mesothelioma cancer

February 19, 2008

Causes and Prevention of Technical Artifacts When Studying Simian Virus 40 (SV40) in Human Mesotheliomas

Filed under:Part Three : Epidemiology — admin @ 8:40 am

Introduction to the SV40 Genome, SV40 Early Proteins Large Tumor (T)-Antigen
and Small Tumor (t)-Antigen

Simian virus (SV40) was discovered as one of the viruses capable of infecting
Macacus rhesus as well as Macacus cynomolgus monkey kidney cells (1). It also
had the possibility to infect and to transform human cells grown in vitro.
Simian virus 40 is a DNA tumor virus that not only induces tumors in rodents but
also is capable of immortaliz¬ing human mesothelial cells in vitro. Except for a
report demonstrat¬ing SV40 in one metastatic melanoma, SV40 was not considered
to be oncogenic in humans (2). Simian virus 40 DNA has been found in several
human tumors such as choroid plexus tumors, osteosarcomas, malignant
mesotheliomas, and lymphoproliferative diseases such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas
(3–5). The role of the SV40 virus in human tumors has been extensively discussed
in several excellent reviews (4,6,7).

Simian virus 40 is a double-stranded DNA virus whose genome encodes two tumor
(T)-antigens known as large T-antigen and small t-antigen. Replication of the
double-stranded DNA genome occurs in the nucleus of the host cell. Transcription
of the genome is carried out by host cell RNA polymerase II, and large T-antigen
plays a major role in regulating transcription of the viral genome by binding to
the origin region of the viral genome. Protein–protein interactions between
T-antigen and DNA polymerase alpha directly stimulate replication of the viral
genome. Small t-antigen is not essential for virus replication but allows viral
DNA to accumulate in the nucleus. Both proteins contain nuclear localization
signals, which results in their accumula¬tion in the nucleus, where they migrate
after being synthesized in the cytoplasm. After infection, early messenger RNAs
(mRNAs) are expressed from the early promoter, which contains a strong
transcrip-

tion enhancer element consisting of 72 base pair (bp) sequence repeats. The
early proteins synthesized are the two T-antigens, large T- and small t-antigen.
As the concentration of large T-antigen builds up in the nucleus, transcription
of the early genes is repressed by direct binding of the protein to the origin
region of the virus genome. After DNArepli-cation has occurred, transcription of
late genes occurs from the late pro¬moter and results in the production of the
structural proteins VP1, VP2, and VP3.
(more…)

end

From Monkey to Man: The Epidemiologic Evidence of an Association Between Simian Virus 40 and Malignancy

Filed under:Part Three : Epidemiology — admin @ 8:30 am

Early in the 20th century endemic poliomyelitis gradually evolved into the
most devastating epidemic in the Western world. Striking improve¬ments in public
health, ironically, were accompanied by more frequent outbreaks of crippling
poliomyelitis. By 1950, each new day brought more polio victims, an increasing
sense of crisis, and a greater need for an effective therapy. In the United
States mass vaccination for paralytic polio began in 1955 with licensing of the
Salk inactivated vaccine. It is estimated that by 1960 90% of all persons under
20 years of age had received at least one inoculation; a total of 98 million
Americans had been immunized (1). A sharp decline in disease incidence occurred
and the spread of this crippling infection was abated.

Amid this chronicle of success was the knowledge that numerous, presumed
harmless viruses had been recovered from the primary monkey kidney cell cultures
used for the efficient growth of polio virus needed for mass vaccine production.
However, in 1961 Eddy and col¬leagues (2) conducted the first investigations
demonstrating the devel¬opment of tumors in 71% of newborn hamsters injected
with polio vaccine culture extracts. The tumors were identified as
mesotheliomas, ependymomas, osteogenic sarcomas, and lymphomas. Multiple other
investigators confirmed these initial findings (3–6). The oncogenic property of
the cell extract was later attributed to a double-stranded DNA virus designated
simian virus 40 (SV40), an indigenous pathogen in the African green monkey (7).
Diamandopoulos (3) provided com-pelling evidence of the role of the virus by
demonstrating that animals inoculated with anti-SV40 serum demonstrated no tumor
growth. Important independent studies by Koprowski et al (8) showed that, in
fact, cultured human cells underwent transformation with SV40, raising concerns
about the possible consequences of human exposure to this virus.

