic and molecular diagnostics in cancer therapeutics was virtually nonexistent. Today, the sector is exploding and Bloom is at the forefront of efforts to develop new oncologic tools and bring them to clinical practice.

Bloom is the chief medical officer of Clarient, Inc, a once-fledgling company that GE Healthcare acquired in December 2010 for $425 million.

Clarient provides more than 350 diagnostic tests to assess and characterize tumors, including tests for BRAF, KRAS, and EGFR gene mutations, as well as the recently launched Clarient InsightDx Mammostrat test for breast cancer recurrence. The company also offers PATHSITE, an Internet-based service where physicians can view and manage digital images, patient case histories, and test results.

In December, Clarient announced a partnership with ACORN Research, LLC, a network of community oncology practices and hospitals, through which tumor-specific biomarker data for each new patient will be collected and analyzed under standardized protocols. The data will be used to personalize treatment for individual patients, as well as to build a databank of information about particular tumor types that can be used in clinical trials and other research.

Such developments are likely to mean a big jump forward not only for the Aliso Viejo, California-based company, but also for patients, according to Bloom.

“This is the perfect storm,” Bloom said in an interview. “All of the things that are necessary are coming together as one. We can really start bringing the highest level of care to every patient anywhere within the United States, and then eventually anywhere in the world. It is incredibly exciting.”

“It’s something that five years ago nobody could have contemplated,” he added. “If you were sick in rural Georgia, you would have to go to Atlanta. But those days are changing. You’re going to be able to get access to the same level of care no matter where you are.”

Bloom said GE ownership will boost Clarient’s ability to expand internationally, while the ACORN partnership will enable the company to compare outcomes with clinical trial results and conduct drug discovery research.

“To me, when we talk about personalized healthcare, it means giving healthcare locally,” he added. “It means you don’t pick up and travel 200 miles to some other institution where your family and friends can’t visit you and you undergo therapy in isolation. If that care could be given locally with your family and friends around you, that would be hugely advantageous. I think that’s what we’ve really been striving for all along, and it’s achievable.”

To me, when we talk about personalized healthcare, it means giving healthcare locally. It means you don’t pick up and travel 200 miles to some other institution where your family and friends can’t visit you and you undergo therapy in isolation. ”
–Kenneth J. Bloom, MD

Growing With Community Oncologists in Mind

The trends now shaping the cancer diagnostics field in some ways mirror the trajectories of both Bloom’s career and Clarient’s corporate evolution.

Now, as a result of the sequencing of the human genome and advances such as polymerase chain reaction and microarray technology, the options in genomic and molecular testing in cancer diagnostics are expanding dramatically.

“When I went through medical school, molecular pathology didn’t exist,” Bloom said. “So I got zero molecular pathology in medical school, zero molecular pathology in residency. It’s really only the last 10 or 15 years of my practice that molecular pathology has come to the forefront.”

Bloom, who became a member of the College of American Pathologists in 1987, held a number of positions related to oncology at Rush-Presbyterian- St. Luke’s Medical Center, now Rush University Medical Center, in Chicago, Illinois, for more than 20 years before joining US Labs as senior medical director in 2002.

Within a few years, the Irvine, California, cancer diagnostics company was purchased by industry giant LabCorp. Bloom, who moved on to Clarient in August 2004, said he shared Clarient’s philosophy of partnering with local pathologists rather than supplanting them with a centralized lab.

Clarient itself has grown from a small company launched in the early 1990s to develop medical imaging technologies into a 400-employee business focused on diagnostics.

General Electric Company, which operates GE Healthcare, said in its 2010 annual report that Clarient was a “leading player” in a rapidly growing market, and that its purchase of the company would accelerate GE’s presence in the field. The demand for cancer diagnostics is expected to grow from $15 billion in 2010 to $47 billion by 2015, GE said.

Although the acquisition is an example of the consolidation in the industry, Bloom believes Clarient maintains a business model that preserves both local pathologists, and helps the community oncologists and hematologists with whom they work.

“We really had a passion of bringing cancer testing directly to local pathologists and hence local oncologists,” Bloom said. “The idea was that we would never compete with the local pathologists. The things that a local pathologist knew how to do, and do well, they should do.

“But all of the advanced things that they should be doing but didn’t have access to, either because they didn’t have the space, the resources, the training, or the technicians, we would not only provide that test to them, but we also would engage them in the process, and we would educate them along the way,” he said. “And that’s been an incredibly successful model.”

The GE Healthcare acquisition gives Clarient the resources to expand its model worldwide and to pursue original research, Bloom said. “Now we can lead the charge and develop the next generation of tests that will lead the way to personalized healthcare,” he said.

The Clarient InsightDx Mammostrat

The Clarient InsightDx Mammostrat

Emphasizing Role of Pathologists Amid Change

As the options in cancer diagnostics grow in number and complexity, Bloom believes oncologists will be bombarded with choices they might not be equipped to evaluate. That is why he feels pathologists are vital members of the treatment team.

“Probably the biggest question for oncologists is, ‘How do I deal with all these new tests that are coming on the market?’” he said.

“To me, it’s not obvious that just because there’s a new test, that everybody should instantly understand how that test works and how to apply it,” Bloom said. “There’s going to have to be experts that understand how to do that.”

In Bloom’s view, local pathologists should supply that expertise by working with oncologists and with labs such as Clarient that offer advanced testing.

“The pathologist can be your biggest tool, because they are charged with understanding all of the tests, monitoring the performance of those tests, and discovering why laboratory A might be better than laboratory B for a more consistent and a more robust test result,” Bloom said.

“That would be the single biggest thing that I would tell oncologists to do,” he noted. “You need to become partners with a local pathologist, even if your local pathology lab doesn’t perform the test.”

Top Tests Available at Clarient

Combining innovative diagnostic technologies with world-class pathology expertise, Clarient’s state-of-the-art laboratories provide advanced oncology testing and diagnostic services to assess and characterize cancer. Using a wide range of methodologies, including flow cytometry, IHC, ISH, FISH, cytogenic karotyping, immunofluorescence, microarray, and molecular testing, these are the 7 leading tests Clarient performs:

Mammostrat Breast Recurrence Assay

Methodology: Immunohistochemistry
Highlights:

  • Mammostrat is a novel test for estimating the risk for recurrence in hormonereceptor positive, early-stage breast cancer.
  • Mammostrat stratifies breast cancer patients into low risk (patients have a 7.6% chance of distant recurrence over a 10-year period); moderate risk (patients have a 16.3% chance of distant recurrence over a 10-year period), and high risk (patients have a 20.9% chance of distant recurrence over a 10-year period).

