Watch TNBC Special on the Discovery Channel

If you missed the Discovery Channel's special on TNBC that aired last week, you can watch a video here. This is Part 1; once you finish it, you will be directed to three other parts. Or, if you have the necessary software (iTunes will do), check out the podcast here. The 60-minute show will air again Saturday, October 30 and Saturday November 6, at 8 a.m.

Correcting Information About TNBC

I have seen two news stories in the past three days that misrepresent triple-negative breast cancer. One said TNBC does not respond to chemotherapy; the other said that most women die of TNBC within two years. Both are wrong.

Here's what research tells us:

1. The majority of women with triple-negative survive.

2. Risk of death significantly drops three years after diagnosis.

3. Chemotherapy is successful in reducing TNBC tumors and their risk of recurrence.

According to research at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto on 1,601 patients with breast cancer diagnosed between 1987 and 1997, published in 2007:

• The majority of the TNBC women­—57.8 percent—were alive after ten years

• The risk of recurrence significantly dropped after three years

• No recurrences occurred after eight years.

Eric Weiner, M.D., and Erica Mayers, M.D., M.P.H., of Dana Farber say this about chemotherapy and TNBC:

Triple-negative tumors do not respond to endocrine agents or trastuzumab and can only be treated with chemotherapy. Fortunately, increasing evidence suggests that the triple-negative subgroup derives substantial and preferential benefit from chemotherapy. Read more here.

NOS2 Connected to Worse Outcome for ER-

FROM A NEWS RELEASE FROM THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE: Breast cancers can be divided into different subtypes based on several criteria, including whether or not they express the protein to which the female hormone estrogen binds; that is, the estrogen receptor (ER). Patients with ER-negative breast tumors have a worse outlook than those with ER-positive breast tumors. However, even among ER-negative breast tumors, those characterized as basal-like are the most aggressive and difficult to treat. New therapeutic targets for this subtype of breast cancer are urgently needed. Now, a team of researchers, led by Stefan Ambs, at the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, report data that suggest that the protein NOS2 could be a good drug target in this context. The data, generated by analysis of human breast cancer samples and cell lines, lead the authors to conclude that high levels of NOS2 are a predictor of survival in patients with ER-negative breast tumors and to suggest that selective NOS2 inhibitors might be of benefit to these individuals. Read the entire article here.

Vegetables Reduce ER- Risk Among African-American Women

African-American women who eat their veggies have a reduced risk of estrogen-negative breast cancer, according to a new study from Boston University. This is good news because estrogen-negative—especially triple-negative‚ disproportionately affects African-American women, who also face higher fatality rates from the disease than white women. Researchers from the Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University School of Medicine studied 51,928 women for 12 years who participated in the Black Women’s Health Study. Among the women, all of whom were African-American, Hormone receptor cancer (ER-/PR-) cases were 43 percent lower for those women who ate at least two vegetables a day compared to those who ate fewer than four a week. (Really? Fewer than four veggies a week? OK, never mind. I used to eat like that.)

Researchers said cruciferous veggies—cabbage, kale, broccoli, cauliflower, mustard greens—were especially beneficial, as were carrots.

The study used the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance and Epidemiology End Results (SEER) data. It was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, published online October 11, 2010.

As I write this, I am drinking the fresh vegetable juice my dear hubby makes me every night—it contains carrots, kale, and cabbage, plus apples and lemon for taste. Such an easy way to get the goodies, especially cruciferous vegetables.

Three new treatments for metastatic TNBC studied

News from the 35^th annual ESMO (European Society of Medical Oncology) Congress in Milan:

• Adding the PARP inhibitor iniparib to chemotherapy added five months to overall survival of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. What’s even better is that complete or partial response or stable disease was achieved in 55.7 percent of the women, compared with chemotherapy alone. (Complete response: the disease has completely disappeared—no disease is evident on examination, scans or other tests; Partial response: some disease remains in the body, but it has decreased by 30 percent or more in size or number of lesions. Stable disease: the disease has remained unchanged in size and number of lesions.A less than 50 percent decrease or a slight increase in size is generally considered stable disease.) Two phase III studies on iniparib and triple-negative are ongoing. The study was presented by John Pippen, MD, of Texas Oncology, Dallas.

