Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Recreating human livers, in mice

Comments Off
Posted 16 Jul 2011 — by James Street
Category Bone repair, Limb and organ Regeneration, Liver
‘Humanized’ mice could help scientists study the side effects of new drugs before they reach clinical trials.

Anne Trafton, MIT News Office
July 12, 2011

Alice Chen
Photo – Photo courtesy of the Lemelson-MIT Program
‘Humanized’ mice could help scientists study the side effects of new drugs before they reach clinical trials.

Anne Trafton, MIT News Office

July 12, 2011

Although scientists commonly use mice for biomedical research, they are not always helpful for pharmaceutical testing. Because mouse livers react to drugs differently than human livers, they often can’t be used to predict whether a potential drug will be toxic to people. That means that a drug that harms the liver could make it all the way to human clinical trials before researchers discover its risks.

Now, Alice Chen, a graduate student in the MIT-Harvard Division of Health Sciences and Technology (HST), has developed a way to overcome that problem. By growing human liver tissue inside mice, she has created “humanized” mouse livers that respond to drugs the same way a human liver does.

The humanized mice, described in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) the week of July 11, could also be used to study the liver’s response to infectious diseases such as malaria and hepatitis.

“What’s exciting to researchers is this idea that if we can create these mice with human livers, we can basically create a slew of human-like patients to do drug-development screens, or to … develop new therapies,” says Chen, who works in the lab of Sangeeta Bhatia, the John and Dorothy Wilson Professor of HST and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

Bhatia, who is a member of MIT’s David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, is senior author of the PNAS paper.

In March, Chen won the $30,000 Lemelson-MIT Student Prize for her research, including this work; she also won the 2010 Collegiate Inventors Competition in the graduate student category.

A new scaffold

One obstacle to creating mice with human livers is that liver cells tend to lose their function rapidly after being removed from the body. Another challenge is that until now, creating mice with humanized livers required starting with mice with severely compromised immune systems — which limits their use for studying the immune response to infectious agents such as the hepatitis C virus, or drugs to combat those agents. Furthermore, those approaches rely on liver injury to create an environment in which implanted human liver cells can proliferate.

The process of breeding such mice is very time-consuming: It can take months to produce a single mouse with the right characteristics, Chen says.

To overcome those issues, Chen and Bhatia developed a tissue scaffold that includes nutrients and supportive cells, which preserve liver cells after they are taken from the body. The tissue scaffold is the size, shape and texture of a contact lens, and can be implanted directly into the mouse abdominal cavity.

Using this approach, the researchers can rapidly implant scaffolds in up to 50 mice in a day; it takes about a week for the implanted liver tissue to integrate itself into the mice. The gel that forms the scaffold also acts as a partial barrier to the mouse’s immune system, preventing it from rejecting the implant.

In the PNAS paper, the researchers demonstrated that the implanted liver tissue integrates into the mouse’s circulation system, so drugs can reach it, and proteins produced by the liver can enter the bloodstream. (The mice also retain their own livers, but the researchers have developed a method to distinguish the responses of mouse and human liver tissue.) Unlike existing approaches, this technique can be used on mice with no liver injury and intact immune systems.

To test the function of the humanized livers, the team administered the drugs coumarin and debrisoquine and found that the mice broke them down into byproducts normally generated only by human livers.

Chen and her colleagues are now studying how the humanized livers respond to other drugs whose breakdown products, or metabolites, are already known. That will pave the way to exploring the effects of untested drugs. “The idea that you could take a humanized mouse and identify these metabolites before going to clinical trials is potentially very valuable,” Chen says.

The team is also working toward miniaturizing the implants to the point where hundreds or thousands could be implanted in a single mouse. If successful, that could make the drug development process more efficient and reduce the number of mice needed for drug studies, Chen says.

Inder Verma, a professor of molecular biology at the Salk Institute, says the new technology is not only an improvement over existing humanized mouse livers, it could be a step toward creating artificial livers from induced pluripotent stem cells derived from a patient’s own tissues.

“What you really want is to be able to do this with cells from a patient, so you can put them back in,” says Verma, who was not involved in this research.

Lab-Made Trachea Saves Man

Comments Off
Posted 08 Jul 2011 — by James Street
Category Artificial Knees and implants, Bone repair, Limb and organ Regeneration

Tumor-Blocked Windpipe Replaced Using Synthetic Materials, Patient’s Own Cells

By GAUTAM NAIK

Doctors have replaced the cancer-stricken windpipe of a patient with an organ made in a lab, a landmark achievement for regenerative medicine. The patient no longer has cancer and is expected to have a normal life expectancy, doctors said.

WINDPIPE1

David GreenA lab-made windpipe was implanted June 9 into a 36-year-old patient whose own windpipe was obstructed by a tumor.

WINDPIPE1

WINDPIPE1

“He was condemned to die,” said Paolo Macchiarini, a professor of regenerative surgery who carried out the procedure at Sweden’s Karolinska University Hospital. “We now plan to discharge him [Friday].”

The transplantation of an entirely synthetic and permanent windpipe had never been successfully done before the June 9 procedure. The researchers haven’t yet published the details in a scientific journal.

The patient’s speedy recovery marks another milestone in the quest to make fresh body parts for transplantation or to treat disease. More immediately, it offers a possible treatment option for thousands of patients who suffer from tracheal cancer or other dangerous conditions affecting the windpipe.

WINDPIPE2

Associated PressPaolo Macchiarini, a professor of regenerative surgery, carried out the procedure.

WINDPIPE2

WINDPIPE2

“It’s yet another demonstration that what was once considered hype [in the field of tissue engineering] is becoming a life-changing moment for patients,” said Alan Russell, director of the McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine in Pittsburgh, who wasn’t involved in the latest operation.

In 2006, researchers disclosed how they had implanted lab-grown bladders into children and teens with spina bifida, a birth defect. And in 2008, members of a team that included Dr. Macchiarini said they had given a patient a new windpipe made partly from her own cells, and partly from “scaffolding” material taken from a cadaver.

The latest experiment shows that a fully functioning windpipe can be manufactured in the lab without the need for a cadaver.

WINDPIPE
WINDPIPE

WINDPIPE

“It makes all the difference,” said Dr. Macchiarini. “If the patient has a malignant tumor in the windpipe, you can’t wait months for a donor to come along.”

The patient in this case is a 36-year-old Eritrean man, identified by doctors as a father of two studying geology in Iceland. Surgery and radiation treatments failed to stem a cancerous growth in his windpipe.

When the tumor reached about six centimeters in length, it almost completely blocked the trachea, or windpipe, making it hard for the patient to breathe.

With no suitable donor windpipe available, the final option was to try to build one from scratch. Dr. Macchiarini had good reason to feel emboldened: He had successfully transplanted cadaver-based windpipes in 10 patients.

WINDPIPE3

David GreenThe patient is expected to be released from the hospital Friday.

WINDPIPE3

WINDPIPE3

The windpipe is a hollow tube, about 4.5 inches long, leading to the lungs. A key part of it is a scaffold—which functions like a skeleton for the organ—consisting of tissues such as cartilage and muscle. As a first step, a team led by Alexander Seifalian of University College London used plastic materials and nanotechnology to make an artificial version of the scaffold in the lab. It was closely modeled on the shape and size of the Eritrean man’s windpipe.

Meanwhile, researchers at Harvard Bioscience Inc. of Holliston, Mass., made a bioreactor, a shoe-box-size device similar to a spinning rotisserie machine. The artificial scaffold was placed on the bioreactor, and stem cells extracted from the patient’s bone marrow were dripped onto the revolving scaffold for two days.

With the patient on the surgery table, Dr. Macchiarini and colleagues then added chemicals to the stem cells, persuading them to differentiate into tissue—such as bony cells—that make up the windpipe.

Related

In a notable advance in organ transplants, surgeons at UC Davis Medical Center have restored the voice of a woman who couldn’t speak on her own through a transplant of the larynx, thyroid and trachea. Avery Johnson has details.

About 48 hours after the transplant, imaging and other studies showed appropriate cells in the process of populating the artificial windpipe, which had begun to function like a natural one. There was no rejection by the patient’s immune system, because the cells used to seed the artificial windpipe came from the patient’s own body.

Dr. Russell of the McGowan Institute sounded a note of caution about using this technique to build more-complex organs. For example, while tissue engineering can help to build hollow organs such as a windpipe, it will likely prove a bigger challenge to use the technique for creating the heart, which has much thicker tissue.

Dr. Macchiarini said he planned to use the same windpipe-transplant technique on three more patients, two from the U.S. and a nine-month-old child from North Korea who was born without a trachea.

Write to Gautam Naik at gautam.naik@wsj.com

Synthes and Lilly Sign Development and Collaboration Agreement

Comments Off
Posted 09 Jun 2011 — by James Street
Category Bone repair, Limb and organ Regeneration, Methotrexate, Osteosarcoma surgery

WEST CHESTER, Pa. and INDIANAPOLIS, June 9, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Synthes, Inc. (SIX: SYST.VX) and Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE: LLY) today announced the signing of an exclusive worldwide collaboration agreement to address the needs of patients who are cared for by orthopedic surgeons, including those with osteoporosis and those with bone fractures.

The agreement allows for the joint development and licensing of early stage compounds from Lilly to Synthes for use within orthopedic trauma, spine, craniomaxillofacial and reconstructive areas. These compounds have pre-clinical and in some cases clinical data packages and have the potential to aid in the local treatment and regeneration of the skeleton. The two companies will jointly develop site-specific osteoinductive (i.e. bone healing) products based on Synthes’ biomaterials combined with Lilly’s biologics or pharmaceuticals.

Within a second development program, Synthes and Lilly will jointly conduct and fund the evaluation of additional orthopedic uses for Lilly’s osteoporosis drug Forteo® (teriparatide [rDNA origin] injection), marketed as Forsteo® in some countries outside of the United States).  Building upon a Phase II study that Lilly has already completed, Lilly and Synthes will collaborate on additional clinical studies to evaluate potential future indications for Forteo, including fracture healing.

In addition to the development component of the agreement, the collaboration also includes the U.S. co-promotion of Forteo to orthopedic surgeons, an important segment of physicians who treat patients with a fracture due to osteoporosis. The companies will also co-promote Forteo in select countries and regions outside of the United States.

“I am very excited about this unique collaboration that will utilize the complementary clinical, development and operational strengths of each partner,” said Michel Orsinger, president and CEO of Synthes. “Osteoporosis is one of the most significant unsolved clinical problems in orthopedics. Addressing the osteoporosis disease as well as the resulting fracture and bone defect is a significant strategic priority of both organizations,” he continued. “Strategic collaborations between medtech and pharma companies represent a new and promising avenue to develop and market true innovations in a changing, dynamic market environment.”

“We believe that patients worldwide will benefit from this collaboration because together we will be able to look for new ways to treat osteoporosis and bone fractures,” said Bryce Carmine, executive vice president and president, Lilly Bio-Medicines, Eli Lilly and Company. “At Lilly, we are always exploring new opportunities to bring innovative medicines to people with unmet medical needs and improve outcomes for individual patients.”

“Many orthopedic surgeons are in the position to diagnose and treat osteoporosis when their patients present with fractures, and we believe it is imperative to treat the underlying cause of the initial fracture,” said Johnston Erwin, Bone/Muscle/Joint global development platform leader, Lilly Bio-Medicines, Eli Lilly and Company. “Our collaboration will also explore ways to treat fractures with Forteo in older patients and/or those who have osteoporosis and, longer term, will look for new ways to deliver medicine locally to the fracture site.”

Financial terms of the agreement have not been disclosed.

Forteo, an FDA-approved osteoporosis therapy to help build new bone, is a treatment for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture(1) and to increase bone mass in men with primary or hypogonadal osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture.(2) Individuals at high risk for having broken bones include men and women with either a history of broken bones due to osteoporosis, who have several risk factors for fracture, or who cannot use other osteoporosis treatments.(1) Forteo is also approved to treat men and women with osteoporosis associated with sustained, systemic glucocorticoid therapy at high risk for fracture.(3) Forteo is a prescription medicine given as a 20 mcg once daily dose(4) available in a 2.4 mL prefilled delivery device for subcutaneous injection over 28 days.(5)

During the drug testing process, the medicine in Forteo caused some rats to develop osteosarcoma, which, in humans, is a serious but rare bone cancer. Osteosarcoma has been reported rarely in people who took Forteo, and it is unknown if people who take Forteo have a higher chance of getting the disease. Before patients take Forteo, patients should tell their healthcare provider if they have Paget’s disease of bone, are a child or young adult whose bones are still growing or have had radiation therapy.(6) For more information about Forteo, please see the important safety information, including Boxed Warning regarding osteosarcoma, below.

About Eli Lilly and Company

Eli Lilly and Company, a leading innovation-driven company, is developing a growing portfolio of pharmaceutical products by applying the latest research from its own worldwide laboratories and from collaborations with eminent scientific organizations. Headquartered in Indianapolis, Ind., Lilly provides answers — through medicines and information — for some of the world’s most urgent medical needs. Information about Lilly is available at www.lilly.com.

Synthes: A leading medical device company

Synthes is a leading global medical device company, specialized in the development, manufacturing and marketing of instruments, implants and biomaterials for the surgical fixation, correction and regeneration of the human skeleton and its soft tissues.

Important Safety Information about FORTEO

What is the most important information I should know about FORTEO?

WARNING: POTENTIAL RISK OF OSTEOSARCOMA

During the drug testing process, the medicine in FORTEO caused some rats to develop a bone cancer called osteosarcoma. In people, osteosarcoma is a serious but rare cancer. Osteosarcoma has been reported rarely in people who took FORTEO. It is not known if people who take FORTEO have a higher chance of getting osteosarcoma. Before you take FORTEO, you should tell your healthcare provider if you have Paget’s disease of bone, are a child or young adult whose bones are still growing, or have had radiation therapy

Who should not take FORTEO?

  • You should not take FORTEO for more than 2 years over your lifetime.

 

  • Do not use FORTEO if you are allergic to any of the ingredients in FORTEO. Serious allergic reactions have been reported.

 

What should I tell my healthcare provider before taking FORTEO?

  • Before you take FORTEO, you should tell your healthcare provider if you have a bone disease other than osteoporosis, have cancer in your bones, have trouble injecting yourself and do not have someone who can help you, have or have had kidney stones, have or have had too much calcium in your blood, take medications that contain digoxin (Digoxin, Lanoxicaps, Lanoxin), or have any other medical conditions.

 

  • You should also tell your healthcare provider, before you take FORTEO, if you are pregnant or thinking about becoming pregnant. It is not known if FORTEO will harm your unborn baby. If you are breastfeeding or plan to breastfeed, it is not known if FORTEO passes into your breast milk. You and your healthcare provider should decide if you will take FORTEO or breastfeed. You should not do both.

What are the possible side effects of FORTEO?

  • FORTEO can cause serious side effects including a decrease in blood pressure when you change positions. Some people feel dizzy, get a fast heartbeat, or feel faint right after the first few doses. This usually happens within 4 hours of taking FORTEO and goes away within a few hours. For the first few doses, take your injections of FORTEO in a place where you can sit or lie down right away if you get these symptoms. If your symptoms get worse or do not go away, stop taking FORTEO and call your healthcare provider. FORTEO may also cause increased calcium in your blood. Tell your healthcare provider if you have nausea, vomiting, constipation, low energy, or muscle weakness. These may be signs there is too much calcium in your blood.

 

  • Common side effects of FORTEO include nausea, joint aches, pain, leg cramps, and injection site reactions including injection site pain, swelling and bruising.  These are not all the possible side effects of FORTEO.  You are encouraged to report negative side effects of Prescription drugs to the FDA.  Visit www.fda.gov/medwatch or call             1-800-FDA-1088 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 1-800-FDA-1088 end_of_the_skype_highlighting .

 

Additional safety information about FORTEO

  • There is a voluntary patient registry for people who take FORTEO. The purpose of the registry is to collect information about the possible risk of osteosarcoma in people who take FORTEO. For information about how to sign up for this patient registry, call             1-866-382-6813 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 1-866-382-6813 end_of_the_skype_highlighting or go to www.forteoregistry.org.

 

  • The FORTEO Delivery Device has enough medicine for 28 days. It is set to give a 20-microgram dose of medicine each day. Before you try to inject FORTEO yourself, a healthcare provider should teach you how to use the FORTEO Delivery Device to give your injection the right way. Inject FORTEO one time each day in your thigh or abdomen (lower stomach area). Do not inject all the medicine in the FORTEO Delivery Device at any one time. Do not transfer the medicine from the FORTEO Delivery Device to a syringe. This can result in taking the wrong dose of FORTEO. If you take more FORTEO than prescribed, call your healthcare provider. If you take too much FORTEO, you may have nausea, vomiting, weakness, or dizziness.

 

How should I store FORTEO?

  • Keep your FORTEO Delivery Device in the refrigerator between 36 degrees F to 46 degrees F (2 degrees C to 8 degrees C). Do not freeze the FORTEO Delivery Device. Do not use FORTEO if it has been frozen. Do not use FORTEO after the expiration date printed on the delivery device and packaging. Throw away the FORTEO Delivery Device after 28 days even if it has medicine in it (see the User Manual).

 

For more safety information, please see Medication Guide (http://pi.lilly.com/us/forteo-medguide.pdf) and Prescribing Information, including Boxed Warning (http://pi.lilly.com/us/forteo-pi.pdf).  Please see full user manual that accompanies the delivery device.

