Induction of apoptosis and enhancement of chemosensitivity in human prostate cancer LNCaP cells using bispecific antisense oligonucleotide targeting Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL genes

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a specifically designed bispecific (Bcl-2/Bcl-xL) antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) induces apoptosis and enhances chemosensitivity in human prostate cancer LNCaP cells, as Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL are both anti-apoptotic genes associated with treatment resistance and tumour progression in many malignancies, including prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inhibition of Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL expression by the bispecific ASO was evaluated using real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and Western blotting, while growth inhibition and induction of apoptosis were analysed by a crystal violet assay, flow cytometry and Western blotting of apoptosis-relevant proteins. The effect of combined treatment with bispecific ASO and chemotherapy or small-interference RNA (siRNA) targeting the clusterin gene was also investigated. RESULTS: Bispecific ASO reduced Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL expression in LNCaP cells in a dose-dependent manner. There was cell growth inhibition, increases in the sub-G0-G1 fraction, and cleavage of caspase-3 and poly(ADP-Ribose) polymerase proteins in LNCaP cells after bispecific ASO treatment. Interestingly, Bcl-2/Bcl-xL bispecific ASO treatment also resulted in the down-regulation of Mcl-1 and up-regulation of Bax. The sensitivity of LNCaP cells to mitoxantrone, docetaxel or paclitaxel was significantly increased, reducing the 50% inhibitory concentration by 45%, 80% or 90%, respectively. Furthermore, the apoptotic induction by Bcl-2/Bcl-xL bispecific ASO was synergistically enhanced by siRNA-mediated inhibition of clusterin, a cytoprotective chaperone that interacts with and inhibits activated Bax. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the concept of the targeted suppression of Bcl-2 anti-apoptotic family members using multitarget inhibition strategies for prostate cancer, through the effective induction of apoptosis.

Treatment of newly diagnosed acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL): a comparison of French-Belgian-Swiss and PETHEMA results

All-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) plus anthracycline chemotherapy is the reference treatment of newly diagnosed acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), whereas the role of cytosine arabinoside (AraC) remains disputed. We performed a joint analysis of patients younger than 65 years included in Programa para el Estudio de la Terapéutica en Hemopatía Maligna (PETHEMA) LPA 99 trial, where patients received no AraC in addition to ATRA, high cumulative dose idarubicin, and mitoxantrone, and APL 2000 trial, where patients received AraC in addition to ATRA and lower cumulative dose daunorubicin. In patients with white blood cell (WBC) count less than 10 x 10(9)/L, complete remission (CR) rates were similar, but 3-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) was significantly lower in LPA 99 trial: 4.2% versus 14.3% (P = .03), although 3-year survival was similar in both trials. This suggested that AraC is not required in APL with WBC count less than 10 x 10(9)/L, at least in trials with high-dose anthracycline and maintenance treatment. In patients with WBC of 10 x 10(9)/L or more, however, the CR rate (95.1% vs 83.6% P = .018) and 3-year survival (91.5% vs 80.8%, P = .026) were significantly higher in APL 2000 trial, and there was a trend for lower 3-year CIR (9.9% vs 18.5%, P = .12), suggesting a beneficial role for AraC in those patients.

Multiple Sclerosis: Current Knowledge and Future Outlook

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system characterized by demyelination and axonal loss. The etiology of MS is unknown; however, environmental and genetic factors play a key role in the development of MS. Diagnostic criteria have been adapted to facilitate earlier diagnosis with increased sensitivity and specificity. Our understanding of the pathophysiology of MS has deepened considerably in recent years, resulting in different therapies to modify the disease course. Furthermore, several drugs have lately shown efficacy in phase III studies and their approval is expected in the near future. As treatment options expand, a future challenge will be to find the optimal treatment for the individual patient. Summary: This mini-review gives an overview of the current knowledge of MS with emphasis on the latest diagnostic criteria and both current and upcoming treatment options. Key Messages: Treatment of MS changes rapidly as the knowledge and therapeutic options in MS expand. Clinical Impact: Diagnosis of MS is based on McDonald criteria. MS therapy can be divided into relapse, disease-modifying and symptomatic treatment. Relapses are commonly treated with intravenous methylprednisolone. First-line therapy consists of either interferon-β, glatiramer acetate or teriflunomide. In general, agents used as escalation therapies (natalizumab, fingolimod and mitoxantrone) are more potent than the agents used for first-line therapy; however, these have potentially serious side effects and should be used with care.

A multidrug resistance transporter from human MCF-7 breast cancer cells

MCF-7/AdrVp is a multidrug-resistant human breast cancer subline that displays an ATP-dependent reduction in the intracellular accumulation of anthracycline anticancer drugs in the absence of overexpression of known multidrug resistance transporters such as P glycoprotein or the multidrug resistance protein. RNA fingerprinting led to the identification of a 2.4-kb mRNA that is overexpressed in MCF-7/AdrVp cells relative to parental MCF-7 cells. The mRNA encodes a 663-aa member of the ATP-binding cassette superfamily of transporters that we term breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP). Enforced expression of the full-length BCRP cDNA in MCF-7 breast cancer cells confers resistance to mitoxantrone, doxorubicin, and daunorubicin, reduces daunorubicin accumulation and retention, and causes an ATP-dependent enhancement of the efflux of rhodamine 123 in the cloned transfected cells. BCRP is a xenobiotic transporter that appears to play a major role in the multidrug resistance phenotype of MCF-7/AdrVp human breast cancer cells.