• Adding cetuximab to cisplatin chemotherapy doubled the response rate in women with metastatic triple-negative. Cetuximab targets the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The results come from a phase II randomized trial of 173 women and included researchers from Spain, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, the UK and Israel. Cetuximab is marketed by Merck under the brand name Erbitux. Merck tried last year to market the drug for lung cancer but failed to win approval.

• Eribulin, a microtubule inhibitor, improved outcomes of all metastatic breast cancer patients, but was most effective against hormone-negative. Estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor negative patients receiving eribulin rather than the physician’s standard choice of chemotherapy had a 34 percent decreased risk of death. The results were part of the EMBRACE (Eisai Metastatic Breast Cancer Study Assessing Physician's Choice versus Eribulin E7389) study, a phase III clinical trial.

Healthcare reform good news for cancer patients

Cure Today has an excellent article on healthcare reform and its effects on cancer patients. One paragraph sums it up.

Health care reform stands to affect almost all people with cancer, both those who lack insurance and those who already have it. Some will be affected profoundly, as they will be spared from financial ruin because of their treatment. The bill also addresses cancer screenings, out-of-pocket expenses, clinical trials, the Medicare “doughnut hole,” and even creates new taxes on cancer-unfriendly industries—such as tanning salons—to help pay for it. Opinions vary on reform, from those who think it goes too far, to those who think it didn’t go far enough. But patient advocates say the changes will generally be good news for anyone with cancer.

Patients with TNBC Fare Better If They Have the BRCA Mutation

Here’s a shocker—having TNBC plus the BRCA mutation is actually better than not having the mutation. That’s certainly contrary to contemporary wisdom. Here’s the story:

• Of 77 women with triple-negative breast cancer treated at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 15 had BRCA mutations—12 with BRCA1 and three with BRCA2.

• All were treated between 1987 and 2006.

• The five-year relapse-free rate for patients with the mutation was 86.2 percent. For patients without the mutation, it was 51.7 percent.

• The five-year overall survival rate for patients with the mutation was 73.3 percent. For patients without the mutation, it was 52.8 percent.

Many of the patients did not know they had the mutation because they had not done genetic testing.

Ana M. Gonzalez-Angulo, M.D., associate professor in MD Anderson's Departments of Breast Medical Oncology and Systems Biology presented the findings in advance of the 2010 Breast Cancer Symposium. A news release from M.D. Anderson provides additional perspective.

Insulin Growth Factor Receptor Tied To Better Odds for TNBC; May Lead to New Drugs

From a news release from the American Association for Cancer Research:

DENVER — Patients with triple-negative breast cancer, one of the hardest subtypes to treat, may have a unique biomarker that would enable them to receive more targeted therapy, according to data presented at the Fourth AACR International Conference on Molecular Diagnostics in Cancer Therapeutic Development.

Triple-negative breast cancers are breast cancers that have tested negative for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors and HER2. Because of this biology, these cancers do not respond to endocrine therapies or trastuzumab.

“In other subsets of breast cancer, you can use these drugs with some success. However, triple-negative breast cancers currently lack therapeutic targets and are managed with conventional chemotherapy,” said Agnieszka K. Witkiewicz, M.D., an associate professor of pathology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

Witkiewicz examined 97 patients with triple-negative breast cancer, of whom 73 were white and 24 were African-American. Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R) protein expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry and IGF-1R gene copy number was assessed by chromogenic in situ hybridization.

They found that IGF-1R was overexpressed in 25 percent of the cases. The IGF-1R protein overexpression correlated with gene amplification.

Moreover, low expression of the receptor was associated with greater risk of lymph node metastasis and high expression showed borderline association with lower tumor size. Among patients younger than 55 years, IGF-1R overexpression was associated with longer survival.

Since IGF-1R blockade has been a successful therapeutic approach in sarcomas, Witkiewicz suggested that there may be potential to target this receptor in this breast cancer subtype as well.

“For now, we know that it is there and we know it is a marker of better prognosis,” said Witkiewicz. “The next step is to learn if triple-negative breast cancer patients benefit from targeting IGF-1R.

