Pages

Showing posts with label inflammation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inflammation. Show all posts

Sunday, 3 February 2013

Feeling the heat – the link between inflammation and cancer

reposted from: Cancer Research UK
crabsallover highlightskey pointscomments / links.


Posted on  by 



Inflammation is crucial for cancer development

.. the infrastructure supporting a tumour – its ‘microenvironment’ – is a hot topic in cancer research at the moment. In Cancer Research UK previous post in this series, we looked at how otherwise healthy cells collude to form the blood vessels nourishing the tumour. Today, we’ll tell a story that began in 1863, when a German pathologist called Rudolf Virchow peered down his microscope.
Our body’s immune system forms a defensive shield that any fighting force would be proud of. One of its most powerful weapons is inflammation, a carefully orchestrated manoeuvre designed to eliminate enemies such as bacteria, injured cells and chemical irritants. Without it, we probably wouldn't survive beyond infancy.
But inflammation has a split personality – one that can wreak havoc for those unfortunate enough to experience it. And we now know that inflammation’s dark side is a powerful force in cancer development, where it aids and abets tumour growth and spread around the body.

Hell hath no fury


Let’s start with the way inflammation normally works. Our skin constitutes the first line of defence against microscopic invaders. But whenever this barrier is breached, the wrath of the immune system is unleashed – and things get ugly.
As bacteria and other microbes enter the body though an open wound, cells of the immune system (often referred to as ‘white blood cells’) rush to the site of injury, forming the welcoming committee from hell. This highly trained militia gets to work immediately, showering intruders with toxic chemicals, punching holes in their surface or swallowing them whole.
From the outside, this molecular thuggery manifests in swelling, heat, redness and pain – symptoms that anyone who’s ever scraped a knee will be familiar with.
It’s brutal, but it’s over quickly – it has to be, to minimise collateral damage to healthy tissue. As the enemy is eaten and beaten into surrender, signals urge victorious immune cells to return to base camp. Repair and recovery teams move in to direct the process of healing. Blood vessels sprout. A scab forms. Skin grows. And before long, calm returns and it’s back to business as usual.

The heat is on!


While we might not be able to live without it, too much inflammation can cause serious damage.  Chronic, persistent inflammation is behind a host of health problems such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis. And after finding immune cells in tumour samples, Rudolf Virchow was the first to ask whether inflammation might also contribute to cancer.
Unfortunately, he was right – many chronic inflammatory diseases (such as pancreatitis and Crohn’s disease) can increase a person’s cancer risk. And cancers caused by infectious agents (like stomach cancer caused by infection with the bacteria Helicobacter pylori, or liver cancer caused by infection with the hepatitis B or C virus) are characterised by one thing: chronic inflammation.
In the case against inflammation, the evidence is damning.
Rudolf Virchow was the first to link inflammation and cancer
Rudolf Virchow was the first to link inflammation and cancer

It’s getting hot in here


So how does inflammation lead to cancer? Here’s the current thinking.
When a tiny tumour starts growing from a few rogue cells, it can scavenge enough oxygen and nutrients from its surroundings. But as it grows bigger, demand starts to outstrip supply, and things start getting desperate.
As they struggle to survive, and as they accumulate more and more genetic faults, the cancer cells release chemical signals that lure immune cells called macrophages and granulocytes to infiltrate the tumour.
Once inside the tumour’s inner sanctum, these cells secrete molecules (called cytokines) that kick-start the growth of blood vessels (angiogenesis), which ferry in much-needed oxygen and nutrients.
Other cytokines encourage growth of a sort of cellular ‘pillow’ called the stroma against which the tumour rests. Meanwhile, other inflammatory cells spritz the tumour with molecules (free radicals) that further damage their DNA. Inflammation might also fire the starting gun for metastasis by producing chemicals that help tumour cells nibble through the molecules tethering them to their surroundings.
Taken together, it’s clear that fledgling tumours hijack inflammation and use it to accelerate the progression towards full-blown cancer. As one of our own experts once commented:
If genetic damage is the match that lights the fire, inflammation may provide the fuel that feeds the flames.

Stay cool, boy


So how do we turn down the heat? Scientists, including our own are working on how to dampen inflammation, making it much harder for cancers to flourish. They’re hacking into the molecular circuitry controlling inflammation, looking for ways to hotwire the system with next-generation drugs.
But what if we could manipulate inflammation to prevent cancer developing in the first place?Recent results suggest that the answer might be anything but next-generation. In fact, it’s been around since Hippocrates.
Better known to most of us by its brand name aspirin, acetylsalicyclic acid has been used for over a century to quell inflammation, and there’s now a body of evidence highlighting its potential in cancer prevention. While there’s still a way to go to work out who should take aspirin, how much, and for how long, it’s becoming clear that blocking inflammation will play a big role in cancer prevention and treatment in the future.
Rudolf Virchow will never know that his work sparked an entire field of cancer research but thanks to him, the fight against cancer is hotting up.
More on the evidence for use of aspirin to prevent cancer on this Crabsallover blog.


In this series



<< Getting to the root of tumour blood vessels

Monday, 24 December 2012

Reducing Inflammation with statins, aspirin, flu jab cuts cancer and heart disease - David Agus

reposted from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ6I3T1RAnQ&feature=relmfu
crabsallover highlightskey pointscomments / links.




Reducing Inflammation with statins, aspirin, flu jab cuts cancer and heart disease - David Agus

Fever - we don't know if a fever is good or bad. But fever is caused by inflammation.

