A new turmeric compound kills myeloma cells

A brand new study shows that another turmeric compound, which I shall refer to by its acronym, SQP (much easier to remember than “beta-sesquiphellandrene”! 😉 ), has the same anticancer potential of curcumin: http://goo.gl/e2jBGe

turmericSQP kills human multiple myeloma, leukemia, and colorectal cancer cells, in a similar manner to curcumin. It also works in synergy with bortezomib (Velcade), thalidomide, and capecitabine.

Now, I haven’t read the full study yet, but if I can get my hands on it, I will certainly see if I can dig out a few more helpful and/or interesting details.

Of course, before getting all excited about this new compound, we should keep in mind that it could take some (a lot of?) time to transform it into something useful–a pill, e.g. Besides, as of now, we don’t know anything about its bioavailability, blablabla. So it’s really early in the game.

Still, I always find it exciting to read about another multiple myeloma killer… 🙂

Metabolic changes in the bone marrow could be an important key in the development of myeloma

The fact that multiple myeloma develops from the pre-existing condition known as MGUS is nothing new. I mean, I wrote about this very topic back in 2009 (remember that cancer screening trial that allowed researchers from the Mayo Clinic and the National Cancer Institute to examine blood samples taken from patients several years before they were diagnosed with MM? If not, have a look at the post I wrote back then: “Does MGUS always precede MM?”).

IMG_5327But today I read something that adds a new piece to the puzzle of myeloma–a recent discovery made by a team of researchers at the University of Birmingham: http://goo.gl/vE6PWU

It’s an easy read, but I did want to highlight a few points, such as this one: “Surprisingly, the researchers found that the metabolic activity of the bone marrow of patients with MGUS was significantly different to plasma from healthy volunteers, but there were very few differences at all between the MGUS and myeloma samples.” Ouch. See Priscilla’s expression? That was pretty much how I must have looked after reading that sentence…

Here’s an excerpt providing more details: “The research team found over 200 products of metabolism differed between the healthy volunteers and patients with MGUS or myeloma, compared to just 26 differences between MGUS patients and myeloma patients. The researchers believe that these small changes could drive the key shifts in the bone marrow required to support myeloma growth.”

IMG_5315Things get a bit, er, alarming, though, when Dr. Tennant, the head researcher, says that “very few changes are required for a MGUS patient to progress to myeloma.” VERY FEW changes? I had to let that sink in for a second or two before reading on. And at this point I probably looked like Prezzemolo (photo on the right)…

But then Dr. Tennant adds that a “drug that interferes with these specific initial metabolic changes could make a very effective treatment for myeloma, so this is a very exciting discovery.”

Okay, so first he TOTALLY freaks us out with the news that only a few metabolic changes in the bone marrow are required to jump from MGUS to MM. Then he reassures us that a “metabolic” drug might be able to stop said progression. Bad news followed by potentially good news…

Well, this is the most interesting study I’ve read about in a while…a study that has given my brain some real food to chew on…

Need to do some research now.

Any thoughts, dear readers and friends?

An expert defines multiple myeloma

In this short (less than five minutes) video, Dr. Robert Orlowski, from the MD Anderson Cancer Research Center in Texas, provides us with a simple explanation of what multiple myeloma is. It’s always good to go over the basics…again, so here is the link: http://goo.gl/10Auhr

A note of interest: about halfway through, he mentions that 1 out of 5 people are “asymptomatic” at the time of diagnosis…That, I didn’t know.

A note of dislike: this video, sponsored by the Patient Empowerment Network, was made thanks to grants from three big drug companies: Onyx, Novartis, and Millennium (this is openly stated at the beginning of the video, if you watch carefully).

No getting around it. That’s where the big money is. And that’s WHY more money and resources aren’t poured into promising, non-toxic research…so sad, so maddening…

Well, for once let’s try to forget about the big drug companies and concentrate instead on the video…

Leukemic cells transformed back into normal cells: could that be possible…some day?

I was fascinated and intrigued by almost everything I read in this New Yorker article written by Jerome Groopman who is, among other things, a hematologist: https://goo.gl/ (thanks for posting the link on FB, Don!) I’m going to re-read the article tomorrow…it contains so much food for thought, too much for just one session, in my opinion…but in the meantime I thought I’d post the link so that you can have a look, too, if you want…

The article focuses on the idea that some day we might be able to turn leukemic cells into normal, healthy red and white blood cells and platelets, using a drug that doesn’t kill everything in its path (= healthy cells as well as cancer cells) but that targets only the leukemic cells…without killing them! Mind boggling, isn’t it?