ALK Rearrangement

Methodology: FISH
Highlights:

  • ALK mutations have been identified in 3% to 7% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
  • The presence of ALK gene rearrangements may help treating physicians select more effective therapies for patients with NSCLC.
  • ALK gene rearrangements define a distinct molecular subset of NSCLC that is mutually exclusive from EGFR and KRAS mutations.
  • The FISH test results should be used in conjunction with other clinical information.

BRAF

Methodology: Real-time polymerase chain reaction
Highlights:

  • BRAF mutations account for approximately 12% to 15% of colorectal cancer cases.
  • BRAF mutations are biomarkers of nonresponse to anti-EGFR therapies.
  • BRAF mutations are highly predictive of nonresponse to therapy with cetuximab or panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy and as monotherapy.

BRAF V600 Mutation

Methodology: Real-time polymerase chain reaction
Highlights:

  • Approximately 60% of melanomas harbor activating mutations in BRAF V600E as identified by the cobas 4800 test.
  • The cobas 4800 test is the first FDA-approved diagnostic test to help identify patients with the BRAF V600E mutation.
  • Patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma as detected by the cobas 4800 test showed dramatic results with vemurafenib.

EGFR Mutation Analysis

Methodology: Molecular polymerase chain reaction
Highlights:

  • EGFR mutations can be seen in approximately 10% to 15% of patients.
  • The development of selective tyrosine kinase inhibitors is an important area of drug discovery for the treatment of a variety of solid tumors such as breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancers, NSCLC, and carcinoma of the head and neck.
  • Patients with EGFR mutations respond more favorably to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors than non-mutation carriers.

KRAS Mutation Analysis

Methodology: Real-time polymerase chain reaction
Highlights:

  • KRAS mutations can be detected in approximately 30% to 40% of patients with colon cancer.
  • Patients with wild-type KRAS have shown much greater benefit to anti-EGFR therapies.
  • Identification of mutations along the KRAS gene suggests that anti-EGFR therapies will not be efficacious in most patients.

PI3K

Methodology: Molecular polymerase chain reaction
Highlights:

  • The PI3K pathway plays an important role in many cancers, including colorectal, breast, and lung cancers.
  • The presence of activating mutations in the PIK3CA gene, which encodes PI3K, can occur in 20% to 30% of cases.
Source: Clarient Inc’s website www.clarient.com.

MD ANDERSON: MUTATED KRAS SPINS A MOLECULAR LOOP THAT LAUNCHES PANCREATIC CANCER

Comments Off
Posted 31 Jan 2012 — by James Street
Category genetic research, Kras, Pancreatic
tct main 2010
MD ANDERSON: MUTATED KRAS SPINS A MOLECULAR LOOP THAT LAUNCHES PANCREATIC CANCER
Published 01/28/2012 – 2:17 p.m. CST
UT MD Anderson-led team identifies new potential treatment avenue to block an elusive target

HOUSTON — Scientists have connected two signature characteristics of pancreatic cancer, identifying a self-perpetuating “vicious cycle” of molecular activity and a new potential target for drugs to treat one of the most lethal forms of cancer.

The research, reported in the journal Cancer Cell and led by scientists at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, connected the molecular dots between:

Mutated versions of Kras, a gene that acts as a molecular on-off switch but gets stuck in the “on” position when mutated.
Heightened activity of a protein complex called NF-?B that controls activation of genes.

“Kras is mutated in 80 to 95 percent of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, and is the most frequent mutation among all cancers,” said senior author Paul Chiao, Ph.D., professor in MD Anderson’s Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology.

About 42,000 new cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma are diagnosed in the United States each year. Estimates vary, but the 5-year survival rate has been 1 to 3 percent for decades and median survival after diagnosis is six months, the researchers note.

Interleukin-1a is a new potential drug target
“There have been many attempts to inhibit mutated Kras, but it’s an elusive target that so far has defied treatment,” Chiao said. “So if we can’t hit Kras, maybe we can target one of its downstream genes. This research identifies some of those genes and suggests that interleukin-1apha (IL-1a) is a potential therapeutic target.”

Chiao and colleagues identified IL-1a as a crucial player in a feed-forward loop that:

Begins with mutationally activated Kras triggering a chain reaction that induces IL-1a expression;
This in turn activates NF-?B via the protein kinase IKK2/ß, which blocks the inhibitor of NF-?B.
In the cell nucleus, NF-?B oversees gene transcription and regulates a number of inflammation-promoting genes, including IL-1a.
IL-1a and another protein called p62 activate NF-?B which in turn cycles back to perpetuate the loop by activating its activators.

“It’s a vicious cycle,” Chiao said. The overactive NF-?B fuels pancreatic cancer by activating genes that promote inflammation, the growth of new blood vessels and block programmed cell death.

Chiao has three research grants from the National Cancer Institute to study pancreatic cancer. “We study signaling transduction pathways to try to find out why it’s such a bad disease and to find a weak point for targeted therapy,” he said.

In the Cancer Cell paper, the authors conclude: “Our findings suggest that the prime mover responsible for cancer-related inflammatory response and the development of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (precancerous lesions) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is the mutant Kras-initiated constitutive activation of NF-?B.”

This process, they further noted, creates a pro-tumor microenvironment by promoting inflammation, creation of new blood vessels and tissue repair that is similar to conditions found in inherited pancreatitis, inflammation of the pancreas that is linked to the development of cancer.

Kras mutation, IL-1a, NF-?B go together with poor survival
The team analyzed mouse and human tumors and mouse strains with mutated Kras expressed in their pancreases. In a series of experiments they found:

Active IKK2/ß – the activator of NF-?B – was required for the Kras-mutated mice to develop either pancreatic cancer or precancerous legions.
Deletion of IKK2/ß interrupted Kras-stimulated inflammation and cell proliferation, suggesting that chronic inflammation is a key factor in promoting pancreatic cancer development.
Microarray profiles of gene expression showed that several NF-?B-regulated inflammatory genes were present in high levels in mice with mutated Kras and active IKK2/ß but only found at lower levels in mice with IKK2/ß knocked out.
In human pancreatic tumors, high expression of the same inflammatory genes in the mutated Kras mice were associated with positive lymph node status, high-risk, late tumor stage and poor survival.
Expression of several genes regulated by NF-?B progressed from low levels in normal pancreases to higher levels in precancerous lesions and tumors, including IL-1a.
IL-1a was known to be both a target of and an inducer of NF-?B, but its expression had not previously been connected to mutated Kras. The team found that downstream targets of Kras, including IL-1a, are interrupted when IKK2/ß is inactivated.
Analysis of 14 human pancreatic cancer tumor samples showed that overexpression of IL-1a, the presence of Kras mutation and the activation of NF-?B are correlated and are associated with poor survival.
Continued activation of NF-?B and its gene transcription activity are sustained by IL-1a and p62.

