Aniruddha Ganguly1, David Frank2, Nagi Kumar3, Yung-Chi Cheng4, Edward Chu5. 1. Cancer Diagnosis Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rm. 4-W438, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA. gangulya@mail.nih.gov. 2. Dana Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. 3. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacology, Developmental Therapeutics Program, Yale Cancer Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Cancer Therapeutics Program, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, 15232, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There has been an increasing interest in using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches to treat cancer. It is therefore relevant and timely to determine if CAM biomarkers can be identified and developed to guide cancer diagnosis and treatment. Herein, we review the status of cancer biomarkers in CAM research and treatment to stimulate further research in this area. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies on promising anti-cancer natural products, such as PHY906, honokiol, bryostatin-1, and sulforaphane have demonstrated the existence of potential cancer biomarker(s). Additional studies are required to further develop and ultimately validate these biomarkers that can predict clinical activity of the anti-cancer natural products used alone or in combination with chemotherapeutic agents. A systematic approach is needed to identify and develop CAM treatment associated biomarkers and to define their role in facilitating clinical decision-making. The expectation is to use these biomarkers in determining potential options for CAM treatment, examining treatment effects and toxicity and/or clinical efficacy in patients with cancer.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There has been an increasing interest in using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches to treat cancer. It is therefore relevant and timely to determine if CAM biomarkers can be identified and developed to guide cancer diagnosis and treatment. Herein, we review the status of cancer biomarkers in CAM research and treatment to stimulate further research in this area. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies on promising anti-cancer natural products, such as PHY906, honokiol, bryostatin-1, and sulforaphane have demonstrated the existence of potential cancer biomarker(s). Additional studies are required to further develop and ultimately validate these biomarkers that can predict clinical activity of the anti-cancer natural products used alone or in combination with chemotherapeutic agents. A systematic approach is needed to identify and develop CAM treatment associated biomarkers and to define their role in facilitating clinical decision-making. The expectation is to use these biomarkers in determining potential options for CAM treatment, examining treatment effects and toxicity and/or clinical efficacy in patients with cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anti-cancer herbal medicine; Anti-cancer natural product; Biomarker; Cancer complementary and alternative medicine (CAM); Cancer diagnostics; Integrative oncology
Authors: D S Michaud; D Spiegelman; S K Clinton; E B Rimm; W C Willett; E L Giovannucci Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-04-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: L Gamet-Payrastre; P Li; S Lumeau; G Cassar; M A Dupont; S Chevolleau; N Gasc; J Tulliez; F Tercé Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2000-03-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: L L Santos; T Amaro; S A Pereira; C R Lameiras; P Lopes; M J Bento; J Oliveira; B Criado; C S Lopes Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Xianhe Bai; Francesca Cerimele; Masuko Ushio-Fukai; Muhammad Waqas; Paul M Campbell; Baskaran Govindarajan; Channing J Der; Traci Battle; David A Frank; Keqiang Ye; Emma Murad; Wolfgang Dubiel; Gerald Soff; Jack L Arbiser Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 5.157