It’s impossible to list all the other interesting stuff that you can read about in this article — for example, the case studies described by Dr. Groopman…the section he devotes to pancreatic cancer and pancreatic cancer patients and the Notch gene (I’ve written some posts on the dastardly Notch mutation, which is important in myeloma, too…just do a Search of my blog for “Notch”). And, by the way, curcumin inhibits Notch…yep, it does. Again, search my blog…

Anyway, if you find yourself without anything good to read this weekend, click on the above link. You won’t be sorry, I’m sure!

Okay, I need to get back to work now. Ciao! 🙂

Smoldering myeloma requiring treatment: time for a new definition? Introductory notes.

I know I haven’t been posting anything related to myeloma lately…and that has been bothering me a lot. And so I’ve been trying really hard to concentrate.

I began writing this post about ten days ago, but I just haven’t been able to finish it.

So today I decided to write a different sort of post: a post about why I can’t write a post.

It reminds me of the time when I signed up for an American Sign Language course. I was fresh out of college, so that’s QUITE a few years ago…Anyway, I loved my ASL course and was an eager student. Our first assignment was to go shopping in a supermarket and “pretend” to be deaf. The idea was that it would be helpful if we understood how it feels be to be deaf in a “hearing” world…

Even though the assignment was interesting, and it made sense, I didn’t know what to do, to be honest. I only knew a few signs at that stage and couldn’t help thinking: what if I run into a deaf person? How can I explain that this is an ASL assignment?

In the end, I just couldn’t do it. And so I wrote a paper about how I felt at not having been able to carry out the teacher’s assignment. (For the record, I got an A+.)

So here goes. Another “non-paper.” A non-post on a post that I haven’t been able to complete (yet).

A recent Mayo Clinic study published in “Blood” deals with one of the hottest new issues in the smoldering myeloma field, namely: are some of us smolderers really at the early myeloma stage? Should some of us be considered for (conventional) treatment?

The abstract is available for free here: http://goo.gl/QY244V

As you can see, the abstract mentions the Spanish PETHEMA smoldering myeloma-chemotherapy study. Well, I’d like to direct your attention to the language used to describe the PETHEMA study: “A report from the PETHEMA-GEM group described both fewer myeloma related events and better overall survival among patients with high-risk SMM patients who were treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone.”

OVERALL SURVIVAL. What is it? In clinical trials, it’s used to see how well a treatment works…Crudely put: how many patients survive, how many don’t…

But what about the patients’ QUALITY OF LIFE? There are only three mentions of “quality of life” in the Mayo study: the first is where the authors discuss the side effects registered during the PETHEMA trial. Not surprisingly, there were many more side effects in the treatment group than in the control one. The upshot is that 30% of the patients in the treatment group withdrew from the study due to toxicity or choice, compared to only 4.8% in the control group. 17 patients compared to just 3. The Mayo authors immediately add: “A potential impact in quality of life needs to be excluded.” And that is their first mention of quality of life. Uhm.

Now, I read the full PETHEMA study. And I can assure you that the PETHEMA authors state clearly that they didn’t look at the quality of life of their study participants, as though quality of life were irrelevant…

Irrelevant?

Have we reached the point where “overall survival” is more important than “quality of life”?

Well, today I’m going to leave it at that. It’s just too frustrating to read this stuff… Too upsetting. Words words words…blablabla.

I have another reason for setting aside this study for the time being: I’m going to have blood tests done on Tuesday, I don’t want to be upset by anything in the meantime. I want to be happy and calm… 🙂

But here’s my final consideration: a study that doesn’t address the quality of life of patients has no credibility whatsoever, in my opinion. And it shouldn’t be allowed. It shouldn’t be bloody allowed.

What do YOU think? 