3:50s - 5:00 Statins block synthesis of LDL cholesterol, lowered death from heart disease and stroke
JUPITER trial (I assume Agus is talking about this trial) - statins reduced incidence of cancer by 40% in people who don't have high cholesterol, also delayed heart attack and stroke by 12 years. Statins work by reducing inflammation which reduces deposition of cholesterol and also reduces cancer.

5:40 how can we measure inflammation? Types of inflammation - some is causal, other is not. How to optimise bad inflammation?

6:40s - 7:15s Taking a flu jab not only reduces the chances of a nasty flu for 5 days but also reduces the chance of getting cancer or heart disease in 10 years time by reducing inflammation

Aspirin: 8.20s - aspirin reduces inflammation which reduces heart disease and cancer

Friday, 4 February 2011

C-reactive protein concentration and the vascular benefits of statin therapy

reposted from: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)62174-5/abstract
crabsallover highlightskey pointscomments / links.


The Lancet, Volume 377, Issue 9764, Pages 469 - 476, 5 February 2011
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62174-5Cite or Link Using DOI
Published Online: 28 January 2011

C-reactive protein concentration and the vascular benefits of statin therapy: an analysis of 20 536 patients in the Heart Protection Study

Summary

Background

It has been suggested that inflammation status, as assessed by C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration, modifies the vascular protective effects of statin therapy. In particular, there have been claims that statins might be more beneficial in people with raised CRP concentrations, and might even be ineffective in people with low concentrations of both CRP and LDL cholesterol. This study aimed to test this hypothesis.

Methods

In 69 UK hospitals, 20 536 men and women aged 40—80 years at high risk of vascular events were randomly assigned to simvastatin 40 mg daily versus matching placebo for a mean of 5·0 years. Patients were categorised into six baseline CRP groups (<1·25, 1·25—1·99, 2·00—2·99, 3·00—4·99, 5·00—7·99, and ≥8·00 mg/L). The primary endpoint for subgroup analyses was major vascular events, defined as the composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN48489393.

Findings

Overall, allocation to simvastatin resulted in a significant 24% (95% CI 19—28) proportional reduction in the incidence of first major vascular event after randomisation (2033 [19·8%] allocated simvastatin vs 2585 [25·2%] allocated placebo). There was no evidence that the proportional reduction in this endpoint, or its components, varied with baseline CRP concentration (trend p=0·41). Even in participants with baseline CRP concentration less than 1·25 mg/L, major vascular events were significantly reduced by 29% (99% CI 12—43, p<0·0001; 239 [14·1%] vs 329 [19·4%]). No significant heterogeneity in the relative risk reduction was recorded between the four subgroups defined by the combination of low or high baseline concentrations of LDL cholesterol and CRP (p=0·72). In particular, there was clear evidence of benefit in those with both low LDL cholesterol and low CRP (27% reduction, 99% CI 11—40, p<0·0001; 295 [15·6%] vs 400 [20·9%]).

Interpretation

Evidence from this large-scale randomised trial does not lend support to the hypothesis that baseline CRP concentration modifies the vascular benefits of statin therapy materially.

Introduction

Inflammation is thought to contribute to the pathogenesis of coronary heart disease.1 C-reactive protein (CRP), an acute phase reactant synthesised by the liver, is the most extensively studied systemic marker of inflammation. Results from a meta-analysis2 of individual participant data from 54 prospective observational studies showed that CRP concentration was associated with the risk of coronary heart disease, ischaemic stroke, and vascular and non-vascular mortality. However, associations with ischaemic vascular diseases were explained largely by conventional risk factors (eg, CRP is positively correlated with smoking, diabetes, physical inactivity, blood pressure, body-mass index, non-HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides2), and so they might not reflect causality (which is supported by genetic-epidemiological studies3). Nonetheless, the ability of CRP to predict vascular risk means that it might still be useful as a biomarker to identify individuals who would particularly benefit from therapies to reduce risk.4
Some,56 but not all,7 subgroup analyses undertaken in previous randomised trials of statin therapy have suggested that the vascular benefits might be greater in the presence of inflammation than in its absence. It has even been suggested that people who have low concentrations of both LDL cholesterol and CRP might not benefit much from statin therapy.8 The JUPITER trial9randomly allocated 17 802 apparently healthy men and women with LDL cholesterol concentrations less than 130 mg/L (3·4 mmol/L) but CRP concentrations 2·0 mg/L or greater to receive either rosuvastatin 20 mg daily or matching placebo. Allocation to rosuvastatin reduced LDL cholesterol at 1 year by about 50% (ie, 1·2 mmol/L) and CRP by about 40% (1·3 mg/L) and, during median treatment duration of about 2 years, there was a significant 44% reduction in the primary composite endpoint of myocardial infarction, stroke, arterial revascularisation, admission to hospital for unstable angina, or death from cardiovascular causes.9 It has been suggested that this large relative risk reduction is greater than might have been expected given the achieved LDL cholesterol reduction,910 raising the possibility that the benefits of statins might be proportionally greater in people with high CRP concentrations. Secondary analyses of the JUPITER trial did not record any evidence that the effect of rosuvastatin on vascular events differed according to baseline CRP concentration,11 but these analyses included only three baseline groups for CRP (because of the relatively small number of events) and were not able to assess the effect in people with CRP concentration less than 2·0 mg/L (because they were not eligible for the trial).
The Heart Protection Study (HPS) is, to date, the largest randomised trial of statin therapy and was undertaken in high-risk patients in whom large numbers of major vascular events occurred during the study treatment period. This study tested the hypothesis that the effects of statin therapy differ according to baseline concentrations of CRP and LDL cholesterol.