Simian virus 40 and the closely related human polyomaviruses BK and Jamestown
Canyon (JC) produce subclinical infection in immuno-

competent natural hosts. The viruses typically reside in renal epithelial cells,
but can spread to other tissues and produce pathologic effects in either
immunocompromised hosts or, more importantly, in nonhost species (9).
Large-scale vaccine production in the United States neces¬sitated holding large
numbers of caged juvenile monkeys for tissue access, amplifying the probability
of transmission of SV40 from infected to nonimmune animals. The practice of
pooling kidney tissue from multiple animals during vaccine production increased
the likeli¬hood of viral contamination of vaccine cultures. It is now well
accepted that at least 30% and perhaps as much as 70% of inactivated live
vaccine produced between 1955 and 1961 was contaminated with SV40 (10). Although
the U.S. government established SV40-free vaccine manu¬facturing requirements in
1961, contaminated vaccine continued to be distributed through 1963.

(more…)

end

February 18, 2008

Mesothelioma and Asbestos Exposure

Filed under:Part Three : Epidemiology — admin @ 6:40 pm

Historical Background

It was the Conference on the Biological Effects of Asbestos at the New York
Academy of Sciences, organized by Irving Selikoff in November 1964 (1), that put
both mesothelioma and asbestos on the map. Before that meeting, few people in
the scientific or general community had much knowledge of either subject. There
they learned the nature and numerous essential industrial uses of a group of
naturally occurring mineral fibers, collectively known as asbestos, although in
fact com¬prising at least five distinct materials, chemically, physically, and
geologically. Of these, chrysotile, a serpentine mineral mined mainly in Quebec
and the Ural mountains of Russia, made up over 90%. Of the remainder the two
most important were crocidolite and amosite, produced mainly in South Africa and
Australia, both amphibole min¬erals with distinctive qualities valuable for heat
insulation, naval marine use, and the production of large-bore cement pipes. Two
other amphibole mineral fibers were anthophyllite, of limited production in
Finland, and tremolite, little used, though by far the most widespread
geologically. Presenters at the conference stated that within some 20 years of
the first industrial exploitation of asbestos in the 1880s, workers heavily
exposed to airborne fiber and dust developed a dis¬tinctive, seriously disabling
and sometimes fatal diffuse pulmonary fibrosis, later termed asbestosis. Little
was done to limit exposure until the late 1930s, when after a well-conducted
survey of four asbestos textile plants in North Carolina, Dreessen et al (2) and
others of the U.S. Public Health Service recommended in 1938 that a workplace
dust con¬centration of 5 million particles per cubic foot (about 15 fibers/mL)
should not be exceeded. Mainly because of the Second World War, this
recommendation was not implemented; and probably for the same reason it went
unnoticed that there were case reports by some German pathologists (3) of
malignant tumors of the pleura and peritoneum in men with asbestosis. Thus it
was only in the 1950s that the causal asso¬ciation of asbestos exposure with
lung cancer in the United Kingdom (4), and later with mesothelioma in South
Africa (5), was recognized.

Until that time even the very existence of primary malignancies of the
mesotheleum was questioned by reputable pathologists. Looking back, however, a
review by Saccone and Coblenz (6) in 1943 had included the identification of
over 40 cases in autopsies published since 1870, and referred to two cases of
“endothelioma” reported in 1767 by Lieutaud in France among 3000 autopsies. That
mesothelial cancers in low frequency probably occurred well before the
industrial use of asbestos is discussed more fully later. Indeed, a low
background inci¬dence of unknown etiology has almost certainly continued,
affecting both children and adults.

