Back
Reference: Blau CA. Erythropoietin in
Cancer: Presumption of Innocence? Stem Cells 2007;25:2094-2097
Summarized by: Catherine Cunningham & Kevin
O’Donnell, Fall 2007
One of the major obstacles encountered by drug manufactures developing cancer
therapies is the inability to specifically target cancer cells without effecting
normal cellular function. Most drugs currently in use exert their effects by
inhibiting various pathways crucial to cell cycling and growth. In this way,
these drugs inhibit tumor growth. The cancer drugs affect normal tissues that
rely on continuous cellular renewal, which is the basis for major side effects.
These include hair, gut and bone marrow progenitors also inhibited as a
side-effect. These inhibitory side effects give rise to the well recognized
presentation of hair loss, anemia, and immunosuppression in a patient undergoing
chemotherapy.
Erythropoietin is a growth factor, with functions on erythropoiesis, which is
represented as the generation of red blood cells. It is used in conjunction with
other cancer treatments to counteract the side effects associated with these
therapies, specifically anemia induced by chemotherapy. Anemia is often used as
a prognostic tool in oncology since studies have shown its occurrence to
increase the risk of death in various types of cancers. Consequently, it was
hypothesized that erythropoietin could possibly impart some type of survival
benefit to cancer patients. Despite direct evidence to the contrary,
erythropoietin is still one of the most widely prescribed drugs in cancer
treatment today.
Blau raises the issue of whether erythropoietin drugs are
actually safe when used for their FDA-approved indication – treatment of
chemotherapy-induced anemia. The original clinical trials did not require any
assessment of survival benefit because erythropoietin was only considered a
complimentary therapy. However, a number of recent Phase II and III trials that
sought to broaden the scope of FDA approval were prematurely terminated because
of a statistically significant worsening of survival of erythropoietin-treated
patients.
He suggests that this decrease in survival may be attributed to the
presence of erythropoietin receptors aberrantly located on cells comprising the
tumor. In fact, he has preliminary data suggesting patients with erythropoietin
receptors on the tumor do have a decrease in survival while those without the
receptors on the tumor may have some benefit from erythropoietin treatment.
Therefore, as a protective measure for the patient population receiving
erythropoietin therapy, he would like to retrospectively analyze the tumor
biopsies from the previous trials, looking for the presence or absence of
erythropoietin receptors, and correlate this data with survival benefit.
The central issue addressed by Blau about determining what is the safe
usage of adjuvant erythropoietin administration during chemotherapy is valid and
important. He stresses that our knowledge of how erythropoietin interacts with
it’s receptor located on a tumor is cursory at best and needs to be elucidated
before we can justify administering the drug as ancillary treatment. In
reality, erythropoietin therapy may only be indicated in a specific subset of
patients with characteristic tumor markers, a finding which would change the
current paradigm of treatment.
Note: A potential conflict of interest exists in that the author of
this article is the co-founder and a stockholder of CellNexus, a pharmaceutical
company that manufactures a drug which could be considered the direct competitor
of erythropoietin.
Back |