The opposite of what we knew…

Do you remember all the hoopla caused by a June 2009 study on green tea and bortezomib? If not, please click here: http://margaret.healthblogs.org/life-with-myeloma/discovery-of-curcumin/curcumin-and-bortezomib/egcg-and-bortezomib That study came as very bad news for devoted green-tea-drinking patients on Velcade, even though, as Dr. Durie pointed out during a patient seminar that I attended last fall, those patients can still have their cuppa…just not on their Velcade days…

Now for today’s topic. Not too long ago, a blog reader (thanks!) reminded me of a November 2009 study that I had read in December but hadn’t posted about… Sherlock, grazie!, sent me the full study, whose main result is spelled out in the abstract (http://tinyurl.com/ydyaqca): EGCG is synergistic with bortezomib (=Velcade) against the KM3 multiple myeloma cell line. SYNERGISTIC??? That means that EGCG and Velcade are more efficient myeloma cell assassins when used together

Wait a sec…in June we were told that EGCG antagonizes bortezomib (see: http://tinyurl.com/yfe24cl, full text also available for free)…this group of researchers found that not only was EGCG not toxic or (at higher concentrations) only mildly toxic to myeloma cells, but also it prevented bortezomib from doing its job. In other words, based on the June study, EGCG actually protected the myeloma cells…from bortezomib.  

When I first read and posted about the June study, I don’t remember being bothered by the occasionally arrogant language used by the authors…especially in this excerpt about EGCG: this “miracle herb” extract is also consumed by many cancer patients who follow popular trends and self-medicate with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in hopes to support their conventional therapy or to lessen the burden of side effects—sometimes without the knowledge of their health care provider. “Popular trrrends”??? I say, I am feeling quite offended right now…how did I miss that condescending tone when I first read the study last year? Well, I suppose I was more focused on the importance of the issue at hand, i.e., warning Velcade-users against taking EGCG or even drinking green tea…

I also (!) didn’t question the finding that EGCG, when used alone, wasn’t able to kill even one miserable little myeloma cell, even at concentrations that are much greater than the typical concentrations achieved in humans. This is contrary, e.g., to the results of an authoritative 2006 study (see: http://tinyurl.com/yzsdu38)… Makes me wonder…

One more thing. I would like to point out that, incredibly, the online media paid no attention whatsoever to the November pro-EGCG study, whereas the complete opposite is true of the June anti-EGCG study…in fact, if you do a quick online search, you will still find warnings, even recent ones, about drinking green tea with bortezomib…even if you type the words “EGCG” “bortezomib” and “synergy.”

What you will not find (at least I did not) is the slightest mention of the November 2009 study, the one with the synergy results. That story just wasn’t picked up, for…some reason (I can only guess…). Well, today I decided to fill the gap…not because I think that the November study is a better one, that is not for me to judge!, but because I don’t think it fair that this study be so blatantly ignored…

Okay, for reasons of simplicity, from now Study A will be the June anti-EGCG with bortezomib study, and Study B will be the November pro-EGCG with bortezomib study.

Just a quick glance at the two studies showed that there were differences in caspase activation…In Study A, EGCG blocked the activation of caspase-7, which essentially stopped bortezomib from exterminating the myeloma cells. In Study B, instead, EGCG activated different caspases, specifically caspase-3, -8 and -9, leading to the death of the myeloma cells. Some day I should really look into this caspase business…until then I will not be able to figure out how, why or if this might be significant (I’d be glad for some help, here!)…

For lack of time, sorry, I am going to jump to the Discussion part of Study B. As I had hoped, this is where the authors compare their own results to the ones of Study A (identified as “they” in the following excerpts):

-They use a relative [sic] lower concentrations of EGCG (10 mM) and bortezomib (10 nM), whereas we used a relative [sic] high concentration of EGCG (25, 50, and 100 mM) and bortezomib (20 nM). So let’s see…Study A used a lower dose of EGCG and bortezomib, Study B a higher one. Okay, that is certainly a difference.

-We focused on the mechanism of EGCG inhibiting myeloma cell growth and inducing cell apoptosis potentiated by bortezomib, whereas they focused on the effect of EGCG on bortezomib in myeloma cells. So, we found that EGCG inhibits myeloma cell growth and induces cell apoptosis potentiated by bortezomib. This part wasn’t clearly worded, in my opinion (but it is true that I just got over a cold…is my mind still fogged by a bit of congestion?). In fact, I don’t see any difference at all…Mental note: I need to find the time to compare how the experiments were carried out in both studies.

-This may be because of different drug concentrations or different cell lines. Study A and B (and even the above-mentioned 2006 study, by the way) tested EGCG and bortezomib on different myeloma cell lines. And different doses were used in both studies. Is that enough to explain their differing results? Possibly.

