From "magic bullets" to specific cancer immunotherapy

The immune system is able to specifically target antigen-expressing cancer cells. The promise of immunotherapy was to eliminate cancer cells without harming normal tissue and, therefore, with no or very few side effects. Immunotherapy approaches have, for several decades, been tested against several tumours, most often against malignant melanoma. However, although detectable immune responses have regularly been induced, the clinical outcome has often been disappointing. The development of molecular methods and an improved understanding of tumour immunosurveillance led to novel immunotherapy approaches in the last few years. First randomised phase III trials proved that immunotherapy can prolong survival of patients with metastatic melanoma or prostate cancer. The development in the field is very rapid and various molecules (mainly monoclonal antibodies) that activate the immune system are currently being tested in clinical trials and will possibly change our treatment of cancer. The ultimate goal of any cancer therapy and also immunotherapy is to cure cancer. However, this depends on the elimination of the disease originating cancer stem cells. Unfortunately, cancer stem cells seem resistant to most available treatment options. Recent developments in immunotherapy may allow targeting these cancer stem cells specifically in the future. In this review, we summarise the current state of immunotherapy in clinical routine and the expected developments in the near future.

Selenium for preventing cancer

BACKGROUND This review is an update of the first Cochrane publication on selenium for preventing cancer (Dennert 2011).Selenium is a metalloid with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancers. OBJECTIVES Two research questions were addressed in this review: What is the evidence for:1. an aetiological relation between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans? and2. the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans? SEARCH METHODS We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1966 to February 2013 week 1), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 week 6), CancerLit (February 2004) and CCMed (February 2011). As MEDLINE now includes the journals indexed in CancerLit, no further searches were conducted in this database after 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA We included prospective observational studies (cohort studies including sub-cohort controlled studies and nested case-control studies) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with healthy adult participants (18 years of age and older). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS For observational studies, we conducted random effects meta-analyses when five or more studies were retrieved for a specific outcome. For RCTs, we performed random effects meta-analyses when two or more studies were available. The risk of bias in observational studies was assessed using forms adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort and case-control studies; the criteria specified in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used to evaluate the risk of bias in RCTs. MAIN RESULTS We included 55 prospective observational studies (including more than 1,100,000 participants) and eight RCTs (with a total of 44,743 participants). For the observational studies, we found lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.91, N = 8) and cancer mortality (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93, N = 6) associated with higher selenium exposure. Gender-specific subgroup analysis provided no clear evidence of different effects in men and women (P value 0.47), although cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.05, N = 6) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, N = 2). The most pronounced decreases in risk of site-specific cancers were seen for stomach, bladder and prostate cancers. However, these findings have limitations due to study design, quality and heterogeneity that complicate interpretation of the summary statistics. Some studies suggested that genetic factors may modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk-a hypothesis that deserves further investigation.In RCTs, we found no clear evidence that selenium supplementation reduced the risk of any cancer (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.17, two studies, N = 4765) or cancer-related mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32, two studies, N = 18,698), and this finding was confirmed when the analysis was restricted to studies with low risk of bias. The effect on prostate cancer was imprecise (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.14, four studies, N = 19,110), and when the analysis was limited to trials with low risk of bias, the interventions showed no effect (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14, three studies, N = 18,183). The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer was increased (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17, three studies, N = 1900). Results of two trials-the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial (NPCT) and the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial (SELECT)-also raised concerns about possible increased risk of type 2 diabetes, alopecia and dermatitis due to selenium supplements. An early hypothesis generated by NPCT that individuals with the lowest blood selenium levels at baseline could reduce their risk of cancer, particularly of prostate cancer, by increasing selenium intake has not been confirmed by subsequent trials. As the RCT participants were overwhelmingly male (94%), gender differences could not be systematically assessed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Although an inverse association between selenium exposure and the risk of some types of cancer was found in some observational studies, this cannot be taken as evidence of a causal relation, and these results should be interpreted with caution. These studies have many limitations, including issues with assessment of exposure to selenium and to its various chemical forms, heterogeneity, confounding and other biases. Conflicting results including inverse, null and direct associations have been reported for some cancer types.RCTs assessing the effects of selenium supplementation on cancer risk have yielded inconsistent results, although the most recent studies, characterised by a low risk of bias, found no beneficial effect on cancer risk, more specifically on risk of prostate cancer, as well as little evidence of any influence of baseline selenium status. Rather, some trials suggest harmful effects of selenium exposure. To date, no convincing evidence suggests that selenium supplements can prevent cancer in humans.