Docs: Listen to yourselves

A doctor once tried to convince me to take tamoxifen, saying that, even though I was hormone-negative, it would keep hormone-positive from forming. That might be true, I said, so shouldn’t all women be on the drug? They probably should, he said. Aurghhhh. The clincher to his argument, though, came after I objected to the potential side effects of the drug, including uterine cancer. No big deal, he said. “You’re postmenopausal, so you’ll start bleeding and we can catch it, then take your uterus out, and you’ll go back on the drug.”

Oh, is that all? Whatever could have been my objection to such a simple process? Deal with cancer again, go through surgery, take forever to recover. And then get on with my life forever changed again. No big deal. I did it once, why not just plan to do it again sometime down the road?

This is wrong on so many levels that, four years after the fact, I am still sputtering.

First, of course, is that his medical advice was weak. Research shows that tamoxifen does little for hormone-negative and that it can, in fact, increase the risk of hormone-negative forming. In cases like mine, with a weakly positive reading for progesterone, it might have done a few ounces of good, but the risks far outweighed the benefits, in my mind.

But the science here is not the biggest issue. What continues to roil me royally is his callous lack of understanding of how cancer feels to the patient.

I was reminded of this incident recently when a friend was worried about a mammogram that showed small spots on the breast that had been affected by triple-negative breast cancer three years before. The doctor told her she expected good news from the biopsy. The doctor clarified this with: “Good news does include if it's cancer it is in the same breast and we can just take care of it with a mastectomy."

Again, no big deal, just major surgery and the trauma of another cancer diagnosis.

The spots were benign and she was physically fine, but the experience left her tired and depressed.

So docs, before you speak to your patients about the possibility of cancer recurring remember:

• Cancer is a life-altering experience for the patient and her loved ones. We don’t just deal with it and pick up our lives where we left off. We are forever terrified of its return. We fight to go back to being just us, not the Person with Cancer. And, once we have faced the disease that might be our killer, we can never look at cancer—any kind, any stage, any prognosis—with anything short of terror.

If a patient successfully fought off an armed intruder would you shrug off the possibility of another intrusion with “Oh, if it happens again, you’ll just knock him off the deck again and go on with your life.” Cancer to us is that armed intruder and, even if we think we can win, we are not up to another fight. And, by the way, we’re not sure we would win.

• Cancer treatment is traumatic and leaves lasting effects. We forever carry the physical and mental scars of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy: exhaustion, pain, dark memories of dark days. Surgery hurts, chemotherapy makes you sick in multiple ways, radiation leaves neuropathy that, to some women is as painful as surgery. My lumpectomy incision still hurts, my underarm is painful from lymph node removal, I remain worried about the effects of chemo on my heart, and I was tired for more than a year after all of this. And I had it fairly easy. Some women lose their fingernails, others dip into a deep depression, many cannot work through treatment and lose their jobs.

Oncologists, radiologists, surgeons, cancer nurses, and all healthcare professionals: Remember that these are real and very worried people in front of you and that they cling to everything you say. So watch your words. Don’ shrug off a cancer recurrence as though it were a trip to the mall. Always ask yourself, “How would I want to be treated if I were my patient?”

We’re people, not tumors. You treat the tumor, but you’re talking to the person. And, boy are we listening.

Two-time TNBC Survivor Honored

NEW YORK, Sept. 14 /PRNewswire/ -- Everlast, the premier fight sports and fitness brand in the world, today announced Kim Brylow as the winner of their global 'What Do You Fight For?' philanthropic social movement and contest. For her brave story of twice fighting and overcoming triple negative breast cancer, Kim will receive $5,000, which she is donating to the Triple Negative Breast Cancer Foundation, and a VIP trip for her and one guest to the Sergio Mora - Shane Mosley fight at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, CA. on September 18th.

The contest, which ran in conjunction with Everlast's 100 year anniversary, received more than four-hundred entrants who shared the motivations that drive their fight in life. Entries were voted on by the public through a platform on the Everlast page on Facebook. Brylow, a 43-year old mother of one, inspired thousands of voters through her fight and survival with two separate bouts of triple negative breast cancer.

"Kim's story of strength and determination is at the heart of our 'What Do You Fight For?' campaign," said Everlast President Adam Geisler. "If she is able to affect just one individual and empower them to be better, to do better, then we have achieved our goal."

