© 2002 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 94, No. 15, 1113-1114,
August 7, 2002
© 2002 Oxford University Press
EDITORIAL |
Stromal Therapy: The Next Step in Ovarian Cancer Treatment
Affiliation of authors: Laboratory of Pathology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Correspondence to: Lance A. Liotta, M.D., Ph.D., Laboratory of Pathology, Center for Cancer Research, Bldg. 10, Rm. 2A33, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892 (e-mail: liottal{at}mail.nih.gov).
Among gynecologic cancers, ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death in the United States. Unfortunately, over two thirds of ovarian cancer cases are diagnosed at a late stage, when peritoneal dissemination of the ovarian cancer cells has already taken place (1). Understanding the molecular events that support the survival and implantation of disseminated ovarian cancer cells can provide urgently needed strategies for early detection, prevention, and intervention. It has long been suspected that cancer is a product of the tumor–host microenvironment (2). The single-layer ovarian surface epithelium, the presumed progenitor of ovarian cancer cells, lies adjacent to the basement membrane and may be in constant communication with the underlying ovarian stroma, which is on its basal side, and the peritoneal microenvironment, which is on its apical side. We can hypothesize that a homoeostatic feedback circuit exists that promotes the survival of the ovarian surface epithelium only if these cells are attached to the proper substratum and receive the correct signals from the ovarian stroma. Thus, if non-neoplastic ovarian epithelial cells are desquamated into the peritoneum, the communication circuit is broken, and the ovarian cells would fail to implant, or grow as ascites. By contrast, neoplastic ovarian cancer cells may survive because they co-opt or disregard host-derived molecular signals. In this scenario, the host is a necessary participant in, and perhaps an unwilling facilitator of, the neoplastic process. Here the peritoneal microenvironment provides both motive and opportunity to shed malignant cells through its rich support surfaces, which release pro-invasive and pro-angiogenic cytokines and other cellular components.
In this issue of the Journal, Huang et al. (3) provide direct evidence that the host contributes critical molecules that promote the solid and liquid growth of xenografted human ovarian cancer cells [Huang et al. (3), Table 1]. In a landmark experiment, the authors implanted human ovarian carcinoma cells into the peritoneal cavities of genetically modified nude mice. The mice lacked the gene for a critical metalloproteinase, matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), that is known to be involved in extracellular matrix remodeling and angiogenesis (4,5). Ovarian cancer ascites, peritoneal tumors, and angiogenic activity in the tumors were markedly lower in the mice that lacked the MMP-9 gene (MMP-9-/- mice) than in mice that were wild-type for MMP-9 (MMP-9+/+ mice).
The investigators went on to identify host macrophages as the cells that were responsible for promoting the growth of the ovarian cancer cells in the MMP-9+/+ mice by reconstituting MMP-9 availability in the MMP-9-/- mice. They injected the MMP-9-/- mice with spleen cells from MMP-9+/+ mice as a source of MMP-9+/+ macrophages several days before injecting the cancer cells and found that macrophages that contained the wild-type gene for MMP-9 restored the malignant phenotype of the ovarian cancer cells in the MMP-9-/- mice. This is a seminal finding for three reasons. First, it is proof of the driving force of the local microenvironment in stimulating or suppressing the invasive and malignant behaviors of cancer cells. Second, it both credentials and validates MMP-9 and its source, the peritoneal macrophage, as potential selective targets for molecular therapeutics in ovarian cancer treatment. Third, it reinforces the concept that an optimal therapeutic target may exist outside of the cancer cell itself. The new target can be host cells or signaling molecules that participate in the conversation between the host and tumor cells.
On the basis of results from the Huang study, three classes of ovarian cancer therapeutic targets can be envisioned: metalloproteinases, peritoneal macrophages, and molecules involved in stroma–host communication, such as those involved in angiogenesis (6,7). Numerous therapeutics have targeted the matrix metalloproteinase family with mixed success at the levels of efficacy and toxicity (8,9). These first-generation metalloproteinase inhibitors have targeted the active site of the enzyme(s), and some agents have MMP-subclass selectivity. Early work with the first agent to be tested, batimastat (BB-94), an agent that inhibits both MMP-2 and MMP-9, showed interesting intraperitoneal activity in ovarian cancer xenografts (i.e., a reduction in ascitic tumor growth with less effect on the solid tumor) (10). Advancing batimastat and the second-generation agent, marimastat, to the clinic has yielded few hints of efficacy (11). The next logical therapeutic target suggested by the results reported by Huang et al. is the peritoneal macrophage, which is a rich source of pro-angiogenic and pro-invasive agents in addition to MMP-9 (12). Selective inhibition of macrophage activity may be a promising direction. However, one important biologic role of macrophages may be to prevent intraperitoneal disease complications, such as adhesions and bowel obstruction that require surgery, which is a not infrequent event in women with ovarian cancer. This leaves the third logical therapeutic target, the interaction between the tumor and the stroma. Continuing research into the mechanism underlying the observation presented in the work of Huang and colleagues will likely yield a stromal therapy approach that can be sensitive and specific to the interaction between the peritoneal macrophage and solid and ascitic ovarian cancer.
