Direct Link Between Inflammation And Colon Cancer | Arthritis Information

 

While chronic inflammation is widely believed to be a predisposing factor for colon cancer, the exact mechanisms linking these conditions have remained elusive. Scientists at the Melbourne Branch of the international Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research (LICR) and the Technical University Munich have jointly discovered a new piece of this puzzle by demonstrating how the Stat3 protein links inflammation to tumor development, a discovery that may well lead to the identification of new therapeutic targets for colon cancer.

Aberrant activation of the intracellular signaling protein, Stat3, has been associated with inflammation and several cancers, including those of the gastrointestinal tract. The results published on-line today in the journal Cancer Cell provide the first direct evidence confirming the role for Stat3 in inflammation-associated tumorigenesis. Using an inflammation-associated cancer model in genetically manipulated mice, the team identified a relationship between epithelial cell Stat3 activity and colonic tumor incidence, as well as tumor growth. They also determined that stimulation of Stat3 by the cytokines IL-6 and IL-11, chemicals produced by inflammatory and other tumor-associated cells, promotes both cell survival and growth of tumor cells.

The collaboration was sparked by discussions between Professors Matthias Ernst (LICR) and Florian Greten (Technical University Munich) at a scientific meeting, when they discovered they were both individually pursuing the mechanism by which Stat3 links inflammation to gastrointestinal cancers. Rather than compete, the two decided to join forces to discover the Stat3 connection between inflammation and colon cancer.

"Colon cancer is the second most frequent malignancy in the developed world so it was no surprise to find another group working on the Stat3 question and trying to find new ways to target colon cancer," said LICR's Professor Ernst, the joint senior author of the publication. "Together we've been able to learn how Stat3 bridges chronic inflammation and tumor promotion by mediating cell survival during an inflammatory event and enhancing tumor cell growth. Our new findings are very much in line with our previous work on the role of Stat3 in mediating inflammation- associated gastric cancer. We expect this knowledge to strengthen efforts for the development of therapeutics that target the link between inflammation and cancer to ultimately benefit the treatment of cancer patients."

Incidentally, the group of Professor Michael Karin from the University of California at San Diego, has reached similar conclusions in paper published in the same issue of Cancer Cell.

Lynn492009-02-03 15:08:23Interesting.  I have a friend who is an M.D. doing cancer research at UCSD and she herself has had colon cancer.Do you really think Ivypoe will be coming back? After the way she was treated on this forum?[QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo]Do you really think Ivypoe will be coming back? After the way she was treated on this forum?[/QUOTE] Thanks Lynn, I had read a short article  recently that pointed in that direction and I couldn't find it.  Lindy I've had RA for 32 years and been on some type of biologic for 7 years, so years of RA could increase my chances of colon cancer, or, these biologics could increase my chances of colon cancer.

But there are also people who don't have RA, who don't take biologics, that get colon cancer.

I think what people should take from these posts is to get a colonoscopy.  I believe colon cancer is a slow growing cancer, so if caught early, it can be successfully treated.  This is something to discuss with one's primary and rheumatologist about when would be appropriate for one to have this test.

Lynn you might not have any control over someones behaviour but you have control over the way you speak to them..if someone has cancer and they have been told by their doctor that a certain drug was the cause what qualifications do you have to tell them any different...you only have what you read on many of your internet sites . Maybe Ivys doctor found something to prove his theory.[QUOTE=Mrs Pincushion]Lynn you might not have any control over someones behaviour but you have control over the way you speak to them..if someone has cancer and they have been told by their doctor that a certain drug was the cause what qualifications do you have to tell them any different...you only have what you read on many of your internet sites . Maybe Ivys doctor found something to prove his theory.[/QUOTE] I can understand that Lynn and im  not putting your views down at all. you do provide some excellent info but Ivy was told by her doctor that it has caused her cancer .  She was questioned quite harshly. She has so much to deal with and came here looking for support. We only know what we read in articles on the internet...whose to say these articles are true...my doctor tells me to ignore most of them as they are inaccurate and he is the head Rheumy in the UK

 I read and post the articles in rheumatology and other journals including the New England Journal of Medicine.  I also search on PubMed.  These are the journals and articles that the docs are reading....

Edited to add...