On the eve of celebrating 1-year of being cancer free, Brylow has turned her fight to help those who face a similar challenge. In turn, she has committed to donate 100% of the $5,000 grand prize to the Triple Negative Breast Cancer Foundation, who is dedicated to supporting research so that effective detection, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of triple negative breast cancer can be pursued and achieved.

In honor of Brylow's story, former WBC Champion Sergio Mora is going to dedicate Saturday nights fight against Shane Mosley to her and also wear a pink ribbon patch on his trunks to honor her and those affected by breast cancer.

"As somebody who fights for a living, I understand the dedication and strength it takes to overcome a difficult opponent," explains Sergio Mora, former WBC Light Middleweight Champion. "Though no opponent I will ever face as a fighter compares to the fight against cancer, Kim's strength to overcome and fight to help others inspires me and dedicating Saturday's fight to her is my way of saying thanks."

Everlast's long standing partnership with Teddy Atlas and the Dr. Theodore A. Atlas Foundation was the inspiration behind 'What Do You Fight For?'. For each contest entry received, Everlast pledged $1 to support the foundations mission of improving the lives of those in need in our communities. With the support of countless athletes and celebrities like Sergio Mora and Mario Lopez, Randy Couture, Andre Berto, Gray Maynard, Miguel Cotto, and Teddy Atlas, who joined the fight to inspire others by sharing their personal motivations, Everlast was able to make a $10,000 donation to the Dr. Theodore A. Atlas Foundation.

For information or to pledge your support, please visit Everlast.com, Dr. Theodore A. Atlas Foundation or Triple Negative Breast Cancer Foundation.

Genetic Connection to TNBC is Complex, Researchers Say

We know that triple-negative breast cancer is connected to the mutation of the BRCA gene. What we don’t know is why do some women with the BRCA1 mutation get breast cancer while others don’t.

Research in the journal Nature Genetics, published online this week, helps explain the genetic links to TNBC.

Those women who have the BRCA mutation and get TNBC are likely to also likely to have other genetic variants, specifically rs8170 and rs48-8611, all on chromosome 19p13.

Researchers studied 1,193 women with BRCA1 mutations diagnosed with cancer before the age of 40 and compared their genetic composition to a control group of 1900 women without breast cancer. They ten replicated their results with a new sample of 2,974 women with breast cancer and the BRCA1 mutation and 3012 without breast cancer. The results were the same.

The research

Antoniou AC, Wang X, Fredericksen ZS et al. A locus on 19p13 modifies risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers and is associated with hormone receptor–negative breast cancer in the general population. Nature Genetics, September 19 2010 (published online)

Linda Tauber, 45, September 11, 2010

I never actually met Linda Tauber, but briefly corresponded with her husband John when her triple-negative breast cancer did not respond to chemotherapy. Her husband wrote a loving goodbye to her on Caring Bridge. And, from reading Linda’s own posts, she lived a full—although far too short—life. Her obituary in the St. Petersburg Times encourages friends to donate to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure 3-Day for the Cure in Linda's memory.

I wish I’d had a chance to meet Linda. She sounds like a beautiful woman in all ways. Let's hope that current research on TNBC ultimately yields successful treatment and prevention for this mean disease.

Research Hints At Source of TNBC

Triple-negative breast cancer may begin, not in stem cells as previously thought, but in cells called intermediaries or progenitors. Research by British scientists published today in the journal Cell Stem Cell may provide new insight into what causes this disease, which is not fueled by hormones. The study—laboratory research on mice—may lead to therapies targeted at faulty cell signals. Medical News Today did a thorough article on the research, quoting head researcher Matt Smalley, from the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research, London:

These results represent a major advance in our understanding of breast cancer. It means we can now look very closely at where the disease forms and which genes are involved in that process. This knowledge will greatly improve the chance of finding effective new targeted treatments for breast cancer patients in the future.

