Progress against rare and not-so-rare cancers

Synergistic Apoptotic Effect of Crocin and Paclitaxel or Crocin and Radiation on MCF-7 Cells, a Type of Breast Cancer Cell Line

Background. Chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery are routine treatments of breast cancer. However, these methods could only improve the living survival. Nowadays the combined therapy including herbals such as crocin is to study for improving breast cancer treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of crocin, paclitaxel, and radiation on MCF-7 cell. Methods. To evaluate the effect of crocin, paclitaxel, and radiation on survival rate of MCF-7 cells MTT assay was done. To investigate the apoptotic effect of experimental groups PI-flow cytometry was used and expression of apoptotic proteins (caspase-7, caspase-9, PARP, and p53) was studied by western blot. Results. This study revealed that the combined therapy of 0.01µmol/mL paclitaxel and 2.5 mg/mL crocin after 48 h could cause IC50 for MCF-7 cell line. This study showed that the combined therapy of 2 Gy gamma radiation with crocin could rise apoptosis in MCF-7 cell line from 21% (related to using 2 Gy gamma radiation alone) to 46.6%. Conclusion. Crocin and paclitaxel and crocin and gamma radiation had synergistic effect on MCF-7 cell line to get more significant apoptosis.

Verapamil metabolites: potential P-glycoprotein-mediated multidrug resistance reversal agents

Multidrug resistance in cancer chemotherapy frequently correlates with overexpression of the P-glycoprotein drug transporter. Attempts to reverse P-glycoprotein-mediated multidrug resistance with racemic verapamil or its less toxic (R)-enantiomer have been complicated by cardiotoxicity. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of the major verapamil metabolite, norverapamil, as well as the PR-22 and D-620 metabolites, on P-glycoprotein-mediated drug transport. We measured the basolateral-to-apical fluxes of the P-glycoprotein substrates digoxin and vinblastine in the presence and absence of verapamil, (R)-norverapamil, (S)-norverapamil, racemic norverapamil, PR-22, or D-620 across confluent monolayers of Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells that express P-glycoprotein on their apical membranes. Verapamil and norverapamil nonstereospecifically inhibited the renal tubular secretion of digoxin and vinblastine similarly in a dose-dependent manner. However, there was no decrease in the cellular accumulation of digoxin and vinblastine, suggesting that neither verapamil nor norverapamil prevent the substrates from entering the MDCK cells. Furthermore, the norverapamil metabolite P-22 also inhibited the secretion of these P-glycoprotein substrates. Our results suggest that the verapamil metabolites norverapamil and PR-22, which are less cardiotoxic than the parent compound, have comparable inhibitory abilities to verapamil (norverapamil greater than PR-22) and may be useful in reversing resistance to P-glycoprotein substrates.

Prospective, randomized, multicenter trial on the antiproliferative effect of lanreotide, interferon alfa, and their combination for therapy of metastatic neuroendocrine gastroenteropancreatic tumors--the International Lanreotide and Interferon Alfa Study Group

PURPOSE

Somatostatin analogs and interferon alfa control hormone-active/functional neuroendocrine gastroenteropancreatic tumors. In addition to hormonal control, variable degrees of antiproliferative effects for both agents have been reported. Until now, however, no prospective, randomized studies in therapy-naive patients have compared somatostatin analogs or interferon alfa alone with a combination of the two.

METHODS

Eighty therapy-naive patients with histologically verified neuroendocrine tumor disease (primary localization: foregut, n = 36; midgut, n = 30; hindgut, n = 3; unknown, n = 11; functional, n = 29; nonfunctional, n = 51) were randomly treated either with lanreotide (1 mg three times a day administered subcutaneously [SC]) or interferon alfa (5 x 106 U three times a week SC) or both. All patients had disease progression in the 3 months before study entry, verified with imaging procedures.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were treated with lanreotide, 27 patients were treated with interferon alfa, and 28 patients were treated with the combination. Partial tumor remission was seen in four patients (one patient who received lanreotide, one patient who received interferon alfa, and two patients who received the combination). During the 12 months of therapy, stable disease was observed in 19 patients (seven patients who received lanreotide, seven patients who received interferon alfa, and five patients who received the combination), whereas tumor progression occurred in 14 of 25 patients (lanreotide), 15 of 27 patients (interferon alfa), and 14 of 28 patients (combination). Side effects leading to an interruption of therapy were more frequent in the combination group than in the monotherapy arms.