TE Con ISI  07Mar2011

This press release contains certain forward-looking statements about the collaboration between Synthes and Lilly and about Forteo for the treatment of osteoporosis in patients who are at high risk for a fracture. It reflects Synthes’ and Lilly’s current beliefs. As with any pharmaceutical product, there are substantial risks and uncertainties in the process of development and commercialization. There is no guarantee that future study results and patient experience will be consistent with study findings to date or that the product will be commercially successful. There is also no guarantee that the collaboration will be successful. For further discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties, see Lilly’s filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Lilly undertakes no duty to update forward-looking statements.

The securities of Synthes have been offered and sold outside the United States and have not been and will not be registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Such securities may not be offered, sold or transferred in the U.S. or to U.S. Persons (as defined in the regulations of the Securities Act), except pursuant to a registration statement filed under the Securities Act or under an applicable exemption under the Securities Act. Hedging transactions involving such securities may not be conducted unless in compliance with the Securities Act. The Synthes securities are deemed “Restricted Securities” as that term is defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act.

FORTEO® and FORSTEO® are registered trademarks of Eli Lilly and Company.

P-LLY

(Logo:  http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20031219/LLYLOGO )

(Logo:  http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20110609/DE15577LOGO )

(1)  FORTEO PI. Available at http://pi.lilly.com/us/forteo-pi.pdf. Page 2, Section 1.1. Accessed on April 21, 2011.

(2)  FORTEO PI. Available at http://pi.lilly.com/us/forteo-pi.pdf. Page 2, Section 1.2. Accessed on April 21, 2011.

(3)  FORTEO PI. Available at http://pi.lilly.com/us/forteo-pi.pdf. Page 2, Section 1.3. Accessed on April 21, 2011.

(4)  FORTEO PI. Available at http://pi.lilly.com/us/forteo-pi.pdf. Page 2, Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3. Accessed on April 21, 2011.

(5)  FORTEO PI. Available at http://pi.lilly.com/us/forteo-pi.pdf. Page 3, Section 3. Accessed on April 21, 2011.

(6)  FORTEO PI. Available at http://pi.lilly.com/us/forteo-pi.pdf. Page 3, Section 5.1. Accessed on April 21, 2011.

SOURCE Eli Lilly and Company

The Truth About the Drug Companies

July 15, 2004

Marcia Angell

Every day Americans are subjected to a barrage of advertising by the pharmaceutical industry. Mixed in with the pitches for a particular drug—usually featuring beautiful people enjoying themselves in the great outdoors—is a more general message. Boiled down to its essentials, it is this: “Yes, prescription drugs are expensive, but that shows how valuable they are. Besides, our research and development costs are enormous, and we need to cover them somehow. As ‘research-based’ companies, we turn out a steady stream of innovative medicines that lengthen life, enhance its quality, and avert more expensive medical care. You are the beneficiaries of this ongoing achievement of the American free enterprise system, so be grateful, quit whining, and pay up.” More prosaically, what the industry is saying is that you get what you pay for.

Is any of this true? Well, the first part certainly is. Prescription drug costs are indeed high—and rising fast. Americans now spend a staggering $200 billion a year on prescription drugs, and that figure is growing at a rate of about 12 percent a year (down from a high of 18 percent in 1999).1 Drugs are the fastest-growing part of the health care bill—which itself is rising at an alarming rate. The increase in drug spending reflects, in almost equal parts, the facts that people are taking a lot more drugs than they used to, that those drugs are more likely to be expensive new ones instead of older, cheaper ones, and that the prices of the most heavily prescribed drugs are routinely jacked up, sometimes several times a year.

Before its patent ran out, for example, the price of Schering-Plough’s top-selling allergy pill, Claritin, was raised thirteen times over five years, for a cumulative increase of more than 50 percent—over four times the rate of general inflation.2 As a spokeswoman for one company explained, “Price increases are not uncommon in the industry and this allows us to be able to invest in R&D.”3 In 2002, the average price of the fifty drugs most used by senior citizens was nearly $1,500 for a year’s supply. (Pricing varies greatly, but this refers to what the companies call the average wholesale price, which is usually pretty close to what an individual without insurance pays at the pharmacy.)

Paying for prescription drugs is no longer a problem just for poor people. As the economy continues to struggle, health insurance is shrinking. Employers are requiring workers to pay more of the costs themselves, and many businesses are dropping health benefits altogether. Since prescription drug costs are rising so fast, payers are particularly eager to get out from under them by shifting costs to individuals. The result is that more people have to pay a greater fraction of their drug bills out of pocket. And that packs a wallop.

Many of them simply can’t do it. They trade off drugs against home heating or food. Some people try to string out their drugs by taking them less often than prescribed, or sharing them with a spouse. Others, too embarrassed to admit that they can’t afford to pay for drugs, leave their doctors’ offices with prescriptions in hand but don’t have them filled. Not only do these patients go without needed treatment but their doctors sometimes wrongly conclude that the drugs they prescribed haven’t worked and prescribe yet others—thus compounding the problem.

The people hurting most are the elderly. When Medicare was enacted in 1965, people took far fewer prescription drugs and they were cheap. For that reason, no one thought it necessary to include an outpatient prescription drug benefit in the program. In those days, senior citizens could generally afford to buy whatever drugs they needed out of pocket. Approximately half to two thirds of the elderly have supplementary insurance that partly covers prescription drugs, but that percentage is dropping as employers and insurers decide it is a losing proposition for them. At the end of 2003, Congress passed a Medicare reform bill that included a prescription drug benefit scheduled to begin in 2006, but as we shall see later, its benefits are inadequate to begin with and will quickly be overtaken by rising prices and administrative costs.

For obvious reasons, the elderly tend to need more prescription drugs than younger people—mainly for chronic conditions like arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, and elevated cholesterol. In 2001, nearly one in four seniors reported that they skipped doses or did not fill prescriptions because of the cost. (That fraction is almost certainly higher now.) Sadly, the frailest are the least likely to have supplementary insurance. At an average cost of $1,500 a year for each drug, someone without supplementary insurance who takes six different prescription drugs—and this is not rare—would have to spend $9,000 out of pocket. Not many among the old and frail have such deep pockets.

Furthermore, in one of the more perverse of the pharmaceutical industry’s practices, prices are much higher for precisely the people who most need the drugs and can least afford them. The industry charges Medicare recipients without supplementary insurance much more than it does favored customers, such as large HMOs or the Veterans Affairs (VA) system. Because the latter buy in bulk, they can bargain for steep discounts or rebates. People without insurance have no bargaining power; and so they pay the highest prices.

In the past two years, we have started to see, for the first time, the beginnings of public resistance to rapacious pricing and other dubious practices of the pharmaceutical industry. It is mainly because of this resistance that drug companies are now blanketing us with public relations messages. And the magic words, repeated over and over like an incantation, are research, innovation, and American. Research. Innovation. American. It makes a great story.

But while the rhetoric is stirring, it has very little to do with reality. First, research and development (R&D) is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits. In fact, year after year, for over two decades, this industry has been far and away the most profitable in the United States. (In 2003, for the first time, the industry lost its first-place position, coming in third, behind “mining, crude oil production,” and “commercial banks.”) The prices drug companies charge have little relationship to the costs of making the drugs and could be cut dramatically without coming anywhere close to threatening R&D.

Second, the pharmaceutical industry is not especially innovative. As hard as it is to believe, only a handful of truly important drugs have been brought to market in recent years, and they were mostly based on taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The great majority of “new” drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market. These are called “me-too” drugs. The idea is to grab a share of an established, lucrative market by producing something very similar to a top-selling drug. For instance, we now have six statins (Mevacor, Lipitor, Zocor, Pravachol, Lescol, and the newest, Crestor) on the market to lower cholesterol, all variants of the first. As Dr. Sharon Levine, associate executive director of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, put it,

If I’m a manufacturer and I can change one molecule and get another twenty years of patent rights, and convince physicians to prescribe and consumers to demand the next form of Prilosec, or weekly Prozac instead of daily Prozac, just as my patent expires, then why would I be spending money on a lot less certain endeavor, which is looking for brand-new drugs?4

Third, the industry is hardly a model of American free enterprise. To be sure, it is free to decide which drugs to develop (me-too drugs instead of innovative ones, for instance), and it is free to price them as high as the traffic will bear, but it is utterly dependent on government-granted monopolies—in the form of patents and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved exclusive marketing rights. If it is not particularly innovative in discovering new drugs, it is highly innovative—and aggressive—in dreaming up ways to extend its monopoly rights.

And there is nothing peculiarly American about this industry. It is the very essence of a global enterprise. Roughly half of the largest drug companies are based in Europe. (The exact count shifts because of mergers.) In 2002, the top ten were the American companies Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Wyeth (formerly American Home Products); the British companies GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca; the Swiss companies Novartis and Roche; and the French company Aventis (which in 2004 merged with another French company, Sanafi Synthelabo, putting it in third place).5 All are much alike in their operations. All price their drugs much higher here than in other markets.

Since the United States is the major profit center, it is simply good public relations for drug companies to pass themselves off as American, whether they are or not. It is true, however, that some of the European companies are now locating their R&D operations in the United States. They claim the reason for this is that we don’t regulate prices, as does much of the rest of the world. But more likely it is that they want to feed on the unparalleled research output of American universities and the NIH. In other words, it’s not private enterprise that draws them here but the very opposite—our publicly sponsored research enterprise.

Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Most of its marketing efforts are focused on influencing doctors, since they must write the prescriptions.)

If prescription drugs were like ordinary consumer goods, all this might not matter very much. But drugs are different. People depend on them for their health and even their lives. In the words of Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), “It’s not like buying a car or tennis shoes or peanut butter.” People need to know that there are some checks and balances on this industry, so that its quest for profits doesn’t push every other consideration aside. But there aren’t such checks and balances.

2.

What does the eight-hundred-pound gorilla do? Anything it wants to.

What’s true of the eight-hundred-pound gorilla is true of the colossus that is the pharmaceutical industry. It is used to doing pretty much what it wants to do. The watershed year was 1980. Before then, it was a good business, but afterward, it was a stupendous one. From 1960 to 1980, prescription drug sales were fairly static as a percent of US gross domestic product, but from 1980 to 2000, they tripled. They now stand at more than $200 billion a year.6 Of the many events that contributed to the industry’s great and good fortune, none had to do with the quality of the drugs the companies were selling.

The claim that drugs are a $200 billion industry is an understatement. According to government sources, that is roughly how much Americans spent on prescription drugs in 2002. That figure refers to direct consumer purchases at drugstores and mail-order pharmacies (whether paid for out of pocket or not), and it includes the nearly 25 percent markup for wholesalers, pharmacists, and other middlemen and retailers. But it does not include the large amounts spent for drugs administered in hospitals, nursing homes, or doctors’ offices (as is the case for many cancer drugs). In most analyses, they are allocated to costs for those facilities.

Drug company revenues (or sales) are a little different, at least as they are reported in summaries of corporate annual reports. They usually refer to a company’s worldwide sales, including those to health facilities. But they do not include the revenues of middlemen and retailers.

Perhaps the most quoted source of statistics on the pharmaceutical industry, IMS Health, estimated total worldwide sales for prescription drugs to be about $400 billion in 2002. About half were in the United States. So the $200 billion colossus is really a $400 billion megacolossus.

The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was perhaps the fundamental element in the rapid rise of big pharma—the collective name for the largest drug companies. With the Reagan administration came a strong pro-business shift not only in government policies but in society at large. And with the shift, the public attitude toward great wealth changed. Before then, there was something faintly disreputable about really big fortunes. You could choose to do well or you could choose to do good, but most people who had any choice in the matter thought it difficult to do both. That belief was particularly strong among scientists and other intellectuals. They could choose to live a comfortable but not luxurious life in academia, hoping to do exciting cutting-edge research, or they could “sell out” to industry and do less important but more remunerative work. Starting in the Reagan years and continuing through the 1990s, Americans changed their tune. It became not only reputable to be wealthy, but something close to virtuous. There were “winners” and there were “losers,” and the winners were rich and deserved to be. The gap between the rich and poor, which had been narrowing since World War II, suddenly began to widen again, until today it is a chasm.

The pharmaceutical industry and its CEOs quickly joined the ranks of the winners as a result of a number of business-friendly government actions. I won’t enumerate all of them, but two are especially important. Beginning in 1980, Congress enacted a series of laws designed to speed the translation of tax-supported basic research into useful new products—a process sometimes referred to as “technology transfer.” The goal was also to improve the position of American-owned high-tech businesses in world markets.

The most important of these laws is known as the Bayh-Dole Act, after its chief sponsors, Senator Birch Bayh (D-Ind.) and Senator Robert Dole (R-Kans.). Bayh-Dole enabled universities and small businesses to patent discoveries emanating from research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the major distributor of tax dollars for medical research, and then to grant exclusive licenses to drug companies. Until then, taxpayer-financed discoveries were in the public domain, available to any company that wanted to use them. But now universities, where most NIH-sponsored work is carried out, can patent and license their discoveries, and charge royalties. Similar legislation permitted the NIH itself to enter into deals with drug companies that would directly transfer NIH discoveries to industry.

Bayh-Dole gave a tremendous boost to the nascent biotechnology industry, as well as to big pharma. Small biotech companies, many of them founded by university researchers to exploit their discoveries, proliferated rapidly. They now ring the major academic research institutions and often carry out the initial phases of drug development, hoping for lucrative deals with big drug companies that can market the new drugs. Usually both academic researchers and their institutions own equity in the biotechnology companies they are involved with. Thus, when a patent held by a university or a small biotech company is eventually licensed to a big drug company, all parties cash in on the public investment in research.

These laws mean that drug companies no longer have to rely on their own research for new drugs, and few of the large ones do. Increasingly, they rely on academia, small biotech startup companies, and the NIH for that.7 At least a third of drugs marketed by the major drug companies are now licensed from universities or small biotech companies, and these tend to be the most innovative ones.8 While Bayh-Dole was clearly a bonanza for big pharma and the biotech industry, whether its enactment was a net benefit to the public is arguable.

The Reagan years and Bayh-Dole also transformed the ethos of medical schools and teaching hospitals. These nonprofit institutions started to see themselves as “partners” of industry, and they became just as enthusiastic as any entrepreneur about the opportunities to parlay their discoveries into financial gain. Faculty researchers were encouraged to obtain patents on their work (which were assigned to their universities), and they shared in the royalties. Many medical schools and teaching hospitals set up “technology transfer” offices to help in this activity and capitalize on faculty discoveries. As the entrepreneurial spirit grew during the 1990s, medical school faculty entered into other lucrative financial arrangements with drug companies, as did their parent institutions.

One of the results has been a growing pro-industry bias in medical research—exactly where such bias doesn’t belong. Faculty members who had earlier contented themselves with what was once referred to as a “threadbare but genteel” lifestyle began to ask themselves, in the words of my grandmother, “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?” Medical schools and teaching hospitals, for their part, put more resources into searching for commercial opportunities.

Starting in 1984, with legislation known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, Congress passed another series of laws that were just as big a bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry. These laws extended monopoly rights for brand-name drugs. Exclusivity is the lifeblood of the industry because it means that no other company may sell the same drug for a set period. After exclusive marketing rights expire, copies (called generic drugs) enter the market, and the price usually falls to as little as 20 percent of what it was.9 There are two forms of monopoly rights—patents granted by the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) and exclusivity granted by the FDA. While related, they operate somewhat independently, almost as backups for each other. Hatch-Waxman, named for Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), was meant mainly to stimulate the foundering generic industry by short-circuiting some of the FDA requirements for bringing generic drugs to market. While successful in doing that, Hatch-Waxman also lengthened the patent life for brand-name drugs. Since then, industry lawyers have manipulated some of its provisions to extend patents far longer than the lawmakers intended.

In the 1990s, Congress enacted other laws that further increased the patent life of brand-name drugs. Drug companies now employ small armies of lawyers to milk these laws for all they’re worth—and they’re worth a lot. The result is that the effective patent life of brand-name drugs increased from about eight years in 1980 to about fourteen years in 2000.10 For a blockbuster—usually defined as a drug with sales of over a billion dollars a year (like Lipitor or Celebrex or Zoloft)—those six years of additional exclusivity are golden. They can add billions of dollars to sales—enough to buy a lot of lawyers and have plenty of change left over. No wonder big pharma will do almost anything to protect exclusive marketing rights, despite the fact that doing so flies in the face of all its rhetoric about the free market.

As their profits skyrocketed during the 1980s and 1990s, so did the political power of drug companies. By 1990, the industry had assumed its present contours as a business with unprecedented control over its own fortunes. For example, if it didn’t like something about the FDA, the federal agency that is supposed to regulate the industry, it could change it through direct pressure or through its friends in Congress. The top ten drug companies (which included European companies) had profits of nearly 25 percent of sales in 1990, and except for a dip at the time of President Bill Clinton’s health care reform proposal, profits as a percentage of sales remained about the same for the next decade. (Of course, in absolute terms, as sales mounted, so did profits.) In 2001, the ten American drug companies in the Fortune 500 list (not quite the same as the top ten worldwide, but their profit margins are much the same) ranked far above all other American industries in average net return, whether as a percentage of sales (18.5 percent), of assets (16.3 percent), or of shareholders’ equity (33.2 percent). These are astonishing margins. For comparison, the median net return for all other industries in the Fortune 500 was only 3.3 percent of sales. Commercial banking, itself no slouch as an aggressive industry with many friends in high places, was a distant second, at 13.5 percent of sales.11

In 2002, as the economic downturn continued, big pharma showed only a slight drop in profits—from 18.5 to 17.0 percent of sales. The most startling fact about 2002 is that the combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion).12 In 2003 profits of the Fortune 500 drug companies dropped to 14.3 percent of sales, still well above the median for all industries of 4.6 percent for that year. When I say this is a profitable industry, I mean really profitable. It is difficult to conceive of how awash in money big pharma is.