Source: "BRCA1 Basal-like Breast Cancers Originate from Luminal Epithelial Progenitors and Not from Basal Stem Cells" Gemma Molyneux, Felipe C. Geyer, Fiona-Ann Magnay, Afshan McCarthy, Howard Kendrick, Rachael Natrajan, Alan MacKay, Anita Grigoriadis, Andrew Tutt, Alan Ashworth, Jorge S. Reis-Filho, Matthew J. Smalley
Cell Stem Cell, Volume 7, Issue 3, 403-417, 3 September 2010. 10.1016/j.stem.2010.07.010

Clinical Trials

I added a section to the right on clinical trials for TNBC. Let me know if it works for you. It is powered by Google, and so far they seem to be doing a decent job of finding appropriate articles. If there are any glitches, please let me know.

Blueberries Reduce TNBC Tumor Growth and Spread

More good news about the berries we love: Researchers at the City of Hope say blueberries can control tumor growth, decrease metastasis, and kill the cells of triple-negative breast cancer-—cancers that are negative for estrogen and progesterone receptors and for the epidermal growth hormone Her2. In laboratory tests using blueberry extract on cell cultures, the equivalent of four ounces a day of blueberries (for a 130-pound woman) led to a reduction in weight of those tumors--they weighed 70 percent less than those without the steady blueberry intake. And these tasty disease fighters doubled the rate of cell death of TNBC. Check out the City of Hope’s story on the research. Researchers hope to broaden this research through clinical studies to see if the results hold up in the human body.

What a dandy way to self-medicate.

Alcohol Riskier for Hormone-Positive than for Hormone Negative

Alcohol intake may be a bigger risk factor for hormone-positive breast cancer than for hormone negative, according to new research to be published in September by the National Cancer Institute. And it is more correlated with lobular breast cancers than with the more common ductal tumors.

The relationship is strong, researchers say, with as little as one drink a day doubling the risk of lobular, hormone-positive cancer, but not increasing the risk of ductal or hormone-negative significantly.

The study evaluated nearly 3000 postmenopausal women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1993 and 1998. It is part of the Women’s Health Initiative. More than 80,000 women were initially enrolled in the research; of these, 2944 were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer by September 2005.

Check out Medpage Today for a more complete analysis.

I am still keeping myself at 2-3 drinks a week because I don't want to get any kind of cancer ever again.

A New Medical Adventure: No Stroke, No Cancer in the Brain, No Idea What Was Wrong

It’s about 170 miles from Walsenburg, Colorado to Denver. The trip takes less than an hour in a helicopter. I know, because I was airlifted from the Spanish Peaks Medical Center outside of Walsenburg to St. Anthony’s Hospital in downtown Denver on June 18, 2010. Docs thought I’d had a stroke. Ultimately, they decided I hadn’t, but they aren’t sure just what was wrong with me.

Two months later, I am still fine, although perplexed about what exactly happened.

As I flew over Pueblo and Colorado Springs that clear June night, my main worry was that the cancer had returned in my brain—which is a common site of recurrence of hormone-negative breast cancer. I was amazingly tranquil about the possibility—I was ready to accept the inevitable. That was probably the Valium they had given me, though. To skip ahead, the cancer had not returned.

Yea! But what the what was going on here?

The reason we headed to the emergency room in Walsenburg earlier that evening was that I was extremely lightheaded, weak on one side, had trouble breathing, and felt like I was about to pass out. This had been coming on for more than an hour while I puttered around our mountain cabin trying to hydrate myself, thinking it was dehydration and trying to snack, thinking it might be a blood sugar issue, although I had no reason for concern about either problem.

Once I was hooked up to the machines that became part of my body for the next 20 hours, another symptom popped up: My blood pressure, which normally is low (110/65) shot into the danger zone (145/109).

I also wasn’t terribly articulate—I kept telling the doc in Walsenburg that I felt “weird” and, when he asked for specifics, I repeated my weirdness. He asked my occupation and, when I told him I was a retired journalism professor and a health writer, he seemed to think I should speak clearer than that.

Weird, huh?

The doc asked me to say “Mississippi” and I remember working hard to articulate, as though I were drunk. He then asked me to say “Four forty four fours.” I told him I never have been able to pronounce “r”s well, and that my brother used to tease me when I said “poach.”

“But there are no ‘r’s in poach,” he said.

Later, I realized I should have clarified that my brother teased me because I had been trying to say “porch.”

So he added that illogic to my weirdness and my physical symptoms and told me I needed to go to a stroke center and the closest was in Denver.