Synthesis and cellular characterization of novel isoxazolo- and thiazolohydrazinylidene-chroman-2,4-diones on cancer and non-cancer cell growth and death

Coumarins are extensively studied anticoagulants that exert additional effects such as anticancerogenic and even anti-inflammatory. In order to find new drugs with anticancer activities, we report here the synthesis and the structural analysis of new coumarin derivatives which combine the coumarin core and five member heterocycles in hydrazinylidene-chroman-2,4-diones. The derivatives were prepared by derivatization of the appropriate heterocyclic amines which were used as electrophiles to attack the coumarin ring. The structures were characterized by spectroscopic techniques including IR, NMR, 2D-NMR and MS. These derivatives were further characterized especially in terms of a potential cytotoxic and apoptogenic effect in several cancer cell lines including the breast and prostate cancer cell lines MCF-7, MDA-MB-231, PC-3, LNCaP, and the monocytic leukemia cell line U937. Cell viability was determined after 48 h and 72 h of treatment with the novel compounds by MTT assay and the 50% inhibitory concentrations (EC50 values) were determined. Out of the 8 novel compounds screened for reduced cell viability, 4c, 4d and 4e were found to be the most promising and effective ones having EC50 values that were several fold reduced when compared to the reference substance 4-hydroxycoumarin. However, the effects were cancer cell line dependent. The breast cancer MDA-MB-231 cells, the prostate cancer LNCaP cells, and U937 cells were most sensitive, MCF-7 cells were less sensitive, and PC-3 cells were more resistant. Reduced cell viability was accompanied by increased apoptosis as shown by PARP-1 cleavage and reduced activity of the survival protein kinase Akt. In summary, this study has identified three novel coumarin derivatives that in comparison to 4-hydroxycoumarin have a higher efficiency to reduce cancer cell viability and trigger apoptosis and therefore may represent interesting novel drug candidates

Prevalence and prognostic significance of TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion in lymph node positive prostate cancers.

BACKGROUND TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion is the most frequent genetic alteration in prostate cancer. However, information about its distribution in lymph node positive prostate cancers and the prognostic significance in these advanced tumors is unknown. METHODS Gene fusion status was determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization on a tissue-microarray constructed from 119 hormone-naïve nodal positive, surgically treated prostate cancers containing samples from the primary tumors and corresponding lymph node metastases. Data were correlated with various tumor features (Gleason score, stage, cancer volume, nodal tumor burden) and biochemical recurrence-free, disease-specific, and overall survival. RESULTS TMPRSS2-ERG fusion was detected in 43.5% of the primary tumors. Conversely, only 29.9% of the metastasizing components showed the fusion. Concordance in TMPRSS2-ERG status between primary tumors and metastases was 70.9% (Kappa 0.39); 20.9% and 8.1% of the patients showed the mutation solely in their primary tumors and metastases, respectively. TMPRSS2-ERG fusion was not correlated with specific histopathological tumor features but predicted favorable biochemical recurrence-free, disease-specific and overall survival independently when present in the primary tumor (P < 0.05 each). CONCLUSION TMPRSS2-ERG fusion is more frequent in primary prostate cancer than in corresponding metastases suggesting no selection of fusion-positive cells in the metastatic process. The gene fusion in primary tumors independently predicts favorable outcome.