"Bad Luck Mutations": DNA Mutations Are not the Whole Answer to Understanding Cancer Risk

Carcinogenesis: Failure of resolution of inflammation?

Inflammation in the tumor microenvironment is a hallmark of cancer and is recognized as a key characteristic of carcinogens. However, the failure of resolution of inflammation in cancer is only recently being understood. Products of arachidonic acid and related fatty acid metabolism called eicosanoids, including prostaglandins, leukotrienes, lipoxins, and epoxyeicosanoids, critically regulate inflammation, as well as its resolution. The resolution of inflammation is now appreciated to be an active biochemical process regulated by endogenous specialized pro-resolving lipid autacoid mediators which combat infections and stimulate tissue repair/regeneration. Environmental and chemical human carcinogens, including aflatoxins, asbestos, nitrosamines, alcohol, and tobacco, induce tumor-promoting inflammation and can disrupt the resolution of inflammation contributing to a devastating global cancer burden. While mechanisms of carcinogenesis have focused on genotoxic activity to induce mutations, nongenotoxic mechanisms such as inflammation and oxidative stress promote genotoxicity, proliferation, and mutations. Moreover, carcinogens initiate oxidative stress to synergize with inflammation and DNA damage to fuel a vicious feedback loop of cell death, tissue damage, and carcinogenesis. In contrast, stimulation of resolution of inflammation may prevent carcinogenesis by clearance of cellular debris via macrophage phagocytosis and inhibition of an eicosanoid/cytokine storm of pro-inflammatory mediators. Controlling the host inflammatory response and its resolution in carcinogen-induced cancers will be critical to reducing carcinogen-induced morbidity and mortality. Here we review the recent evidence that stimulation of resolution of inflammation, including pro-resolution lipid mediators and soluble epoxide hydrolase inhibitors, may be a new chemopreventive approach to prevent carcinogen-induced cancer that should be evaluated in humans.

Evidence for immortality and autonomy in animal cancer models is often not provided, which causes confusion on key issues of cancer biology

Modern research into carcinogenesis has undergone three phases. Surgeons and pathologists started the first phase roughly 250 years ago, establishing morphological traits of tumors for pathologic diagnosis, and setting immortality and autonomy as indispensable criteria for neoplasms. A century ago, medical doctors, biologists and chemists started to enhance "experimental cancer research" by establishing many animal models of chemical-induced carcinogenesis for studies of cellular mechanisms. In this second phase, the two-hit theory and stepwise carcinogenesis of "initiation-promotion" or "initiation-promotion-progression" were established, with an illustrious finding that outgrowths induced in animals depend on the inducers, and thus are not authentically neoplastic, until late stages. The last 40 years are the third incarnation, molecular biologists have gradually dominated the carcinogenesis research fraternity and have established numerous genetically-modified animal models of carcinogenesis. However, evidence has not been provided for immortality and autonomy of the lesions from most of these models. Probably, many lesions had already been collected from animals for analyses of molecular mechanisms of "cancer" before the lesions became autonomous. We herein review the monumental work of many predecessors to reinforce that evidence for immortality and autonomy is essential for confirming a neoplastic nature. We extrapolate that immortality and autonomy are established early during sporadic human carcinogenesis, unlike the late establishment in most animal models. It is imperative to resume many forerunners' work by determining the genetic bases for initiation, promotion and progression, the genetic bases for immortality and autonomy, and which animal models are, in fact, good for identifying such genetic bases.

Clair WH, St. Clair DK. Redox Paradox: A Novel Approach to Therapeutics-Resistant Cancer

SIGNIFICANCE

Cancer cells that are resistant to radiation and chemotherapy are a major problem limiting the success of cancer therapy. Aggressive cancer cells depend on elevated intracellular levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) to proliferate, self-renew, and metastasize. As a result, these aggressive cancers maintain high basal levels of ROS compared with normal cells. The prominence of the redox state in cancer cells led us to consider whether increasing the redox state to the condition of oxidative stress could be used as a successful adjuvant therapy for aggressive cancers. Recent Advances: Past attempts using antioxidant compounds to inhibit ROS levels in cancers as redox-based therapy have met with very limited success. However, recent clinical trials using pro-oxidant compounds reveal noteworthy results, which could have a significant impact on the development of strategies for redox-based therapies.

CRITICAL ISSUES

The major objective of this review is to discuss the role of the redox state in aggressive cancers and how to utilize the shift in redox state to improve cancer therapy. We also discuss the paradox of redox state parameters; that is, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as the driver molecule for cancer progression as well as a target for cancer treatment.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Based on the biological significance of the redox state, we postulate that this system could potentially be used to create a new avenue for targeted therapy, including the potential to incorporate personalized redox therapy for cancer treatment.