Emily J Gallagher1, Zara Zelenko2, Aviva Tobin-Hess2, Ulrich Werner3, Norbert Tennagels3, Derek LeRoith2. 1. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L Levy Place, Box 1055, New York, NY, 10029, USA. emily.gallagher@mssm.edu. 2. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L Levy Place, Box 1055, New York, NY, 10029, USA. 3. Diabetes Research & Translational Medicine, Insulin Biology, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Previous epidemiological studies have reported a potential link between insulin analogues and breast cancer; however, a prospective randomised controlled trial showed neutral effects of insulin glargine on cancer risk. Insulin glargine is metabolised in vivo to an M1 metabolite. A question remains whether a subset of individuals with slower rates of glargine metabolism or who are on high doses could, theoretically, have an increased risk of cancer progression if a tumour is already present. In this study, we aimed to determine whether a non-metabolisable form of insulin glargine induced murine breast cancer growth. METHODS: A mouse model of type 2 diabetes (MKR) was used for these studies. MKR mice were injected with two murine mammary cancer cell lines: Mvt-1 cells (derived from MMTV-c-Myc/Vegf tumours) and Met1 cells (derived from MMTV-polyoma virus middle T antigen tumours). Mice were treated with 25 U/kg per day of the long-acting insulin analogues, insulin glargine, insulin detemir, insulin degludec or non-metabolisable glargine, or vehicle. RESULTS: No difference in tumour growth was seen in terms of tumour size after insulin glargine, detemir, degludec or vehicle injections. Non-metabolisable glargine did not increase tumour growth compared with insulin glargine or vehicle. Insulin glargine and non-metabolisable glargine led to insulin receptor phosphorylation in vivo rather than IGF-1 receptor phosphorylation. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: These results demonstrate that in a mouse model of type 2 diabetes, at high concentrations, basal insulin analogues and a non-metabolisable glargine analogue do not promote the progression of breast tumours.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Previous epidemiological studies have reported a potential link between insulin analogues and breast cancer; however, a prospective randomised controlled trial showed neutral effects of insulinglargine on cancer risk. Insulinglargine is metabolised in vivo to an M1 metabolite. A question remains whether a subset of individuals with slower rates of glargine metabolism or who are on high doses could, theoretically, have an increased risk of cancer progression if a tumour is already present. In this study, we aimed to determine whether a non-metabolisable form of insulinglargine induced murinebreast cancer growth. METHODS: A mouse model of type 2 diabetes (MKR) was used for these studies. MKR mice were injected with two murine mammary cancer cell lines: Mvt-1 cells (derived from MMTV-c-Myc/Vegf tumours) and Met1 cells (derived from MMTV-polyoma virus middle T antigen tumours). Mice were treated with 25 U/kg per day of the long-acting insulin analogues, insulin glargine, insulin detemir, insulin degludec or non-metabolisable glargine, or vehicle. RESULTS: No difference in tumour growth was seen in terms of tumour size after insulinglargine, detemir, degludec or vehicle injections. Non-metabolisable glarginedid not increase tumour growth compared with insulinglargine or vehicle. Insulinglargine and non-metabolisable glargine led to insulin receptor phosphorylation in vivo rather than IGF-1 receptor phosphorylation. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: These results demonstrate that in a mouse model of type 2 diabetes, at high concentrations, basal insulin analogues and a non-metabolisable glargine analogue do not promote the progression of breast tumours.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Insulin analogues; Insulin receptor; Insulin-like growth factor receptor; Type 2 diabetes
Authors: Alexander D Borowsky; Ruria Namba; Lawrence J T Young; Kent W Hunter; J Graeme Hodgson; Clifford G Tepper; Erik T McGoldrick; William J Muller; Robert D Cardiff; Jeffrey P Gregg Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2005 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: L G Hemkens; U Grouven; R Bender; C Günster; S Gutschmidt; G W Selke; P T Sawicki Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: P Lucidi; F Porcellati; P Candeloro; P Cioli; A Marinelli Andreoli; S Marzotti; R Schmidt; G B Bolli; C G Fanelli Journal: Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2014-02-22 Impact factor: 4.222
Authors: Rosalyn D Ferguson; Ruslan Novosyadlyy; Yvonne Fierz; Nyosha Alikhani; Hui Sun; Shoshana Yakar; Derek Leroith Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2012-01-07 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Ivona Baricevic; David R Jones; Darren L Roberts; Anne Lutzen; Anders Lundby; Jesper Worm; Bo F Hansen; Andrew G Renehan Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2015-05-30 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Geremia B Bolli; Annke D Hahn; Ronald Schmidt; Tanja Eisenblaetter; Raphael Dahmen; Tim Heise; Reinhard H A Becker Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-10-23 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Clara I Juárez-Vázquez; Carmen M Gurrola-Díaz; Belinda Vargas-Guerrero; José A Domínguez-Rosales; Jessica F Rodriguez-Ortiz; Patricio Barros-Núñez; Silvia E Flores-Martínez; José Sánchez-Corona; Mónica A Rosales-Reynoso Journal: Iran J Basic Med Sci Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 2.699
Authors: Henning Hvid; Tine Glendorf; Jakob Brandt; Rita Slaaby; Anne Lützen; Kim Kristensen; Bo F Hansen Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Yusaku Mori; Eunhyoung Ko; Rudolf Furrer; Linda C Qu; Stuart C Wiber; I George Fantus; Mario Thevis; Alan Medline; Adria Giacca Journal: Endocr Connect Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 3.335