NOS2 and COX-2 Co-Expression Promotes Cancer Progression: A Potential Target for Developing Agents to Prevent or Treat Highly Aggressive Breast Cancer

Nitric oxide (NO) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) exert profound biological impacts dictated by their chemistry. Understanding their spatial distribution is essential for deciphering their roles in diverse biological processes. This review establishes a framework for the chemical biology of NO and RNS, exploring their dynamic reactions within the context of cancer. Concentration-dependent signaling reveals distinctive processes in cancer, with three levels of NO influencing oncogenic properties. In this context, NO plays a crucial role in cancer cell proliferation, metastasis, chemotherapy resistance, and immune suppression. Increased NOS2 expression correlates with poor survival across different tumors, including breast cancer. Additionally, NOS2 can crosstalk with the proinflammatory enzyme cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) to promote cancer progression. NOS2 and COX-2 co-expression establishes a positive feed-forward loop, driving immunosuppression and metastasis in estrogen receptor-negative (ER-) breast cancer. Spatial evaluation of NOS2 and COX-2 reveals orthogonal expression, suggesting the unique roles of these niches in the tumor microenvironment (TME). NOS2 and COX2 niche formation requires IFN-γ and cytokine-releasing cells. These niches contribute to poor clinical outcomes, emphasizing their role in cancer progression. Strategies to target these markers include direct inhibition, involving pan-inhibitors and selective inhibitors, as well as indirect approaches targeting their induction or downstream effectors. Compounds from cruciferous vegetables are potential candidates for NOS2 and COX-2 inhibition offering therapeutic applications. Thus, understanding the chemical biology of NO and RNS, their spatial distribution, and their implications in cancer progression provides valuable insights for developing targeted therapies and preventive strategies.

Aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia ameliorated by Mediterranean diet and active lifestyle guided by continuous glucose monitoring: a case report and review of the literature

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are a cornerstone adjuvant treatment of many hormone receptor-positive breast cancers, and nearly half of women taking aromatase inhibitors suffer from AI-induced arthralgia (AIA), also known as AI-associated musculoskeletal syndrome (AIMSS), for which there are limited evidence-based treatments. Pharmacologic management and complementary methods including supplements, exercise, physical therapy, yoga, acupuncture, and massage have all shown mixed results. Comprehensive diet and lifestyle strategies are understudied in AIA/AIMSS despite their disease-modifying effects across many chronic conditions. Here we report a case of a woman with stage 2 estrogen and progesterone receptor-positive invasive ductal carcinoma on adjuvant anastrozole whose AI-induced arthralgia was durably controlled through a Mediterranean plant-forward diet and daily physical activity guided by continuous glucose monitoring. We posit that diet and a lifestyle inclusive of daily physical activity constitute a low-cost, low-risk, and potentially high-reward strategy for controlling common AI-induced musculoskeletal symptoms and that more investigation in this arena, including well-designed randomized trials, is warranted.

Sulindac Improves Stiffness and Quality of Life in Women Taking Aromatase Inhibitors for Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

To examine benefit of sulindac for relief of musculoskeletal symptoms (MSS) in patients stable on aromatase inhibitors (AIs).

METHODS

Sulindac was evaluated at 150 mg twice daily for effects on MSS at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 50 postmenopausal women stable on AI therapy for a median of 12.5 months for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. A separate, non-randomized group of 50 similar patients was observed for change in MSS over 12 months. MSS severity was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index and Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (BPI-SF). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General form (FACT-G) measured quality of life (QOL). Change in MSS and QOL across time was assessed in each group using linear mixed effects models.

RESULTS

Stiffness, not pain, was the main complaint at baseline. At 12 months, sulindac patients reported decreases (improvements) in mean (95% CI) Total WOMAC score [- 5.85 (- 9.73, - 1.96)] and WOMAC pain [- 5.40 (- 10.64, - 0 .18)], Stiffness [- 9.53 (- 14.98, - 4.08)] and Physical Function [- 5.61 (- 9.62, - 1.60)] subscales, but not BPI-SF worst pain. Among sulindac patients with higher baseline MSS severity, 35% experienced ≥ 50% improvement in Total WOMAC and Total FACT-G scores [6.18 (2.08, 10.27); P = 0.003]. For the observation group, MSS and QOL did not improve over 12 months, even among those with higher baseline MSS severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Sulindac may relieve MSS in AI patients, especially physical function and stiffness. Randomized controlled trials should further evaluate NSAIDs on AI-MSS and AI adherence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION

NCT01761877, December, 2012.