Drug industry expenditures for research and development, while large, were consistently far less than profits. For the top ten companies, they amounted to only 11 percent of sales in 1990, rising slightly to 14 percent in 2000. The biggest single item in the budget is neither R&D nor even profits but something usually called “marketing and administration”—a name that varies slightly from company to company. In 1990, a staggering 36 percent of sales revenues went into this category, and that proportion remained about the same for over a decade.13 Note that this is two and a half times the expenditures for R&D.

These figures are drawn from the industry’s own annual reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and to stockholders, but what actually goes into these categories is not at all clear, because drug companies hold that information very close to their chests. It is likely, for instance, that R&D includes many activities most people would consider marketing, but no one can know for sure. For its part, “marketing and administration” is a gigantic black box that probably includes what the industry calls “education,” as well as advertising and promotion, legal costs, and executive salaries—which are whopping. According to a report by the non-profit group Families USA, the for-mer chairman and CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Charles A. Heimbold Jr., made $74,890,918 in 2001, not counting his $76,095,611 worth of unexercised stock options. The chairman of Wyeth made $40,521,011, exclusive of his $40,629,459 in stock options. And so on.14

3.

If 1980 was a watershed year for the pharmaceutical industry, 2000 may very well turn out to have been another one—the year things began to go wrong. As the booming economy of the late 1990s turned sour, many successful businesses found themselves in trouble. And as tax revenues dropped, state governments also found themselves in trouble. In one respect, the pharmaceutical industry is well protected against the downturn, since it has so much wealth and power. But in another respect, it is peculiarly vulnerable, since it depends on employer-sponsored insurance and state-run Medicaid programs for much of its revenues. When employers and states are in trouble, so is big pharma.

And sure enough, in just the past couple of years, employers and the private health insurers with whom they contract have started to push back against drug costs. Most big managed care plans now bargain for steep price discounts. Most have also instituted three-tiered coverage for prescription drugs—full coverage for generic drugs, partial coverage for useful brand-name drugs, and no coverage for expensive drugs that offer no added benefit over cheaper ones. These lists of preferred drugs are called formularies, and they are an increasingly important method for containing drug costs. Big pharma is feeling the effects of these measures, although not surprisingly, it has become adept at manipulating the system—mainly by inducing doctors or health plans to put expensive, brand-name drugs on formularies.

State governments, too, are looking for ways to cut their drug costs. Some state legislatures are drafting measures that would permit them to regulate prescription drug prices for state employees, Medicaid recipients, and the uninsured. Like managed care plans, they are creating formularies of preferred drugs. The industry is fighting these efforts—mainly with its legions of lobbyists and lawyers. It fought the state of Maine all the way to the US Supreme Court, which in 2003 upheld Maine’s right to bargain with drug companies for lower prices, while leaving open the details. But that war has just begun, and it promises to go on for years and get very ugly.

Recently the public has shown signs of being fed up. The fact that Americans pay much more for prescription drugs than Europeans and Canadians is now widely known. An estimated one to two million Americans buy their medicines from Canadian drugstores over the Internet, despite the fact that in 1987, in response to heavy industry lobbying, a compliant Congress had made it illegal for anyone other than manufacturers to import prescription drugs from other countries.15 In addition, there is a brisk traffic in bus trips for people in border states, particularly the elderly, to travel to Canada or Mexico to buy prescription drugs. Their resentment is palpable, and they constitute a powerful voter block—a fact not lost on Congress or state legislatures.

The industry faces other, less familiar problems. It happens that, by chance, some of the top-selling drugs—with combined sales of around $35 billion a year—are scheduled to go off patent within a few years of one another.16 This drop over the cliff began in 2001, with the expiration of Eli Lilly’s patent on its blockbuster antidepressant Prozac. In the same year, AstraZeneca lost its patent on Prilosec, the original “purple pill” for heartburn, which at its peak brought in a stunning $6 billion a year. Bristol-Myers Squibb lost its best-selling diabetes drug, Glucophage. The unusual cluster of expirations will continue for another couple of years. While it represents a huge loss to the industry as a whole, for some companies it’s a disaster. Schering-Plough’s blockbuster allergy drug, Claritin, brought in fully a third of that company’s revenues before its patent expired in 2002.17 Claritin is now sold over the counter for much less than its prescription price. So far, the company has been unable to make up for the loss by trying to switch Claritin users to Clarinex—a drug that is virtually identical but has the advantage of still being on patent.

Even worse is the fact that there are very few drugs in the pipeline ready to take the place of blockbusters going off patent. In fact, that is the biggest problem facing the industry today, and its darkest secret. All the public relations about innovation is meant to obscure precisely this fact. The stream of new drugs has slowed to a trickle, and few of them are innovative in any sense of that word. Instead, the great majority are variations of oldies but goodies—”me-too” drugs.

Of the seventy-eight drugs approved by the FDA in 2002, only seventeen contained new active ingredients, and only seven of these were classified by the FDA as improvements over older drugs. The other seventy-one drugs approved that year were variations of old drugs or deemed no better than drugs already on the market. In other words, they were me-too drugs. Seven of seventy-eight is not much of a yield. Furthermore, of those seven, not one came from a major US drug company.18

For the first time, in just a few short years, the gigantic pharmaceutical industry is finding itself in serious difficulty. It is facing, as one industry spokesman put it, “a perfect storm.” To be sure, profits are still beyond anything most other industries could hope for, but they have recently fallen, and for some companies they fell a lot. And that is what matters to investors. Wall Street doesn’t care how high profits are today, only how high they will be tomorrow. For some companies, stock prices have plummeted. Nevertheless, the industry keeps promising a bright new day. It bases its reassurances on the notion that the mapping of the human genome and the accompanying burst in genetic research will yield a cornucopia of important new drugs. Left unsaid is the fact that big pharma is depending on government, universities, and small biotech companies for that innovation. While there is no doubt that genetic discoveries will lead to treatments, the fact remains that it will probably be years before the basic research pays off with new drugs. In the meantime, the once-solid foundations of the big pharma colossus are shaking.

The hints of trouble and the public’s growing resentment over high prices are producing the first cracks in the industry’s formerly firm support in Washington. In 2000, Congress passed legislation that would have closed some of the loopholes in Hatch-Waxman and also permitted American pharmacies, as well as individuals, to import drugs from certain countries where prices are lower. In particular, they could buy back FDA-approved drugs from Canada that had been exported there. It sounds silly to “reimport” drugs that are marketed in the United States, but even with the added transaction costs, doing so is cheaper than buying them here. But the bill required the secretary of health and human services to certify that the practice would not pose any “added risk” to the public, and secretaries in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, under pressure from the industry, refused to do that.

The industry is also being hit with a tidal wave of government investigations and civil and criminal lawsuits. The litany of charges includes illegally overcharging Medicaid and Medicare, paying kickbacks to doctors, engaging in anticompetitive practices, colluding with generic companies to keep generic drugs off the market, illegally promoting drugs for unapproved uses, engaging in misleading direct-to-consumer advertising, and, of course, covering up evidence. Some of the settlements have been huge. TAP Pharmaceuticals, for instance, paid $875 million to settle civil and criminal charges of Medicaid and Medicare fraud in the marketing of its prostate cancer drug, Lupron.19 All of these efforts could be summed up as increasingly desperate marketing and patent games, activities that always skirted the edge of legality but now are sometimes well on the other side.

How is the pharmaceutical industry responding to its difficulties? One could hope drug companies would decide to make some changes—trim their prices, or at least make them more equitable, and put more of their money into trying to discover genuinely innovative drugs, instead of just talking about it. But that is not what is happening. Instead, drug companies are doing more of what got them into this situation. They are marketing their me-too drugs even more relentlessly. They are pushing even harder to extend their monopolies on top-selling drugs. And they are pouring more money into lobbying and political campaigns. As for innovation, they are still waiting for Godot.

The news is not all bad for the industry. The Medicare prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003, and scheduled to go into effect in 2006, promises a windfall for big pharma since it forbids the government from negotiating prices. The immediate jump in pharmaceutical stock prices after the bill passed indicated that the industry and investors were well aware of the windfall. But at best, this legislation will be only a temporary boost for the industry. As costs rise, Congress will have to reconsider its industry-friendly decision to allow drug companies to set their own prices, no questions asked.

This is an industry that in some ways is like the Wizard of Oz—still full of bluster but now being exposed as something far different from its image. Instead of being an engine of innovation, it is a vast marketing machine. Instead of being a free market success story, it lives off government-funded research and monopoly rights. Yet this industry occupies an essential role in the American health care system, and it performs a valuable function, if not in discovering important new drugs at least in developing them and bringing them to market. But big pharma is extravagantly rewarded for its relatively modest functions. We get nowhere near our money’s worth. The United States can no longer afford it in its present form.

Clearly, the pharmaceutical industry is due for fundamental reform. Reform will have to extend beyond the industry to the agencies and institutions it has co-opted, including the FDA and the medical profession and its teaching centers. In my forthcoming book, The Truth About the Drug Companies, I discuss the major reforms that will be necessary.

For example, we need to get the industry to focus on discovering truly innovative drugs instead of turning out me-too drugs (and spending billions of dollars to promote them as though they were miracles). The me-too business is made possible by the fact that the FDA usually approves a drug only if it is better than a placebo. It needn’t be better than an older drug already on the market to treat the same condition; in fact, it may be worse. There is no way of knowing, since companies generally do not test their new drugs against older ones for the same conditions at equivalent doses. (For obvious reasons, they would rather not find the answer.) They should be required to do so.

The me-too market would collapse virtually overnight if the FDA made approval of new drugs contingent on their being better in some important way than older drugs already on the market. Probably very few new drugs could meet that test. By default, then, drug companies would have to concentrate on finding truly innovative drugs, and we would finally find out whether this much-vaunted industry is turning out better drugs. A welcome by-product of this reform is that it would also reduce the incessant and enormously expensive marketing necessary to jockey for position in the me-too market. Genuinely important new drugs do not need much promotion (imagine having to advertise a cure for cancer).

A second important reform would be to require drug companies to open their books. Drug companies reveal very little about the most crucial aspects of their business. We know next to nothing about how much they spend to bring each drug to market or what they spend it on. (We know that it is not $802 million, as some industry apologists have recently claimed.) Nor do we know what their gigantic “marketing and administration” budgets cover. We don’t even know the prices they charge their various customers. Perhaps most important, we do not know the results of the clinical trials they sponsor—only those they choose to make public, which tend to be the most favorable findings. (The FDA is not allowed to reveal the results it has.) The industry claims all of this is “proprietary” information. Yet, unlike other businesses, drug companies are dependent on the public for a host of special favors—including the rights to NIH-funded research, long periods of market monopoly, and multiple tax breaks that almost guarantee a profit. Because of these special favors and the importance of its products to public health, as well as the fact that the government is a major purchaser of its products, the pharmaceutical industry should be regarded much as a public utility.

These are just two of many reforms I advocate in my book. Some of the others have to do with breaking the dependence of the medical profession on the industry and with the inappropriate control drug companies have over the evaluation of their own products. The sort of thoroughgoing changes required will take government action, which in turn will require strong public pressure. It will be tough. Drug companies have the largest lobby in Washington, and they give copiously to political campaigns. Legislators are now so beholden to the pharmaceutical industry that it will be exceedingly difficult to break its lock on them.

But the one thing legislators need more than campaign contributions is votes. That is why citizens should know what is really going on. Contrary to the industry’s public relations, they don’t get what they pay for. The fact is that this industry is taking us for a ride, and there will be no real reform without an aroused and determined public to make it happen.

  1. There are several sources of statistics on the size and growth of the industry. One is IMS Health (www.imshealth .com), a private company that collects and sells information on the global pharmaceutical industry. See www .imshealth.com/ims/portal/front/articleC/0,2777,6599_3665_41336931,00. html for the $200 billion figure. For further sources on this and other matters, see my book The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It (to be published in August by Random House), from which this article is drawn.
  2. 2For a full picture of the special burden of rising drug prices on senior citizens, see Families USA, “Out-of-Bounds: Rising Prescription Drug Prices for Seniors” (www.familiesusa .org/site/PageServer?pagename=Publications_Reports).
  3. 3Sarah Lueck, “Drug Prices Far Outpace Inflation,” The Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2003, p. D2.
  4. 4On ABC Special with Peter Jennings, “Bitter Medicine: Pills, Profit, and the Public Health,” May 29, 2002.
  5. 5For the top ten companies and their recent mergers as of 2003, see www .oligopolywatch.com/2003/05/25.html.
  6. 6These figures come from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group, Baltimore, Maryland. They were summarized in Cynthia Smith, “Retail Prescription Drug Spending in the National Health Accounts,” Health Affairs, January– February 2004, p. 160.
  7. 7For excellent summaries of public contributions to drug company research, see Public Citizen Congress Watch, “Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against the Drug Industry’s R&D ‘Scare Card,’” July 2001 (www.citizen.org); and NIHCM, “Changing Patterns of Pharmaceutical Innovation,” May 2002 (www.nihcm.org).
  8. 8This is probably an underestimate. One source that indicates it is at least this is CenterWatch, www.centerwatch .com, a private company owned by Thomson Medical Economics, which provides information to the clinical trial industry. See An Industry in Evolution, third edition, edited by Mary Jo Lamberti (CenterWatch, 2001), p. 22.
  9. 9Families USA, “Out-of-Bounds: Rising Prescription Drug Prices for Seniors.”
  10. 10Public Citizen Congress Watch, “Rx R&D Myths.”
  11. 11″The Fortune 500,” Fortune, April 15, 2002, p. F26.
  12. 12Public Citizen Congress Watch, “Drug Industry Profits: Hefty Pharmaceutical Company Margins Dwarf Other Industries,” June 2003 (www.citizen .org/documents/Pharma_Report.pdf). The data are drawn mainly from the Fortune 500 list in Fortune, April 7, 2003, and drug company annual reports.
  13. 13Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, “Prescription Drug Trends,” November 2001 (www.kff.org).
  14. 14FamiliesUSA, “Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go,” July 2002 (www.familiesusa. org /site/DocServer/PReport.pdf?docID= 249).
  15. 15Patricia Barry, “More Americans Go North for Drugs,” AARP Bulletin, April 2003, p. 3.
  16. 16Chandrani Ghosh and Andrew Tanzer, “Patent Play,” Forbes, September 17, 2001, p. 141.
  17. 17Gardiner Harris, “Schering-Plough Is Hurt by Plummeting Pill Costs,” The New York Times, July 8, 2003, p. C1.
  18. 18For key information about the numbers and kinds of drugs approved each year, see the Web site of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), www .fda.gov/cder/rdmt/pstable.htm.
  19. 19Alice Dembner, “Drug Firm to Pay $875M Fine for Fraud,” The Boston Globe, October 4, 2001, p. A13.

‘Then I collapsed’

Comments Off
Posted 13 May 2011 — by James Street
Category Educational, Ethics of Science, Finance and Politics of cancer research and treatment
FAMILY WORKS TO CONQUER DEADLY CANCER

Picture

Corrie Painter, who was diagnosed with angiosarcoma about a year ago, with her husband, Ted Painter. The couple is holding the Angiosarcoma Awareness 5K Race and Walk in Oxford Sunday. (T&G Staff/CHRISTINE PETERSON)
By Kim Ring TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
OXFORD —  Sometimes, when she’s doing dishes and her two little girls are playing with their father in the next room, Corrie Painter looks in on them and thinks, “That’s how it could be.”

And she knows that, should the cancer come back and take her, they’d be OK.

A year ago, doctors confirmed on the phone that the strange, quickly appearing lump in her breast they’d believed might be “nothing,” was actually a rare and very deadly angiosarcoma. Corrie, 37, was driving and her husband, Ted Painter, was in the passenger seat when they got the news.

“I handed him the phone and I got out of the car and walked around,” she said. “Then I collapsed.”

As a scientist studying for a Ph.D. in molecular biology at University of Massachusetts Medical School, she’d done some research and she knew the cancer, which is basically “blood vessels gone wild,” allows the cancer to travel more easily than any others. It moves in the bloodstream and can set up almost anywhere, often going unnoticed until it’s taken a deadly hold.

She also found one of the problems was that so few people get angiosarcoma little research was being done. And almost every website with information about angiosarcoma painted a grim picture ending in death within five years for the 33 percent who got past the two-year mark.

“At the time, if you Googled angiosarcoma, they could have eliminated all the literature and put a skull and crossbones,” Ted said. “It was horrible.”

But Corrie knew some statistics are flawed. She learned that it was believed about 300 people in the world are diagnosed with the cancer each year but she thinks the number may be higher because, after joining a support group on Facebook in August, she can confidently say she knows 100 personally.

She launched her own battle with a radical mastectomy and some chemo, “Just enough to make my hair fall out.” She began blogging, taking lots of pictures, wearing crazy wigs and allowing her daughters, 5 and 3, to wear them too. They talked about what was happening and the children were included in the discussions.

But beyond her personal quest to beat the cancer, she, Ted and their new friend Lauren Ryan in New York, who had a similar diagnosis, also began a larger-scale fight to raise money specifically for research.

“Our goal was to raise $10,000 in the first year and to use that to raise more in the second year,” Ted explained.