I found myself wondering about the different myeloma cell lines used in different studies. Interesting topic. I had no idea that there were so many myeloma cell lines. I began doing some research but had to give up. Too complicated and time-consuming…

Well, I admit, I am still baffled. I suppose that I would still be cautious about taking green tea or EGCG with Velcade. I would follow Dr. Durie’s suggestion. Best to be cautious. Still, Study B gives us some (green) tea for thought and shows how much we still have to learn…

P.S. Here is a list of things that Velcade patients should avoid taking: http://tinyurl.com/yk2tclg

MGUS may be linked “only” to some serious diseases…

I am slowly going through my still unopened Science Daily updates…the August 27 issue (see: http://tinyurl.com/mmg7j5) contained a title that caught my interest: “Common blood disorder may not be linked to as many serious diseases.” The common blood disorder turns out to be MGUS.

In a nutshell, doctors have long been linking MGUS to more diseases than “just” multiple myeloma, amyloidosis and Waldenström macroglobulinemia. To my surprise, I discovered that there is a list of 75 other MGUS-associated diseases out there. 75! This list will almost certainly undergo some changes now…after the publication of the August 2009 Mayo Clinic Proceedings, which contain an interesting patient screening study declaring that the above-mentioned association is likely coincidental, in most cases, at least.

After reading the Science Daily summary, I went to have a look at the study (full study: http://tinyurl.com/lr55lc). Do you know that one of the MGUS-linked diseases is urticaria?! Eeek, just writing that word makes me itch all over!

Well, even though the full study is available online (above link), I thought I would take the time to go over a few points. Let’s see. The researchers confirmed that disorders of the bone, such as hip and vertebral fractures, osteoporosis, and hypercalcemia, are all significantly increased with MGUS, even in the absence of progression to multiple myeloma. We also confirmed known associations of MGUS with chronic inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy […] and autonomic neuropathy.

But they also found no significant association with MGUS in the 61 remaining disease diagnoses, an indication that most of these previously reported associations are either coincidental or clinically insignificant. So, in this patient population, 61 out of 75 diseases cannot be linked to MGUS. Interesting. Incidentally, see Table 2 (http://tinyurl.com/md35fy) for a complete list of diseases…you might be surprised by some of ’em…I was!

Also, have a look at Table 3 (http://tinyurl.com/mdzoqk) for a list of 20 new MGUS-associated diseases, including acute depression (!!!)…

In the Discussion part, we are also told that the frequency of osteoporosis and bone fractures is increased in patients with MGUS, independent of progression to myeloma. Eh.

Further on: The fact that we did not demonstrate a significant disease association with MGUS in such a large sample size is of major importance because it implies that these associations are likely not true associations, but rather coincidental ones. This has important therapeutic implications, because in some settings therapy has been administered to eradicate the monoclonal protein in the hopes that the associated disorder would be alleviated. Our study suggests that caution is needed.

Caution…indeed, I couldn’t agree more!

Velcade and dormant myeloma cells

Sherlock (grazie!) sent me the full study mentioned in yesterday’s post. It’s “only” 8 pages long, so I thought I would give it a whirl.

 

In the Introduction, we can read that the use of prolonged bortezomib therapy has lead to the development of drug resistance. The subsequent paragraphs and quite a bit of online research added a bit to my understanding of how this process occurs.

 

In order to retain my sanity while going through this complex study, I tried to visualize the dormancy process. For this, I needed a hibernating creature. After considering polar bears, toads and snakes, I went back to my original example: ants. If there are any ant-lovers out there, I sincerely apologize in advance for comparing them to myeloma cells.

 

Let’s imagine a northern European State at the beginning of a very harsh Velcade winter. As it starts getting colder, the ants aka myeloma cells get cold, too, but quite a number of them have enough forewarning and are able to escape the increasingly frigid, Velcade killer temperatures by hiding inside their underground nests. Their metabolism starts slowing down. In this inactive state, they require no food. It’s clearly a good survival mechanism.

 

The stubborn ones that remain above ground don’t have a chance of surviving (not in my visualization, at least). As soon as the weather starts warming up, though, the dormant ants wake up again. If I sound obsessed with ants, yes, I suppose I am. Every spring, I find myself battling fiercely with an ant colony that has established itself in my front yard. I don’t mind their being there, don’t get me wrong, but at this time of year some of them desperately and stubbornly want to march through my house, I suppose in order to reach the back yard. So right now, grrr!, I don’t feel badly about identifying them as myeloma cells. But I digress…

 

Now for a more, er, scientific approach.