Co-authors with Chiao are Jianhua Ling, Ph.D., Rulying Zhao, M.D., Ph.D., Qianghua Xia, Ph.D., Zhe Chang, Ph.D., and Mien-Chie Hung, Ph.D., of MD Anderson’s Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology; Ya’an Kang, M.D., Ph.D., and Jason Fleming, M.D., of MD Anderson’s Department of Surgical Oncology; Huamin Wang, M.D., Ph.D., and Jinsong Liu, M.D., Ph.D., of MD Anderson’s Department of Pathology; Dung-Fang Lee, Ph.D., and Ihor Lemischka, Ph.D., of the Black Family Stem Cell Institute of Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Jin Li, Ph.D., of the Center for Applied Genomics of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia; and Bailu Peng, Ph.D. of the Guangdong Entomological Institute, Guangdong, China.

The team’s research was funded by grants from the National Cancer Institute, including MD Anderson’s Cancer Center Core Support Grant.

Has an achilles’ heel for cancer been found?

Comments Off
Posted 03 Jan 2012 — by James Street
Category Colon Cancer, DNMT1, genetic research, MBD2

RESEARCH into a gene called MBD2 could lead to new treatments for colon cancer, after experts discovered that switching it off prevents tumours from forming.

The breakthrough has been described as a “potential Achilles’ heel” by lead research Professor Alan Clarke.

It comes from the work at the Cancer Research UK Centre in Cardiff into how genes and proteins are involved in the formation of cancer.

Prof Clarke said: “The interesting thing about cancer is that one of its primary features is to turn off a number of defensive mechanisms. As the cancer develops, these defensive mechanisms are got around, usually because the genes are switched off or deactivated.”

 The first breakthrough came with the discovery of the DNMT1 gene, which, when switched off meant that cancers couldn’t develop.

But deactivating DNMT1 also had a significant effect on other bodily functions, meaning it would not make a good target for cancer therapies.

MBD2 belongs to a family of proteins which turn off other genes and research carried out in Cardiff has found that deactivating it prevents colon tumours from developing.

“It’s fantastic and does it with virtually 100% efficiency,” Prof Clarke said. “And, taking out MBD2 isn’t that damaging to other tissues and systems – it appears to be tolerated reasonably well.

“Therefore, if we were to have a therapy targeting MBD2, any off-target effects would be limited.”

The research team has been examining the impact of MBD2 by creating mice which lack the gene. But many questions remain unanswered.

Prof Clarke said: “We have to show that if you don’t have MBD2 then the likelihood of getting a tumour is much reduced. And we don’t know if you take out MBD2 from a tumour whether it will disappear.

“We’ve been trying to develop a drug that specifically targets MBD2 but, unfortunately, attempts have not been successful because it’s a very difficult protein.

“We think that MBD2 deficiency suppresses tumorigenesis by failing to turn off a number of genes – some these will be important. We’re trying to delve down and find out which of the genes it regulates are important.

“We have a potential Achilles’ heel here to stop tumours forming and we’re also trying to find a drug target.

“We can imagine that this will be useful for patients who have had a tumour and have had therapy but who have a chance of relapsing. But we’re also testing the notion that regulating MBD2 will cause tumours to regress.”

Prof Clarke added: “The remarkable thing about the way we treat cancer is that we’re stuck with pretty much ancient technology.

“We mostly use poisons but although we have made progress with virtually all forms of cancer in terms of improving treatment, if we are going to make a huge step change it will have to come from a better understanding of the mechanisms that lead to cancer.

“That will come from a molecular understanding of cancer – if we really understand the molecular basis we can create drugs that make a big difference rather than small, incremental differences.”

John Kanzius Human Size Cancer Killing Machine Ready

Comments Off
Posted 28 Dec 2011 — by James Street
Category Kanzius Machine, Physics and Engineering, Radiation, Radiation
December 28, 2011
It’s been a long time coming, seven years to be exact, but a device large enough to accommodate a human patient has been the latest in a series of new developments in the John Kanzius Cancer Research project.
Kanzius’ radio frequency device works by emitting radio waves that heat and kill cancer cells targeted with nanoparticles, microscopic pieces of gold and other metals that are injected into the bloodstream. The device has proven to kill pancreatic cancer cells in live mice without harming healthy tissue but a larger device was needed before Kanzius’ invention could be tested on humans. The earlier devices can only accommodate petri dishes and small animals like mice and rabbits. The announcement of the larger device was made in Erie, Pennsylvania last week by Marianne Kanzius, widow of Sanibel islander John Kanzius who died two years ago of a rare form of leukemia. Marianne Kanzius is managing partner of Thermed LLC, the company formed by John Kanzius to develop the technology. The new machine is a fifth generation model. Development of the larger machine is necessary before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can approve human trials for the device. “It can support up to 800 pounds,” said Charlie Rutkowski, plant manager at Industrial Sales & Manufacturing, the Millcreek, Pennsylvania company that manufactures the Kanzius devices.
Besides being large enough to treat large animals and humans, the newest Kanzius device is also easier to operate. Earlier versions must be fine-tuned constantly. The fifth-generation device is more automated. Rutkowski said work is already underway on a sixth generation device. Tests must be performed on larger animals before the FDA approves clinical trials for humans. Thermed has not formally approached the FDA to request clinical trials. Lee Memorial Health System is one of five designated locations for human trials. Stephen Curley of the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston said last week, “This (larger machine) will mean we can begin large animal modeling studies that will be necessary to understand the RF (radio frequency) dosing and treatment times in human patients.” He could not comment on the time to human clinical trials indicating they are bound by FDA guidelines but human trials are estimated to be at least two to three years away. In an interview last week with The Erie Times Marianne Kanzius said Thermed has reached a research contract with one major research center and is negotiating with two others. “This is the business end of John’s dream,” she said. “I know John would be pleased with how things are going.” Kanzius began working on the technology after he was diagnosed with cancer.
His death two years ago threatened to derail the project but the positive results of research have kept it alive and thriving.

My Involvement with Fluoridation by Paul Connett

Comments Off
Posted 20 Dec 2011 — by James Street
Category Carcinogens, Etiology and cause of osteosarcoma, flouride, Flouride, Flouride, Osteosarcoma

 

My  Involvement with Fluoridation

 

While fluoridation dominates my activities in North America, elsewhere I am more involved in promoting a Zero Waste strategy as an alternative to building polluting landfills and incinerators and as a stepping-stone to sustainability.