“We wanted to find a lab that could focus on this and we wanted to go where the expertise is,” Corrie said.

Ms. Ryan created the Angiosarcoma Awareness group, received nonprofit status and built a website with support for those who have the cancer and information doctors might not have. There are photos, faces of angiosarcoma, that make the non-discriminating nature of it so clear.

Before long, they’d raised just under $500,000 and contracted with a lab at Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York for angiosarcoma research. They have additional plans to work with other researchers, too.

While she’s in a stage that’s called “no evidence of disease” — words like cure and remission don’t apply to angiosarcoma — she knows that any day could bring bad news and living like that is akin to having post-traumatic stress disorder.

“When you have a cold you don’t think you have a cold, you think you have a tumor in your chest,” Corrie said. “When your ear hurts, you don’t think you have an earache, you think it’s a tumor. Everything’s a tumor.”

Still, living with those thoughts hasn’t changed who she was before her diagnosis.

“I always lived in the moment and I didn’t change. I didn’t have this epiphany of, ‘Oh this is what life’s all about,’ ” she said.

But for Ted there was some change. In his years in the Army he’d known fear, but not like this. And he’d always been one to get upset over things Corrie might look at more objectively. Now, the singer/songwriter and assistant professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute doesn’t sweat the small stuff.

“As much as this sucks, it’s the best thing that’s happened. Now I hear people … moaning about small stuff and I think man, it’s just stuff you won’t even remember in a week,” he said.

And it’s given him a cause, too, because he knows research is key, and while it might not help anyone tomorrow, down the road it probably will.

So, on Sunday, the Angiosarcoma Awareness 5K Race and Walk in their hometown of Oxford will put more funding in their kitty in the hopes of bolstering the studies. The event starts at 9 a.m. and walkers/runners can register ($25) ahead of time at www.angiosarcomaawareness.org or at the time of the walk. Parking is available at Oxford High School, 495 Main St. The starting line will be the intersection of Main Street and Federal Hill Road.

Chronic Inflammation and Cancer: The Role of the Mitochondria

Comments Off
Posted 27 Apr 2011 — by James Street
Category Carcinogens, Educational, Etiology and cause of osteosarcoma, Inflamation, MicroRNA, Understanding Cancer

ONCOLOGY. Vol. 25 No. 5

REVIEW ARTICLE
By David W. Kamp, MD1,2,Emily Shacter, PhD3, Sigmund A. Weitzman, MD2 | April 22, 2011
1 Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
2 Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
3 Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, Maryland

 

ABSTRACT: Accumulating evidence shows that chronic inflammation can promote all stages of tumorigenesis, including DNA damage, limitless replication, apoptosis evasion, sustained angiogenesis, self-sufficiency in growth signaling, insensitivity to anti-growth signaling, and tissue invasion/metastasis. Chronic inflammation is triggered by environmental (extrinsic) factors (eg, infection, tobacco, asbestos) and host mutations (intrinsic) factors (eg, Ras, Myc, p53). Extensive investigations over the past decade have uncovered many of the important mechanistic pathways underlying cancer-related inflammation. However, the precise molecular mechanisms involved and the interconnecting crosstalk between pathways remain incompletely understood. We review the evidence implicating a strong association between chronic inflammation and cancer, with an emphasis on colorectal and lung cancer. We summarize the current knowledge of the important molecular and cellular pathways linking chronic inflammation to tumorigenesis. Specifically, we focus on the role of the mitochondria in coordinating life- and death-signaling pathways crucial in cancer- related inflammation. Activation of Ras, Myc, and p53 cause mitochondrial dysfunction, resulting in mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and downstream signaling (eg, NFκB, STAT3, etc.) that promote inflammation- associated cancer. A recent murine transgenic study established that mitochondrial metabolism and ROS production are necessary for K-Ras–induced tumorigenicity. Collectively, inflammation-associated cancers resulting from signaling pathways coordinated at the mitochondrial level are being identified that may prove useful for developing innovative strategies for both cancer prevention and cancer treatment.

Introduction
Virchow is credited with suggesting the causal link between inflammation and cancer in the 19th century.[1] He based his conclusion on the astute observation that tumors often developed in the setting of chronic inflammation and that inflammatory cells were present in tumor biopsy specimens. Accumulating evidence that has emerged in the last decade or so has shed light on the underlying mechanisms accounting for the strong association between chronic inflammation and each step of tumorigenesis.[reviewed in 2-8] Notably, nearly 90% of all cancers are due to environmental factors and somatic mutations, whereas causal germ-line mutations are infrequent.[6] Nearly 20% of cancer deaths worldwide are attributed to chronic infection and/or inflammation, with gastrointestinal and lung cancers accounting for a substantial portion of the total burden.[1,9] An estimated 30% of cancers may be linked to exposure to tobacco and/or other airborne pollutants, and 20% can be attributed to chronic infections.[9] In general, a normal adaptive immune response is anti-tumorigenic; however, dysregulated innate and/or adaptive immune responses can be pro-tumorigenic. Human neutrophils can induce malignant transformation, which suggests that phagocytic cells are carcinogenic.[10] Mantovani et al[3,4] proposed that genetic instability resulting from cancer-related inflammation represents the seventh hallmark of tumorigenesis, in addition to the six proposed by Hanahan and Weinberg[11] (limitless replication, sustained angiogenesis, evasion of apoptosis, self-sufficiency in growth signals, insensitivity to anti-growth signals, and tissue invasion/metastasis).

In this review, we summarize the current knowledge supporting the association between chronic inflammation and cancer, highlighting the information that has been published since our 2002 ONCOLOGY review.[2] We then review the emerging evidence regarding important molecular and cellular pathways that link chronic inflammation to cancer. Emphasis will be placed on the pivotal role of the mitochondria in coordinating life- and death-signaling pathways important in inflammation-associated cancer. Collectively, the studies we review are revealing the crucial mechanisms that underlie inflammation-associated cancer and that may prove useful for developing novel cancer preventative and therapeutic strategies.

TABLE 1 Cancers Associated With Chronic Inflammation

Cancers Associated With Chronic Inflammation
Epidemiological evidence firmly supports a link between chronic inflammation and cancer that occurs in various organs (Table 1). The inflammatory conditions implicated are quite diverse; they include a wide array of chronic infections, exposure to noxious agents that trigger inflammation (eg, gastric acid reflux, tobacco, asbestos), and auto-immune conditions. Inflammation-associated cancer consists of white blood cells, notably tumor-associated macrophages (TAM) and T lymphocytes; increased generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS)/reactive nitrogen species (RNS); altered cytokine/chemokine expression; and augmented molecular signaling via nuclear factor kappa B (NFκB), signal transducer and activator of transcription proteins (STATs), cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), and others.[reviewed in 2-8] In this section we focus on two widely studied cancers linked to chronic inflammation: colorectal cancer and lung cancer.

The best-established link between chronic inflammation and cancer is seen in colorectal cancer that develops in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD; eg, ulcerative colitis and Crohn disease). These patients have a five- to seven-fold increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.[12-15] Nearly 43% of patients with ulcerative colitis develop colorectal cancer after 25 to 35 years.[15] Therapeutic strategies for the treatment or prevention of IBD aim to reduce the endogenous levels of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, which is a key pathophysiologic element of the disease.[16] NFκB regulates multiple pathways involved in inflammation-associated cancer (eg, cytokine expression, angiogenesis, apoptosis, and COX-2 expression). TNF-α regulates NFκB, in part by receptor-mediated activation of inhibitory κB kinases (IKK) that stimulate degradation of proteins responsible for retaining the transcription factor in the cytosol, thereby enabling the translocation of NFκB to the nucleus. In a murine model of IBD, the development of colitis-associated colorectal cancer can be inhibited either by blocking TNF-α expression or by generating mice with colon epithelial cells that are deficient in IKK-β.[16,17] These findings in mice concur with the clinical observation that inhibition of the NFκB-regulated protein COX-2 by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces the risk for colorectal cancer in humans with IBD by nearly 80%.[18,19] The synthesis of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) by COX-2 induces the production of inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-6.[20] Exposure to inflammatory cytokines (eg, IL-6, IL-10) causes the activation of the signal-transducing STAT proteins that work in conjunction with NFκB to regulate many genes involved in tumorigenesis.[reviewed in 4,21-23] The importance of STAT3 in colorectal cancer is evident in the finding that the development of tumors in a murine model of IBD is reduced in STAT3-deficient mice and through pharmacologic inhibition of IL-6.[22] The STAT pathway also regulates erythropoiesis and angiogenesis, both of which augment the availability of oxygenated blood to otherwise hypoxic tumors.[4,21-23] This pathway would provide an indirect mechanism for STAT-mediated tumor promotion. Collectively, these investigations provide the molecular basis for future studies on the role of inflammatory signaling through TNF-α, NFκB, STAT3, IL-6, and other signaling proteins in the etiology of inflammation-associated cancer. Hopefully, the information gained will prove useful in the management of colorectal cancer as well as IBD.

Lung cancer causes nearly 1 million deaths worldwide every year and is the leading cause of cancer deaths.[24] Although tobacco exposure is evident in nearly 90% of all patients with lung cancer, other chronic airway inflammatory conditions (eg, asbestosis, silicosis, exposure to airborne particulate matter (PM), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, tuberculosis, etc) are all independent risk factors for lung cancer and may account for a proportion of the non-smoking related cases.[25] Tobacco smoke contains nearly 5000 reactive chemicals, including over 1015 free radicals in the gas phase and 1018 free radicals per gram in the tar phase.[25] These include H2O2, •OH, and organic radicals.[25] As reviewed in detail elsewhere,[26-28] chronic inflammation has a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Smokers with COPD have a 1.3- to 6-fold increased risk of lung cancer compared with smokers without COPD, and this is likely due to persistent lung inflammation.[2,27,29] A meta-analysis demonstrated a strong indirect relationship between forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and lung cancer risk.[30] Low-grade emphysema, without airway obstruction, is an independent risk factor for the development of lung cancer.[31] Although beyond the scope of this review, some of the potentially important molecular mechanisms underlying cancer associated with tobacco-induced inflammation include the production of ROS, inflammatory signaling (eg, via TNF-α, NFκB, IL-6, and others), single nucleotide polymorphisms in inflammatory cytokines (IL-1α and IL-1β), and increased ceramide and epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling.[26-28] Interestingly, COPD-like inflammation induced by nontypeable Haemophilus influenza, which is the most common bacteria colonizing the airways of patients with COPD, promotes K-Ras–induced lung cancer in mice.[32] Notably, a recent study showed that mitochondrial metabolism is crucial for allowing mitochondrial ROS production at the Qo site of complex III, and that mitochondrial metabolism and ROS production were both required for mediating K-Ras–induced lung cancer in mice.[33] Macrophage migration inhibitory factor, an inflammatory cytokine, is produced at sites of bleomycin(Drug information on bleomycin)-induced lung injury in mice and functions to prevent apoptosis and promote tumor growth.[34] These innovative studies reveal insights into the pathogenesis of lung cancer occurring in the setting of emphysema-associated inflammation and should provide a rationale for future novel treatment strategies. Additional studies are necessary to understand why inflammation persists after smoking cessation as well as how inflammation in patients with COPD modulates disease expression.[29,35]

Lung cancer can also result from chronic pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis following exposure to other environmental toxins (eg, asbestos, silica, PM, beryllium). Further, a large cohort analysis of data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial showed that pulmonary scarring was associated with an elevated lung cancer risk (hazard ratio 1.5; 95% confidence interval 1.2-1.8).[36] In this section we highlight the role of asbestos. Asbestos is a term for a group of naturally occurring hydrated silicate fibers whose resilient strength and chemical properties make them ideal for a variety of building and insulation purposes. Asbestos causes an estimated 100,000 to 140,000 lung cancer deaths per year worldwide and contributes to nearly 5% to 7% of all lung cancers.[37,38] There are two classes of asbestos fibers: (1) serpentine fibers—curly-stranded structures, among which chrysotile is the principal commercial variety, and (2) amphibole fibers—straight, rod-like fibers (eg, crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, and others). Compared to chrysotile, amphibole fibers are more fibrogenic and carcinogenic, in part because their biopersistence in the lung results in chronic inflammation. Asbestos is an established carcinogenic agent that can induce chronic inflammation of the lung and pleura, ROS production, DNA damage, and cell death in all the major lung target cells (eg, bronchial and alveolar epithelial cells [AEC], mesothelial cells).[see for review: 39,40] Substantial investigations have shown that the extent of AEC injury and lack of sufficient AEC repair are important determinants of pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis following exposure to a wide variety of noxious agents, including asbestos.[40] There is a direct correlation between the levels of asbestosis seen in asbestos workers and the risk of developing lung cancer.[41] Asbestos-induced ROS cause DNA damage, such as single- or double-strand breaks, intra- and inter-strand cross-linking, and base damage.[see 42,43 for reviews] Repair of these lesions in most instances will restore the physiologic DNA structure, but abnormal DNA repair may result in gene mutations, chromosomal aberrations, and ultimately cell transformation. Early studies in our group showed that the repair of complex, inflammation-associated DNA damage, such as that caused by the exposure of cells to activated neutrophils, is slow compared to the repair of single-strand breaks, suggesting that residual DNA damage may lead to mutations or other cellular abnormalities that can promote tumorigenesis.[44] ROS-induced DNA damage is implicated in mediating the synergistic effect between asbestos and cigarette smoke for lung cancer risk.[see for review: 45,46] Convincing evidence, reviewed elsewhere,[40] has established that asbestos induces AEC apoptosis via the mitochondria-regulated (intrinsic) death pathway and involves mitochondrial ROS production. Interestingly, studies in transgenic mice suggest that Rac1-mediated mitochondrial H2O2 production from asbestos-exposed alveolar macrophages is necessary for the induction of pulmonary fibrosis.[47] However, further studies are required to better understand the molecular mechanisms underlying the link between asbestos-induced inflammation/pulmonary fibrosis and lung cancer.

One possibility is that diverse environmental stimuli, including asbestos and other lung carcinogens (eg, silica), but not inert particulates, cause pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis via activation of Nalp3 inflammasomes, which can stimulate caspase-1.[48,49] Nalp3 is a member of the NLR family of over 20 proteins. These proteins contain multiple functional domains, including an N-terminal protein-protein interaction domain that is necessary for caspase activation, a caspase recruitment domain (CARD), a central nucleotide-binding domain, and a C-terminal leucine-rich repeat domain.[50] Nalp3 inflammasome formation occurs when activated Nalp3 recruits caspase-1 and ASC, an adaptor molecule, via CARD-CARD interactions. Asbestos- and silica-induced lung inflammatory cell recruitment, cytokine production (eg, of IL-1β and others), and silicosis are all reduced in mice deficient in Nalp3, ASC, or caspase-1.[48,49] Moreover, by using specific pharmacologic inhibitors and targeted murine knockouts, it was found that the factors that appear essential for Nalp3 inflammasome activation include fiber uptake into phagocytic cells, an intact actin cytoskeleton, and ROS generated by nicotinamide(Drug information on nicotinamide) adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase during phagocytosis. Thus, asbestos- and silica-induced Nalp3 inflammasome activation may be a novel therapeutic target for treatment/prevention of the underlying causes of inflammation-associated cancer.

TABLE 2 Inflammation-Associated Cancer: Facts & Questions

Mechanisms Underlying Inflammation-Associated Cancer
The last decade has witnessed much insight into inflammation-associated cancer; however, major gaps in our understanding remain. Table 2 highlights some of what we know regarding inflammation-associated cancer, as well as some of the critical questions that require further investigation to definitively prove a causal role for inflammation-associated cancer in tumorigenesis. In this section, we summarize the emerging evidence highlighted in Table 2. We focus on recent studies indicating an important role for the mitochondria, especially mitochondrial ROS production, as an upstream regulator of cancer-related signaling pathways that promote inflammation and tumorigenesis.[reviewed in 51,52]

FIGURE

Molecular Mechanisms Involved in Inflammation-Related Cancer

Inflammatory Cells in Tumorigenesis
Although a wide variety of cancers are associated with chronic inflammation and/or infection (see Table 1), it is unclear whether chronic inflammation is sufficient to induce cancer in the absence of a carcinogen. Further, acute inflammation is not associated with cancer, and not all chronic inflammatory conditions augment cancer risks (eg, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma), for reasons that are uncertain.[6] A causal role for inflammation in cancer is suggested by the finding that IL-10 deficiency promotes somatic mutations in a murine IBD model in the absence of exogenous carcinogens.[53] There are some data suggesting that ROS derived from either inflammatory/immune cells[54,55] or the mitochondria of epithelial cells[33] act as the central endogenous carcinogens that drive cancer-promoting signaling pathways important in inflammation-associated cancer, as depicted in the Figure. It is unclear whether ROS/RNS produced by neutrophils and macrophages are sufficient to induce the kinds of epithelial cell DNA damage that result in tumorigenesis. Inflammatory cells also release cytokines, such as TNF-α, that can promote chronic oxidative stress in affected tissue. Further investigations are required to formally verify a causal relationship between chronic inflammation/infection and cancer, as well as to determine whether ROS are the only endogenous carcinogens.