 

First, though, a look at proteasomes. These are large protein complexes that are found in both normal and cancer cells. The relevant (for us) information about proteasomes is that cancer cells depend on these proteins in order to proliferate, metastasize and survive. And, in fact, increased numbers of proteasomes can be found in the blood of myeloma patients.

 

So one way to kill cancer cells is to inhibit the cancer-friendly activity of proteasomes. Probably the best-known proteasome inhibitor is bortezomib (marketed as Velcade). When Velcade is injected into a patient’s body, it disrupts the proteasome’s activities. As a consequence (simply put), cancer growth is inhibited, and the cancer cells die.

 

Now we get to our full Velcade-dormant myeloma cell study. Proteasome inhibitors provoke what is called an “ER (which, unfortunately, has nothing to do with the dashing George Clooney but stands for “endoplasmic reticulum”) stress response” in myeloma cells. This type of “stress” kills between 50 and 70 % of them, according to the study…but at the same time it sends out certain survival signals to 30-50 % of these cells that are thus able to avoid apoptosis by slipping into a deep sleep (or, more scientifically, by becoming quiescent).

 

They basically stop growing. And, since Velcade attacks cells that are in the process of dividing rapidly (=typical of cancer cells), this is an excellent survival strategy, which, incidentally, is used also by other types of cancer cells, such as head and neck squamous carcinoma cells.

 

At any rate, these quiescent cells can be annihilated, the researchers discovered, by adding to Velcade another drug called salubrinal. The actual experiment is rather neat, so I will attempt to summarize the parts that I understand in a comprehensible fashion. The researchers identified the myeloma cells that survived the Velcade attack and washed them to remove the drug. I confess, I was a bit amused by the image of myeloma cells being washed…anyway, the researchers realized that these cells had stopped growing. They were fast asleep…the little buggers. Velcade was no threat to them.

 

Now, there is a tremendous amount of detail in the study. I am not interested in the intricate mechanisms that show exactly how myeloma cells avoid death, mechanisms that, to be quite honest, I can barely understand, such as CHOP induction and XBP-1 splicing. So, skip skip skip.

 

Let’s get to the part that describes what happens once salubrinal enters the picture. After 24 hours, treatment with salubrinal of the Velcade-surviving myeloma cells resulted in a more or less a 10-fold reduction in the number of viable cells. Hey, not bad! And even after 5 days, the cells that are still dormant were highly affected by salubrinal. Ah, an important titbit: salubrinal does not affect the control population.

 

And now we finally (wiping our sweaty brows) reach the Discussion part where we discover that, after administration of Velcade, 30-50 % of myeloma cells escape death by becoming inactive. The researchers argue that this is more likely due to treatment adaptation than to selection of a cell population genetically predisposed to undergo quiescence. But the fact that so many myeloma cells survive treatment with Velcade is the probable and unfortunate cause of disease recurrence.

 

The researchers also found that survival of the residual quiescent cells hinges on the down-regulation of eIF2a phosphorylation. Phospho-whaaat? Okay, let’s not get too bogged down by the details of this phospho-thingie process. What we need to know is that the strong phosphorylation of eIF2a is associated with apoptosis. In the Velcade-surviving myeloma cells, you see, eIF2a was attenuated, so that is probably a mechanism whereby the blasted surviving cells are able to avoid apoptosis. Well, let us leave it at that…for now.

 

In conclusion, the solution to the Velcade-caused “dormancy” problem, as we have seen, lies in the addition of salubrinal to the mix. Salubrinal can virtually eliminate the fraction of quiescent MM cells surviving proteasome inhibition by enhancing the above-mentioned, er, eIF2a phosphorylation.

 

Quick note: this combination treatment will apparently benefit only myeloma patients. It doesn’t work against other forms of cancer, such as chronic myeloid leukemia.

 

The study’s conclusion: In summary, we report that the induction of MM tumor cell quiescence and survival can be an undesirable side effect of proteasome inhibition. We also show that, by blocking eIF2a dephosphorylation, proteasome inhibitor efficiency can be maximized during acute treatment and that residual cells can be eliminated by nontoxic doses of salubrinal as a monotherapy for MM minimal residual disease after proteasome inhibition.