 

John Lennon wrote in one of his songs, “Life is what happens when you are busy making other plans.” This sums up my life very well. Just when I thought I had found a balance between my teaching responsibilities at St. Lawrence University and my pro bono work on waste (an issue that over the last 26 years has taken me to 49 states in the U.S., seven provinces in Canada and 53 other countries) my wife asked me to get involved with fighting water fluoridation. That little diversion has lasted 15 years and culminated last year in the publication of the book I co-authored with James Beck and Spedding Micklem The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep it There. (Chelsea Green, Oct 2010).

 

When we published our book I thought it would raise the level of the debate. It has not. The promoters have not produced a single scientific response to our text. They have so much money to spin the issue that they have simply ignored this book, just as they ignored the landmark NRC report on fluoride’s toxicology of 2006.

 

This is nothing new. The promoters have ignored the demands of normal scientific debate for over 60 years. Instead, they have used two strategies: 1) insist that “authority” is on their side using a list of endorsements and 2) claim that opponents know nothing about “real science.”

 

Both strategies have worked superbly because they have served to intimidate most doctors, dentists and academics and kept them from reading the literature for themselves. Additionally, every time that more strong scientific evidence is presented that would convince anyone with an open mind that fluoridation is a bad idea (e.g. Bassin’s study on osteosarcoma; the 25 IQ studies; Li’s study on hip fractures, etc.), we have people supposedly “on our own side” giving these studies the kiss of death with nutty rants about Hitler and Stalin. I sometimes wonder if the proponents pay these people!

 

Every day I am confronted by the fact that the world doesn’t really function on a rational level on this and many other issues. As a scientist concerned about health this is a painful realization. Who would have thought that there are health professionals out there who would lend their names to a practice that may be harming people – may even be killing a few young men with osteosarcoma -without examining the issue carefully for themselves? Who would have thought that there are public health officers who confidently tell decision makers that it is “safe and effective” simply because their employer (e.g. Health Canada; CDC; UK Ministry of Health; Australian health authorities in every state etc) tells them to do so.

 

I keep going for several reasons. Firstly, I am working with some really wonderful people around the world who continue to stand up for the truth on this issue. Secondly, I realize that other people in history have fought even harder battles with far more pain and sacrifice and have finally won against the odds. I remember reading a statement from the South African author Alan Paton (Cry the beloved Country) during the apartheid era, “The only way to endure man’s inhumanity to man is to make one’s own life an example of man’s humanity to man.” Those few words have inspired me ever since.

 

I remember telling my wife on the first day of my involvement (July 6 1996), “This is going to be easy. When the village trustees hear what I have read this afternoon there is no way they are going to continue to fluoridate our water.” I was wrong. It took us another seven and half years to get fluoride out of our water. This isn’t easy at all. Even with the many successes of this year (over 30 communities have stopped fluoridation since the vote in Waterloo, Ontario on October 25, 2010) we still have to brace ourselves for the long haul.

 

That is why we need to make the Fluoride Action Network into a sustainable entity with professional staff. We started to do this last year and have had wonderful success with the two people we hired: Tara Blank, PhD, to handle the science and Stuart Cooper to handle campaign details. We could only to do this because we were left a major bequest from the late and lovely Carol Patton. But you cannot run a sustainable campaign on capital. To be sustainable you have to run it on income. That is why we are engaged in the formidable task of raising $100,000 by midnight December 31.

 

So I ask you: do you want to see fluoridation ended in your lifetime? Do you have any better ideas of accomplishing that than by running a campaign to educate the public, media and decision makers on the truth of this matter? Do you think that such a campaign can be run without professional staff?

 

Based on the answers to those questions I hope that you will consider making a tax-deductible donation towards our efforts (donation and premium details below).

 

Meanwhile, a huge thank you to all of you who have donated so far and for all the other things you are doing in your community to end fluoridation.

 

Paul Connett

Director of FAN

activation of antitumor cytotoxic T lymphocytes by fusion of patient-derived dendritic cells with autologous osteosarcoma

Comments Off
Posted 13 Dec 2011 — by James Street
Category dendritic, Human osteosarcoma research, MUC1, MUC1 protein, vaccination, Vaccine Studies
Experimental Oncology 27, 273-278, 2005 (December)
273
Z. Yu*, B. Ma, Y. Zhou, M. Zhang, X. Qiu, Q. Fan
Center of Orthopedic Surgery Orthopedics Oncology Institute of Chinese PLA, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an 710038, Shaanxi, China

Background and Aim: Fusion of human dendritic cells (DCs) with tumor cells is an effective approach for delivering tumor antigens to DCs, and DC/tumor fusion cells are potent stimulators of autologous T cells. However, the integration and morphology of DC/osteosarcoma fusion cells has not been examined. This study was designed to investigate the antitumor effects of tumor
vaccine produced by electrofusion between human osteosarcoma cells and DCs. Methods: In the present study, we eletrofused patient-derived DCs to autologous osteosarcoma cells. The fusion cells possessed the properties of both patient cells. After electrofusion, the cytoplasm of the two cells was integrated, whereas their nuclei remained separate entities. The intracellular structure
was observed on fusion cells under the transmission electron microscope. Results: Coculture of patient-derived peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) with DC/tumor fusion cells resulted in activation of T cells as assessed by standard cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) assays.

Conclusions: The present study provides valid evidence on integration of human DCs and tumor cells and links their properties to T cell activation. The fusion cells may thus represent a promising strategy for DC-based immunotherapy of patients with osteosarcoma.

Key Words: dendritic cell, osteosarcoma, fusion cell, T cell activation, immunotherapy, cytotoxic T lymphocytes, autologous