(more…)

end

Determination of Asbestos Exposure by Pathology and Clinical History

Filed under:Part Three : Epidemiology — admin @ 6:27 pm

The determination of whether an abnormal asbestos exposure took place is
important in mesothelioma cases because of the potential for financial
compensation and for the assessment of the likelihood of further cases occurring
from similar occupational, paraoccupational, or environmental circumstances. One
should be aware that not all mesotheliomas are associated with asbestos
exposure. Spirtas et al (1) found after careful systematic inquiry that 88% of
pleural and 54% of peritoneal mesotheliomas could be attributed to asbestos
exposure in men in the United States but only 23% of pleural and peritoneal
mesotheliomas could be attributed to asbestos in women in the United States. An
earlier study of mesotheliomas in North America showed lower figures—50% in men
and 5% in women (2).

There are several ways whereby a reasonable determination can be made of whether
abnormal asbestos exposure has occurred in an indi¬vidual. These include (1) a
detailed and reliable occupational history; (2) identification of clinical
markers of exposure such as pleural plaques, diffuse pleural fibrosis, rounded
atelectasis, and asbestosis; (3) histopathologic features, such as pleural
plaques and asbestos bodies; and (4) mineral analyses of digested lung tissues.

In most, if not all, parts of the world, there are background exposures to
asbestos both inside and outside of buildings. These have arisen from natural
outcrops and from industrial activity. These are at very low levels, usually
less than 0.001F/mL (F stands for the degree of fine¬ness of abrasive particles)
but in some countries there are higher envi¬ronmental exposures, for example,
Turkey, Corsica, Cyprus, Russia, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, and
New Caledonia, which have given rise to asbestos-related diseases such as
pleural plaques and mesotheliomas. Asbestos fibers have been found in the air
and water supplies. Airborne levels of asbetos fibers are generally higher in
urban than in rural areas but this has not been accompanied by a detectable
increase in nonoccupational mesotheliomas (3). Interestingly, a study of
airborne asbestos levels in 12 buildings where friable amosite was used as
fireproofing material and generally was in poor condition, found indoor
concentrations indistinguishable from outdoor levels,
(more…)

end

Malignant Mesothelioma and Erionite

Filed under:Part Three : Epidemiology — admin @ 6:21 pm

Cancer has been known for millennia, but the understanding we have of its
origins and causes are comparatively recent. Ancient Egyptians first recorded
cancer as a disease some 4500 years ago. However, it wasn’t until the 18th
century that observations on environmental cancers were made, as people started
to look for a connection between certain environments, including working
practices and human cancer incidence patterns. The idea emerged that the causes
of cancer may be divided roughly into two broad categories: exogenous, which is
envi¬ronmental and occupational, and endogenous, which is something inherent in
the person. While this has been a useful distinction, advances in genetics now
seem to be blurring the boundary. The result is that cancer research has
concentrated on the identification of envi¬ronmental and occupational causes of
human cancer. By the late 19th century the study of cancer tissues had revealed
that cancer cells were markedly different in biology and cell structures when
compared with the normal cells in the surrounding tissue. During the 20th
century, the research in cancer increased in an almost exponential fashion.
Advances in genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology have begun to allow
some insight into what was happening when a normal cell was changed into a
cancerous one and often why it happened. Gene therapy approaches for inherited
and acquired lung diseases are reviewed else¬where (1). Modification of erionite
and its effects on in vitro activity is discussed in Brown et al (2). The
genetic susceptibility to mesothelioma has been introduced and discussed in the
literature (3–6).