“We’ll helicoper you,” he said.

“Yikes,” I said.

The copter came from Pueblo with two excellent paramedics who strapped me onto a board and loaded me right next to the pilot. My feet were touching the front of the glass bubble. To my left was nothing but glass and sky; the pilot was to my right. I could see his GPS system showing us where we were and where we were headed.

Or, rather, I could have seen it if I’d had my glasses. I was blurry-eyed, though, because I could take nothing on board with me—not my purse, shoes, watch. The only possession I maintained was my underwear—and it, of course, was old and slightly tattered. I had been at a cabin in the wilderness and felt no need for fancy pants. Too bad. I was a stereotype—in the hospital with crummy undies.

I had multiple tests. A CAT scan in Walsenburg showed my brain was OK, but the doc worried that the machine was not precise enough and, if I were at risk of a stroke, he wanted to prevent it. In Denver I had a second scan, this one including the arteries in my neck. Then I had a brain MRI and an echocardiogram. All were normal.

At 2 a.m. I finally saw a doctor who told me he did not think I’d had a stroke, but that they wanted to keep me for observation because they didn’t know what the problem was. I was transferred from ER a hospital room where I fell happily asleep for an hour and a half—until a nurse came to draw my blood.

Meanwhile, my husband had driven up to Denver, stopping in Pueblo to pick up my sister, who I knew would keep him awake during the trip. They arrived pie-eyed from lack of sleep. My husband had had no dinner. He finally ate later in the morning, 16 hours after his last meal. My sister brought me a change of clothes, but my husband had the same work clothes he wore when he drove me to the hospital.

The neurologist finally visited in early afternoon and we talked about my medical history. I mentioned the breast cancer and he ordered a second MRI with a more precise reading, to see if the cancer had spread. It hadn’t.

As I said, “yea!” But I still had no idea what my problem was. Nor, apparently, did the doctors. The only out-of-whack reading in all my tests was a slightly low potassium level.

By 4 p.m. my blood pressure was back down to normal and the docs saw no more need for me to be hospitalized. The concluding diagnosis: a complex migraine. That sounds to me like a fallback position—better than saying, “We have no idea.” I did some research on complex migraines and remain unconvinced. I had only a slight headache—not migraine-level.

So, I was released and we headed back to our mountain cabin, subdued, concerned, and confused.

For several weeks afterward, I was leery of my health. As my husband and I hiked, I was haunted by the possibility that my head or my heart or my something would go out and—whap—I would die face down in a cow pie. I felt fine, though, and we intensified our hikes and I continued to feel fine.

I now have decided that I am, in fact, fine.

What happened? I will continue to ask that questions and, eventually, I might find an answer. Some speculations: I had fractured my arm three weeks before and the fracture contained some trapped blood. Had it come loose and moved toward my brain, but broken up before it did damage? The docs, though, seemed unconcerned about any connection between my symptoms and my arm.

Or another: We had been in town that day and I’d had more than my usual caffeine. I had three diet Cokes with lunch. Plus, I think the decaf coffee I ordered actually had caffeine—two shots. And the temperature was in the mid-90s. Could I have had dehydration plus excess caffeine? Low potassium is one sign of dehydration.

Because my symptoms were classic ones for stroke, I think the docs looked for the obvious and did not evaluate the more esoteric issues. That appears to be another medical mystery for me to solve.

I am on the case.

The total bill for the little event is not in yet, but so far the costs are a bit over $22,000—and that does not include the helicopter. I have great insurance, which will cover most of it. I do wonder if I would have been given less treatment if I were less well insured. And if that might have led to actually finding what was wrong.

Still, I now know the cancer has not spread to my brain.

Yea.

Still, it really all was pretty weird.

Triple-negative progression to be studied

According to a joint news release, Life Technologies and the University of California at San Diego Moores Cancer Center will study the sequencing of triple-negative breast cancer in search of successful therapies to fight the disease:

CARLSBAD & LA JOLLA, Calif., Aug 05, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Life Technologies Corporation and the University of California at San Diego Moores Cancer Center today announced a partnership to use SOLiD(TM) 4 genomic analysis technology in a research program to study chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a cancer of the white blood cells. The CLL research is made possible by funding from the National Institutes of Health and will enable scientists to survey the whole transcriptomes of 96 CLL tumor samples for potential biomarkers.