Dendritic cells (DCs) are the best professional anti-
gen-presenting cells (APCs) and they have been used
extensively in this context because they can increase the
surface expression of major histocompatibility complex
(MHC) antigens of class I and class II, and co-stimulatory
molecules (required for efficient presentation of pep-
tides and stimulation of T cells) [1] and can synthesize a
variety of immunologically important cytokines such as
IL-1, TNF-α, and IL-12. Therefore, DCs have been used
in humans to enhance antitumor immunity by stimulating
the immune system to recognize and destroy malignant
cells. Methods for delivering tumor antigens into DCs are
the focus of intensive investigation in DC-based tumor
vaccines. These include introduction of identified tumor
antigens into DCs by pulsing with peptides or proteins and
transfecting with RNA or DNA [2–6]. In preclinical models,
these DC-based vaccines have induced protective and
therapeutic immune responses against tumors. In clinical
trials, vaccination with lysate- or idiotype-pulsed DCs has
resulted in immunologic and clinical responses [7–11].
Another evolving strategy is the use of fusion
constructs between DCs and tumor cells. With this
technique, an immunogenic hybrid cell can be created
with the properties required for initiation of primary
antitumor immune responses. Theoretically, fusion
of DCs with tumor cells will result in the presentation
of a broad spectrum of tumor antigens, both known
and unidentified, in the context of the potent immune-
stimulatory machinery of the DCs. Indeed, vaccination
of mice with fusion cells has induced protective and
therapeutic antitumor immunity [12–14].However, the
traditional fusion method using polyethylene glycol
(PEG) is often plagued by its too widely ranging ef-
ficiencies, toxicity, poor reproducibility, and varying
susceptibilities among individual tumor cell partners.
Recently an alternative means of generating DC-tu-
mor hybrids by exposing cells to electric fields has been
described. The success of fusion has unequivocally been
verified by a number of analyses including FACS, cytospin,
confocal immunofluorescence, and DNA content. The ef-
ficiency of electrofusion is usually ten to hundreds times
higher than the chemical methods [15–17]. However,
little is known yet about the fusion process, fusion cell
morphology, and the relation between antigen presenta-
tion of fusion cells and induction of antitumor immunity.
The tasks of the present study was to fuse osteosarcoma
cells from patients with bone cancer with autologous DCs,
evaluate an integration of human DCs and tumor cells and
link their properties to T cell activation.
Materials and Methods
Generation of DCs from peripheral blood
mononuclear cells (PBMC). Mononuclear cells
were isolated from the peripheral blood of patients
with osteosarcoma by Ficoll/Hypaque density gradi-
ent centrifugation. The PBMC were cultured in RPMI
1640 medium containing 1% autologous serum for
1 h. The nonadherent cells were removed, and the
T cells were purified by nylon wool separation. The
adherent cells were cultured for 1 week in RPMI 1640
medium containing 1% autologous serum, 1000 U/ml
GM-CSF, 500 U/ml IL-4 and 1000 U/ml recombinant
human tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) (all cytokines
from R&D Systems, USA), to generate DCs. Then the
nonadherent and loosely adherent cell clusters of
proliferating DC were harvested.

Preparation of osteosarcoma cells. Osteosar-
coma cells were obtained from primary tumors. The
tumor tissues were separated in Hank’s balanced
salt solution (Ca++/Mg++ free) containing 1 mg/ml col-
lagenase, 0.1 mg/ml hyaluronidase and then cultured
in RPMI 1640 medium supplemented with 10% heat-
inactivated autologous human serum, L-glutamine
(2 mM), penicillin (100 U/ml) and streptomycin
(100 µg/ml) until they were fused with DCs.
Fusion of DCs with osteosarcoma cells. Au-
tologous DCs were incubated with osteosarcoma
cells at a ratio of 5 : 1 and suspended in 0.3 M glucose
solution containing 0.1 mM Ca(CH3COO)2, 0.5 mM
Mg(CH3COO)2, and 0.3% bovine serum albumin. The
pH of the fusion medium was adjusted to 7.2–7.4 with
L-histidine (all chemicals were from Sigma, USA). After
centrifugation, the cells were resuspended in the same
fusion medium without bovine serum albumin. Routinely,
0.5 ml of cell suspension containing 6 x 106 cells were
processed using a specially designed electroporation
cuvette, precoated on one side with paraffin wax (50 µl
per cuvette). For electrofusion, a pulse generator (model
ECM 2001, BTX Instrument, Genetronics, San Diego,
CA) was used. Electrofusion involves two independent
but consecutive steps. The first reaction is to bring cells
in close contact by dielectrophoresis, which can be
accomplished by exposing cells to an alternating (ac)
electric field of relatively low strength. Then cell fusion
can be triggered by applying a single square wave pulse
to induce reversible cell membrane breakdown in the
zone of membrane contact. For the current study, the
optimal conditions for maximum electrofusion efficiency
without substantial cell death (not lower than 70% vi-
ability by Trypan Blue staining) were found to consist
of two consecutive rounds of an alignment pulse of 50
V for 5 s followed by a fusion pulse of 250 V. The entire
process was repeated a second time to maximize fusion
efficiency. The fusion mixture was allowed to stand for
5 min before suspending in complete medium and then
incubated at 37 °C overnight. The nonadherent cells con-
sisted of mainly DCs, and the adherent cells consisted
of mainly fusion cells and tumor cells. The electrofusion
products were purified by monoclonal antibody CD1α (a
DC marker not expressed on tumor cells) sticking to the
magnetic beads (Miltenyi Biotec, German).
Transmission electron microscopy.For observa-
tion of cell morphology and intracellular structure, cell
preparation was fixed with 1.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M
cacodylate buffer, pH 7.4, for 1 h at 4 °C. The specimens
were washed, treated with 1% osmium tetroxide in 0.1 M
cacodylate buffer, and passed through an alcohol gradi-
ent. They were treated with propylene oxide and embed-
ded. The ultrathin sections were cut with an MT2 Sorvall
ultramicrotome and examined with a JEOL-100-CX
transmission electron microscope (TEM).
Flow cytometry. The patient derived osteosar-
coma cells, DCs and purified fusion cells were washed
and incubated with monoclonal antibodies against
HLA-ABC, HLA-DR, CD14, CD40, CD1α, CD83, CD86,
and MUC1 (all prime antibodies from Serotec Systems,
UK) for 1 h on ice. After washing with PBS, the cells
were incubated with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)/
phycoerythrin(PE)-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG
(PharMingen, USA) for 30 min. Samples were then
washed, fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde, and ana-
lyzed by FACScan (Becton Dickinson, USA).
Autologous T cell proliferation assay.Autologous
PBMC from the same osteosarcoma patient from whom
fusion cells were derived were purified through nylon wool
to remove APCs and B cells. The T cells were cocultured
with autologous DC/osteosarcoma fusion cells, DCs
mixed osteosarcoma cells and osteosarcoma cells alone
for 5 days in complete RPMI 1640 medium supplemented
with 10% human serum, 20 U/ml human IL-2, 50 µM
2-mercaptoethanol, 2 mM L-glutamine, 10 μM Hepes,
100 U/ml penicillin and 100 μg/ml streptomycin. Then the
cells were pulsed with 1 µCi 3H-Thymidine (New England
Nulear, Boston, MA) per well for 12 h, and T cell prolif-
eration was measures using standard [3H]-thymidine
incorparation. All samples were conducted in triplicate
and expressed as mean ± S.D.

Measurement of CTL activity.