As reviewed in detail elsewhere[7,14,56], one of the most compelling arguments linking inflammation-associated cancer to tumorigenesis is the observation that drugs that inhibit the production of prostaglandins during inflammation reduce the risk of various cancers, such as colorectal, esophageal, gastric, lung, breast, and ovarian cancer. These drugs include nonspecific NSAIDs, such as aspirin(Drug information on aspirin), and selective COX-2 inhibitors. COX-2 is an inducible form of cyclo-oxygenase that is activated in chronic inflammation. It is highly expressed in nearly all tumors.[7] COX-2 expression is necessary and sufficient to induce tumorigenesis in multiple in vitro and animal models.[reviewed in 2,7] It mediates the production of certain inflammatory cytokines that can act as tumor promoters, such as IL-6.[57] Randomized clinical trials show that NSAIDs decrease colon adenoma formation, an important precursor of colorectal cancer.[7,56] In breast cancer cells, COX-2 overexpression induces oxidative stress as well as chromosomal abnormalities (eg, fusions, breaks, and tetraploidy) that contribute to tumorigenesis.[58] Despite these remarkable advances in our understanding, no anti-inflammatory strategy is currently approved to prevent or treat cancer, although several are under development (eg, anti–IL-6 therapy for multiple myeloma). As reviewed in detail elsewhere[3,59], additional studies are required to determine which patient populations are appropriate for cancer preventative agents that target COX-2 or other relevant signaling pathways.

The tumor microenvironment contains a wide variety of inflammatory and immune cells, cytokines, and chemokines that have pro- and anti-tumorigenic activity, the balance of which likely dictates clinical outcome.[2-8] Experimental in vivo evidence unequivocally establishing the role of particular immune/inflammatory cells and cytokines/chemokines in tumorigenesis is lacking.[6] The most common immune cells in tumors are tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and T cells. TAMs, which are the major source of cytokine production in the tumor microenvironment, promote tumorigenesis in several ways. They produce protein factors that stimulate tumor cell growth, directly and indirectly (eg, by stimulating angiogenesis), and they stimulate metastasis by producing matrix-degrading enzymes.[5,6] TAMs are classified either as M1 or M2 macrophages, depending on their response to various stimuli. M1 TAMs respond to interferon (IFN)-γ or microbial exposure by expressing high levels of cytokines involved in anti-tumor and anti-microbial activity (eg, TNF-α, IL-1, IL-6, IL-12, IL-23), while M2 TAMs are proangiogenic/tissue-remodeling macrophages that display reduced expression of IL-12 and increased expression of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 following exposure to IL-4, IL-10, or IL-13.[3,6] The M1 and M2 TAM phenotypes are plastic, based on their gene expression profiles.[6] The protumorigenic effects of TAMs are suggested by the finding that TNF-α–deficient mice are protected against drug-induced skin cancer.[60,61] Also, TAMs augment Wnt signaling via a TNF-α–dependent pathway in gastric cancer; this pathway is necessary for growth and for epithelial-mesenchymal cell transition that is important in metastasis.[62] Phase 1 and II clinical trials are underway examining the role of TNF-α antagonists in patients with renal cancer[63] as well as advanced cancers.[64] As reviewed in detail elsewhere,[5] studies in transgenic mice have established a protumorigenic role for IL-1. The finding of increased skin and colitis-related cancers occurring in mice deficient in the atypical chemokine receptor D6 establishes a prominent role for CC chemokines in tumorigenesis.[65] In this context, it is not surprising that a high tumor TAM content generally foreshadows a poor prognosis.[66]

T cells can also impact cancer outcomes. Increased levels of CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes and CD4+ helper 1 (Th1) cells portend a better prognosis in certain tumors (eg, colon, melanoma, pancreatic, multiple myeloma, lung) and comprise a therapeutic approach to the treatment of these cancers.[6] In contrast, a T-cell deficiency can augment tumor formation.[6] Additional investigation is necessary to determine why certain T-cell subsets are pro-tumorigenic in one cancer but anti-tumorigenic in another. Also, it is unknown whether there is a common upstream inflammatory signal (eg, mitochondrial ROS production) that is activated in all malignancies, and if so, whether this regulates the balance between TAM and T-cell pro- and/or anti-tumorigenic activities.

Inflammation and Oncogenes/Tumor Suppressor Genes
Similar to Ras, the Myc oncogenes are mutated in many human cancers and alter mitochondrial function (eg, increased electron transport, oxygen uptake, and ROS production) in a way that induces the rapid cell growth that is a crucial element of tumorigenesis.[51] Growth factors and chemokines produced in the setting of inflammation-associated cancer augment Myc overexpression in cancer cells, thereby driving Ras activation and abnormal DNA synthesis.[4] In a murine Myc model of pancreatic cancer, the initial wave of angiogenesis is mediated by the inflammatory cytokine IL-1β.[69] Interestingly, a recent gene expression profile study showed that the Myc network of transcription programs accounts for most of the similarity between embryonic stem cells and cancer cells.[70] Myc activation can trigger mitochondria-regulated apoptosis, whereas Myc-induced DNA damage and cellular transformation are prevented by mitochondria-targeted antioxidants.[71,72] Thus, the emerging evidence suggests that the mitochondria are important downstream effector organelles in both Myc- and Ras-induced oncogenic transformation (see Figure).

The tumor suppressor protein p53 is an important transcriptional factor for multiple proteins involved in the cellular DNA damage response, and it is likely important in inflammation-associated cancer.[see for review 73] Following DNA damage caused by oxidative stress (eg, that resulting from exposure to tobacco, asbestos, etc), an intact p53 response prevents mutations from accumulating by increasing the expression of genes that inhibit cell growth, thereby increasing the time available for DNA repair. However, if DNA damage is extensive, p53 activation can augment apoptosis by inducing pro-apoptotic genes while inhibiting expression of anti-apoptotic genes, ultimately causing mitochondrial dysfunction and intrinsic apoptosis. Because of its central role in directing cellular life and death outcomes, it is not surprising that mutations in p53 gene family members are common in human tumors.[73] Mitochondrial ROS block wild-type p53 function and promote the formation of p53 mutations.[reviewed in 4,51] Mutations in p53, some from inflammation-associated oxidative stress, are evident in the epithelium of cancer cells and in inflamed, but non-dysplastic epithelial cells.[74] This suggests that genomic changes can result from chronic inflammation. Altered p53 expression has also been implicated in the pathophysiology of pulmonary fibrosis, including that due to asbestos, as well as in pulmonary fibrosis–associated bronchogenic lung cancer.[75-80] For example, increased p53 protein expression is detected in the bronchiolar and alveolar epithelium of humans with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and in rodents exposed to asbestos.[75-80]Furthermore, increased p53 levels are detected in lung cancers of patients with asbestosis,[81] and p53 point mutations are widely evident in the respiratory epithelium of smokers and asbestos-exposed individuals.[82] p53 mediates asbestos-induced, mitochondria-regulated apoptosis in lung epithelial cells, and this is blocked in cells incapable of producing mitochondrial ROS.[80] Notably, loss of p53 results in mtDNA depletion, altered mitochondrial function, and increased H2O2 production.[83] Considerable evidence, reviewed in detail elsewhere,[51] has established that p53 is a crucial regulator of mitochondrial function, including ROS generation and mtDNA repair following oxidative damage, as well as mitochondrial biogenesis and mtDNA replication. Although formal evidence is lacking, it is likely that loss of wild-type p53 function augments the deleterious effects induced by Ras and Myc on mitochondrial function described above.[51] Thus, p53 has a key role in regulating the response to cellular DNA damage caused by exposure to oxidative stress, and likely plays a role in the pathogenesis of inflammation-associated cancer. Future investigations are required to better understand how the Ras, Myc, and p53 pathways are interconnected.

As reviewed in detail elsewhere,[4,8] chronic inflammation can effect each of the six hallmarks of tumorigenesis identified by Hanahan and Weinberg,[11] including limitless replicative potential, sustained angiogenesis, evasion of apoptosis, self-sufficiency in growth signaling, insensitivity to anti-growth signals, and tissue invasion/metastasis. The evasion of immune surveillance mechanisms and genetic instability due to inflammation-associated cancer have each been proposed as the seventh hallmark of cancer—again emphasizing the role of inflammation in cancer.[4,84] Inflammation-associated cancer induces oxidative stress that can lead to DNA damage and cellular stress, which in turn cause abnormalities in mitosis (eg, through chromosomal abnormalities) and metabolism (eg, through the Warburg effect, or increased glucose uptake for glycolysis).[8] Although beyond the scope of this review, nearly 30 different cancer therapies targeting these assorted mechanistic hallmarks of inflammation-associated cancer are in various stages of development.[reviewed in 8] A crucial unresolved issue is whether inflammatory signaling in susceptible tissues (eg, the lungs of smokers) can be altered so as to favor adaptive immunity (anti-tumorigenic activity) rather than pro-tumorigenic activity.

Inflammation, ROS, and the Mitochondria
α, IL-1β, NFκB, STAT3, and COX-2) decreases the incidence and spread of certain tumors (eg, colorectal cancer). In general, inflammatory /immune components necessary at one stage of tumorigenesis may be completely dispensable during another stage.[3,6] Also, adaptive transfer of inflammatory cells or overexpression of certain cytokines promotes tumor formation.[3]

The major sources of ROS in the setting of inflammation-associated cancer include (1) NADPH oxidase present in phagocytes and other cells and (2) mitochondria. In non-phagocytic cells, over 95% of ROS formed during normal metabolism originate from the electron transport chain (ETC) in the inner mitochondrial membrane in close proximity to mtDNA.[51] ROS-induced mtDNA damage is implicated in a wide range of pathologic processes, including carcinogenesis, aging, and degenerative diseases.[85,86] Emerging studies suggest that mitochondrial ROS form crucial intermediates between environmental and host stimuli that result in inflammation-associated cancer (see Figure). Mitochondrial metabolism via the pentose phosphate shunt and mitochondrial ROS production from the Qo site of complex III in the ETC are necessary for K-Ras–induced tumorigenesis.[33] Hypoxia, as occurs in solid tumors, stimulates the expression of HIFs, which are important transcription factors involved in coordinating the cellular response to hypoxia. They regulate mitochondrial metabolism and ROS production, yet at the same time, mitochondrial ROS regulate HIF expression.[reviewed in 51,87] Accumulating evidence establishes that asbestos fibers induce lung epithelial cell apoptosis via the mitochondria-regulated death pathway and that mitochondrial ROS have a causal role.[40] A recent study showed that a Helicobacter pylori toxin, vacuolating cytotoxin A, induces mitochondria-regulated apoptosis by juxtapositioning the mitochondria with endosomes.[88] This finding implicating the mitochondria provides a potential mechanistic link between chronic Helicobacter infections and gastric cancer. Thus, the available information supports the hypothesis that the levels of mitochondrial ROS are important in regulating the balance between normal physiologic signaling (low mitochondrial ROS levels) compared with the signaling in inflammation-associated cancer that promotes tumorigenesis (high mitochondrial ROS levels). In this regard, mitochondria-targeted antioxidants present attractive agents for cancer prevention or treatment.[51] However, the mechanisms of action of these antioxidants may not be as expected. For example, in recent studies, we found that mitoquinone inhibits tumor cell growth, but that, instead of acting as an antioxidant, it appears to act by inducing ROS formation in cancer cells, causing the induction primarily of autophagy instead of apoptosis.[89] Further studies are required to deepen our understanding of the potential therapeutic benefits of mitochondria-targeted redox agents for inflammation-associated cancer.

Given the close proximity of mtDNA to the mitochondrial ETC and the lack of protective histones, mtDNA damage resulting from oxidative stress may be important in the pathogenesis of inflammation-associated cancer. For example, with asbestos, lung mesothelial cell mtDNA damage is evident following exposure to a four-fold lower concentration of crocidolite asbestos than the crocidolite doses required to cause nuclear DNA damage.[90] Also, several lines of evidence implicate mtDNA oxidative injury as a key trigger of apoptosis that may be important in inflammation-associated cancer, including: (1) that cell death is more closely associated with mtDNA oxidative lesions than with nuclear DNA lesions, (2) that mtDNA damage precedes ATP depletion and mitochondrial dysfunction, (3) that enhancing mtDNA repair blocks cell death, and (4) that deficiency of mtDNA repair enhances cell death.[reviewed in 51,86] Base excision repair (BER) is the principal pathway for repairing oxidative mtDNA damage.[83] Epidemiological data suggest that the levels of 8OHdG, the most common DNA base change arising from oxidative stress, is linked with various cancers and neurodegenerative diseases.[85,86,91-94] 8OHdG induces mutations in replicating cells by preferentially mispairing with adenine during DNA synthesis, thereby increasing the incidence of G:C to T:A transversions. DNA glycosylases have a key role in BER pathways: they recognize the oxidized DNA adduct and excise the damaged base. 8-oxo-guanine DNA glycosylase (Ogg1), which is responsible for repairing 8OHdG, has a dual function: it preferentially recognizes 8OHdG opposite cytosine and then excises it via its apurinic/apyrimidic lyase activity. All mtDNA BER repair proteins, including Ogg1, are nuclear-encoded and imported into mitochondria.[83] Overexpression of mitochondria-targeted Ogg1 blocks intrinsic apoptosis in ROS-exposed vascular endothelial and asbestos-exposed HeLa cells.[90,95,96] We recently extended these findings to AEC exposed to oxidative stress (asbestos or H2O2).[97] Further, using Ogg1 mutants incapable of 8OHdG DNA repair, we showed that Ogg1 functions in a role independent of DNA repair by preserving mitochondrial aconitase levels. Mitochondrial aconitase has a dual role: (1) it serves as an iron-sulfur– containing tricarboxycylic acid cycle enzyme that is a mitochondrial redox-sensor susceptible to oxidative degradation and (2) it maintains mtDNA by mechanisms that are independent of its catalytic activity.[98-100] Mitochondrial aconitase co-precipitates with frataxin, an iron chaperone protein that is as good as Ogg1 at preventing aconitase oxidative inactivation.[97,101] Given the importance of p53 in inflammation-associated cancer, it is of interest that Ogg1 is under transcriptional regulation by p53.[102,103] Collectively, these findings suggest critical crosstalk between the mitochondria (ROS, aconitase, Ogg1, etc) and p53 that is likely important in inflammation-associated cancer.

Activation of oncogenic transcription factors can be triggered through pattern recognition receptors, by exposure to components of bacteria, viruses, and interestingly, mtDNA.[104,105] Chronic inflammation /infection can lead to extensive cellular damage in target organs (eg, necrotic epithelial cells and macrophages in tumors), and this results in the release of damage-associated molecular pattern (DAMP) or pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP) molecules.[reviewed in 6,56] DAMPs include IL-1α, high mobility group B1 molecule (HMGB1), and other molecules that work in concert to facilitate inflammation.[59] The underlying mechanisms are the subject of ongoing studies. Circulating mtDNA and mitochondrial DAMPs can be detected in patients with trauma, a finding that may account for the increased risk of multi-organ dysfunction in these patients.[105] These investigations illustrate the diverse mechanisms by which alterations in the mitochondria can impact inflammation-associated cancer. It is unclear whether epithelial cells or immune/inflammatory cells are the primary source of DAMPs in tumors. It will be of interest to determine whether chronic inflammation/tissue injury results in the release of mtDNA, and if so, whether this is crucial for driving inflammation-associated cancer. Further studies are necessary to better understand the precise molecular details by which mitochondrial respiration, mitochondrial ROS production, and mtDNA damage affect specific components of inflammation-associated cancer.

Inflammation and Tumor-Promoting Signaling Pathways
Tumor cells, carcinogen-exposed epithelial cells, and inflammatory cells utilize NFκB, a tightly regulated transcription factor, to activate a number of genes coding for proteins involved in inflammation-associated cancer, including cytokines, growth factors, adhesion molecules, angiogenic factors, proto-oncogenes (eg, Myc), COX-2, and nitric oxide synthase.[reviewed in: 3,6,7,106] NFκB, a dimer of two Rel-family proteins (p50 and p65), is activated in the cytoplasm by diverse cellular conditions including excess ROS, hypoxia, and HIF-1α. It is also regulated autonomously by genetic alterations that lead to phosphorylation of its inhibitor protein (IκBα). The phosphorylation of IκBα results in the proteolytic degradation and subsequent translocation of IκB to the nucleus, where it binds to and regulates the DNA.[106] NFκB is also activated downstream of signaling by inflammatory cytokines (eg, TNF-α, IL-1β) as well as by the toll-like receptor–MyD88 pathway that is stimulated by microbes and tissue damage.[4] NFκB can have divergent effects in various models of carcinogenesis that likely relate to the balance between activating downstream pro- and anti-tumorigenic effects.[106-109)] Murine transgenic studies have established a key role for NFκB signaling pathways in colitis-associated cancer, liver cancer, and breast cancer metastasis.[reviewed in 4,7,14] NFκB activation by TNF-α augments nuclear entry of Wnt/β-catenin in inflammation-associated gastric cancer,[110] as well as in colonic crypt cells[111]—a finding that is likely crucial for promoting tissue invasion/metastasis. Asbestos causes prolonged, dose-dependent transcriptional activation of NFκB-dependent genes in vitro and in vivo by a ROS-dependent mechanism.[reviewed in 112] In murine models that inhibit IKKβ-dependent NFκB activation, acute inflammation is exacerbated while chronic intestinal inflammation is attenuated.[113] These findings underscore how critical the context of inflammation (eg, acute vs chronic) is in regulating the pro-inflammatory and anti-apoptotic effects of NFκB. The collective evidence suggests that NFκB has primarily pro-tumorigenic effects but that an anti-inflammatory role can occur. Further studies are necessary to determine the precise role of pharmacologic and genetic targeting of the NFκB-dependent pathways in various cancer preventative and treatment strategies.

