Chemotherapy can backfire and boost cancer growth

Thatgirl · August 2012

Cancer-busting chemotherapy can cause damage to healthy cells which triggers them to secrete a protein that sustains tumour growth and resistance to further treatment, a study said Sunday.

Researchers in the United States made the "completely unexpected" finding while seeking to explain why cancer cells are so resilient inside the human body when they are easy to kill in the lab.

They tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found "evidence of DNA damage" in healthy cells after treatment, the scientists wrote in Nature Medicine.

Chemotherapy works by inhibiting reproduction of fast-dividing cells such as those found in tumours.

The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.

"The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected," study co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle told AFP.

The protein was taken up by tumour cells neighbouring the damaged cells.

"WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy," said Nelson.

In cancer treatment, tumours often respond well initially, followed by rapid regrowth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.

Rates of tumour cell reproduction have been shown to accelerate between treatments.

"Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells... may directly contribute to enhanced tumour growth kinetics," wrote the team.

The researchers said they confirmed their findings with breast and ovarian cancer tumours.

The result paves the way for research into new, improved treatment, said Nelson.

"For example, an antibody to WNT16B, given with chemotherapy, may improve responses (kill more tumour cells)," he said in an email exchange.

"Alternatively, it may be possible to use smaller, less toxic doses of therapy."

Sandyflats · August 2012

Yikes, this is scary. Do you have a link for this?

Stormynyte · August 2012

Looks like it is from here...

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/features/chemotherapy-can-backfireboost-cancer-growth-study_740796.html

tho it is word for word on quite a few different sites, so I can't find the original source.

cp418 · August 2012

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/248661.php

Chemo Spurs Resistance In Healthy Cells

Thatgirl · August 2012

Here is the link I copied and pasted from last night. However, it has spread like wildfire all over the internet so it's on ton's of websites.

http://news.yahoo.com/chemotherapy-backfire-boost-cancer-growth-study-164516832.html

dlb823 · August 2012

I was just about to post this link when I saw this thread...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57487560-10391704/chemotherapy-resistance-in-cancer-treatment-tied-to-nearby-proteins/

And here's the original article: http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.2890.html

This sounds like a potentially really important break-through to me, especially since it sounds like something scientists did not know about or expect to find! Deanna

Dulcie · August 2012

This happened to me...tumour was growing quite slowly since last November (long story) then 3 weeks before op it had doubled in size..6 and a half CMS...i had 2 failed EC and was hospitalised both times! I am Metaplastic ...I wondered if the Ensure Protein drinks might have caused the sudden growth!

Dulcie xxxx

Lee7 · August 2012

It would be good to know which chemo agent they used, or if they think this occurs with most or all chemo agents.

The article on nature.com has to be purchased to read the whole thing. Frown Has anyone found it free?

Sandyflats · August 2012

Thank you, everyone. I'm starting chemo in September and would really like to understand this before I start that!

jenrio · August 2012

Chemo and chemo resistance is a complex subject. What most patients don't know is this. Depression alert, don't read on if you can't handle facts and prefers to blame messenger:

1. Chemo like ACT benefit patients with aggressive cancer. It tends to be ineffective or even backfire for patients with slow growing cancer. So the patients we hear about who demanded aggressive chemos against their onco's advice, not a great idea.

2. In MBC, all chemos eventually become ineffective (chemo resistance), not 100%. But close enough. Chemo resistance is a very big problem that need to be elucidated and tackled.

3. Early stagers with aggressive cancers survive longer with aggressive adjuvant chemo. HOWEVER, for the 20-30% who eventually recur (within about 10 years) to become metastatic cancer, they face a worse survival odds than those MBC patients who were diagnosed at get go hence are chemo naive. Chemo resistance or mechanisms as described in this new study may be the reason why.

Ummm. Sorry to be a downer. But on a positive note, the more we know, the more we are able to figure out how to avoid/turn back chemo resistance. So hang on.

sbaaronson · August 2012

We need them to figure out how to block the protein uptake!

ali68 · August 2012

I was told by my doctor that the cancer ( grade 3) worked well to chemo and it was fast dividing and aggressive. She was right I got a complete response.

Thatgirl · August 2012

I wonder if Tamoxifen is considered one of the chemo's in this study? How do we go about finding out which chemo was used in the study?

Thatgirl · August 2012

Didnt we already know this? Havent we read stories of people whose reoccurance was very aggressive after chemo? I think we attributed it to the chemo missing the cancer cells and didnt look at chemo being the reason.

Sandyflats · August 2012

I have been aware for a long time that cancer can become resistant to chemo. But this study seems different. It sounds as though they think that chemo is damaging the healthy cells and causing the healthy cells to secrete a protein that supports the growth of cancerous cells. That is why a drug might kill a tumour under lab conditions, but suddenly start to promote tumour growth after awhile in a person.

I have no medical background, but I feel that this description of the affect on healthy cells (transforming them into cancer allies) is different from the picture I had before of cancerous cells themselves just becoming resistant to a particular drug. Effectively, any part of your body could become a cancer factory.

Well, that's how I am reading it. Am I misinterpreting?

pip57 · August 2012

That is how I interpreted it too Sandyflats. Our bodies are so amazing and intricate. No wonder they can't cure this blasted disease yet.

Thatgirl · August 2012

Sandy,

I have the same understanding regarding the article as you. It seems like the toxins in chemo damage healthy cells. I'm no scientist but it it almost appears that before the existing cancer cells die they give the damage cells the DNA (?) they need to become chemo resistant cancer cells on steriods.

I have always believed that cancer will do whatever it needs to do to survive. It already tricks the body into thinking it's not an invador.

exbrnxgrl · August 2012

Thatgirl,

Tamoxifen is not chemo nor are the aromatase inhibitors like Arimidex, Aromasin and Femara. Caryn

Thatgirl · August 2012

Exbrnxgrl,

Really? My Dr. keeps referring to it as an oral chemo, I wonder why?