Cancer can take many forms and is usually named after the cell type from which
it is transformed. Once a cancer cell has arisen, clonal expansion without
regard for the surrounding tissue, accounts for the clinical symptoms of the
disease. As the tumor grows, continuous dedifferentiation occurs and cells break
away to form new cancers at other sites in the body. It is this metastatic
growth that accounts for most of the mortality from this disease. A few tumor
types are so aggressive in their development that they kill the host before
metas¬tasis even begins. One such cancer is mesothelioma, which is a cancer of
the lining of the body cavity and named for its development from
(more…)

end

Molecular Epidemiology of Mesothelioma

Filed under:Part Three : Epidemiology — admin @ 6:16 pm

Over the past 50 years epidemiology has been involved in the field of cancer
research. By studying the association between risk factors and cancer
occurrence, epidemiologists have contributed to the identifica¬tion of the most
important determinants of cancer in humans. In recent years, epidemiologists
have concentrated on the link between genetic and environment in carcinogenesis,
by focusing interests on low-level exposures.

Indeed, traditional epidemiology, called “black box epidemiology,” is unable to
study the mechanistic aspects of a disease (1). Therefore, the design of
epidemiologic studies has been enriched by introducing biologic markers (Fig.
14.1), and step-by-step molecular epidemiology has been created. This new
research, Perera (2) states, “seeks to combine the precision of laboratory
methods to quantify carcinogenic dose or preclinical response in humans, with
the relevance and rigor of analytic epidemiology.” This new research philosophy
is based on properly designed epidemiologic studies that take into account the
control of confounding factors, the selection of appropriate control groups, the
power of the studies, and the extent to which a biologic marker can predict
cancer occurrence (3,4).

The aim of molecular epidemiology is to assess individual exposures to
carcinogens and to quantify genetic damages linked to individ¬ual
susceptibility, in order to estimate cancer risk at the individual level.
Studies of genetically susceptible subgroups can detect high-risk subjects and
can implement new methodologies to prevent cancer at the primary
(chemoprevention) or secondary (screening programs) prevention level. Moreover,
a better understanding of the natural history of cancer may also improve cancer
treatment, by selecting the patients who will be able to benefit from specific
therapies. In addition, a multidisciplinary approach between molecular
biologists and epidemiologists, as well as physicians and biostatisticians, is
needed.

The outcome of malignant mesothelioma (MM) is poor, and the therapy of the
disease has not progressed in the past decade (5). But MM is largely preventable
because the causative factors are mostly of
(more…)

end

Asbestos Mineralogy and Health Effects

Filed under:Part Three : Epidemiology — admin @ 5:56 pm

Fibers and fibrous minerals, for example, the asbestos minerals, erion-ite
(one of the many natural and synthetic zeolite species) (1), fiber¬glass, or
other silica forms (diatoms) have been shown to be extremely hazardous. Their
airborne character is paramount, and the specific gravity of the species, the
size, and an appropriate morphology that permits suspension are of primary
consideration. Asbestos as a ubiq¬uitous natural resource refers to several
types of fibrous minerals formed by earth processes and made up of microscopic
bundles of fibers. The dangers associated with inhalation of asbestos fibers
have been known for more than 30 years. Asbestos is known as a group A human
carcinogen. The potential hazards of exposure to asbestos mate¬rials are of
concern worldwide. There are several modes of exposure to airborne fibers
including occupational exposure and the erosion of natural deposits in
asbestos-bearing rocks. Asbestos may also be dis¬persed in water from a number
of sources, including erosion of natural deposits, corrosion, and disintegration
of asbestos materials.

Governments and industries have introduced regulatory measures requiring safety
controls throughout the product life cycle to limit asbestos exposure to the
general public and workers. Although asbestos materials have been well
documented as to their physical and chemical characteristics, they remain under
investigation both by min¬eralogists studying geologic aspects and by
pathologists/epidemiolo-gists studying medical aspects. The term asbestos may be
well known, but the precise definition, safe level of exposure, duration of
exposure, and asbestos types of these fibrous materials still raise questions
and often lead to differences of opinions and arguments as well as legal
disputes (2).