PBMC from osteosarcoma patients were stimulated by co-culturing
with autologous DC/osteosarcoma fusion cells in the
presence of 20 U/ml human IL-2. PBMC cocultured
with DCs mixed with tumor cells, DCs, or tumor cells
alone were used as a control. The stimulated T cells
were harvested at the indicated time, separated by
passing through nylon wool and used as effector
cells in the CTL assay. Autologous osteosarcoma
cells, monocytes, MG63 osteosarcoma cells, LNCap
prostate cancer cells, and K562 cells were labeled
with 51Cr for 60 min at 37 °C. After washing, target cells
(2 x 104) were cocultured with T cells for 5 h at the
indicated cell radio. Supernatants were assayed in a
gamma counter for 51Cr release. Spontaneous release
of 51Cr was assessed by incubation of the targets in the
absence of effectors. Maximum or total release of 51Cr
was determined by incubation of the targets in 0.1%
Triton X-100. The percentage of specific 51Cr release
was determined by the following calculation:
percentage-specific release = [(experimental –
spontaneous)/(maximum - spontaneous)] x 100.
Statistical analysis. Statistical significance was
determined using Student’s t-test.

Results

Morphology and phenotype of DCs, osteosar-
coma and fusion cells.After culturing and induction,
DCs displayed typical morphology with elongated den-
dritic processes (Fig. 1, left panel), whereas osteosar-
coma cells had a thick cell coat and round shape (see
Fig. 1, middle panel). The fusion of osteosarcoma cells
with DCs resulted in a larger hybrid cell with both DCs
and tumor cells (see Fig. 1, right panel) and irregular
surface, suggesting the integration of two or more
cells. Phenotypically, HLA-ABC, HLA-DR, CD14, CD40,
CD1α, CD83, CD86, and MUC1 were detected on the
three populations (Fig. 2). Human DCs expressed
CD1α, but not MUC1 antigens, osteosarcoma cells
expressed tumor-associated MUC1 antigens but not
CD1α, and the purified DC/osteosarcoma fusion cells
highly expressed both CD1α and MUC1 (Fig. 3).
fig. 2. DCs (solid bar), osteosarcoma cells (hatched bar) and
purified DC/osteosarcoma fusion cells (gray bar) from the patient
with osteosarcoma were stained with panels of mAbs and analyzed
by flow cytometry for the expression of the indicated molecules
Stimulation of autologous T cell proliferation by
DC/osteosarcoma fusion cells. To determine the ef-
fects of DCs mixed with osteosarcoma cells or DC/oste-
sarcoma fusion cells in stimulation of T cells, autologous
T cells were cocultured with the mixture or the fusion hy-
brids and their proliferation was measured. As a control,
the T cells were also cocultured with autologous tumor
cells. The results demonstrated little if any evidence for T
cell stimulation by autologous tumor cells, tumor cells, or
the mixture of the two cell types. By contrast, incubation
of T cells with autologous fusion cells was associated with
T cell proliferation (Fig. 4). This finding demonstrates that
fusion of osteosarcoma cells and DCs results in stimula-
tion of a specific T cell response.
fig. 4. Stimulation of T cell by DC/osteosarcoma fusion cells. T
cell were cultured with osteosarcoma cells, osteosarcoma cells
mixed with DCs, or DC/osteosarcoma fusion cells at indicated
ratios of T cells to stimulators
CTL activity against autologous tumors induced
by DC/osteosarcoma fusion cells. To assess the in-
fig. 1. Surface and intracellular structure of cells examined by transmission electron microscopy (× 4000). DCs displayed typical
morphology (left panel); osteosarcoma cells had a thick cell coating and round shape (middle panel); the fusion construct of
osteosarcoma cells with DCs resulted in a larger hybrid cell with both DCs and tumor cells (right panel)
fig. 3. FACS analysis of DCs, osteosarcoma cells and DC/osteosarcoma fusion cells. DCs (left panel), osteosarcoma cells (middle
panel), and DC/osteosarcoma fusion cells (right panel) were stained with anti-MUC1, and anti-CD1α mAbs and analyzed by two-
color flow cytometry
duction of tumor-specific CTLs, T cells were stimulated
for 10 days and then isolated for assaying lysis of au-
tologous tumor cells. T cells incubated with autologous
DCs, osteosarcoma cells, or an unfused mixture of both
exhibited a low level of autologous osteosarcoma cell
lysis (Fig. 5). Also, T cells stimulated with the fusion cells
were effective in inducing cytotoxicity of autologous tu-
mor. These results are consistent with our previous find-
ing that fusion between DCs and tumor cells is critical
for the hybrid cells to acquire the stimulating ability.
fig. 5. Activation of anti-tumor CTLs by autologous fusion cells.
T cell were stimulated with autologous DCs, autologous osteosar-
coma cells, osteosarcoma cells mixed with DCs, or DC/ osteosa-
rcoma fusion cells at indicated ratios of T cells to stimulators
Osteosarcoma-specific CTLs induced by DC/os-
teosarcoma fusion cells. To determine the specificity
of the CTLs induced by fusion cells, multiple targets were
used in a parallel assay. T cells stimulated by DC/osteosa-
rcoma fusion cells lysed aotologous osteosarcoma cells,
but not autologous monocytes, MG63 osteosarcoma
cells, LNCap prostate cancer cells and natural killer-sensi-
tive K562 cells. In addition, the CTL activity was inhibited by
anti-HLA class I antibody, indicating HLA class I-restricted
mechanism. Collectively, these results indicate that the
CTLs induced by DC/osteosarcoma fusion cells are os-
teosarcoma-specific and MHC class I-restricted
fig. 6.Specificity of CTLs generated by autologous fusion cells.
T cell were stimulated with DC/osteosarcoma fusion cells were
incubated with 51Cr-labeled autologous osteosarcoma cells (OS),
autologous monocytes (MC), MG63 cells, LNCaP prostate can-
cer cells, or K562 cells at a ratio 40 : 1 (solid bars). The targets
were also preincubated with an anti-HLA class I antibody (W6/32;
dilution 1 : 100) and then assayed for lysis (hatched bars). CTL
activity was determined by 51Cr release. The results are expressed
as mean ± SD of three replicates
discussion
Osteosarcomas are the prominent primary bone
cancers in humans, excluding hemopoietic malignan-
cies. They mainly affect children and adolescents and
are usually highly aggressive and eventually lethal. In an
attempt to individualize the therapeutic interventions of-
fered to osteosarcoma patients, immunotherapy might
make a contribution to the prevention and cure [18].
In immunotherapy, DC-based vaccine affords a
promising new approach for the clinical response of
cancers and has become an issue of the highest inter-
est. Fused DC-tumor cells present to CD4+ T-helper
cells a high level T cell costimulatory and MHC mol-
ecules, both of which are absent in most tumor cells.
This engagement results in the up-regulation of cell
surface markers on T-helper cells and the secre-
tion of various cytokines. The CD4+ T cell therefore
provides “help” by generating potent CTLs that are
the principal effectors of specific antitumor immune
responses [19–20]. Our current work aimed to explore
an alternative approach to a DC-based vaccine for
osteosarcoma and demonstrate that the electrofusion
cells are functional in inducing osteosarcoma-specific
and MHC class I-restricted CTL activity.
In this study, an electrofusion protocol was em-
ployed and a standard CTLs assay was adopted. Sig-
nificantly, one important advantage of immunization
with electrofusion products is the potential to induce an
immune response against all possible tumor antigens,
known or unknown. Several in vitroand in vivoapplica-
tions have been explored for the use of electrofused
DC-tumor hybrids as APCs [21–23]. From the results
obtained in the present studies, we could conclude that
the fusion cells were effective in inducing anti-tumor
CTLs, which lyse autologous osteosarcoma cells by an
MHC class I-restricted mechanism. Characterization of
the peptides recognized by these CTLs can be used to
identify tumor-associated antigens that are the targets
of the immune response.
Recently, there have been many relevant outcomes
about using allogenic DCs as fusion partners [24–25], for
T cells are potentially activated through both MHC class
I molecules derived from tumor cell and co-stimulatory
and adhesion molecules from allogenic DCs. Allogenic
DCs express many co-stimulatory and adhesion mol-
ecules that provide secondary signals for stimulation of
active T cell populations in the same way and secrete
a variety of cytokines additionally [26–28]. This option
seemed to project a practical advantage, for in a clinical
setting, allogenic DCs can be generated conveniently
from stored peripheral mononuclear cells from normal
healthy volunteers from the general population. How-
ever, there have been little proofs so far that autologous
DC/osteosarcoma fusion cells as tumor vaccine could
be effective in stimulating T cells, so we are determined
to explore the biology and efficacy of electrofusion cell
immunization against osteosarcoma gradually and more
studies on allogenic fusion cells will be investigated.
Unfortunately, the characterization and selection of
DC/osteosarcoma fusion cells remain a challenge due
to the lack of an unique marker for the osteosarcoma
cells. In the present study, we selected a representa-
tive marker based on the phenotype of tumor cells
in the patient. MUC1 was used as a tumor marker in
osteosarcoma patients since peripheral blood derived
DCs expressed minimal MUC1.