Now I need a few days to digest all this stuff…

Boswellic acid (AKBA) and myeloma

One of the crucial myeloma survival pathways is called STAT3. The importance of this protein in myeloma is nothing new…I have already mentioned it here and there (see, e.g., my page on ursolic acid). I have also been collecting data on STAT3 for some time and will soon write a post about it. Just quickly, though, when STAT3 goes bonkers (for reasons that we will see in my future post), myeloma cells are able to survive and proliferate. The same occurs in many other types of cancer: prostate, brain, pancreatic and breast cancers, just to mention a few.  

 

Today I want to concentrate on a January 2009 study published in “Molecular Cancer Research” (one of the co-authors is Prof. Aggarwal, quelle surprise!). It examines the anti-myeloma effects of one of the boswellic acids, “acetyl-keto-beta-boswellic acid” or AKBAwhich can be found in the gummy resin of Boswellia serrata, also known as Indian frankincense. Like so many other wonderful herbs and plant extracts, this resin has been used for centuries in Ayurvedic medicine to treat a variety of ailments, in particular those linked to inflammation: arthritis, bursitis and asthma, e.g. See these 2003 and 2008 osteoarthritis studies: http://tinyurl.com/c9z88t and http://tinyurl.com/dc6gbq

 

A blogging friend (thanks!) sent me the full 2009 AKBA-myeloma study (abstract: http://tinyurl.com/bry5ua)

 

I first checked to see if boswellic acid could block IL-1 beta, but alas, I found nothing. I don’t give up easily, so I checked elsewhere. Success! A 2006 “Journal of Immunology” study (again, co-authored by Prof. Aggarwal) shows that AKBA inhibits all sorts of evil stuff, including NF-kappaB and, aha!, IL-1 beta: http://tinyurl.com/cr23qe

 

Oh, and guess what? This 2006 study tells us that boswellic acid also inhibits osteoclastogenesis, a huge concern for us myeloma folks. (That means that it stops the process of bone destruction.) All excellent news.

 

Let’s get back to the 2009 myeloma-boswellic acid study. As we can read in the abstract, the researchers found that boswellic acid blocked IL-6’s activation of the STAT3 pathway. By inhibiting STAT3, other evil thingies that cause myeloma cells to proliferate and survive were also stopped dead in their tracks, such as cyclin D1, survivin and the Bcl family members (see previous posts). As a result, with all their survival mechanisms cut off, myeloma cells had no choice but to jump off a steep cliff…without a parachute.

 

Speaking of jumping, let’s jump into the full study. It begins with an important statement: Numerous recent reports indicate that multitargeted, rather than monotargeted, anticancer agents have a better chance for success. Most natural products are multitargeted ‘‘naturally’’. Boswellia serrata, an Indian frankincense or Salai guggul, has been used in Ayurvedic systems of medicine against a number of inflammatory diseases, including osteoarthritis, chronic colitis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease and bronchial asthma but the mechanism is poorly understood. By the way, all the scientifically-backed anti-myeloma (and anticancer) substances listed on my blog are multi-targeted

  

The following paragraph is for the more technically-inclined: AKBA inhibits constitutive STAT3 phosphorylation (a process that was found to be reversible, when the compound was removed), IL-6-induced STAT3 phosphorylation and the constitutive activation of JAK2. It also suppresses the nuclear translocation of STAT3, inhibites the binding of STAT3 to the DNA and angiogenesis (VEGF). It also blocks COX-2 and can suppress the growth of glioma, colon cancer, prostate, and leukemic cells. The inhibition list goes on and on and on. Extraordinary…

 

I had already read good things about boswellic acid, but I hadn’t given it much serious thought because I hadn’t (until now) read any scientific studies on its anti-myeloma effects. An excerpt from the Discussion confirms that this is the first study on AKBA’s anti-myeloma effects: Because STAT3 has been linked with survival, proliferation, chemoresistance, and angiogenesis of tumor cells, its inhibitors have potential for the treatment of cancer. In the present study, we report the identification of a novel inhibitor of STAT3. We found that AKBA inhibited both constitutive and IL-6–induced STAT3 activation in MM cells […].This is the first report to suggest that AKBA can inhibit STAT3 activation.

In conclusion, we now have another extremely valid item to add to our ever-increasing and rather impressive collection of anti-myeloma non-toxic substances. I will have to try it!

Pregnancy and myeloma

This is not an easy topic…but okay, here goes…(ah, no, I am not pregnant).

