Article

Tumour stem cells and drug resistance.

Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, National Cancer Institute-Frederick, Frederick, Maryland 21702, USA.
Nature reviews. Cancer (Impact Factor: 37.91). 05/2005; 5(4):275-84. DOI: 10.1038/nrc1590
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The contribution of tumorigenic stem cells to haematopoietic cancers has been established for some time, and cells possessing stem-cell properties have been described in several solid tumours. Although chemotherapy kills most cells in a tumour, it is believed to leave tumour stem cells behind, which might be an important mechanism of resistance. For example, the ATP-binding cassette (ABC) drug transporters have been shown to protect cancer stem cells from chemotherapeutic agents. Gaining a better insight into the mechanisms of stem-cell resistance to chemotherapy might therefore lead to new therapeutic targets and better anticancer strategies.

9 Followers
 · 
142 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Multidrug resistance (MDR) to chemotherapeutic drugs is a formidable barrier to the success of cancer chemotherapy. Expressions of ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters contribute to clinical MDR phenotype. In this study, we found that afatinib, a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeting EGFR, HER-2 and HER-4, reversed the chemoresistance mediated by ABCG2 in vitro, but had no effect on that mediated by multidrug resistance protein ABCB1 and ABCC1. In addition, afatinib, in combination with topotecan, significantly inhibited the growth of ABCG2- overexpressing cell xenograft tumors in vivo. Mechanistic investigations exhibited that afatinib significantly inhibited ATPase activity of ABCG2 and downregulated expression level of ABCG2, which resulted in the suppression of efflux activity of ABCG2 in parallel to the increase of intracellular accumulation of ABCG2 substrate anticancer agents. Taken together, our findings may provide a new and useful combinational therapeutic strategy of afatinib with chemotherapeutical drug for the patients with ABCG2 overexpressing cancer cells.
    Oncotarget 11/2014; · 6.63 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since their description and identification in leukemias and solid tumors, cancer stem cells (CSC) have been the subject of intensive research in translational oncology. Indeed, recent advances have led to the identification of CSC markers, CSC targets, and the preclinical and clinical evaluation of the CSC-eradicating (curative) potential of various drugs. However, although diverse CSC markers and targets have been identified, several questions remain, such as the origin and evolution of CSC, mechanisms underlying resistance of CSC against various targeted drugs, and the biochemical basis and function of stroma cell-CSC interactions in the so-called ‘stem cell niche.’ Additional aspects that have to be taken into account when considering CSC elimination as primary treatment-goal are the genomic plasticity and extensive subclone formation of CSC. Notably, various cell fractions with different combinations of molecular aberrations and varying proliferative potential may display CSC function in a given neoplasm, and the related molecular complexity of the genome in CSC subsets is considered to contribute essentially to disease evolution and acquired drug resistance. In the current article, we discuss new developments in the field of CSC research and whether these new concepts can be exploited in clinical practice in the future.
    Journal of Hematology & Oncology 02/2015; 8. DOI:10.1186/s13045-015-0113-9 · 4.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT Objectives:Acute lymphoblasstic leukemia (ALL) is the most common childhood malignancy. Prominin‑1 is a cell‑surface trans‑membrane glycoprotein expressed on the stem cell surface and has potential role in diagnostic and prognostic work‑up of several stem cell cancers. Aim of this Work:To assess the prognostic value of Prominin‑1 expression in Egyptian children with ALL. Subjects and Methods:This study was conducted on 80 Egyptian children with newly diagnosed ALL and 30 healthy children of matched age and sex as a control group. Patient history, and clinical and laboratory examination results were taken, including complete blood count, serum LDH, bone marrow aspiration with cytochemistry, immunophenotyping, FluorescentIn Situ Hybridization technique for detection of t(9;22) and Flow cytometery for estimation of Prominin‑1 expression on blast cells. Results:No statistically significant differences were observed between Prominin‑1 positive and negative patients regarding age, sex and clinical presentation at diagnosis. No statistically significant differences between Prominin‑1 positive and negative patients were observed regarding white blood cells and platelet counts, peripheral blood and bone marrow blast cells percentage while there were significantly higher hemoglobin and LDH levels in Prominin‑1 positive patients. There were no significant differences between Prominin‑1 positive and negative patients regarding immunophenotyping and t(9;22). There were statistically significant differences in disease outcome between Prominin‑1 positive and negative expression with higher rate of relapse and death and lower rate of complete remission in patients with Prominin‑1 positive expression (14 cases with Prominin‑1 positive relapsed versus 2 cases with Prominin‑1 negative, 12 cases with Prominin‑1 positive died versus 2 cases with Prominin‑1 negative and complete remission occurred in 20 cases with Prominin‑1 positive versus 30 cases with Prominin‑1 negative) (P = 0.017). There was statistically significant difference in disease‑free survival (P = 0.0072) and overall survival (P = 0.0424) between ALL patients with Prominin‑1 positive and Prominin‑1 negative expression. Conclusion:Prominin‑1 is a helpful prognostic marker in patients with ALL; therefore, it should be routinely assessed at diagnosis in ALL patients for better prognostic assessment and should be taken in consideration in designing future therapeutic strategies based on patient‑specific risk factors.

Preview

Download
8 Downloads
Available from