A hypercoagulable or prothrombotic state of malignancy occurs due to the ability of tumor cells to activate the coagulation system. It has been estimated that hypercoagulation accounts for a significant percentage of mortality and morbidity in cancer patients. Prothrombotic factors in cancer include the ability of tumor cells to produce and secrete procoagulant/fibrinolytic substances and inflammatory cytokines, and the physical interaction between tumor cell and blood (monocytes, platelets, neutrophils) or vascular cells. Other mechanisms of thrombus promotion in malignancy include nonspecific factors such as the generation of acute phase reactants and necrosis (i.e., inflammation), abnormal protein metabolism (i.e., paraproteinemia), and hemodynamic compromise (i.e., stasis). In addition, anticancer therapy (i.e., surgery/chemotherapy/hormone therapy) may significantly increase the risk of thromboembolic events by similar mechanisms, e.g., procoagulant release, endothelial damage, or stimulation of tissue factor production by host cells. However, not all of the mechanisms for the production of a hypercoagulable state of cancer are entirely understood. In this review, we attempt to describe what is currently accepted about the pathophysiology of the hypercoagulable state of cancer. We also discuss whether or not to screen patients with idiopathic deep venous thrombosis for an underlying malignancy, and whether this would be beneficial to patients. It is hoped that a better understanding of these mechanisms will ultimately lead to the development of more targeted treatment to prevent thromboembolic complications in cancer patients. It is also hoped that antithrombotic strategies may also have a positive effect on the process of tumor growth and dissemination.

Cancer, a proliferative disease hallmarked by abnormal cell growth and spread, is largely dependent on tumor neoangiogenesis, with evidence of vascular endothelial dysfunction. Novel ways to assess vascular function in cancer include measuring levels of circulating endothelial cells (CEC). Rare in healthy individuals, increased CEC in peripheral blood reflects significant vascular damage and dysfunction. They have been documented in many human diseases, including different types of cancers. An additional circulating cell population are endothelial progenitor cells (EPC), which have the ability to form endothelial colonies in vitro and may contribute toward vasculogenesis. At present, there is great interest in evaluating the role of EPC as novel markers for tumor angiogenesis and drug therapy monitoring. Recently, exocytic procoagulant endothelial microparticles (EMP) have also been identified. CEC, EPC, and EMP research works may have important clinical implications but are often impeded by methodological issues and a lack of consensus on phenotypic identification of these cells and particles. This review aims to collate existing literature and provide an overview on the current position of CEC, EPC, and EMP in cell biology terms and to identify their significance to clinical medicine, with particular emphasis on relationship with cancer.

Mature circulating endothelial cells (CECs) are novel cellular markers of endothelial damage/dysfunction. The two main techniques of CEC enumeration are flow cytometry (FC) and immunomagnetic bead (IB) isolation. Both quantify CECs accurately, but a direct comparison of both methods has not been reported. We sought to assess the agreement between the two methods in two patient populations, and a group of healthy subjects, with emphasis given to methodological issues. We included 34 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), 60 patients with primary breast cancer (PBC) and 30 healthy controls (HC). We quantified CECs using the IB method [CD146 and FITCUlex europaeus lectin-1] and FC [CD45, CD34 and CD146]. Bland-Altman plots suggested reasonable agreement (<5% of events >2 standard deviations from the mean) between FC and the IB methods for CEC quantification in whole blood in the two disease groups (ACS and PBC), but not among the HCs. There were no statistically significant differences in CEC levels by the two methods amongst all three patient groups. There is reasonable agreement between the FC and the IB methods for mature CEC quantification in whole blood, especially amongst disease groups. The agreement between the two methods appears to weaken in healthy controls, and at lower and higher absolute CEC counts.

Abnormal levels of Ang-1, Ang-2 and their receptor, Tie-2, are present in breast and prostate cancer, and their interrelationships may be important in the pathophysiology of these conditions.

Background: Hepcidin is a 25-residue peptide hormone crucial to iron homeostasis. It is essential to measure the concentration of hepcidin in cells, tissues and body fluids to understand its mechanisms and roles in physiology and pathophysiology. With a mass of 2791 Da hepcidin is readily detectable by mass spectrometry and LC-ESI, MALDI and SELDI have been used to estimate systemic hepcidin concentrations by analysing serum or urine. However, peak heights in mass spectra may not always reflect concentrations in samples due to competition during binding steps and variations in ionisation efficiency. Thus the purpose of this study was to develop a robust assay for measuring hepcidin using a stable isotope labelled hepcidin spiking approach in conjunction with SELDI-TOF-MS.