Targeting treatment resistant cancer stem cells with FKBPL and its peptide therapeutics

FKBPL and its peptide derivatives have already demonstrated well-established inhibitory effects on cancer growth and CD44-dependent anti-angiogenic activity. Since cancer stem cells (CSCs) are CD44 positive, we wanted to explore if these therapeutics could specifically target CSCs in breast and ovarian cancer. In a tumoursphere assay, FKBPL stable overexpression or FKBPL-based peptide (AD-01, preclinical peptide or ALM201, clinical peptide candidate) treatment were highly effective at reducing the CSC population measured by inhibiting tumoursphere forming efficiency in breast and ovarian cancer cell lines and primary breast cancer samples from both solid breast tumours and pleural effusions. Flow cytometry, to assess the ESA+/CD44+/CD24- and ALDH+ cell subpopulations representative of CSCs, validated these results. The ability of AD-01 and ALM201 to inhibit the self-renewal capacity of CSCs was confirmed across three generations, eradicating CSC completely by the third generation (p<0.001). Furthermore, clonogenic assay demonstrated that FKBPL-based peptides mediated CSC differentiation, with a significant decrease in the number of CSCs or holoclones and an associated increase in differentiated cancer cells or meroclones/paraclones. In addition, AD-01 treatment in vitro and in vivo led to a significant reduction in the stem cell markers, Nanog, Sox2 and Oct4 protein and mRNA levels; whilst transfection of FKBPL-targeted siRNAs led to an increase in these markers and in tumoursphere forming potential, highlighting the endogenous role of FKBPL in stem cell signalling. The clinical relevance of this was confirmed using a publically available microarray data set (GSE7390), where, high FKBPL and low Nanog expression were independently associated with improved overall survival in breast cancer patients (log rank test p=0.03; hazard ratio=3.01). Additionally, when AD-01 was combined with other agents, we observed additive activity with the Notch inhibitor, DAPT and AD-01 was also able to abrogate a chemo- and radiotherapy induced enrichment in CSCs. Importantly, using gold standard in vivo limiting dilution assays we demonstrated a delay in tumour initiation and reoccurrence in AD-01 treated xenografts. In summary, FKBPL-based peptides appear to have dual anti-angiogenic and anti-CSC activity which will be advantageous as this agent enters clinical trial.

Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment (Review)

Background

It is estimated that up to 75% of cancer survivors may experience cognitive impairment as a result of cancer treatment and given the increasing size of the cancer survivor population, the number of affected people is set to rise considerably in coming years. There is a need, therefore, to identify effective, non-pharmacological interventions for maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment among people with a previous cancer diagnosis.
Objectives

To evaluate the cognitive effects, non-cognitive effects, duration and safety of non-pharmacological interventions among cancer patients targeted at maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment as a result of cancer or receipt of systemic cancer treatment (i.e. chemotherapy or hormonal therapies in isolation or combination with other treatments).
Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PUBMED, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO databases. We also searched registries of ongoing trials and grey literature including theses, dissertations and conference proceedings. Searches were conducted for articles published from 1980 to 29 September 2015.
Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions to improve cognitive impairment or to maintain cognitive functioning among survivors of adult-onset cancers who have completed systemic cancer therapy (in isolation or combination with other treatments) were eligible. Studies among individuals continuing to receive hormonal therapy were included. We excluded interventions targeted at cancer survivors with central nervous system (CNS) tumours or metastases, non-melanoma skin cancer or those who had received cranial radiation or, were from nursing or care home settings. Language restrictions were not applied.
Data collection and analysis

Author pairs independently screened, selected, extracted data and rated the risk of bias of studies. We were unable to conduct planned meta-analyses due to heterogeneity in the type of interventions and outcomes, with the exception of compensatory strategy training interventions for which we pooled data for mental and physical well-being outcomes. We report a narrative synthesis of intervention effectiveness for other outcomes.
Main results

Five RCTs describing six interventions (comprising a total of 235 participants) met the eligibility criteria for the review. Two trials of computer-assisted cognitive training interventions (n = 100), two of compensatory strategy training interventions (n = 95), one of meditation (n = 47) and one of physical activity intervention (n = 19) were identified. Each study focused on breast cancer survivors. All five studies were rated as having a high risk of bias. Data for our primary outcome of interest, cognitive function were not amenable to being pooled statistically. Cognitive training demonstrated beneficial effects on objectively assessed cognitive function (including processing speed, executive functions, cognitive flexibility, language, delayed- and immediate- memory), subjectively reported cognitive function and mental well-being. Compensatory strategy training demonstrated improvements on objectively assessed delayed-, immediate- and verbal-memory, self-reported cognitive function and spiritual quality of life (QoL). The meta-analyses of two RCTs (95 participants) did not show a beneficial effect from compensatory strategy training on physical well-being immediately (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to 0.83; I2= 67%) or two months post-intervention (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.47; I2 = 63%) or on mental well-being two months post-intervention (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.34; I2 = 67%). Lower mental well-being immediately post-intervention appeared to be observed in patients who received compensatory strategy training compared to wait-list controls (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.16; I2 = 0%). We assessed the assembled studies using GRADE for physical and mental health outcomes and this evidence was rated to be low quality and, therefore findings should be interpreted with caution. Evidence for physical activity and meditation interventions on cognitive outcomes is unclear.
Authors' conclusions

Overall, the, albeit low-quality evidence may be interpreted to suggest that non-pharmacological interventions may have the potential to reduce the risk of, or ameliorate, cognitive impairment following systemic cancer treatment. Larger, multi-site studies including an appropriate, active attentional control group, as well as consideration of functional outcomes (e.g. activities of daily living) are required in order to come to firmer conclusions about the benefits or otherwise of this intervention approach. There is also a need to conduct research into cognitive impairment among cancer patient groups other than women with breast cancer.