REFERENCES
1 Ozols RF, Rubin SC, Thomas GM, Robboy SJ. Epithelial ovarian cancer. In: Hoskins WJ, Perez CA, Young RC, editors. Principles and practice of gynecologic oncology. Baltimore (MD): Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2000. p. 981–99.
2 Liotta LA, Kohn EC. The microenvironment of the tumor-host invasion field. Nature 2001;411:375–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
3 Huang S, Van Arsdall M, Tedjarati S, McCarty M, Wu W, Langley R, et al. Contributions of stromal metalloproteinase-9 to angiogenesis and growth of human ovarian carcinoma in mice. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1134–42.
4 Lev S, Gilburd B, Lahat N, Shoenfeld Y. Prevention of tumor spread by matrix metalloproteinase-9 inhibition: old drugs, new concept. Eur J Intern Med 2002;13:101–3.[Medline]
5 Liotta LA, Steeg PS, Stetler-Stevenson WG. Cancer metastasis and angiogenesis: an imbalance of positive and negative regulation. Cell 1991;64:327–36.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
6 Hollingsworth HC, Kohn EC, Steinberg SM, Rothenberg ML, Merino MJ. Tumor angiogenesis in advanced stage ovarian carcinoma. Am J Pathol 1995;147:33–41.[Abstract]
7 Kohn EC, Libutti S. Angiogenesis, vascular imaging, and therapeutic approaches in ovarian tumors. In Augustin H, Iruela-Arispe L, Rogers P, Smith SK, editors. Vascular morphogenesis in the female reproductive system. New York (NY): Springer/Birkhauser; 2001. p. 187–205.
8 Pluda JM. Tumor-associated angiogenesis. Mechanisms, clinical implications, and therapeutic strategies. Semin Oncol 1997;24:203–18.[Web of Science][Medline]
9 Zucker S, Cao J, Chen WT. Critical appraisal of the use of matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors in cancer treatment. Oncogene 2000;19:6642–50.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
10 Davies B, Brown PD, East N, Crimmin MJ, Balkwill FR. A synthetic matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor decreases tumor burden and prolongs survival of mice bearing human ovarian carcinoma xenografts. Cancer Res 1993;53:2087–91.
11 Bonomi P. Matrix metalloproteinases and matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors in lung cancer. Semin Oncol 2002;29:78–86.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
12 McLaren J, Prentice A, Charnock-Jones DS, Millican SA, Muller KH, Sharkey AM, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor is produced by peritoneal fluid macrophages in endometriosis and is regulated by ovarian steroids. J Clin Invest 1996;98:482–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  N. Said, M. J. Socha, J. J. Olearczyk, A. A. Elmarakby, J. D. Imig, and K. Motamed Normalization of the Ovarian Cancer Microenvironment by SPARC Mol. Cancer Res., October 1, 2007; 5(10): 1015 - 1030. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. J. Pelham, L. Rodgers, I. Hall, R. Lucito, K. C. Q. Nguyen, N. Navin, J. Hicks, D. Mu, S. Powers, M. Wigler, et al. Identification of alterations in DNA copy number in host stromal cells during tumor progression PNAS, December 26, 2006; 103(52): 19848 - 19853. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F.-q. Wang, Y. Smicun, N. Calluzzo, and D. A. Fishman Inhibition of Matrilysin Expression by Antisense or RNA Interference Decreases Lysophosphatidic Acid-Induced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Invasion Mol. Cancer Res., November 1, 2006; 4(11): 831 - 841. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. M. Jacobsen, J. C. Harrell, P. Jedlicka, V. F. Borges, M. Varella-Garcia, and K. B. Horwitz Spontaneous Fusion with, and Transformation of Mouse Stroma by, Malignant Human Breast Cancer Epithelium Cancer Res., August 15, 2006; 66(16): 8274 - 8279. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Zou, K. S. Famulski, R. S. Parhar, E. Baitei, F. A. Al-Mohanna, N. R. Farid, and Y. Shi Microarray Analysis of Metastasis-Associated Gene Expression Profiling in a Murine Model of Thyroid Carcinoma Pulmonary Metastasis: Identification of S100A4 (Mts1) Gene Overexpression as a Poor Prognostic Marker for Thyroid Carcinoma J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., December 1, 2004; 89(12): 6146 - 6154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||