STAT3, like NFκB, is a transcription factor that is often constitutively activated in tumors and immune cells. It mediates a number of crucial tumorigenic signaling pathways (eg, cell proliferation, apoptosis, Myc expression, evasion of immune surveillance).[reviewed in 4] The STAT family contains seven members, but STAT3 has been most closely implicated in inflammation-associated cancer.[reviewed in 21] STAT3 signaling is essential for stem-cell renewal as well as for persistent NFκB activation in tumor cells.[114,115] Further, mitochondrial STAT3 is essential for Ras-dependent oncogenic transformation.[116] The molecular mechanism(s) that account for the presence of STAT3 in the mitochondria are unclear, but apparently do not depend on increased STAT3 transcriptional activity, nor on changes in mtDNA-encoded proteins. Rather, the presence of mitochondrial STAT3 appears to be mediated by greater mitochondrial ETC activity. A firm role for STAT3 in colitis-associated cancer is suggested by the finding of a reduced incidence of colon cancers in STAT3-deficient mice.[reviewed in 14] Also, a colitis-inducing strain of Bacteroides fragilis that is implicated in colorectal cancer is a potent activator of STAT3 in humans and mice.[117] Mutations in EGFR result in downstream IL-6 production and STAT3 phosphorylation in lung adenocarcinomas.[118,119] Although the precise molecular details await further study, the available experimental evidence supports an important role for the interconnected signaling cascade of NFκB–IL-6–STAT3 in the development of inflammation-associated cancer.

Conclusions
Cancer-related inflammation remains a significant challenge to healthcare providers, as well as to investigators studying the basic mechanisms underlying tumorigenesis. Largely because the pathogenesis of inflammation-associated cancer is incompletely understood, there are currently limited therapeutic techniques for modifying cancers that occur in the setting of chronic inflammation. The accumulating evidence links a wide variety of chronic inflammatory conditions to diverse groups of cancers (see Table 1), providing firm support for the role of inflammation-associated cancer as an important event in the pathogenesis of cancer. It may even be the seventh hallmark of cancer, as suggested by Mantovani et al.[4] In this review, we summarized the evidence implicating a growing number of key molecular and cellular pathways mediating cancers that occur in the setting of chronic inflammation (see Figure). In particular, we reviewed current knowledge implicating the mitochondria, especially mitochondrial ROS, as a central regulator in inflammation-associated cancer. As summarized in Table 2, there is much that we know about what promotes inflammation-associated cancer, but there remain a number of crucial missing pieces of experimental evidence that will be necessary to definitively prove a causal relationship between inflammation and cancer. In this regard, future in vivo studies utilizing novel targeted murine transgenic approaches, such as those described herein, will be necessary to advance our understanding of the field. Strategies aimed at enhancing mitochondrial DNA integrity and/or increasing mitochondrial antioxidant defenses may prove beneficial in reducing malignant transformation after exposure to noxious agents (eg, tobacco, PM) and host mutations that result in inflammation-associated cancer. Importantly, the significance of these investigations is that they provide the molecular rationale for developing urgently needed and novel strategies for cancer prevention and treatment.

Financial Disclosure: The authors have no significant interest or other relationship with the manufacturers of any products or providers of any service mentioned in this article.

REFERENCES:

1. Balkwill F, Mantovani A. Inflammation and cancer: back to Virchow? Lancet. 2001;357:539-45.

2. Shacter E, Weitzman SA. Chronic inflammation and cancer. Oncology. 2002;16:217-29.

3. Mantovani A, Allavena P, Sica A, Balkwill F. Cancer-related inflammation. Nature. 2008;454:436-44.

4. Colotta F, Allavena P, Sica A, Garlanda C, Mantovani A. Cancer-related inflammation, the seventh hallmark of cancer: links to genetic instability. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30:1073-81.

5. Mantovani A, Garlanda C, Allavavena P. Molecular pathways and targets in cancer-related inflammation. Ann Med. 2010;42:161-70.

6. Grivennikov SI, Greten FR, Karin M. Immunity, inflammation, and cancer. Cell. 2010;140:883-99.

7. Schetter AJ, Heegaard NHH, Harris CC. Inflammtion and cancer: interweaving microRNA, free radical, cytokine and p53 pathways. Carcinogenesis. 2010;31:37-49.

8. Lio J, Solimini NL, Elledge SJ. Principles of cancer therapy: oncogene and non-oncogene addiction. Cell. 2009;136:823-37.

9. Aggarwal BB, Vijayalesshmi RV, Sung B. Targeting inflammatory pathways for prevetion and therapy of cancer: short-term friend, long-term foe. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:425-30.

10. Weitzman SA, Weitberg AB, Clark E, Stossel TP. Phagocytes as carcinogens: malignant transformation produced by human neutrophils. Science. 1985;227:
1231-3.

11. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell. 2000;100:50-70.

12. Ekbom A, Helmick C, Zack M, Adami HO. Ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer. A population-based study. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:1228-33.

13. Gillen CD, Walmsley RS, Prior P, et al. Ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease: a comparison of the colorectal cancer risk in extensive colitis. Gut. 1994;35:1590-2.

14. Ferrone C, Dranoff G. Dual roles for immunity in gastrointestinal cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4045-51.

15. Ekbom A. Risk of cancer in ulcerative colitis. J Gastrointest Surg. 1998;2:312-3.

16. Popivanova BK, Kitamura K, Wu Y, et al. Blocking TNF-alpha in mice reduces colorectal carcinogenesis associated with chronic colitis. J Clin Invest. 2008;118:560-70.

17. Greten FR, Eckmann L, Greten TF, et al. IKKbeta links inflammation and tumorigenesis in a mouse model of colitis-associated cancer. Cell. 2004;118:285-96.

18. Kopp E, Ghosh S. Inhibition of NF-κB by sodium salicylate and aspirin. Science. 1994;265:956-9.

19. Eaden J, Abrams K, Ekbom A, et al. Colorectal cancer prevention in ulcerative colitis: a case-control study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2000;14:145-53.

20. Williams JA, Shacter E. Regulation of macrophage cytokine production by prostaglandin E2: Distinct roles of Cox-1 and Cox-2. J Biol Chem. 1997;41:25693-9.

21. Yu H, Pardoll D, Jove R. STATs in cancer inflammation and immunity: A leading role for STAT3. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009; 9:798-809.

22. Grivennikov S, Karin E, Terzic J, et al. IL-6 and Stat3 are required for survival of intestinal epithelial cells and development of colitis-associated cancer. Cancer Cell. 2009;15:103-13.

23. Kujawski M, Kortylewski M, Lee H, et al. Stat3 mediates myeloid cell-dependent tumor angiogenesis in mice. J Clin Invest. 2008;118:3367-77.

24. Sun S, Schiller JH, Gazdar AF. Lung cancer in never smokers – a different disease. Nat Rev Cancer 2007;7:778-90.

25. Alberg AJ, Samet JM. Epidemiology of lung cancer. Chest. 2003;123:21S-49S.

26. Goldkorn T, Filosto S. Lung injury and cancer. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2010;43:259-68.

27. Yao H, Rahman I. Current concepts on the role of inflammation in COPD and lung cancer. Curr Opinions Pharmacol. 2009;9:375-83.

28. Hogg JC, Timens W. The pathology of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Annu Rev Pathol. 2009;4:435-59.

29. Young RP, Hopkins RJ, Christmas T, et al. COPD prevalence is increased in lung cancer, independent of age, sex and smoking history. Eur Respir J. 2009;34:380-6.

30. Wasswa-Kintu S, Gan WQ, Man SF, et al. Relationship between reduced forced expiratory volume in one second and the risk of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax. 2005;
60:570-5.

31. Caballero A, Torres-Duque CA, Jaramill C, et al. Prevalence of COPD in five Columbian cities situated at low, medium and high altitude (PREPOCOL study). Chest. 2008;133;343-9.

32. Moghaddam SJ, Li H, Cho S-N, et al. Promotion of lung carcinogenesis by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-like airway inflammation in a K-ras-induced mouse model. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2009;40:443-53.

33. Weinberg F, Hammanaka R, Wheaton WW, et al. Mitochondrial metabolism and ROS generation are essential for Kras-mediated tumorigenicity. PNAS. 2010;107:8788-93.

34. Arenberg D, Luckhardt TR, Carskadon S, et al. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor promotes tumor growth in the context of lung injury and repair. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182:1030-7.

35. Cosio MG, Seatta M, Agusti A. Immunologic aspects of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2445-54.

36. Yu YY, Pinsky PF, Caporaso NE, et al. Lung cancer risk following detection of pulmonary scarring by chest radiography in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:2326-32.

37. LaDou FJ. The asbestos cancer epidemic. Environ Health Perspect. 2004;112:285-90.

38. Tossavainen A. Global use of asbestos and the incidence of mesothelioma. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2004;10:22-5.

39. Heintz NH, Janssen-Heininger YM, Mossman BT. Asbestos, lung cancers, and mesotheliomas: from molecular approaches to targeting tumor survival pathways. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2010;42:133-9.

40. Liu G, Beri R, Mueller A, Kamp DW. Molecular mechanisms of asbestos-induced lung epithelial cell apoptosis. Chem-Biol Interactions. 2010;188:309-18.

41. Weiss W. Asbestosis: a marker for the increased risk of lung cancer among workers exposed to asbestos. Chest. 1999;115:536-49.

42. Jaurand MC, Mechanisms of fiber-induced genotoxicity, Environ Health Perspect. 1997;105(Suppl 5):1073-84.

43. Upadhyay D, Kamp DW. Asbestos-induced pulmonary toxicity: role of DNA damage and apoptosis, Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2003;228:650-9.

44. Shacter E, Beecham EJ, Covey JM, et al. Activated neutrophils induce prolonged DNA damage in neighboring cells. Carcinogenesis. 1988; 9:2297-304

45. Kamp DW, Graceffa P, Pryor WA, Weitzman SA. The role of free radicals in asbestos-induced diseases. Free Radic Biol Med. 1992;12:293-315.

46. Nelson HH, Kelsey KT. The molecular epidemiology of asbestos and tobacco in lung cancer. Oncogene. 2002;21:7284-8.

47. Murthy S, Ryan A, He C, et al. Rac1-mediated mitochondrial H2O2 generation regulates MMP-9 gene expression in macrophages via inhibition of SP-1 and AP-1. J Biol Chem. 2010;285:25062-73.

48. Dostert C, Petrilli V, Van Bruggen R, et al. Innate immune activation through Nalp3 inflammasome sensing of asbestos and silica. Science. 2008;320:674-7.

49. Cassel SL, Eisenbarth SC, Iyer SS, et al. The Nalp3 inflammasome is essential for the development of silicosis. PNAS. 2008;105:935-40.

50. Petrilli V, Dostert C, Muruve DA, Tschopp J. The inflammasome: a danger sensing complex triggering innate immunity. Curr Opin Immunol. 2007;19:615-22.

51. Ralph SJ, Rodriguez-Enriquez S, Neuzil J, et al. The causes of cancer revisited: “mitochondrial malignancy” and ROS-induced oncogenic transformation – Why mitochondria are targets for cancer therapy. Mol Aspects Med. 2010;31:145-70.

52. Weinberg F, Chandel NS. Reactive oxygen species-dependent signaling regulates cancer. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2009;66:3663-73.

53. Sato Y, Takahashi S, Kinouchi Y, et al. IL-10 deficiency leads to somatic mutations in a model of IBD. Carcinogenesis. 2006;27:1068-73.

54. Gungor N, Godschalk RWL, Pachen DM, et al. Activated neutrophils inhibit nucleoside excision repair in human pulmonary epithelial cells: role of myeloperoxidase. FASEB. 2007;21:2359-67.

55. Rao VP, Poutahidis T, Ge Z, et al. Innate immune inflammatory response against enteric bacteria Helicobacter hepaticus induces mammary adenocarcinoma in mice. Cancer Res. 2006;66:7395-400.

56. Cuzick J, Otto F, Baron JA, et al. Aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for cancer prevention: an international consensus statement. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:501-7.

57. Hinson RM, Williams JA, Shacter E. Elevated interleukin-6 is induced by prostaglandin E2 in a murine model of inflammation. Possible role of cyclooxygenase 2. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;93:4885-90.

58. Singh B, Cook KR, Vincent L, et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 induces genomic instability, BCL2 expression, doxorubicin resistance, and altered cancer-initiating cell phenotype in MCF7 breast cancer cells. J Surg Res. 2008;147:240-6.

59. Demaria S, Pikarsky E, Karin M, et al. Cancer and inflammation: promise for biologic therapy.
J Immunother. 2010;33:335-51.

60. Moore RJ, Owens DM, Stamp G, et al. Mice deficient in tumor necrosis factor-alpha are resistant to skin carcinogenesis. Nat Med 1999;5:828-31.

61. Balkwill F. Tumor necrosis factor and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9:361-71.

62. Oguma K, Oshima H, Aoki M, et al. Activated macrophages promote Wnt signaling through tumor necrosis factor-alpha in gastric tumour cells. EMBO
J. 2008;27:1671-81.

63. Harrison ML, Obermueller E, Maisey NR, et al. Tumor necrosis factor alpha as a new target for renal cell carcinoma: two sequential phase II trials of infliximab at standard and high dose. J Clin Oncol. 2007;
25:4542-9.

64. Brown ER, Charles KA, Hoare SA, et al. A clinical study assessing the tolerability and biological effects of infliximab, a TNF-alpha inhibitor, in patients with advanced cancer. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1340-6.

65. Nibbs RJ, Gilchrist DS, King V, et al. The atypical chemokine receptor D6 suppresses the development of chemically induced skin tumors. J Clin Invest. 2007;117:1884-92.

66. Murdoch C, Muthana M, Coffelt SB, Lewis CE. The role of myeloid cells in the promotion of tumour angiogenesis. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8:618-31.

67. Chin LJ, Ratner E, Leng S, et al. A SNP in a let-7 microRNA complementary site in the KRAS 3′ untranslated region increases non-small cell lung cancer risk. Cancer Res. 2008;68:8535-40.

68. Christensen BC, Moyer BJ, Avissar M, et al. A let-7 microRNA-binding site polymorphism in the KRAS 3′ UTR is associated with reduced survival in oral cancers. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30:1003-7.

69. Shchors K, Shchors E, Rostker F, et al. The Myc-dependent angiogenic switch in tumors is mediated by interleukin 1beta. Genes Dev. 2006;20:2527-38.

70. Kim J, Woo AJ, Chu J, et al. A Myc network accounts for similarities between embryonic stem and cancer cell transcription programs. Cell. 2010;143:313-24.

71. Morrish F, Neretti N, Sedivy JM, Hockenbery DM. The oncogene c-Myc coordinates regulation of metabolic networks to enable rapid cell cycle entry. Cell Cycle. 2008;7:1054-66.

72. K C S, Cárcamo JM, Golde DW. Antioxidants prevent oxidative DNA damage and cellular transformation elicited by the over-expression of c-MYC. Mutat Res. 2006;593:64-79.

73. Vousden KH, Prives C. Blinded by the light: the growing complexity of p53. Cell. 2009;137:413-31.

74. Kraus S, Arber N. Inflammation and colorectal cancer. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2009;9:405-10.

75. Kuwano K, Kunitake R, Kawasaki M, et al. P21Waf1/Cip1/Sdi1 and p53 expression in association with DNA strand breaks in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996;154:477-83.

76. Johnson NF, Jaramillo RJ. p53, Cip1, and Gadd153 expression following treatment of A549 cells with natural and man-made vitreous fibers. Environ Health Perspect. 1997;105(Suppl 5):1143-5.

77. Mishra A, Liu JY, Brody AR, Morris GF. Inhaled asbestos fibers induce p53 expression in the rat lung. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 1997;16:479-85.

78. Burmeister B, Schwerdtle T, Poser I, et al. Effects of asbestos on initiation of DNA damage, induction of DNA-strand breaks, P53-expression and apoptosis in primary, SV40-transformed and malignant human mesothelial cells. Mutat Res. 2004;558:81-92.

79. Plataki M, Koutsopoulos AV, Darivianaki K, et al. Expression of apoptotic and antiapoptotic markers in epithelial cells in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Chest. 2005;127:266-74.

80. Panduri V, Surapureddi S, Soberanes S, et al. P53 mediates amosite asbestos-induced alveolar epithelial cell mitochondria-regulated apoptosis. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2006;34:443-52.

81. Nuorva K, Makitaro R, Huhti E, et al. p53 protein accumulation in lung carcinomas of patients exposed to asbestos and tobacco smoke. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994;150:528-33.

82. Husgafvel-Pursiainen K, Kannio A, Oksa P, et al. Mutations, tissue accumulations, and serum levels of p53 in patients with occupational cancers from asbestos and silica exposure. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1997;30:224-30.

83. Lebedeva MA, Eaton JS, Shadel GS. Loss of p53 causes mitochondrial DNA depletion and altered mitochondrial reactive oxygen species homeostasis. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009;1787:328-34.

84. Kroemer G, Pouyssegur J. Tumor cell metabolism: cancer’s Achilles’ heel. Cancer Cell. 2008;13:472-82.

85. Bohr VA, Stevnsner T, de Souza-Pinto NC. Mitochondrial DNA repair of oxidative damage in mammalian cells. Gene. 2002;286:127-34.

86. Van Houten B, Woshner V, Santos JH. Role of mitochondrial DNA in toxic responses to oxidative stress. DNA Repair (Amst). 2006;5:145-52.

87. Tormos KV, Chandel NS. Inter-connection between mitochondria and HIFs. J Cell Mol Med. 2010;14:795-804.

88. Calore F, Genisset C, Casellato A, et al. Endosome-mitochondria juxtaposition during apoptosis induced by H. pylori VacA. Cell Death Differ. 2010;17:1707-16.