In summary, this study has demonstrated that it’s
feasible to generate a large number of DC/osteosa-
rcoma hybrid cells by the electrofusion technique.
Compared with other methods, electrofusion could
be reproducible and the fusion rate tended to be high.

Autologous DCs fused with osteosarcoma cells were
capable of inducing a potent antitumor response and
could be employed to treat the malignant bone tumor
effectively. This approach could conceivably be ap-
plied to a wide range of cancer indications for which
tumor-associated antigens have not been identified.

Acknowledgments

This work is sponsored by the National Natural
Science Foundation (30330610, CHN). We would like
to thank Professor Zhang Dianzhong for his technical
help and Zhang Yunfei for his efforts in interpreting
and analyzing the data. We also thank Dr. Long Hua
for his valuable advice.

References

1. Ardavin C, Amigorena S, Reis E, Sousa C. Dendritic
cells: immunobiology and cancer immunotherapy. Immunity
2004; 20: 17–23.
2. Racanelli V, Behrens SE, Aliberti J, Rehermann B. Den-
dritic cells transfected with cytopathic self-replicating RNA
induce crosspriming of CD8+ T cells and antiviral immunity.
Immunity 2004; 20: 47–58.
3. Ueno H, Tcherepanova I, Reygrobellet O, Laughner E,
Ventura C, Palucka AK, Banchereau J. Dendritic cell subsets
generated from CD34+ hematopoietic progenitors can be
transfected with mRNA and induce antigen-specific cytotoxic
T cell responses. J Immunol Meth 2004; 285: 171–80.
4. Grinevich YA, Khranovskaya NN, Bendyug GD. Re-
sponse of the thymus and spleen of CBA mice with sarcoma 37
on intravenous and subcutaneous administration of syngeneic
dendritic cells. Exp Oncol 2005; 27: 206–9.
5. Harris J, Monesmith T, Ubben A, Norris M, Freed-
man JH, Tcherepanova I. An improved RNA amplification
procedure results in increased yield of autologous RNA
transfected dendritic cell-based vaccine. Biochim Biophys
Acta 2005; 1724: 127–36.
6. Shi M, Bi X, Xu S, He Y, Guo X, Xiang J. Increased
susceptibility of tumorigenicity and decreased anti-tumor
effect of DC vaccination in aged mice are potentially associ-
ated with increased number of NK1.1+CD3+ NKT cells. Exp
Oncol 2005; 27: 125–9.
7. Yu JS, Wheeler CJ, Zeltzer PM, Ying H, Finger DN,
Lee PK, Yong WH, Incardona F, Thompson RC, Riedinger MS,
Zhang W, Prins RM, Black KL. Vaccination of malignant
glioma patients with peptide-pulsed dendritic cells elicits sys-
temic cytotoxicity and intracranial T-cell infiltration.Cancer
Res 2001; 61: 842–7.
8. Kono K, Takahashi A, Sugai H, Fujii H, Choudhury AR,
Kiessling R, Matsumoto Y. Dendritic cells pulsed with
HER-2/neu-derived peptides can induce specific T-cell
responses in patients with gastric cancer. Clin Cancer Res
2002; 8: 3394–400.
9. Yanagimoto H, Takai S, Satoi S, Toyokawa H, Taka-
hashi K, Terakawa N, Kwon AH, Kamiyama Y. Impaired func-
tion of circulating dendritic cells in patients with pancreatic
cancer. Clin Immunol 2005; 114: 52–60.
10. Timmerman JM, Czerwinski DK, Davis TA, Hsu FJ,
Benike C, Hao ZM, Taidi B, Rajapaksa R, Caspar CB,
Okada CY, van Beckhoven A, Liles TM, Engleman EG, Levy R.
Idiotype-pulsed dendritic cell vaccination for B-cell lym-
phoma: clinical and immune responses in 35 patients. Blood
2002; 99: 1517–26.
11. Schuler-Thurner B, Schultz ES, Berger TG, Weinlich G,
Ebner S, Woerl P, Bender A, Feuerstein B, Fritsch PO, Rom-
ani N, Schuler G. Rapid induction of tumor-specific type 1 T
helper cells in metastatic melanoma patients by vaccination
with mature, cryopreserved, peptide-loaded monocyte-derived
dendritic cells. J Exp Med 2002; 195: 1279–88.
12. Tanaka H, Shimizu K, Hayashi T, Shu S. Therapeutic
immune response induced by electrofusion of dendritic and
tumor cells. Cell Immunol 2002; 220: 1–12.
13. Siders WM, Vergilis KL, Johnson C, Shields J,
Kaplan JM. Induction of specific antitumor immunity in
the mouse with the electrofusion product of tumor cells and
dendritic cells. Mol Ther 2003; 7: 498–505.
14. Hao S, Bi X, Xu S, Wei Y, Wu X, Guo X, Carlsen S,
Xiang J. Enhanced antitumor immunity derived from a novel
vaccine of fusion hybrid between dendritic and engineered
myeloma cells. Exp Oncol 2004; 26: 300–6.
15. Karsten U, Stolley P, Walther I, Papsdorf G, Weber S,
Conrad K, Pasternak L, Kopp J. Direct comparison of elec-
tric field-mediated and PEG-mediated cell fusion for the
generation of antibody producing hybridomas. Hybridoma
1988; 7: 627–33.
16. Zimmermann U, Vienken J, Halfmann J, Emeis CC.
Electrofusion: a novel hybridization technique. Adv Biotechnol
Processes 1985; 4: 79–150.
17. Hayashi T, Tanaka H, Tanaka J, Wang R, Averbook BJ,
Cohen PA, Shu S. Immunogenicity and therapeutic efficacy of
dendritic-tumor hybrid cells generated by electrofusion.Clin
Immunol 2002; 104: 14–20.
18. Fan QY, Ma BA, Zhou Y, Zhang MH, Hao XB. Bone
tumors of the extremities or pelvis treated by microwave-in-
duced hyperthermia. Clin Orthop 2003; 406: 165–75.
19. John J, Dalgleish A, Melcher A, Pandha H. Cryop-
reserved dendritic cells for intratumoral immunotherapy do
not require re-culture prior to human vaccination. J Immunol
Meth 2005; 299: 37–46.
20. Javorovic M, Pohla H, Frankenberger B, Wolfel T,
Schendel DJ. RNA transfer by electroporation into mature
dendritic cells leading to reactivation of effector-memory
cytotoxic T lymphocytes: a quantitative analysis. Mol Ther
2005; 12: 734–43.
21. Weise JB, Maune S, Gorogh T, Kabelitz D, Arnold N,
Pfisterer J, Hilpert F, Heiser A. A dendritic cell based hybrid cell
vaccine generated by electrofusion for immunotherapy strategies
in HNSCC. Auris Nasus Larynx 2004; 31: 149–53.
22. Kjaergaard J, Shimizu K, Shu S. Electrofusion of syn-
geneic dendritic cells and tumor generates potent therapeutic
vaccine. Cell Immunol 2003; 225: 65–74.
23. Orentas RJ, Schauer D, Bin Q, Johnson BD. Electrofu-
sion of a weakly immunogenic neuroblastoma with dendritic cells
produces a tumor vaccine. Cell Immunol 2001; 213: 4–13.
24. Gong J, Nikrui N, Chen D, Koido S, Wu Z, Tanaka Y,
Cannistra S, Avigan D, Kufe D. Fusions of human ovarian
carcinoma cells with autologous or allogeneic dendritic cells
induce antitumor immunity. J Immunol 2000; 165: 1705–11.
Page 6
278
Experimental Oncology 27, 273-278, 2005 (December)
25. Tanaka Y, Koido S, Chen D, Gendler SJ, Kufe D,
Gong J. Vaccination with allogeneic dendritic cells fused to
carcinoma cells induces antitumor immunity in MUC1 trans-
genic mice. Clin Immunol 2001; 101: 192–200.
26. Takagi Y, Kikuchi T, Niimura M, Ohno T. Anti-tumor
effects of dendritic and tumor cell fusions are not dependent
on expression of MHC class I and II by dendritic cells. Cancer
Lett 2004; 213: 49–55.
27. Zhang S, Wang Q, Li WF, Wang HY, Zhang HJ, Zhu
JJ. Different antitumor immunity roles of cytokine activated T
lymphocytes from naive murine splenocytes and from dendritic
cells-based vaccine primed splenocytes: implications for adop-
tive immunotherapy. Exp Oncol 2004; 26: 55–62.
28. Schuler G, Schuler-Thurner B, Steinman RM. The
use of dendritic cells in cancer immunotherapy. Curr Opin
Immunol 2003; 15: 138–47.