CLL is one of four main types of leukemia, which primarily affects adults averaging 70 years old, and causes a slow increase in the number of white blood cells called B cells in the bone marrow. The cancerous cells spread from the marrow to the blood, and can also affect the lymph nodes and other organs, such as the liver and spleen. CLL eventually causes the bone marrow to fail and weakens the immune system.

A multidisciplinary research team from Life Technologies and UCSD Moores Cancer Center, including physician scientists highly accomplished in clinical research, genomics, and bioinformatics/biostatistics, will approach the research with the goal to identify potential prognostic biomarkers to better understand progression of CLL. Dr. Kelly Frazer, founding chief of the new Division of Genome Information Sciences for the Department of Pediatrics at the UCSD School of Medicine, Dr. Thomas Kipps, Professor of Medicine and Deputy Director of Research Operation, and Dr. Dennis Carson, director of the Moores Cancer Center, lead a team focused on studying the predisposition for diseases starting in childhood but spanning the whole age spectrum, using genomic information.

In the first phase of this research, the team will use the SOLiD 4 System to explore the expression profiles of the 96 tumor samples in an effort to gain greater insight into the biological pathways and molecular mechanisms that regulate cell-fate decision, development and disease progression. By defining biomarkers that could help stratify patients into risk groups (patients that are likely to remain progression-free and patients that are likely to progress in the near future) the research could result in the facilitation of future clinical trials designs to evaluate new forms of treatment.

"The course of CLL is variable and its pathogenesis is poorly understood. While some patients have long-term inactive/pain-free disease prior to progression, others progress rapidly requiring therapy within a relatively short time after diagnosis," said Dr. Kipps.

"We anticipate the accuracy of SOLiD 4 and its ability to analyze whole transcriptomes will help us identify longitudinal biomarkers, which can signal development of progressive disease after a variable inactive or benign period of time," said Dr. Frazer.

The program aims to not only understand cancer progression, but to identify new potential targets for possible clinical trials in support of future targeted therapies in cancer. In addition to CLL, the UCSD Moores Cancer Center research program is currently sequencing triple negative breast tumors, lung tumors and primary central nervous system lymphomas using SOLiD technology in an effort to better understand these cancers.

"Life Technologies is proud to be working in conjunction with UCSD Moores Cancer Center, and supporting their biomarker research of hematological malignancies like CLL," said John L. Miller, President, Genetic Systems Division at Life Technologies. "Information generated from this research may lead to future studies and contribute to the development of new drug products with the intent to one day soon be able to treat these cancers in a more targeted approach."

The SOLiD 4 Sequencing System is one of the most advanced next-generation genomic analysis sequencing systems on the market and is used globally by researchers to better understand the genetic nature of diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and neurological disorders. Its throughput, accuracy, speed and flexibility allow researchers to generate up to 100 gigabases of high-quality mappable sequence data needed for the advancement of molecular medicine.

HRT Not a Proven Risk Factor for Triple Negative Breast Cancer

Hormone replacement therapy has once again been demonstrated to be a risk factor for hormone-positive breast cancer but not for triple negative (estrogen negative, progestin negative, and Her2 negative.)

Some details from a study published in the August 10, 2010 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention as part of the California Teachers Study:

• Combined estrogen-progestin therapy was far more toxic than estrogen therapy alone. Those with combined therapy faced an 83 percent increase in risk of breast cancer while those with estrogen alone fact a 19 percent increase.

• Continuous use was more risky than intermittent.

• Neither combined estrogen-progestin or estrogen alone significantly affected the risk of triple negativeRead more on Medpage.

Source: Saxena T et al. "Menopausal hormone therapy and subsequent risk of specific invasive breast cancer subtypes in the California Teachers Study" Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0162.

Arsenic: New TNBC Treatment?

Arsenic trioxide combined with nanotechnology might provide the double whammy that can fight triple negative breast cancers, say researchers at Northwestern University. Arsenic has been effective against blood cancers but not against solid tumors because it flushes through the blood stream too quickly. An arsenic nanoparticle, however, was successful in targeting TNBC in mice, causing cancer cells to die. Read more at Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.