89. Rao VA, Klein SR, Bonar SJ, et al. The antioxidant transcription factor Nrf2 negatively regulates autophagy and growth arrest induced by the anticancer redox agent mitoquinine. J Biol Chem. 2010;
285:34447-59.

90. Shukla A, Jung M, Stern M, et al. Asbestos induces mitochondrial DNA damage and dysfunction linked to the development of apoptosis. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2003;285:L1018-25.

91. Garrido C, Kroemer G. Life’s smile, death’s grin: vital functions of apoptosis-executing proteins. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2004;16:639-46.

92. Russo MT, De Luca G, Degan P, et al. Accumulation of the oxidative base lesion 8-hydroxyguanine in DNA of tumor-prone mice defective in both the Myh and Ogg1 DNA glycosylases. Cancer Res. 2004;64:4411-14.

93. Ames BN, Shigenaga MK, Hagen TM. Oxidants, antioxidants, and the degenerative diseases of aging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90:7915-22.

94. Chevillard S, Radicella JP, Levalois C, et al. Mutations in OGG1, a gene involved in the repair of oxidative DNA damage, are found in human lung and kidney tumours. Oncogene. 1998;16:3083-6.

95. Dobson AW, Grishko V, LeDoux SP, et al. Enhanced mtDNA repair capacity protects pulmonary artery endothelial cells from oxidant-mediated death. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2002;283:L205-10.

96. Rachek LI, Grishko VI, Ledoux SP, Wilson GL. Role of nitric oxide-induced mtDNA damage in mitochondrial dysfunction and apoptosis. Free Radic Biol Med. 2006;40:754-62.

97. Panduri V, Liu G, Surapureddi S, et al. Role of mitochondrial hOGG1 and aconitase in oxidant-induced lung epithelial cell apoptosis. Free Radic Biol Med. 2009;47:750-9.

98. Gardner PR, Nguyen DD, White CW. Aconitase is a sensitive and critical target of oxygen poisoning in cultured mammalian cells and in rat lungs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1994;91:12248-52.

99. Bulteau AL, Ikeda-Saito M, Szweda LI. Redox-dependent modulation of aconitase activity in intact mitochondria. Biochemistry. 2003;42:14846-55.

100. Chen KJ, Wang X, Kaufman BA, Butow RA. Aconitase couples metabolic regulation to mitochondrial DNA maintenance. Science. 2005;307:714-7.

101. Bulteau AL, O’Neill HA, Kennedy MC, et al. Frataxin acts as an iron chaperone protein to modulate mitochondrial aconitase activity. Science. 2004;305:242-5.

102. Youn CK, Song PI, Kim MH, et al. Human 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase suppresses the oxidative stress induced apoptosis through a p53-mediated signaling pathway in human fibroblasts. Mol Cancer Res. 2007;5:1083-98.

103. Habib SL, Riley DJ, Mahimainathan L, et al. Tuberin regulates the DNA repair enzyme OGG1. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2008;294:F281-90.

104. Rakoff-Nahoum S, Medzhitov R. Toll-like receptors and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9:57-63.

105. Zhang Q, Raoof M, Chen Y, et al. Circulating mitochondrial DAMPs cause inflammatory responses to injury. Nature. 2010;464:104-7.

106. Karin M. NF-kappaB as a critical link between inflammation and cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2009;1:a000141.

107. Greten FR, Eckmann L, Greten TF, et al. IKKbeta links inflammation and tumorigenesis in a mouse model of colitis-associated cancer. Cell. 2004;118:285-96.

108. Pikarsky E, Porat RM, Stein I, et al. NF-kappaB functions as a tumour promoter in inflammation-associated cancer. Nature. 2004;431:461-6.

109. Maeda S, Kamata H, Luo JL, et al. IKKbeta couples hepatocyte death to cytokine-driven compensatory proliferation that promotes chemical hepatocarcinogenesis. Cell. 2005;121:977-90.

110. Oguma K, Oshima H, Aoki M, et al. Activated macrophages promote Wnt signalling through tumour necrosis factor-alpha in gastric tumour cells. EMBO J. 2008;27:1671-81.

111. Umar S, Sarkar S, Wang Y, Singh P. Functional cross-talk between beta-catenin and NFkappaB signaling pathways in colonic crypts of mice in response to progastrin. J Biol Chem. 2009;284:22274-84.

112. Kamp DW, Weitzman SA. The molecular basis of asbestos induced lung injury. Thorax 1999;54:638-52.

113. Eckmann L, Nebelsiek T, Fingerle AA, et al. Opposing functions of IKKbeta during acute and chronic intestinal inflammation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:15058-63.

114. Chen X, Xu H, Yuan P, et al. Integration of external signaling pathways with the core transcriptional network in embryonic stem cells. Cell. 2008;133:1106-17.

115. Lee H, Herrmann A, Deng JH, et al. Persistently activated Stat3 maintains constitutive NF-kappaB activity in tumors. Cancer Cell. 2009;15:283-93.

116. Gough DJ, Corlett A, Schlessinger K, et al. Mitochondrial STAT3 supports Ras-dependent oncogenic transformation. Science. 2009;324:1713-6.

117. Wu S, Rhee KJ, Albesiano E, et al. A human colonic commensal promotes colon tumorigenesis via activation of T helper type 17 T cell responses. Nat Med. 2009;15:1016-22.

118. Gao SP, Mark KG, Leslie K, et al. Mutations in the EGFR kinase domain mediate STAT3 activation via IL-6 production in human lung adenocarcinomas. J Clin Invest. 2007;117:3846-56.

119. Grivennikov S, Karin M. Autocrine IL-6 signaling: a key event in tumorigenesis? Cancer Cell. 2008;13:7-9.

Ohio State Performs Rare ‘Rotation’ Surgery On Cancer Patient

Comments Off
Posted 01 Apr 2011 — by James Street
Category Artificial Knees and implants, Bone repair, Limb and organ Regeneration, Surgery

By Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center
Apr 1, 2011 – 7:08:26 AM

(HealthNewsDigest.com) – COLUMBUS, Ohio– Two years ago, Dugan Smith, an athletic and active fourth-grader, fell and broke his femur, revealing a softball-sized tumor just above his knee. Now, after undergoing a unique surgery in which his lower leg was amputated, the tumor removed, and the leg rotated and reattached so that his ankle now functions as his knee, Smith, 13, is cancer-free and back to the activities he loves – playing basketball and baseball.

After the shock of learning their son had osteosarcoma, a rare cancer that attacks the bones, his parents opted for the unusual surgical procedure to increase his chance not only of survival, but to help him return to an active lifestyle. Fewer than 12 rotationplastysurgeries are performed each year in the United States.

“For an active child, the rotationplasty surgery can be the best option,” said Dr. Joel Mayerson,Smith’s orthopaedic oncologist at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richad J. Solove Research Institute. “The fact that he is out playing baseball and living his life like a normal teen-ager, speaks to the success of the surgery and his determination to overcome all odds to do something he truly loves.”

The rotationplasty procedure allows doctors to remove the diseased portion of the patient’s leg, in Smith’s case, the middle section including his knee. The lower leg is turned backwards and reattached to the area just above where the tumor had been removed. By rotating the leg, Smith’s calf muscle now serves as his thigh, while his ankle and foot act as his knee and shin. He has been fitted with a prosthetic leg that fits over his foot and ankle, allowing him to walk, run and play sports. Smith is now the star pitcher of his middle school baseball team in Fostoria, Ohio.

“Unlike adults, children can re-train their body to make their foot work like a knee, enabling them to run and participate in athletic activities,” said Mayerson, who is one of only 125 fellowship-trained musculoskeletal oncologists nationwide. “Having this procedure also eliminates the need for follow-up surgeries as the child continues to grow, because the bone will grow on its own as the child ages, and there aren’t any artificial parts to break or become damaged with wear.”

While the procedure is rare and may be considered extreme, research shows that patients report a high level of quality of life and psychological satisfaction.

The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute (cancer.osu.edu) is one of only 40 Comprehensive Cancer Centers in the United States designated by the National Cancer Institute. Ranked by U.S. News & World Report among the top cancer hospitals in the nation, The James is the 205-bed adult patient-care component of the cancer program at The Ohio State University. The OSUCCC – James is one of only five centers in the country funded by the NCI to conduct both phase I and phase II clinical trials.

***

Subscribe to our FREE Ezine and receive current Health News, be eligible for discounted products/services and coupons related to your Health. We publish 24/7.
HealthNewsDigest.com

The past, present and future of cancer

Researchers gather to discuss the state of their field and the potential for new treatments.

Anne Trafton, MIT News Office

Leading cancer researchers reflected on past achievements and prospects for the future of cancer treatment during a special MIT symposium on Wednesday titled “Conquering Cancer through the Convergence of Science and Engineering.”

The event, one of six academic symposia taking place as part of MIT’s 150th anniversary, focused on the Institute’s role in studying the disease over the past 36 years since the founding of MIT’s Center for Cancer Research.

During that time, MIT scientists have made critical discoveries that resulted in new cancer drugs such as Gleevec and Herceptin. The center has since become the David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, which now includes a mix of biologists, who are trying to unravel what goes wrong inside cancer cells, and engineers, who are working on turning basic science discoveries into real-world treatments and diagnostics for cancer patients.

That “convergence” of life sciences and engineering is key to making progress in the fight against cancer, said Institute Professor Phillip Sharp, a member of the Koch Institute. “We need that convergence because we are facing a major demographic challenge in cancer as well as a number of other chronic diseases” that typically affect older people, such as Alzheimer’s, Sharp said.

In opening the symposium, MIT President Susan Hockfield said that MIT has “the right team, in the right place, at the right moment in history” to help defeat cancer.

“It’s in the DNA of MIT to solve problems,” said Tyler Jacks, director of the Koch Institute. “I’m very optimistic and very encouraged about what this generation of cancer researchers at MIT will do to overcome this most challenging problem.”

Past and present

In the past few decades, a great deal of progress has been made in understanding cancer, said Nancy Hopkins, the Amgen, Inc. Professor of Biology and Koch Institute member, who spoke as part of the first panel discussion, on major milestones in cancer research.

In the early 1970s, before President Richard Nixon declared the “War on Cancer,” “we really knew nothing about human cells and what controls their division,” Hopkins recalled. Critical discoveries by molecular biologists, including MIT’s Robert Weinberg, revealed that cancer is usually caused by genetic mutations within cells.

The discovery of those potentially cancerous genes, including HER2 (often mutated in breast cancer), has lead to the development of new drugs that cause fewer side effects in healthy cells. While that is a major success story, many other significant discoveries have failed to make an impact in patient treatment, Hopkins said.

“The discoveries we have made are not being exploited as effectively as they could be,” Hopkins said. “That’s where we need the engineers. They’re problem-solvers.”

Institute Professor Robert Langer described his experiences as one of the rare engineers to pursue a career in biomedical research during the 1970s. After he finished his doctoral degree in chemical engineering in 1974, “I got four job offers from Exxon alone,” plus offers from several other oil companies. But Langer had decided he wanted to do something that would more directly help people, and ended up getting a postdoctoral position in the lab of Judah Folkman, the scientist who pioneered the idea of killing tumors by cutting off their blood supplies.

In Folkman’s lab, Langer started working on drug-delivering particles made from polymers, which are now widely used to deliver drugs in a controlled fashion.

Langer and other engineers in the Koch Institute are now working on ways to create even better drug-delivery particles. Sangeeta Bhatia, the Wilson Professor of Health Sciences and Technology and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, described an ongoing project in her lab to create iron oxide nanoparticles that can be tagged with small protein fragments that bind specifically to tumor cells. Such particles could help overcome one major drawback to most chemotherapy: Only about 1 percent of the drug administered reaches the tumor.

“If we could simply take these poisonous drugs more directly to the tumors, it would increase their effectiveness and decrease side effects,” Bhatia said.

Other Koch engineers are working on new imaging agents, tiny implantable sensors, cancer vaccines and computational modeling of cancer cells, among other projects.

Personalized medicine

Many of the targeted drugs now in use came about through serendipitous discoveries, said Daniel Haber, director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, during a panel on personalized cancer care. Now, he said, a more systematic approach is needed. He described a new effort underway at MGH to test potential drugs on 1,000 different tumor cell lines, to find out which tumor types respond best to each drug.

At MIT, Koch Institute members Michael Hemann and Michael Yaffe have shown that patient response to cancer drugs that damage DNA can be predicted by testing for the status of two genes — p53, a tumor suppressor, and ATM, a gene that helps regulate p53.

Their research suggests that such drugs should be used only in patients whose tumors have mutations in both genes or neither gene — a finding that underscores the importance of understanding the genetic makeup of patients’ tumors before beginning treatment. It also suggests that current drugs could be made much more effective by combining them in the right ways.

“The therapies of the future may not be new therapies,” Hemann said. “They may be existing therapies used significantly better.”

The sequencing of the human genome should also help achieve the goal of personalized cancer treatment, said Eric Lander, director of the Broad Institute and co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, who spoke during a panel on biology, technology and medical applications. Already, the sequencing of the human genome has allowed researchers to discover far more cancer-causing genes. In 2000, before the sequence was completed, scientists knew of about 80 genes that could cause solid tumors, but by 2010, 240 were known.

Building on the human genome project, the National Cancer Institute has launched the Cancer Genome Atlas Project, which is sequencing the genomes of thousands of human tumors, comparing them to each other and to non-cancerous genomes. “By looking at many tumors at one time, you can begin to pick out common patterns,” Lander said.

He envisions that once cancer scientists have a more complete understanding of which genes can cause cancer, and the functions of those genes, patient treatment will become much more effective. “Doctors of the future will be able to pick out drugs based on that information,” he said.

The War on Cancer A Progress Report for Skeptics

Comments Off
Posted 14 Mar 2011 — by James Street
Category Educational, General Cancer Research, Understanding Cancer

Feature

Reynold Spector

Volume 34.1, January / February 2010

Although there has been some progress in the war on cancer initiated by President Nixon in 1971, the gains have been limited.

In 1971, President Nixon and Congress declared war on cancer. Since then, the federal government has spent well over $105 billion on the effort (Kolata 2009b). What have we gained from that huge investment? David Nathan, a well-known professor and administrator, maintains in his book The Cancer Treatment Revolution (2007) that we have made substantial progress. However, he greatly overestimates the potential of the newer so-called “smart drugs.” Re­searchers Psyrri and De Vita (2008) also claim important progress. However, they cherry-pick the cancers with which there has been some progress and do not discuss the failures. Moreover, they only discuss the last decade rather than a more balanced view of 1950 or 1975 to the present.

On the other hand, Gina Kolata pointed out in The New York Times that the cancer death rate, adjusted for the size and age of the population, has decreased by only 5 percent since 1950 (Kolata 2009a). She argues that there has been very little overall progress in the war on cancer.

In this article, I will focus on adult cancer, since child cancer makes up less than 1 percent of all cancer diagnosed. I will then place the facts in proper perspective after an overview of the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment (especially with smart drugs) of adult cancer in the United States.

The Cancer Facts

Figure 1 shows the ten biggest killers in the United States in 2006. Cancer (23 percent) has almost caught up with heart disease. Figure 2 shows the death rates from cancer in men and women (adjusted for the size and age of the population) since 1975; the cancer death rates have declined in men but not in women. The decline in men is largely due to fewer lung cancer deaths in men due to less smoking (see figure 3). However, there were about 200,000 more deaths from cancer in 2006 than 1975 because of the substantial increase in the U.S. population.

These summary statistics show that the war on cancer has not gone well. This is in marked contrast to death rates from stroke and cardiovascular disease (adjusted for the age and size of the population), which have fallen by 74 percent and 64 percent, respectively, from 1950 through 2006; and by 60 percent and 52 percent, respectively, from 1975 through 2006 (Kolata 2009a). These excellent results against stroke and heart disease are mainly due to improvements in drug therapy, especially the control of high blood pressure to prevent stroke and the use of statins, aspirin, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, and ACE inhibitors (now all generic) to prevent and treat heart disease. Cancer therapy is clearly decades behind. However, these data conceal a great deal of useful information and do not provide guidance on how to make progress against cancer.

Methodological Issues

To understand the issues, we must describe a few statistical traps and define our terms (see table 1). For example, there are several types of detection bias. First, if one discovers a malignant tumor very early and starts therapy immediately, even if the therapy is worthless, it will appear that the patient lives longer than a second patient (with an identical tumor) treated with another worthless drug if the cancer in the second patient was detected later. Second, detection bias can also occur with small tumors, especially of the breast and prostate, that would not harm the patient if left untreated but can lead to unnecessary and sometimes mutilating therapy. Another type is publication bias, whereby positive studies (especially those funded by the pharmaceutical industry) tend to be published while negative studies do not.

What is cancer? Cancer is a large group of diseases characterized by the uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal cells locally, regionally, and/or distantly (metastatically) (American Cancer Society 2009). A carcinoma (cancer) in situ is a small cancer that has not invaded the local tissue. Some cancers grow very slowly, and the patient may survive for ten years or more with minimal treatment. Other cancers (e.g., lung and pancreas) grow quickly and, even today, kill more than half of the patients in less than one year (see table 2) (American Cancer Society 2009). The therapy for cancer is generally surgery, if possible, and/or chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. Chemo­therapy aims to kill the cancer cells, but most chemotherapeutic drugs are nonspecific and also kill sensitive normal cells, especially in the intestine and bone marrow. Radiation therapy is also nonspecific. In chemotherapy and radiation therapy, a partial response is defined as shrinkage of the tumor in each dimension by 50 percent; a complete response means no detectable tumor, but this does not necessarily mean a “cure.” Many complete responses are only transitory. Median survival is the length of time in which one-half of the patients in a cohort die.