Which drug combination for hormone-refractory prostate cancer

Patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer have a progressive disease with a median survival of similar to 11 months, and currently no treatment offers a survival advantage. The standard drug treatment is a corticosteroid and chemotherapy with mitoxantrone. In a comparison of docetaxel every 3 weeks and prednisone, versus mitoxantrone and prednisone, with a follow-up of similar to 21 months, there were less deaths in the docetaxel group than in the mitoxantrone group (166 of 335 patients and 201 of 337 patients, respectively). Docetaxel also prolonged the duration of survival compared with mitoxantrone (18.9 and 16.5 months, respectively). When given with prednisone, docetaxel was also shown to reduce pain and serum prostate specific antigen levels and improve quality of life compared with mitoxantrone/prednisone. In another trial in hormone-resistant prostate cancer patients, which compared docetaxel and estramustine with mitoxantrone and prednisone during a median follow-up of 32 months, there were fewer deaths with docetaxel/estramustine than with mitoxantrone/prednisone, which were 217 of 338 and 235 of 336 patients, respectively. Median survival was also longer in the docetaxel and estramustine group than in the mitoxantrone/prednisone group (17.5 and 15.6 months, respectively). In conclusion, two combinations (docetaxel/prednisone and docetaxel/estramustine) have been shown to be superior to mitoxantrone/prednisone in hormone-refractory prostate cancer and both should be considered for use. With the present information, there is little to distinguish between these combinations.

Cabazitaxel for Hormone-Relapsed Metastatic Prostate Cancer Previously Treated With a Docetaxel-Containing Regimen: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures cabazitaxel (Jevtana(®), Sanofi, UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cabazitaxel for treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-relapsed prostate cancer (mHRPC) previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the company's submission to NICE. Clinical evidence for cabazitaxel was derived from a multinational randomised open-label phase III trial (TROPIC) of cabazitaxel plus prednisone or prednisolone compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisolone, which was assumed to represent best supportive care. The NICE final scope identified a further three comparators: abiraterone in combination with prednisone or prednisolone; enzalutamide; and radium-223 dichloride for the subgroup of people with bone metastasis only (no visceral metastasis). The company did not consider radium-223 dichloride to be a relevant comparator. Neither abiraterone nor enzalutamide has been directly compared in a trial with cabazitaxel. Instead, clinical evidence was synthesised within a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results from TROPIC showed that cabazitaxel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in both overall survival and progression-free survival compared with mitoxantrone. Results from a random-effects NMA, as conducted by the company and updated by the ERG, indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the three active treatments for both overall survival and progression-free survival. Utility data were not collected as part of the TROPIC trial, and were instead taken from the company's UK early access programme. Evidence on resource use came from the TROPIC trial, supplemented by both expert clinical opinion and a UK clinical audit. List prices were used for mitoxantrone, abiraterone and enzalutamide as directed by NICE, although commercial in-confidence patient-access schemes (PASs) are in place for abiraterone and enzalutamide. The confidential PAS was used for cabazitaxel. Sequential use of the advanced hormonal therapies (abiraterone and enzalutamide) does not usually occur in clinical practice in the UK. Hence, cabazitaxel could be used within two pathways of care: either when an advanced hormonal therapy was used pre-docetaxel, or when one was used post-docetaxel. The company believed that the former pathway was more likely to represent standard National Health Service (NHS) practice, and so their main comparison was between cabazitaxel and mitoxantrone, with effectiveness data from the TROPIC trial. Results of the company's updated cost-effectiveness analysis estimated a probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,982 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which the committee considered to be the most plausible value for this comparison. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be both cheaper and more effective than abiraterone. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be cheaper but less effective than enzalutamide, resulting in an ICER of £212,038 per QALY gained for enzalutamide compared with cabazitaxel. The ERG noted that radium-223 is a valid comparator (for the indicated sub-group), and that it may be used in either of the two care pathways. Hence, its exclusion leads to uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. In addition, the company assumed that there would be no drug wastage when cabazitaxel was used, with cost-effectiveness results being sensitive to this assumption: modelling drug wastage increased the ICER comparing cabazitaxel with mitoxantrone to over £55,000 per QALY gained. The ERG updated the company's NMA and used a random effects model to perform a fully incremental analysis between cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide and best supportive care using PASs for abiraterone and enzalutamide. Results showed that both cabazitaxel and abiraterone were extendedly dominated by the combination of best supportive care and enzalutamide. Preliminary guidance from the committee, which included wastage of cabazitaxel, did not recommend its use. In response, the company provided both a further discount to the confidential PAS for cabazitaxel and confirmation from NHS England that it is appropriate to supply and purchase cabazitaxel in pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags, which would remove the cost of drug wastage. As a result, the committee recommended use of cabazitaxel as a treatment option in people with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 whose disease had progressed during or after treatment with at least 225 mg/m(2) of docetaxel, as long as it was provided at the discount agreed in the PAS and purchased in either pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags or in vials at a reduced price to reflect the average per-patient drug wastage.