
You’d think that a tumour shrinking would be considered good news for anyone suffering from cancer. Maybe not. Scientists have found that a type of cancer treatment aimed at shrinking tumours can actually make them spread more efficiently and kill patients quicker.
Choking off a tumour’s blood supply with an approach called anti-angiogenesis is the mechanism of many cancer drugs, but a new study says it might have the frightening side effect of causing tumours to metastasize aggressively.
Anti-antiogenesis is the fundamental function behind many widely used cancer drugs. For the study, the researchers looked at imatanib (brand name Gleevec), a leukaemia drug and sunitinib, (brand name Sutent), a treatment for gastrointestinal tumours.
I spoke to Dr Raghu Kalluri, one of the study’s authors and chief of the matrix biology division at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. He said when focusing on tumour growth, the treatment results looked good. Tumours shrunk. But if you looked at the big picture, making tumours smaller didn’t mean the cancer was being controlled. It was actually spreading.
“Whatever manipulations we’re doing to tumours can inadvertently do something to increase the tumour numbers to become more metastatic, which is what kills patients at the end of the day,” Kalluri said.
The paper was published in the January 17 issue of Cancer Cell and was performed in mice genetically engineered to have breast cancer. When they induced anti-angiogenesis, they saw a 30 per cent decrease in the volume of each tumour over 25 days. But the number of tumours that had metastasized to the lungs tripled compared to untreated control mice.
Kalluri and his team performed a previous study in humans that found breast cancer patients with fewer cells called pericytes, which support the walls of veins, were less likely to survive their cancer. It turns out those are the cells damaged by some anti-angiogenesis drugs. By studying the mice they found that those pericytes are important because without them tumours become weak and leaky. And that causes cancer cells to launch survival mechanisms: the researchers found a fivefold increase in factors inside the pericyte-lacking cells that promote cell migration and growth.
In plainer terms, big tumours are less likely to spread, which is pretty disturbing. I’ve had several family members who died at the hands of cancer shortly after the “good news” that doctors had “shrunk the tumour!” Was that tumour shrinkage actually what killed them?
It’s possible, Kalluri says. But it’s important to note that the drugs used in the study, Gleevec and Sutent, are good at the job the FDA approved them for. It’s when doctors decide to use cancer drugs “off-label” (the FDA approves drugs for specific uses, but they can’t tell doctors how to use the drugs) indications that the treatment could be worse than the disease.
“If cancer drugs are used randomly against all kinds of cancer without thinking about all the biology of the tumour, it could lead to a poor prognosis,” Kalluri told me.
The study isn’t an indictment of all anti-angiogenic cancer drugs however. Avastin, the most popular cancer drug in the world, is also based on anti-angiogenesis but doesn’t target pericytes. Rather, it targets endothelial cells, which are on the outside of blood vessels, whereas pericytes line the inside. In November, the FDA revoked its approval for using Avastin to treat breast cancer against the pleas of patients and their families. But that decision was unrelated to Kalluri’s study — the FDA simply found that the drug wasn’t working all that well for breast cancer.
That said, Dr Kalluri wasn’t completely sure whether damaging endothelial cells might also cause metastasis. But it’s important, he said, for doctors to remember that tumours contains lots of types of cells, and they’re not all bad.
“Seventy to eighty per cent of cells in a breast tumours are non-cancer cells,” he said. “Are they all bad? Some of them there to protect us.”
Image: Shutterstock/BioMedical



















Zip
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 2:22 PMIt stands to reason. Metastatic cancer cells have a slightly different biology to tumours which have partially differentiated. Vasculature is needed by any tissue over a certain size in order to provide efficient delivery of nutrients for cellular growth. By using anti-angiogenesis drugs, you’re killing the main tumour body, but the cells that were the founder population of the tumour have already proven that they can quite happily live without their own vascular supply. What likely happens though, is that this founder population grows with the size of the tumour, such that once the main tumour body is killed, there are more of these metastatic cells able to be released into the surrounding lymphatics/vasculature/etc.
It doesn’t really come as a suprise, from a cell biology perspective. That’s why radiotherapy is very useful — it kills everything.
thetownfool
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 5:48 PMYep, radiotherapy kills everything alright, including adjacent bladder, bowel etc. Your explanation is spot on though. Similar to many treatments in other areas of medicine (think antibiotics), you select a population whose biology is resistant to that treatment, potentially resulting in a more dangerous entity.
Jaezass
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 2:49 PMLets not forget that 20 years ago they were just scraping the edge and now they still have trouble with the incredible diversity of cancers and their causes. Having said that, they also know more than ever and patients are living far longer and in many cases in remission, or cured.
Nate
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 2:54 PMIts heartbreaking that in 2012 the methods we use for fighting cancer are still somewhat prehistoric
Cancer Scientist
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 2:54 PMIt is far more likely (and very well known) that the treatment has killed the cells responsive to it, but there is a small niche of cells which are unresponsive to the treatment. By killing off the neighbouring cells, you are giving these niche cells which may have been slower at growing then the previous cells, a great new lease on life. These are nearly always cells we do not have treatments for, therefore upon remission, there is very little that can be done for the patient.
Cancer Scientist
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 2:57 PMOh and Gleevec and sunitinib are both tyrosine kinase inhibitors and can both be used for leukaemia and GIST (gastrointestinal stromal tumours), although I think sunitinib is used after someone has become resistant to Gleevec.
Sean
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 4:34 PMHoly hell, Giz commenters who know what they are talking about! (This commenter excepted of course)
LucasF
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 9:29 PMYeah holy hell! I think there is at least one Dr, and one Pharmacist in the house. Not to mention a “Cancer Scientist” – who also made a lot of sense.