This is where the article about colon cancer and inflammation came from:

The Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research (LICR) is the largest international non-profit institute dedicated to understanding and controlling cancer. With operations at 73 sites in 17 countries, LICR's research network quite literally spans the globe. LICR has developed an impressive portfolio of reagents, knowledge, expertise, and intellectual property, and has also assembled the personnel, facilities, and practices necessary to patent, clinically evaluate, license, and thus translate, the most promising aspects of its own laboratory research into cancer therapies.

Source: Sarah White, Ph.D.
Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research

Lynn492009-02-03 15:16:08Thanks for the sources I would be interested in my Rheumys views and will ask him. [QUOTE=Mrs Pincushion]Lynn you might not have any control over someones behaviour but you have control over the way you speak to them..if someone has cancer and they have been told by their doctor that a certain drug was the cause what qualifications do you have to tell them any different...you only have what you read on many of your internet sites . Maybe Ivys doctor found something to prove his theory.[/QUOTE] she wasnt making the claim...her doctor was. Maybe we should ask for drs info so we can challenge them directly..Ivy didnt say the cancer was caused by the enbrel..her doctor said it. I am also a concerned patient as I have been on enbrel, I have friends on enbrel who are doing so well. Ivy probably thought we should know the dangers if her doctor has given her that diagnosis [QUOTE=Lynn49][ [QUOTE=buckeye][QUOTE=Mrs Pincushion]Lynn you might not have any control over someones behaviour but you have control over the way you speak to them..if someone has cancer and they have been told by their doctor that a certain drug was the cause what qualifications do you have to tell them any different...you only have what you read on many of your internet sites . Maybe Ivys doctor found something to prove his theory.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] If we were to read half of what was put on the internet we would all be raving hyperchondriacs. [QUOTE=Suzanne] Does anyone else feel there is double standard here sometimes?  [/QUOTE]

Every time I log in!
[QUOTE=Suzanne] Does anyone else feel there is double standard here sometimes?    [/QUOTE]

I know I sure do.

well... I think documentation from a leading cancer research institute will weigh over an off-handed remark by an RD...  double standard or not.. [QUOTE=babs10]well... I think documentation from a leading cancer research institute will weigh over an off-handed remark by an RD...  double standard or not..

Colorectal Cancer Health Center

yes, Mrs. Pinnie... but Ivypoe's RD said it was the enbrel....... 

Yes Babs I know and I wasnt referring to this inline with with Ivy...

We are all responsible for getting our inflamation down, making sure our Doctors treat us with proper care and medication...and I am not against enbrel, humira, rutiximab, I have been on these meds even knowing there COULD be a risk. The thing with IVY was the fact that she never said it was the meds, it was her doctor, we dont know what tests and what findings her doctor came up with to get to that diagnosis...Maybe he has uncovered something....I am skeptical with believing all I read on the net...I do believe inflammation can cause a lot of problems( living proof) . Im not against what Lynn49 posts, some of  her posts have been helpful to lots of us, but i dont read too much into everything as there are people out there who are living proof that RA wont cause an early death, it wont cause heart propblems, its doesnt make you disabled.....these are maybes...and can scare sufferers...I refuse to live in fear of this disease ( with my head out of the sand)...its about being sensible and knowing your own body.

[QUOTE=babs10] [QUOTE=Mrs Pincushion]

its about being sensible and knowing your own body.

[/QUOTE] Ivey said in her original post that she "truly believed that enbrel caused the cancer" so she had that thought before talking to her doctor..its possible that she interperted her doctors response to support her belief but we will never know.  She wouldn't respond when people asked her to clarify what her dr said. I wish the best for Ivypoe whether her colon cancer was caused by Enbrel or not.  Time will tell how things turn out, if the FDA has had other reports of colon cancer, if they have covered them up, etc. etc. etc.I'm waiting for proof, not innuendo.......... Happy waiting.What I don't understand is...TNF's block a molecule that is used to marshall the body's defense against cancer.  What does everybody think tumor necrosis means anyway?  It literally translates to 'tumor death'.  So, if you block this 'factor', of course your incidence for cancer in the general population would go up.  We're already under 'systemic inflammation' that increases our chances of contracting cancer - if we also remove a 'throttle' on what naturally suppresses cancer in the body - what do we think is going to happen? oh we know what TNF means ..... [QUOTE=Pip!]What I don't understand is...TNF's block a molecule that is used to marshall the body's defense against cancer.  What does everybody think tumor necrosis means anyway?  It literally translates to 'tumor death'.  [QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo]But that is still TNF's job, right?[/QUOTE]

It is one function - a minor function - within its job description.
thanks, Jas....  I appreciate your input of information..  We need to have all the info to make the right decisions..A little wiki lesson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumor_necrosis_factors
But isn't the fact that it has other jobs irrelevant to this discussion, when one of it's jobs is to fight cancer cells, and this discussion is whether suppressing TNF's might promote cancer?

[QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo]But isn't the fact that it has other jobs irrelevant to this discussion, when one of it's jobs is to fight cancer cells, and this discussion is whether suppressing TNF's might promote cancer?

[/QUOTE]

How can it be irrelevant?  Don't you have to look at the whole to understand the parts?  Don't we need to learn all sides to make the right choice for us?
waddie, how is it relevant, then, to this discussion?IDK Gimpy.  I just feel, for me, it is important to understand the whole of an issue.  All sides.  Not everyone will agree and that is okay.  For me, its relevant.  For you, not so much and that is okay.  Okay? Not really. If it's relevant, you should be able to articulate why.

It's certainly relevant when making a decision whether to use a TNF inhibitor drug for arthritis. Yes, then it is relevant what other things TNF does.

But if the question is whether TNF inhibitors promote cancer risk, and one of the jobs TNF does is suppress cancer cells, then in my opinion, in that context, what else the TNF does is not relevant.

Maybe Jasmine could explain why the fact that the TNF does other things is relevant to the question of whether TNF inhibitors promote the likelihood of getting cancer, since she's the one who pointed out that killing cancer cells is only one of the jobs of TNF does.






edited for clarityGimpy-a-gogo2009-02-05 13:38:04Another thing to consider in this discussion: there is evidence that tnf is over-expressed in RA and excessive amounts of tnf have been linked to numerous problems including links to certain kinds of cancer and septic shock.  TNF inhibitors do not eliminate tnf; they reduce the level of tnf.  So it's not at all clear that taking a tnf inhibitor to reduce an elevated level of tnf results in a deficiency of tnf.  Unfortunately it's impossible to tell whithout expensive tests.  If only there were an inexpensive tnf test avaialble it might be possible to regulate the dose of tnf inhibitor rather than a "one size dose fits all" approach and thus increase its effictiveness while minimizing the risk. Very well said Alan..Ive often thought with the TNF inhib. that whats right for one isnt always right for another , its just an amount that they came with for certain people in the trials....Gimpy, I thought I did articulate in my first and second post.  Understand the whole and not just looking at the parts.  Don't you have to look at the whole to understand the parts?  Don't we need to learn all sides to make the right choice for us?  I worry about what my drugs do to my body so I am trying to get the whole picture.  I do not know how else to articulate that your satisfaction.  I don't want an argument with you.

Good point Alan.  I think gearing medication doses to the individual and not to the populace might be the way of the future.
[QUOTE=waddie]Gimpy, I thought I did articulate in my first and second post.  Understand the whole and not just looking at the parts.  Don't you have to look at the whole to understand the parts?  Don't we need to learn all sides to make the right choice for us?  I worry about what my drugs do to my body so I am trying to get the whole picture.  I do not know how else to articulate that your satisfaction.  I don't want an argument with you.

Good point Alan.  I think gearing medication doses to the individual and not to the populace might be the way of the future.
[/QUOTE] waddie, sure, if we're discussing choice.

But we're discussing whether TNF inhibitors increase the risk of cancer, and why the fact that TNF does things in addition to killing cancer cells has any relevance to that.

Let me ask the question in a different way then: does the fact that TNF does other things in addition to killing cancer cells make the fact that it's job to kill cancer cells less relevant to the question of whether inhibiting TNF promotes the risk of cancer?

[QUOTE=Alan]Another thing to consider in this discussion: there is evidence that tnf is over-expressed in RA and excessive amounts of tnf have been linked to numerous problems including links to certain kinds of cancer and septic shock.  TNF inhibitors do not eliminate tnf; they reduce the level of tnf.  So it's not at all clear that taking a tnf inhibitor to reduce an elevated level of tnf results in a deficiency of tnf.  Unfortunately it's impossible to tell whithout expensive tests.  If only there were an inexpensive tnf test avaialble it might be possible to regulate the dose of tnf inhibitor rather than a "one size dose fits all" approach and thus increase its effictiveness while minimizing the risk. [/QUOTE]