These are exciting times for cancer immunotherapy. After many years of disappointing results, the tide has finally changed and immunotherapy has become a clinically validated treatment for many cancers. Immunotherapeutic strategies include cancer vaccines, oncolytic viruses, adoptive transfer of ex vivo activated T and natural killer cells, and administration of antibodies or recombinant proteins that either costimulate cells or block the so-called immune checkpoint pathways. The recent success of several immunotherapeutic regimes, such as monoclonal antibody blocking of cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1), has boosted the development of this treatment modality, with the consequence that new therapeutic targets and schemes which combine various immunological agents are now being described at a breathtaking pace. In this review, we outline some of the main strategies in cancer immunotherapy (cancer vaccines, adoptive cellular immunotherapy, immune checkpoint blockade, and oncolytic viruses) and discuss the progress in the synergistic design of immune-targeting combination therapies.

Human tissue kallikreins (hKs), which are encoded by the largest contiguous cluster of protease genes in the human genome, are secreted serine proteases with diverse expression patterns and physiological roles. Although primarily known for their clinical applicability as cancer biomarkers, recent evidence implicates hKs in many cancer-related processes, including cell-growth regulation, angiogenesis, invasion and metastasis. They have been shown to promote or inhibit neoplastic progression, acting individually and/or in cascades with other hKs and proteases, and might represent attractive targets for therapeutic intervention.

The introduction of technologies such as mass spectrometry and protein and DNA arrays, combined with our understanding of the human genome, has enabled simultaneous examination of thousands of proteins and genes in single experiments, which has led to renewed interest in discovering novel biomarkers for cancer. The modern technologies are capable of performing parallel analyses as opposed to the serial analyses conducted with older methods, and they therefore provide opportunities to identify distinguishing patterns (signatures or portraits) for cancer diagnosis and classification as well as to predict response to therapies. Furthermore, these technologies provide the means by which new, single tumor markers could be discovered through use of reasonable hypotheses and novel analytical strategies. Despite the current optimism, a number of important limitations to the discovery of novel single tumor markers have been identified, including study design bias, and artefacts related to the collection and storage of samples. Despite the fact that new technologies and strategies often fail to identify well-established cancer biomarkers and show a bias toward the identification of high-abundance molecules, these technological advances have the capacity to revolutionize biomarker discovery. It is now necessary to focus on careful validation studies in order to identify the strategies and biomarkers that work and bring them to the clinic as early as possible.

No abstract

Cardiac glycosides are a diverse family of naturally derived compounds that bind to and inhibit Na+/K+-ATPase. Members of this family have been in clinical use for many years for the treatment of heart failure and atrial arrhythmia, and the mechanism of their positive inotropic effect is well characterized. Exciting recent findings have suggested additional signalling modes of action of Na+/K+-ATPase, implicating cardiac glycosides in the regulation of several important cellular processes and highlighting potential new therapeutic roles for these compounds in various diseases. Perhaps most notably, the increased susceptibility of cancer cells to these compounds supports their potential use as cancer therapies, and the first generation of glycoside-based anticancer drugs are currently in clinical trials.

No abstract

Background: Updated National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for the use of tumor markers in the clinic have been developed. Methods: Published reports relevant to use of tumor markers for 5 cancer sites—testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian—were critically reviewed. Results: For testicular cancer, α-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotropin, and lactate dehydrogenase are recommended for diagnosis/case finding, staging, prognosis determination, recurrence detection, and therapy monitoring. α-Fetoprotein is also recommended for differential diagnosis of nonseminomatous and seminomatous germ cell tumors. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is not recommended for prostate cancer screening, but may be used for detecting disease recurrence and monitoring therapy. Free PSA measurement data are useful for distinguishing malignant from benign prostatic disease when total PSA is <10 μg/L. In colorectal cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen is recommended (with some caveats) for prognosis determination, postoperative surveillance, and therapy monitoring in advanced disease. Fecal occult blood testing may be used for screening asymptomatic adults 50 years or older. For breast cancer, estrogen and progesterone receptors are mandatory for predicting response to hormone therapy, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 measurement is mandatory for predicting response to trastuzumab, and urokinase plasminogen activator/plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 may be used for determining prognosis in lymph node–negative patients. CA15-3/BR27–29 or carcinoembryonic antigen may be used for therapy monitoring in advanced disease. CA125 is recommended (with transvaginal ultrasound) for early detection of ovarian cancer in women at high risk for this disease. CA125 is also recommended for differential diagnosis of suspicious pelvic masses in postmenopausal women, as well as for detection of recurrence, monitoring of therapy, and determination of prognosis in women with ovarian cancer. Conclusions: Implementation of these recommendations should encourage optimal use of tumor markers.

Neoplastic cells recruit fibroblasts through various growth factors and cytokines. These “cancer-associated fibroblasts” (CAF) actively interact with neoplastic cells and form a myofibroblastic microenvironment that promotes cancer growth and survival and supports malignancy. Several products of their paracrine signaling repertoire have been recognized as tumor growth and metastasis regulators. However, tumor-promoting cell signaling is not the only reason that makes CAFs key components of the “tumor microenvironment,” as CAFs affect both the architecture and growth mechanics of the developing tumor. CAFs participate in the remodeling of peritumoral stroma, which is a prerequisite of neoplastic cell invasion, expansion, and metastasis. CAFs are not present peritumorally as individual cells but they act orchestrated to fully deploy a desmoplastic program, characterized by “syncytial” (or collective) configuration and altered cell adhesion properties. Such myofibroblastic cohorts are reminiscent of those encountered in wound-healing processes. The view of “cancer as a wound that does not heal” led to useful comparisons between wound healing and tumorigenesis and expanded our knowledge of the role of CAF cohorts in cancer. In this integrative model of cancer invasion and metastasis, we propose that the CAF-supported microenvironment has a dual tumor-promoting role. Not only does it provide essential signals for cancer cell dedifferentiation, proliferation, and survival but it also facilitates cancer cell local invasion and metastatic phenomena.