Moderators · August 2012

More info here:

Fred Huchinson Cancer Research Center news release

• The Mods

exbrnxgrl · August 2012

I think your doctor is generalizing as they are systemic tx (and some people will argue that that makes them chemo) but they are not. They work very differently than chemo. I have yet to run across someone who says they are on chemo when taking these. I am on Arimidex, an AI, and none of my (many) docs have ever called it chemo.

Caryn

PS: body builders who use steroids take Arimidex after a steroid cycle to deplete estrogen in their bodies. That's pretty much what it does. Tamox works a bit differently, but again not chemo.

exbrnxgrl · August 2012

I just used a huge number of words when I simply could have said that those drugs are considered hormonal therapy! Gosh, can't even blame chemo brain

Caryn

Thatgirl · August 2012

Thanks Caryn, lol.

camillegal · August 2012

OK let me get this straight. Chemo could mean doubling un chances of cancer cells being created? Chemo means the cance ercell that are recognized should be getting destroyed. /but the terrorists that they are are etting ready from cemo to invading different areas of the body. Now is there some plan in the making that would stop this insanity. How could we refuse chemo when at the time cancer cells are going crazy and u want to stop them. Or are we. Am I understanding this correctly? So if u have yrs of chemo are u'r chances great or the same as someone who as had 6 months of chemo?

Sandyflats · August 2012

Thank you, Moderators. That article does explain more, especially how this discovery can have a positive aspect.

Thatgirl · August 2012

Cami,

I'm unsure if anyone here is capable of answering those questions for you. I would print out the article and discuss it with your Onco. Because this was just discovered, I'm unsure if he/she will have all the answers either. It's basically saying that a possible side effect of chemotherapy is cancer.

The standard medical protocol includes chemo as part of certain treatment plans. Until more studies and reasearch is conducted, I don't see them removing this treatment anytime soon.

camillegal · August 2012

Thanks Thatgirl--I was just trying to place it in my mind what was said to see if I understood what was written. Well since all my chemo is done after a few years of it--there's not much I can do about anything anyway--so I'll just go on from there. But I'm sure for people just starting or even given a choice, it was just an interesting concept since I thought of that a while ago while I was getting chemo and everyone laughed at my "theory" Except my words were much different!!!

LtotheK · August 2012

I think the discussion around Tamoxifen is very difficult, and I am unclear on whether it is chemo as well. It is described as chemotherapy, absolutely. It is used preventatively, and in metastatic disease. It's function is more complex than simply killing off grade 3 cells, as evidenced by its behavior in the uterus vs. breast. But I don't think we can summarily say just because we take it by mouth it shouldn't be considered along with this study. There are many reports that Tamoxifen can up the chances of a contralateral triple-neg cancer. They just don't have all this figured out, not by a long shot.

At the end of the day, I really have come to the conclusion I am operating with the best information currently available. I could have said no to chemo, I could have said no to Tamoxifen. At this stage of the cancer game, I'm just not convinced that would have helped my odds. But we won't know for a while, so I've got a lot of life to live until they do!

exbrnxgrl · August 2012

I know there has been a discussion of whether the hormonals are chemo or not. I don't know if there is a strict definition of chemo, but I suspect that in everyday usage we have a semantic disagreement. For tx purposes, I am considered chemo naive as I have only been on Arimidex. The hormonals are systemic but are so very different than traditional chemo that neither I, my docs nor anyone I know who is on them would say they have had chemo. Caryn

camillegal · August 2012

Now that I'm more awake LOL--if I was told I needed Chemo today I would take it. All the answers aren't in I know

But I still believe for every action there is a reaction. Aktho it kills what it's supposed to and that's the target it does a nuber on u'r other body parts and u'r body in general. If u think that what is being put thru u'r system is strong enough to kill cells that not only are tough, but lethal. something else has to be effected. Usually we have all kinds of test when we about done or done with chemo and mine were badas opposed to when I had them from the beginning.I remember good kidneys,good liver alittle arthritis godd etc. -3 yrs later it was 1 not so good kidney, a liver tnhat looked like an alcoholics (I don't drink at all)

all my bones have arthritis etc. Don't get me wrong--I would still do chemo without hesitation but I know something else will suffer but it's fine. Tat's part of everything and I would do it again.and every pill I take has at least 10 side effects and aromasin has more and again I have a lot of the side effects, but I won't stop taking any of them unless I'm told to--so that's our life and so be it.

curveball · August 2012

@camilegal, I started chemotherapy last month, and when I first heard about this study, I got a bit nervous. But when I think about it, the statistics I used to decide for or against chemo show that for my type of cancer and borderline high-range Oncotype score, there is an absolute benefit of several percentage points to including chemo in my treatment. That is in spite of the potential negative effects of chemo discovered in this study. The negative outcomes were always included in the statistics, even before this study showed the "how" of one kind of chemo failure. I knew from the statistics that adding chemo to my treatment plan doesn't guarantee that my cancer will never come back, but it does increase the probability I will be alive and cancer-free 5, 10, or 15 years from now. What this study does, if I understand it correctly, is reveal one way in which chemo can fail. Now that this mechanism is understood, I hope further research can find a way to block that pathway to chemo failure, to adjust chemo dosing/scheduling so as not to induce the negative response in healthy cells, or to determine which cancer patients are more vulnerable so they can take that info into account in their decisions about treatment.

I guess to me the bottom line is, this study doesn't change the likely outcome of chemotherapy for me or any other patient, it just throws light on what happens if chemotherapy fails.

Chemotherapy can backfire and boost cancer growth

Comments

Categories