 

A blog reader recently sent me a message via my blog contact form (by the way, I get a huge amount of correspondence every day, so please forgive me if I don’t answer every single message. I do my best, but…). She is 37 years old and contemplating pregnancy…thing is, she was diagnosed a year ago with SMM. She has been stable since then, has no CRAB symptoms, but is concerned that the myeloma might take off during or after pregnancy.

 

Good question. Soon after Stefano and I started living together, I bought a whole slew of pregnancy books. Well, we never tried to conceive…for a variety of reasons. Then, in 1999, the year we got married, I was diagnosed with MGUS. I was 38 years old. Even though at the time I didn’t really understand (or, more likely, probably denied) the possible implications of MGUS, I must have had a gut feeling about it (perhaps he did, too), since we simply stopped talking about babies. And a few years ago I gave away all my pregnancy books. No regrets…not anymore, at any rate.

 

Well, I didn’t really have any useful advice for my blog reader, so I told her that, if she wished (she did), I would write a post about pregnancy and myeloma and ask all the women who read my blog: did you get pregnant after a MGUS, SMM or MM diagnosis? If so, could you tell us how things went, etc.? If you don’t want to post a public comment, please contact me via the blog contact form. I will respect everyone’s privacy.

 

What I found online was not very encouraging. There don’t seem to be many studies on this topic, which is confirmed in a 2008 Letter to the Editor of the “Annals of Hematology” (http://tinyurl.com/cbkahz): reports of MM in pregnancy are rare, with eight cases arising during pregnancy reported in the literature to date. Here we report the case of a young woman who presented with an aggressive form of MM during the third trimester of pregnancy with spinal cord compression. Whether pregnancy-related factors contributed to the aggressive nature of our patient’s disease is unclear. However, they add, Both interleukin-6 and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) promote the survival of malignant plasma cells and intriguingly, raised serum levels of these cytokines have been reported in pregnancy.

 

I found another study, published in 2004 and titled “Multiple Myeloma with a Pathologic Fracture During Pregnancy” (http://tinyurl.com/c29cun). This appears to be the first reported case of myeloma presenting as a pathologic fracture during pregnancy as well as the first reported cancellation of a planned vaginal delivery because of tumor infiltration of the spine and pelvis. Well, the study is clearly written, so there is no need for me to give a summary here. But I would like to point out that Fifteen months post partum, a painful lytic lesion arose in the tibia, potentially heralding the onset of progressive disease. Whether or not this situation was caused by the pregnancy is not known, of course.

 

The title of a third study (http://tinyurl.com/dy3hpt), published in 2007, is not exactly encouraging: “Renal failure complicating myeloma in pregnancy.” This study states that there have been nine cases reported of myeloma complicating the pregnancy or the post-partum period. Again, as with the previous study, you can go read it on your own. It’s quite straightforward. Sadly, three months after giving birth, this 32-year-old patient didn’t survive a treatment complication: septicaemia.

 

In the study’s Discussion, the authors tell us that none of the nine reported cases of myeloma diagnosed during pregnancy had a prior diagnosis of MGUS. They suggest that pregnancy may have contributed to the progression from MGUS to MM, since it may increase the availability of growth factors for MM cells. One of them is the infamous IL-6, by the way.

 

A 2006 “Immunology” Swedish study (http://tinyurl.com/av7tfs) confirms the close link between growth factors and pregnancy. The researchers examined cytokine responses in both allergic and non-allergic women during pregnancy and two years after delivery. They found elevated spontaneous innate cytokine levels (IL-1beta, IL-6) regardless of allergic status. This interesting, rather technical study ends with this statement: Our finding that women have lower total IgE levels 2 years after pregnancy than in the third trimester also shows that the immune system seems to be modulated by pregnancy, and that the effect is long-lasting.

 

I also found two other studies that may not be useful at all and also are quite dated (some of the language…no comment!), but perhaps still worth mentioning. The first is a 1966 “Blood” full report (http://tinyurl.com/cepza9). The second was published in 1990 and bears the title “Multiple myeloma in pregnancy: a case report” (abstract: http://tinyurl.com/cg7ey6). One positive titbit is that the babies in both studies were born healthy…I wonder if they grew up to be healthy adults. Too bad there was no follow-up.

In conclusion, I really do wish I had some positive information for my blog reader. Unfortunately, though, I do not.

I would really appreciate any comments and personal stories, good or bad, that might help my blog reader make a decision. Thank you!