HonCode

Go Back   HER2 Support Group Forums > Articles of Interest
Register Gallery FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-03-2011, 02:11 PM   #1
Jackie07
Senior Member
 
Jackie07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: "Love never fails."
Posts: 5,808
Clinical trials for Circulating Tumor Cells

http://www.presstelegram.com/breakingnews/ci_16995931
__________________
Jackie07
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/06/doctors-letter-patient-newly-diagnosed-cancer.html
http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/MultiMedi...=114&trackID=2

NICU 4.4 LB
Erythema Nodosum 85
Life-long Central Neurocytoma 4x5x6.5 cm 23 hrs 62090 semi-coma 10 d PT OT ST 30 d
3 Infertility tmts 99 > 3 u. fibroids > Pills
CN 3 GKRS 52301
IDC 1.2 cm Her2 +++ ER 5% R. Lmptmy SLNB+1 71703 6 FEC 33 R Tamoxifen
Recc IIB 2.5 cm Bi-L Mast 61407 2/9 nds PET
6 TCH Cellulitis - Lymphedema - compression sleeve & glove
H w x 4 MUGA 51 D, J 49 M
Diastasis recti
Tamoxifen B. scan
Irrtbl bowel 1'09
Colonoscopy 313
BRCA1 V1247I
hptc hemangioma
Vertigo
GI - > yogurt
hysterectomy/oophorectomy 011410
Exemestane 25 mg tab 102912 ~ 101016 stopped due to r. hip/l.thigh pain after long walk
DEXA 1/13
1-2016 lesions in liver largest 9mm & 1.3 cm onco. says not cancer.
3-11 Appendectomy - visually O.K., a lot of puss. Final path result - not cancer.
Start Vitamin D3 and Calcium supplement (600mg x2)
10-10 Stopped Exemestane due to r. hip/l.thigh pain OKed by Onco 11-08-2016
7-23-2018 9 mm groundglass nodule within the right lower lobe with indolent behavior. Due to possible adenocarcinoma, Recommend annual surveilence.
7-10-2019 CT to check lung nodule.
1-10-2020 8mm stable nodule on R Lung, two 6mm new ones on L Lung, a possible lymph node involvement in inter fissule.
"I WANT TO BE AN OUTRAGEOUS OLD WOMAN WHO NEVER GETS CALLED AN OLD LADY. I WANT TO GET SHARP EDGED & EARTH COLORED, TILL I FADE AWAY FROM PURE JOY." Irene from Tampa

Advocacy is a passion .. not a pastime - Joe
Jackie07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 07:38 AM   #2
gdpawel
Senior Member
 
gdpawel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,080
Re: Clinical trials for Circulating Tumor Cells

It would be important to develop a method of in vivo labelling of tumor cells in the circulation and to monitor their trafficking and homing to other sites. If these cells are viable and therefore able to disseminate, I think the most robust test to this end is to document their ability to metastasize.

What I know of CTC technology is that is has great potential - for drug selection - ten or twenty years down the road, and they should continue to try and make strides. However, in drug selection, there is a problem with growing or manipulating tumor cells in any way. When looking for cell-death-related events, which mirror the effect of drugs on living tumors, cells are generally not grown or amplified in any way. The object is occurrence of programmed cell death in cells that come into contact with therapeutic agents.

How do you aggregate a sufficient number of cancer cells to make accurate determinations? Detectable tumor cells in the peripheral blood are present only in extremely small numbers. This precludes allowing a sufficient number of cells to incubate for a few days in the presence of chemotherapeutic agents. Analysis of a relatively small number of isolated cancer cells cannot yield the same quality information as subjecting living cells to chemotherapeutic agents, begging the question of whether or not it can accurately predict which drugs will work and which will not.

CTCs are free-floating cancer cells that can remain in isolation from a tumor for over twenty years. What is the relationship of such long-lasting cells to the tumor cells that need to be attacked through tested substances?

Then there is the question of heterogeneity. The original Immunicon research team really became known for their ability to track and isolate circulating tumor, endothelial, immune and other disease associated circulating cell populations and then using every tool available to further characterize them. The problem they know is the heterogeneity of all these cell populations is greater than any one thought thus defining and characterizing them is more difficult as is finding them - also finding vital ones - as many if not most are dead or dying - this is one of the reasons why the metastatic process is so inefficient.

Tumors in the body are genetically variable. What is the relationship between CTCs and primary tumors or their already established metastases? It has already been established that the gene expression profile of a metastatic lesion can be different compared to that of the primary. The status of the marker Her2/neu in CTCs sometimes differs from that of the original primary tumor, which would point to different prescriptions for Herceptin.

The number of cells discovered in the CTC technique has turned out to be a good prognosticator of how well empiric treatments are working, but less certain in the ability to use it for drug selection. The "problem" is in isolating and analyzing single cancer cells. The supposition is that common cancers can be detected and cured through analysis at a genetic level of a small number of cells or even a single wayward cell.

Genetic or IHC testing examines dead tissue that is preserved in paraffin or formalin. How is that going to be predictive to the behavior of living cells in spontaneously formed colonies or microspheres? Can it describe the complex behavior of living cancer cells in response to the injury they receive from different forms of chemotherapy? There is a big difference between living and dead tissue.