What Do We Know about Cancer?

The “causes” of cancer are shown in table 3 (American Cancer Society 2009), though there is still much we don’t know. For example, we do not know exactly how smoking causes cancer; in most cases, we do not know how “acquired” mutations cause cancer. In some cancers, there are more than five hundred identifiable genetic abnormalities—no one knows which one(s), if any, is “causative” (Downing 2009). The importance of epigenetic changes is currently speculative. It is quite possible that there is a completely unknown causal mechanism in many cancers.

The diagnosis of cancer today is relatively straightforward with imaging techniques (x-ray, CAT, MRI, PET) and biopsies that are subjected to routine histology, electron microscopy, and immunological techniques.

Cancer Therapy

To have a reasonable discussion of cancer therapy, we need to agree on the objectives of therapy (Fojo and Grady 2009), as shown in table 4. Everyone agrees that meaningful prolongation of life, preferably complete surgical removal of the tumor and cure, is a high priority. The treatment should also improve the quality of life. But, as is well known, many chemotherapeutic and radiation regimens cause mild to devastating—even fatal—side effects. Nathan (2007) compares conventional chemotherapy to “carpet-bombing,” an extreme but realistic metaphor. Finally, the results of a cost-benefit analysis must be reasonable (Fojo and Grady 2009). (In some cases, justifiably and importantly, chemotherapy and/or radiation and/or other drugs are used as palliative measures exclusively to counter symptoms from the disease [e.g., pleural effusions in the chest cavity or bone pain] or from the treatments [e.g., vomiting, mucositis, low white blood counts, heart failure, nerve damage, diarrhea, and/or inflammation of the bladder]). In the final analysis, what counts are the criteria in table 4. Partial or even complete remissions, unless they prolong life and/or improve the overall quality of life at a reasonable cost, are scientifically interesting but of little use to the patient.

Currently there are a few metastatic cancers that can sometimes be cured with chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, but unfortunately these cures make up a very small percentage of the whole cancer problem. These cancers include testicular cancer, choriocarcinoma, Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukemia, and rare cases of breast and ovarian cancer. A few cancers can be made into chronic diseases that require daily treatment, e.g., chronic myelogenous leukemia.

Returning to table 2, lung cancer, the most common cancer, is a devastating disease; if the surgeon cannot totally remove it, the diagnosis is grim. In fact, about 60 percent of lung cancer patients are dead within one year of diagnosis with the best available therapy, and only 15 percent survive five years.

There has been some progress in the death rate from colo­rectal cancer (figures 4 and 5), especially in women. This is mainly due to earlier diagnosis and surgical therapy.

Cancer of the breast is often a slow cancer and has a five- to ten-year median survival rate with just surgical therapy. As can be seen in figure 5, there has been a modest decline in death rates from breast cancer since 1975. It is worth noting that currently, if the breast cancer is metastatic, five-year survival is only 27 percent (American Cancer Society 2009). However, breast cancer presents a serious dilemma. Early detection of invasive breast cancer by screening is good; however, about 62,000 cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are also discovered every year (American Cancer Society 2009). In greater than 50 percent of these women, especially older women, these lesions will not progress and do not need treatment. However, it is difficult to predict who will not need therapy, so the American Cancer Society (2009) recommends all patients with DCIS undergo therapy—generally breast surgery. Thus, more than thirty thousand patents annually are unnecessarily treated (Evans et al. 2009). We need to figure out which DCIS are harmless in order to avoid unnecessary treatment. On balance, I feel that breast cancer screening has a small but positive net benefit (Esserman et al. 2009).

Pancreatic cancer is devastating (see table 2 and figures 4 and 5), and little progress has been made against it since 1975. Pancreatic cancer is very challenging because the tumors are surrounded by dense fibrous connective tissue with few blood vessels (Olson and Hanahan 2009). Because of this, it is difficult to deliver drugs to pancreatic tumors. Moreover, this explains in part why chemotherapy is so ineffective for pancreatic cancer (see table 2). Better animal models are needed.

Prostate cancer mortality has declined slightly since 1975 with an unexplained increase in the mid-1990s (see figure 4). But prostate cancer therapy also presents a serious quandary. At autopsy, approximately 30 percent (or more) of men have cancer foci in their prostate glands, yet only 1 to 2 percent of men die of prostate cancer. Thus less than 10 percent of prostate cancer patients require treatment. This presents a serious dilemma: whom should the physician treat? Moreover, recently, two large studies of prostate cancer screening with prostate specific antigen (PSA) have seriously questioned the utility of screening. In one study, the investigators had to screen over a thousand men before they saved one life. This led t o about fifty “false positive” patients who often underwent surgery and/or radiation therapy unnecessarily (Schröder et al. 2009). The second study, conducted in the United States, was negative (Andriole et al. 2009), i.e., no lives were saved due to the screening, but many of the screening-positive patients with prostate cancer were treated. Welch and Albertson (2009) and Brawley (2009) estimate that more than a million men in the U.S. have been unnecessarily treated for prostate cancer between 1986 and 2005, due to over-diagnostic PSA screening tests. In the end, screening for prostate cancer will not be useful until methods are developed to determine which prostate cancers detected by screening will harm the patient (Welch and Albertson 2009; Brawley 2009). Many men—especially elderly ones—with a histological diagnosis of prostate cancer elect “watchful waiting” with no therapy, a rational strategy (Esserman et al. 2009).

There are many other things we do not understand about cancer—even on a phenomenological level. For example, in the United States, the incidence and death rates from cancer of the stomach have fallen dramatically since 1930 (see figures 4 and 5). The reason for this is unknown but may be due to changes in food preservation; it is not due to treatment.

Smart Drugs

David Nathan (2007) extols the virtues and potential of the new “smart drugs.” Smart drugs are defined as drugs that focus on a particular vulnerability of the cancer; they are not generalized but rather specific toxins. But the Journal of the American Medical Association (Health Agencies Update 2009) reports that 90 percent of the drugs or biologics approved by the FDA in the past four years for cancer (many of them smart drugs) cost more than $20,000 for twelve weeks of therapy, and many offer a survival benefit of only two months or less (Fojo and Grady 2009). Let us take bevacizumab (Avastin), the ninth largest selling drug in America ($4.8 billion in 2008), costing about $8,000 per month per patient (Keim 2008). Bevacizumab, a putative smart drug, is an intravenous man-made antibody that blocks the action of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEFG). It sometimes works because tumors (and normal tissues) release VEFG to facilitate small blood vessel in-growth into the tumor. These small blood vessels “nourish” the tumor (or normal tissue). The idea is to “starve” the growing tumor with once or twice monthly intravenous injections of bevacizumab.

The FDA has approved bevacizumab for the cancers listed in table 5 (Physicians Desk Reference [PDR] 2009; Health Agencies Update 2009). Since the median survival of colorectal cancer is eighteen months, bevacizumab therapy would cost about $144,000 (in such a patient) for four months prolongation of survival (Keim 2008). In the other cancers in table 4, there is no prolongation of survival. Moreover, bevacizumab can have terrible side effects, including gastrointestinal perforations, serious bleeding, severe hypertension, clot formation, and delayed wound healing (PDR 2009). By the criteria in table 4, bevacizumab is at best a marginal drug. It only slightly prolongs life, demonstrable only in colorectal cancer, has serious side effects, and is very expensive.

Bevacizumab is frequently cited as an example of the so-called newer smart drugs. But by interfering with small blood vessel growth throughout the body, it is a nonspecific toxin—and hence has serious side effects. It is not so different from the older non-specific chemotherapy.

The use of bevacizumab and similar drugs raises another issue. According to Gina Kolata, 60 to 80 percent of oncologists’ revenue comes from infusion of anti-cancer drugs in their offices. Many believe that such economic incentives are the reason for the substantial overuse of expensive chemotherapeutic drugs (Kolata 2009c). However, it is very difficult to document the extent of the overuse of cancer chemotherapy. Does it make sense to employ such expensive drugs that do not prolong life (see table 5) and have such serious side effects (Fojo and Grady 2009)? Moreover, although VEGF and bevacizumab are interesting science, there has been gross exaggeration of bevacizumab’s clinical utility in the press (see tables 4 and 5).

So why does the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approve bevacizumab (and other drugs) that do not improve longevity and/or the quality of life (see table 5)? The answer is that bevacizumab coupled with other drugs can cause partial remissions, “stabilization” of the cancer, or “lack of progression” for several months. However, this often does not lead to prolongation of life in most of the cancers in table 5. Moreover, many patients pay a heavy price in terms of side effects and cost. It is also worth noting that several European national regulatory authorities do not accept the utility of some of these smart drugs and do not license them for sale in their countries. In agreement with the Europeans, scientists at the U.S. National Cancer Institute are urging the oncology community, regulators, and the public to set limits on the use and pricing of such marginal drugs (Fojo and Grady 2009). They view the current situation as unsustainable.

Why Has the War on Cancer Failed?

As documented above, unlike the successes against heart disease and stroke, the war on cancer, after almost forty years, must be deemed a failure with a few notable exceptions (Watson 2009). Why? Is it because cancer is an incredibly tough problem, or are there other explanations? In table 6, I have listed six reasons for the failure, although there is little doubt that effective, safe therapy of the various cancers is a difficult problem.

Where Should We Go from Here?

In my view the principal problem is that we just do not understand the causes of most cancers. We don’t even know if the problem is genetic or epigenetic or something totally unknown. In theory, problems 2 through 6 in table 6 are all correctable with political and scientific will and more knowledge. Even though we know cancer of the lung is caused by cigarette smoking, we do not know the mechanism, and (except for surgery) we do not know how to meaningfully intervene (see table 2). The pharmaceutical industry cannot make real progress until we understand the mechanisms and molecular causes of cancer so that industrial, academic, and governmental scientists have rational targets for intervention. We will make no progress if there are five hundred or more genetic abnormalities in a single cancer cell. Where would one begin?

What Should We Do Now?

We can still do a lot even today (see table 7). Smoking and hormone replacement therapy are a cause of lung and breast cancer, respectively, and should be stopped or minimized. For hepatitis B (which causes over 50 percent of liver cancer) (Chang et al. 2009) and papilloma virus (which causes almost all cervical cancer and some anal and mouth cancers), we can vaccinate with vaccines that are essentially 100 percent effective. Helicobacter (the probable cause of some stomach cancer) can be easily eliminated with antibiotics. Prophylactic finasteride and tamoxifen (both generic) can decrease prostate and breast cancer, respectively (in high risk patients). We must also decrease alcohol intake (liver and esophageal cancer) and obesity. Obesity is associated with increased cancer risk but the mechanism, if causal, is obscure (Dobson 2009).

We can screen for cervical, colorectal, and breast cancer, although the value of breast cancer screening is not clear (due to overdiagnosis), as I discussed above (Singer 2009). How­ever, in my view, the benefit of breast cancer screening slightly outweighs the harm. For example, if DCIS treatment could be rationalized and provided only to those who need it, breast cancer screening would then be unarguably useful. All attempts to screen for lung cancer, even in smokers, have so far been futile (Infante et al. 2009).

If all these recommendations were followed, we could cut cancer deaths in half. Moreover, with better mechanistic understanding of cancer, we could make truly “smart” drugs, as has been done in recent years for atherosclerosis (heart attacks), hypertension (strokes), gastrointestinal diseases (ulcers), and AIDS—with truly remarkable results. Let us hope cancer is next.

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Michiko Spector for her help in preparation of this manuscript and Dr. June Spector for her critical reading of the manuscript.

Tables / Figures

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7

References

  • American Cancer Society. 2009. Cancer Facts and Figures 2009. p.1–38.
  • Andriole, G.L., R.L. Grubb III, S.S. Buys, et al. 2009. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. New England Journal of Medicine 360: 1310–1319.
  • Brawley, O.W. 2009. Prostate cancer screening: Is this a teachable moment? Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101: 1295–1297.
  • Chang, M-H, S-L You, and C-J Chen, et al. 2009. Decreased incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in hepatitis B vaccinees: A 20-year follow-up study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101: 1348–1355.
  • Dobson, R. 2009. Obesity is risk factor in 70,000 European cases of cancer a year. British Medical Journal 39: 316.
  • Downing, J.R. 2009. Cancer genomes—continuing progress. New England Journal of Medicine 361: 1111–1112.
  • Esserman, L., Y. Shieh, and I. Thompson. 2009. Rethinking screening for breast and prostate cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association 302: 1685–1692.
  • Evans, A., E. Cornford, and J. James. 2009. Overdiagnosis of breast cancer. British Medical Journal 339: b3256.
  • Fojo, T., and C. Grady. 2009. How much is life worth: Cetuximab, non-small cell lung cancer, and the $440 billion question. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101: 1044–1048.
  • Health Agencies Update. 2009. Journal of the American Medical Association 302: 838.
  • Infante, M., S. Cavuto, F.R. Lutman, et al. 2009. A randomized study of lung cancer screening with spiral computed tomography. American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicene 180: 445–453.
  • Keim, B. 2008. Wired.com, February 28.
  • Kolata, G. 2009a. In long drive to cure cancer, advances have been elusive. The New York Times, April 24.
  • ———. 2009b. Playing it safe in cancer research. The New York Times, June 28.
  • ———. 2009c. Lack of study volunteers is said to hobble fight against cancer. The New York Times, August 3.
  • Nathan, D.G. 2007. The Cancer Treatment Revolution. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
  • Olson, P., and D. Hanahan. 2009. Breaching the cancer fortress. Science 324: 1400–1401.
  • Physicians Desk Reference. 2009. Montvale, NJ: Thomson Reuters.
  • Psyrri, A., and V.T. DeVita. 2008. The impact of research on the cancer problem: Looking back, moving forward. In: Everyone’s Guide to Cancer Therapy (5th ed.), 349–359. Kansas City: Andrews McMeel Publishing.
  • Schröder, F.H., J. Hugosson, M.J. Roobol, et al. 2009. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. New England Journal of Medicine 360: 1320–1328.
  • Singer, N. 2009. In push for cancer screening, limited benefits. The New York Times, July 17.
  • Watson, J. 2009. To fight cancer, know the enemy. The New York Times, August 6.
  • Welch, H.G., and P.C. Albertson. 2009. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986–2005. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101: 1325–1329.

Reynold Spector

Reynold Spector, MD has served as a professor of medicine (and pharmacology and/or biochemistry) at Iowa, Stanford, and Harvard-MIT. He is currently clinical professor of medicine at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (New Jersey) and is the author of almost 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers and one textbook. His award-winning work has concerned itself principally with vitamin function, transport, and homeostasis in the central nervous system, the effect of food on the function of the kidneys, and the treatment of the poisoned patient. Dr. Spector also served as executive vice president in charge of drug development at Merck from 1987 to 1999, where he oversaw the introduction of fifteen new drugs and vaccines.

Maximum Image Quality, Minimum Radiation Dose: Siemens Announces The International CT Image Contest 2011

Comments Off
Posted 09 Mar 2011 — by James Street
Category Diagnostic, Imaging, Imaging

06 Mar 2011

Following on from the amazing success of the first computed tomography (CT) image contest in 2010, Siemens Healthcare has announced the “International CT Image Contest 2011″. Institutions and clinics around the globe will submit their best clinical images, taken with the lowest possible radiation dose on Siemens CTs, to a jury of internationally renowned professors. The contest starts on March 3rd, and the closing date for entries is September 18th, 2011. The winners will be announced at the next conference of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA 2011) in Chicago.

“In our first contest the jury received around 300 clinical images from more than 30 countries”, says Andre Hartung, Head of Business Segment Computed Tomography at Siemens Healthcare. “We are pretty sure that as many of our customers as possible will take part again, as at Siemens radiation protection and dose reduction have always been a top priority in CT, right from the moment when the company launched the first computed tomography (CT) system in 1974.”

Excellent image quality is essential for computed tomography (CT). At the same time, the patient’s exposure to radiation should be as low as possible. Siemens Healthcare aims to help its customers make maximum use of the hardware and software to reduce dose on CTs and to share their experience with other users of Siemens CTs and interested audience. Which is why a 2nd International CT Image Contest will be held from March 3rd 2011 to September 18th, 2011. Customers who use a CT of the Somatom Definition family, a Somatom Emotion, Somatom Sensation or Somatom Spirit will be able to present clinical images – which have been reprocessed with Syngo CT Worksplace, Syngo MMWP or Syngo.via – in seven categories to an international jury of acknowledged experts: cardiology, angiography, dual energy, pediatrics, trauma, neurology and areas of their clinical routine, which includes thorax, abdomen and pelvis.

The Siemens “International CT Image Contest 2010″ was a huge success, with participants from over 30 countries, who submitted a total of around 300 images. There was even a fan community on Facebook with more than 1600 members, who discussed the images submitted. In addition to which, all internet users could vote for their favorite picture in a public vote. The internet page devoted to the contest received 17,000 hits within 6 months. The aim was to make the public aware of the responsibility that manufacturers and radiologists have as regards diagnostic radiation. The innovative concept of the contest received the accolade of two well-known communication awards: the Comprix 2010 Gold Award and the iF Communication Design Award.

For terms and conditions of entry for the “International CT Image Contest 2011″ go here.

Source:
Siemens Healthcare Sector