Systemic therapies for preventing or treating aromatase inhibitor-induced musculoskeletal symptoms in early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AI) improve survival compared to tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive stage I to III breast cancer. In approximately half of these women, AI are associated with aromatase inhibitor-induced musculoskeletal symptoms (AIMSS), often described as symmetrical pain and soreness in the joints, musculoskeletal pain and joint stiffness. AIMSS may have significant and prolonged impact on women's quality of life. AIMSS reduces adherence to AI therapy in up to a half of women, potentially compromising breast cancer outcomes. Differing systemic therapies have been investigated for the prevention and treatment of AIMSS, but the effectiveness of these therapies remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic therapies on the prevention or management of AIMSS in women with stage I to III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Clinicaltrials.gov registries to September 2020 and the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group (CBCG) Specialised Register to March 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials that compared systemic therapies to a comparator arm. Systemic therapy interventions included all pharmacological therapies, dietary supplements, and complementary and alternative medicines (CAM). All comparator arms were allowed including placebo or standard of care (or both) with analgesia alone. Published and non-peer-reviewed studies were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes assessed were pain, stiffness, grip strength, safety data, discontinuation of AI, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), breast cancer-specific quality of life (BCS-QoL), incidence of AIMSS, breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS). For continuous outcomes, we used vote-counting by reporting how many studies reported a clinically significant benefit within the confidence intervals (CI) of the mean difference (MD) between treatment arms, as determined by the minimal clinically importance difference (MCID) for that outcome scale. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies with 2034 randomised participants. Four studies assessed systemic therapies for the prevention of AIMSS and 13 studies investigated treatment of AIMSS. Due to the variation in systemic therapy studies, including pharmacological, and CAM, or unavailable data, meta-analysis was limited, and only two trials were combined for meta-analysis. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was either low or very low certainty. Prevention studies The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of systemic therapies on pain (from baseline to the end of the intervention; 2 studies, 183 women). The two studies, investigating vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids, showed a treatment effect with 95% CIs that did not include an MCID for pain. Systemic therapies may have little to no effect on grip strength (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.17; 1 study, 137 women) or on women continuing to take their AI (RR 0.16, 95% 0.01 to 2.99; 1 study, 147 women). The evidence suggests little to no effect on HRQoL and BCS-QoL from baseline to the end of intervention (the same single study; 44 women, both quality of life outcomes showed a treatment effect with 95% CIs that did include an MCID). The evidence is very uncertain for outcomes assessing incidence of AIMSS (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06; 2 studies, 240 women) and the safety of systemic therapies (4 studies, 344 women; very low-certainty evidence). One study had a US Food and Drug Administration alert issued for the intervention (cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor) during the study, but there were no serious adverse events in this or any study. There were no data on stiffness, BCSS or OS. Treatment studies The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of systemic therapies on pain from baseline to the end of intervention in the treatment of AIMSS (10 studies, 1099 women). Four studies showed an MCID in pain scores which fell within the 95% CI of the measured effect (vitamin D, bionic tiger bone, Yi Shen Jian Gu granules, calcitonin). Six studies showed a treatment effect with 95% CI that did not include an MCID (vitamin D, testosterone, omega-3 fatty acids, duloxetine, emu oil, cat's claw).  The evidence was very uncertain for the outcomes of change in stiffness (4 studies, 295 women), HRQoL (3 studies, 208 women) and BCS-QoL (2 studies, 147 women) from baseline to the end of intervention. The evidence suggests systemic therapies may have little to no effect on grip strength (1 study, 107 women). The evidence is very uncertain about the safety of systemic therapies (10 studies, 1250 women). There were no grade four/five adverse events reported in any of the studies. The study of duloxetine reported more all-grade adverse events in this treatment group than comparator group. There were no data on the incidence of AIMSS, the number of women continuing to take AI, BCCS or OS from the treatment studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

AIMSS are chronic and complex symptoms with a significant impact on women with early breast cancer taking AI. To date, evidence for safe and effective systemic therapies for prevention or treatment of AIMSS has been minimal. Although this review identified 17 studies with 2034 randomised participants, the review was challenging due to the heterogeneous systemic therapy interventions and study methodologies, and the unavailability of certain trial data. Meta-analysis was thus limited and findings of the review were inconclusive. Further research is recommended into systemic therapy for AIMSS, including high-quality adequately powered RCT, comprehensive descriptions of the intervention/placebo, and robust definitions of the condition and the outcomes being studied.