Some molecular tests do utilize living cells, but generally of individual cancer cells in suspension, sometimes derived from tumors and sometimes derived from CTCs. Don't forget, this was tried with the human clonogenic assay, which had been discredited long ago.

Again, this has been a very promising field of research, however, it's turning out to be much more complex as we learn more. More research is needed and no one really has figured out how it all fits. Although they're getting closer and closer.
gdpawel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 10:22 AM   #3
pennyvphoto
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16
Re: Clinical trials for Circulating Tumor Cells

what about lgg levels?
pennyvphoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 10:40 AM   #4
gdpawel
Senior Member
 
gdpawel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,080
Re: Clinical trials for Circulating Tumor Cells

Detectable tumor cells in peripheral blood are present only in extremely small numbers. This precludes allowing a sufficient number of cells to incubate for a few days in the presence of chemotherapeutic agents. Analysis of a relatively small number of isolated cancer cells cannot yield the same quality information as subjecting living cells to chemotherapeutic agents, begging the question of whether or not it can accurately predict which drugs will work and which will not.
gdpawel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 11:06 AM   #5
pennyvphoto
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16
Re: Clinical trials for Circulating Tumor Cells

What about after tx,Surely ctc/Lgg levels should be monitored to give some idea as to whether there are active tumour burdens and so that treatment can be restarted before the tumour starts to become a problem that cannot be eradicated?
pennyvphoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 01:57 PM   #6
gdpawel
Senior Member
 
gdpawel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,080
Re: Clinical trials for Circulating Tumor Cells

Two points here: prognostication and drug selection.

The number of cells discovered in the CTC technique has turned out to be a good prognosticator of how well treatments are working. This is where the technique works well and I am very interested in CTCs, because monitoring CTCs could be utilized for confirmation after the patients is administered either empiric or assay-directed most beneficial therapeutic agents. But CTCs really aren't useful with respect to drug selection.

CTCs are of great promise for molecular profiling, where the endpoints (point of termination) are gene expression, examining a single process (pathway) within the cell or a relatively small number of processes (pathways), to test for "theoretical" candidates for targeted therapy.

But not for functional profiling, where the endpoints are expression of cell death, both tumor cell death and tumor associated endothelial (capillary) cell death, and examines not only for the presence of the molecular profile but also for their functionality, for their interaction with other genes, proteins and processes occuring within the cell, and for their response to anti-cancer drugs.

The core understanding is the cell, composed of hundreds of complex molecules that regulate the pathways necessary for vital cellular functions. If a targeted drug could perturb any of these pathways, it is important to examine the effects of drug combinations within the context of the cell. Both genomics and proeomics can identify potential therapeutic targets, but these targets require the determination of cellular endpoints.

Cell culture work is in three dimensional (3D) tumor cell clusters. Three dimensional clusters of cells do not circulate. It is useful in analyzing circulating endothelial cells (the tumor associated blood vessel cells).

Another problem with CTCs is in isolating (even by size) and analyzing single cancer cells. The supposition is that common cancers can be detected and cured through analysis at a genetic level of a small number of cells or even a single wayward cell.

Again, CTCs are free-floating cancer cells that can remain in isolation from a tumor for over twenty years. What is the relationship of such long-lasting cells to the tumor cells that needed to be attacked through tested substances?

And in regards to some molecular tests utilizing living cells, generally of individual cancer cells in suspension, sometimes derived from tumors and sometimes derived from CTCs, this was tried with the old human clonogenic assay, which had been discredited long ago.

One testing approach to find CTCs actually can miscount non tumor epithelial cells as tumor cells. And also highly invasive cells may not be detected if you are looking for epithelial antigens because the CTC also goes through a phase called 'epithelial to mesenchymal transition' - you will miss locating that tumor cell if you are targeting the antigen.

The key is to look for the tumor cell and not something else that 'hangs with the tumor cell.'"
gdpawel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 11:27 AM   #7
gdpawel
Senior Member
 
gdpawel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,080
RT-PCR and DNA Microchip Arrays in Personalized Oncology

Is the microchip arrays just an alternative to RT-PCR or is it inferior to RT-PCR?

Basically, RT-PCR is more accurate, but it can't be done on such a massive scale. RT-PCR is practical for testing tens to hundreds of genes, while microchip arrays can be used for thousands to tens of thousands of genes.

The use of RT-PCR and DNA microchip arrays in personalized oncology is analogous to the introduction of the personal computer. Dazzling hardware in search of a killer application. This was wonderful technology and the geekiest of people bought them and played with them, but they really didn't start to do anything for a mass market until the introduction of the first killer application, which was a spreadsheet program called Visicalc.

So what research scientists in universities and cancer centers have been doing for the past ten years is to try and figure out a way to use this dazzling technology to look for patterns of gene expression which correlate with and predict for the activity of anticancer drugs. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on this effort.