Mineralogy of Asbestos Group Minerals

The six different types of asbestos fibers are divided into two mineral groups
based upon the crystalline structures: serpentine and amphi-bole asbestos.
Asbestiform minerals are not always found with a

fibrous habit. Tremolite, for example, occurs naturally in three distinct
morphologic forms or mineral habits. It may occur as asbestos, splin¬tery
fibers, or in massive crystalline deposits. Any mechanical manip¬ulation of
asbestos rocks rapidly produces many long, thin fibers/ fibrils, since for the
most part, asbestos fibrils are easily separable because of translocation along
a twin plane, which produces a much-reduced cohesion. A lot of data have been
accumulated that suggest that amphibole asbestos and its nonasbestos analogues
possess very different biologic potential. Davis et al (3) demonstrated that
although asbestiform tremolite was extremely carcinogenic when injected into the
peritoneal cavities of rats, nonasbestiform tremolite samples had little or no
carcinogenic potential. These observations suggest that the tremolite
contamination of any material may present a concern only if thin asbestiform
fibers are present.

(more…)

end

February 5, 2008

Genomics and Proteomics in Mesothelioma

Filed under:Part Two : Molecular Genetics — admin @ 9:51 am

Advances in molecular biology over the past decade have improved our
understanding of genetic, transcriptional, and translational alter¬ations in
human cancers. The sequencing of the human genome has resulted in the
identification of many known and novel genes. Several groups are engaged in
determining the interactions and regulation of all these genes to ascertain
their function in early detection and pre¬vention of cancer. Recent advances in
functional genomic technology have begun to investigate interactive pathways to
elucidate what, where, when, and how these genes are expressed in an
orchestrated fashion. Other groups have concentrated on proteomics, or the study
of proteins, including their relative amount, distribution, posttransla-tional
modifications, functions, and interactions to address fundamen¬tal biologic
questions in the progression of a disease from a normal to a cancerous state.
This chapter discusses the functional genomics and expression proteomics
approaches employed to date in general and their relevance to mesothelioma in
particular. It is our attempt to provide both novice and experienced
investigators in this field with novel methodologies used in other types of
cancers that might ulti¬mately lead to the early detection and treatment of
mesothelioma.

Genomics in Cancer Research

The Human Genome Project analysis has described 30,000 to 50,000 genes after DNA
sequencing analyses. In spite of 20% to 30% differ¬ences observed between the
predicted transcriptomes by International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium
(HGSC) and Celera Genomics, these data have provided a tremendous stimulus for
sys¬tematic analysis of various types of cancer. High-resolution analysis of
chromosomal aberrations, genome-wide mutation screens, and ex¬pression profiling
have given investigators a comprehensive view of genetic alterations in many
cancers. These high-throughput tech¬nologies are being vigorously pursued to
gain a complete list of the molecular and genetic causes that drive malignant
transformation and

the possible therapeutic options that may be exploited for clinical benefit.

(more…)

end

Extracellular Matrix and Mesothelioma: Some Clues to the Invasive Behavior of Mesothelioma

Filed under:Part Two : Molecular Genetics — admin @ 9:19 am

Malignant mesotheliomas are highly aggressive diffuse tumors aris¬ing from
mesothelial-lined surfaces. Mesotheliomas spread along mesothelial-lined
surfaces to involve the pericardium, contralateral hemithorax, and peritoneal
cavity by invasion through the diaphragm. The resulting tumor often forms
diffuse thickening of involved surfaces rather than solitary rounded lesions as
seen in other neoplasms (1,2). Malignant mesotheliomas also invade the
underlying basement mem¬brane and produce metastases in up to 80% of patients
(3–5). Invasion through needle biopsy tracts and incision in the thoracic wall
is a common feature in malignant mesotheliomas (6,7). During this process
mesothelioma cells must interact with extracellular matrix proteins, growth
factors embedded in it, and stromal cells, which participate in synthesis and
modifications of this microenvironment. Today, the cen¬tral theme of research
about tumor etiology, progression, and metasta¬sis focuses more on the crosstalk
between tumor cells, extracellular matrix, and a variety of host cells rather
than the behavior of individ¬ual tumor cells taken out of their
microenvironmental context (8).

(more…)

end