Scientists have devised a new, experimental vaccine that seems to be effective at shrinking cancerous tumors in mice by up to 80 percent.

Comments Off
Posted 13 Dec 2011 — by James Street
Category Breast Cancer, MUC1 protein, MUC1 protein, Vaccine

Scientists have devised a new, experimental vaccine that seems to be effective at shrinking cancerous tumors in mice by up to 80 percent.

The vaccine worked at shrinking similar mouse versions of breast and pancreatic tumors, but researchers from the University of Georgia and the Mayo Clinic said that it could be applied to other cancers, too, including colorectal and ovarian cancers and multiple myeloma.

Scientists have been working for decades to find a way to mobilize the immune system to be able to identify cancerous cells. The problem has always been that the immune system doesn’t recognize the cancerous cells as dangerous because they originated from the body in the first place, and therefore doesn’t attack them, researchers said.

But the new vaccine works by targeting the sugar coating of a protein called MUC1 located on the surfaces of the cancerous cells. The sugar coating differentiates the cancerous cells from normal, healthy cells. The mice were engineered so that their cancer cells overexpressed MUC1, just like human cancer cells do.

“This is the first time that a vaccine has been developed that trains the immune system to distinguish and kill cancer cells based on their different sugar structures on proteins such as MUC1,” study researcher Sandra Gendler, a professor at the Mayo Clinic, said in a statement. “We are especially excited about the fact that MUC1 was recently recognized by the National Cancer Institute as one of the three most important tumor proteins for vaccine development.”

The study will appear in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The vaccine has potential to be used on a wide variety of cancers because more than 70 percent of deadly cancers have the MUC1 protein, researchers said. AOL Lifestyle reported that researchers hope to try the vaccine in humans in the next couple of years.

And because MUC1 is overexpressed in 90 percent of people who were unresponsive to other therapies like Tamoxifen or Herceptin, the vaccine might in the future be a viable option for people whose cancers are difficult to treat, researchers added.

The experimental cancer vaccines in the works today are different from the preventive vaccines (like ones that ward off cervical cancer-causing HPV), which prevents cervical cancer.

The Daily Beast explains:

By “cancer vaccine,” scientists mean something that will stimulate the immune system to attack malignant cells.

Recently, researchers at the National Cancer Institute developed a promising vaccine that seems to stop the spread of metastatic breast and ovarian cancers in humans. The poxviral vaccine even seemed to be effective at completely ridding one person involved in the study of cancer, WebMD reported.

However, the vaccine wasn’t as overwhelmingly successful in the other 25 patients — for some of those people, the vaccine seemed to extend the amount of time before the cancer progressed by a few months, WebMD noted.

And earlier this year, University of Pennsylvania researchers announced a leukemia treatment that seems effective at obliterating leukemia cells, and was shown to completely rid patients of the cancer or at least significantly decrease their number of cancerous cells.