Academics are besides themselves over the promise of genome sequencing. It seems so cool that it simply must be good for something. How about in the area of identifying drugs which will work in individual patients? All DNA or RNA-type tests are based on "population" research. They base their predictions on the fact that a higher percentage of people with similar genetic profiles or specific mutations may tend to respond better to certain drugs. This is not really "personalized" medicine, but a refinement of statistical data.

The particular sequence of DNA that an organism possess (genotype) does not determine what bodily or behaviorial form (phenotype) the organism will finally display. Among other things, environmental influences can cause the suppression of some gene functions and the activation of others. Our knowledge of genomic complexity tells us that genes and parts of genes interact with other genes, as do their protein products, and the whole system is constantly being affected by internal and external environmental factors.

The gene may not be central to the phenotype at all, or at least it shares the spotlight with other influences. Environmental tissue and cytoplasmic factors clearly dominate the phenotypic expression processes, which may in turn, be affected by a variety of unpredictable protein-interaction events. This view is not shared by all molecular biologists, who disagree about the precise roles of genes and other factors, but it signals many scientists discomfort with a strictly deterministic view of the role of genes in an organism's functioning.

It could be vastly more beneficial to measure the net effect of all processes (systems) instead of just individual molecular targets. The cell is a system, an integrated, interacting network of genes, proteins, and other cellular constituents that produce functions. One needs to analyze the systems' response to drug treatments, not just one or a few targets (pathways/mechanisms).

There are many pathways/mechanisms to the altered cellular (forest) function, hence all the different "trees" which correlate in different situations. Improvement can be made by measuring what happens at the end (the effects on the forest), rather than the status of the indivudal trees.

The "success" or "failure" is in the drug or drug combinations. Cell function analysis doesn't change cancer biology, it helps to "reveal" the cancer biology. It lowers the "probability" that certain drugs won't work, and raises the "probability" that others will work. The functional profiling platform is showing the "effaciousness" of the particular drug or drug combinations.
gdpawel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 01:39 PM   #8
gdpawel
Senior Member
 
gdpawel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,080
Not that unusual for healthy people to have an occasional cancer cell in their blood

In an Opinion column on CNN, Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, M.P.H., a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute of Health Policy & Clinical Practice and the author of Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health" (Beacon Press 2011), raises questions about this simple new blood test that is able to detect minute quantities of cancer cells that might be circulating in your bloodstream.

“The conventional wisdom is people either have a disease or they do not. But, in fact, there are a lot of people somewhere in between. . . I don't know whether this test will help some patients. It might, but it will take years to figure that out... Ironically, what this test might actually teach us is that it's not that unusual for healthy people to have an occasional cancer cell in their blood.”

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/1...x.html?npt=NP1

Dr. Elaine Schattner pointed out that Dr. Welch may have mised the point of this technology. It was developed primarily to help oncologists monitor tumors in patients who already are known to have disease. For example, doctors could check for new, resistance-conferring mutations in patients who are already on a cocktail of meds for lung cancer.

The blood test could obiate the need for repeatedly doing CT scans and biopsies to measure disease, the extent of disease and new mutations in people undergoing cancer treatment.

The June issue of Oncology News International (June 2010, V 19, No 6) quotes a Duke University study of the use of high-tech cancer imaging, with one representative finding being that the average Medicare lung cancer patient receives 11 radiographs, 6 CT scans, a PET scan, and MRI, two echocardiograms, and an ultrasound, all within two years of diagnosis. A study co-author (Dr. Kevan Schulman) asks: "Are all these imaging studies essential? Are they all of value? Is the information really meaningful? What is changing as a result of all this imaging?"

So the investment by Johnson and Johnson, which was what the news was about, makes it more likely this will actually happen in non-research clinics. The technology has the potential to make cancer patients' lives easier and less costly and for doctors to stop giving them meds to which they've acquired resistance.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...against-cancer

My comment is not really about early cancer diagnosis. It is about prognostication and drug selection with the CTC (circulating tumor cells) technique. The number of cells discovered in the CTC technique has turned out to be a good prognosticator of how well treatments are working. Monitoring CTCs could be utilized for confirmation after the patient is administered either empiric or assay-directed most beneficial therapeutic agents.

But CTCs really aren't useful with respect to drug selection. The problem is with isolating (even by size) and analying single cancer cells. The supposition is that common cancers can be detected and cured through analysis at a genetic level of a small number of cells or even a single wayward cell. CTCs are free-floating cancer cells that can remain in isolation from a tumor for over twenty years.

And what is the relationship of such long-lasting cells to the tumor cells that needed to be attacked through tested substances? And in regards to some molecular tests utilizing living cells, generally of individual cancer cells in suspension, sometimes derived from tumors and sometimes derived from CTCs, this was tried with the old human clonogenic assay, which had been discredited long ago.

One testing approach to find CTCs actually can miscount non-tumor epithelial cells as tumor cells. And also highly invasive cells may not be detected if you are looking for epithelial antigens because the CTC also goes through a phase called "epithelial to mesenchymal transition", where you will miss locating that tumor cell if you are targeting the antigen.

The key is to look for the tumor cell and not something else that "hangs with the tumor cell."
gdpawel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright HER2 Support Group 2007 - 2021
free webpage hit counter