CONCLUSION

This prospective, randomized, multicenter study shows for the first time that somatostatin analogs, interferon alfa, or the combination of the two had comparable antiproliferative effects in the treatment of metastatic neuroendocrine gastroenteropancreatic tumors. Response rates were lower compared with those published in previous, nonrandomized studies. The antiproliferative effect of the tested substances was similar for functional and nonfunctional neuroendocrine tumors.

Evaluation of the national cancer program and proposed reforms

A statement by some 68 prominent national experts in industrial medicine, carcinogenesis, epidemiology, and public health, released at a February 4, 1992 press conference in Washington, D.C., charged that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has confused the public by repeated claims of winning the war against cancer. In fact, age standardized incidence rates have increased sharply over recent decades, while ability to treat and cure most cancers has not materially improved. Furthermore, the NCI has minimized evidence for increasing cancer rates which are largely attributed to smoking and to diet. In so doing, NCI trivializes the importance of occupational carcinogens as non-smoking-attributable causes of lung and other cancers, and ignores the tenuous and inconsistent evidence for the causal role of diet per se and also the important role of carcinogenic dietary contaminants. Reflecting this near exclusionary blame-the-victim theory of cancer causation, with support from the American Cancer Society and industry, the NCI discounts the role of avoidable involuntary exposures to industrial carcinogens in air, water, food, the home, and the workplace. The NCI has also failed to provide scientific guidance to Congress and regulatory agencies on fundamental principles of carcinogenesis and epidemiology, and on the critical need to reduce avoidable exposures to environmental and occupational carcinogens. Contrary to NCI, analysis of their $2 billion budget reveals very limited allocations for research on primary cancer prevention, and for occupational cancer which receives only $19 million annually, 1% of NCI's total budget. Problems of professional mindsets in NCI leadership--fixation on diagnosis, treatment, and basic research (much of questionable relevance) and the neglect of cancer prevention--are exemplified by the composition of the Executive President's Cancer Panel and the National Cancer Advisory Board. Contrary to the explicit mandate of the National Cancer Act, the Board is virtually devoid of recognized authorities in occupational and environmental carcinogenesis. These problems are further compounded by institutionalized conflicts of interest reflected in the composition of past Cancer Panels, and of the current Board of Overseers of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NCI's prototype comprehensive cancer center, with their closely interlocking financial interests with the cancer drug and other industries. Comprehensive reforms of NCI policies and priorities are overdue. Implementation of such reforms is, however, unlikely in the absence of further support from industrial medicine professionals, which is here solicited, besides action by Congress and concerned citizen groups.

Evaluation of the national cancer program and proposed reforms

A statement by 68 prominent national experts in cancer prevention, carcinogenesis, epidemiology, and public health, released at a February 4, 1992, press conference in Washington, D.C., charged that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has misled and confused the public by repeated claims of winning the war against cancer. In fact, age-standardized incidence rates have escalated to epidemic proportions over recent decades, while the ability to treat and cure most cancers has not materially improved. Furthermore, the NCI has minimized evidence for increasing cancer rates, which are largely attributed to smoking, trivializing the importance of occupational carcinogens as non-smoking attributable causes of lung and other cancers, and to diet per se, in spite of tenuous and inconsistent evidence and ignoring the important role of carcinogenic dietary contaminants. Reflecting this near exclusionary blame-the-victim theory of cancer causation, with lockstep support from the American Cancer Society and industry, the NCI discounts the role of avoidable involuntary exposures to industrial carcinogens in air, water, food, the home, and the workplace. The NCI has also failed to provide any scientific guidance to Congress and regulatory agencies on fundament principles of carcinogenesis and epidemiology, and on the critical needs to reduce avoidable exposures to environmental and occupational carcinogens. Analysis of the +2 billion NCI budget, in spite of fiscal and semantic manipulation, reveals minimal allocations for research on primary cancer prevention, and for occupational cancer, which receives only +19 million annually, 1 percent of NCI's total budget. Problems of professional mindsets in the NCI leadership, fixation on diagnosis, treatment, and basic research, much of questionable relevance, and the neglect of cancer prevention, are exemplified by the composition of the National Cancer Advisory Board. Contrary to the explicit mandate of the National Cancer Act, the Board is devoid of members authoritative in occupational and environmental carcinogenesis. These problems are further compounded by institutionalized conflicts of interest reflected in the composition of past executive President's Cancer Panels, and of the current Board of Overseers of the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center, the NCI's prototype comprehensive cancer center, with their closely interlocking financial interests with the cancer drug and other industries. Drastic reforms of NCI policies and priorities are long overdue. Implementation of such reforms is, however, unlikely in the absence of further support from industrial medicine professionals, besides action by Congress and concerned citizen groups.