Federico Rossari1,2, Cristina Zucchinetti3,4, Gabriele Buda5, Enrico Orciuolo6. 1. Institute of Life Sciences, Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, 56127, Pisa, Italy. f.rossari@santannapisa.it. 2. Department of Translational Research and of New Surgical and Medical Technologies, University of Pisa, 56126, Pisa, Italy. f.rossari@santannapisa.it. 3. Institute of Life Sciences, Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, 56127, Pisa, Italy. 4. Department of Translational Research and of New Surgical and Medical Technologies, University of Pisa, 56126, Pisa, Italy. 5. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Section of Hematology, University of Pisa, 56126, Pisa, Italy. 6. Hematology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability of a tumor to become dormant in response to suboptimal conditions has recently been recognized as a key step in tumor progression. Tumor dormancy has been found to be implicated in several tumor types as the culprit of therapy resistance and metastasis development, the deadliest features of a cancer. Several lines of evidence indicate that the development of these traits may rely on the de-differentiation of committed tumor cells that regain stem-like properties during a dormant state. Presently, dormancy is classified into cell- and population-level, according to the preponderance of cellular mechanisms that keep tumor cells quiescent or to a balance between overall cell division and death, respectively. Cellular dormancy is characterized by autophagy, stress-tolerance signaling, microenvironmental cues and, of prime relevance, epigenetic modifications. It has been found that the epigenome alters during cellular quiescence, thus representing the driving force for short-term cancer progression. Population-level dormancy is characterized by processes that counteract proliferation, such as inappropriate blood supply and intense immune responses. The latter two mechanisms are not mutually exclusive and may affect tumor masses both simultaneously and subsequently. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, tumor dormancy may represent an additional step in the acquisition of cancer characteristics, and its comprehension may clarify both theoretical and practical aspects of cancer development. Clinically, only a deep understanding of dormancy may explain the course of tumor development in different patients, thus representing a process that may be targeted to prevent and/or treat advanced-stage cancers. That is especially the case for breast cancer, against which the mTOR inhibitor everolimus displays potent antitumor activity in patients with metastatic disease by impeding autophagy and tumor dormancy onset. Here we will also discuss other targeted therapies directed towards tumor dormancy onset, e.g. specific inhibitors of SFK and MEK, or aimed at keeping tumor cells dormant, e.g. prosaposin derivatives, that may shortly enter clinical assessment in breast, and possibly other cancer types.
BACKGROUND: The ability of a tumor to become dormant in response to suboptimal conditions has recently been recognized as a key step in tumor progression. Tumor dormancy has been found to be implicated in several tumor types as the culprit of therapy resistance and metastasis development, the deadliest features of a cancer. Several lines of evidence indicate that the development of these traits may rely on the de-differentiation of committed tumor cells that regain stem-like properties during a dormant state. Presently, dormancy is classified into cell- and population-level, according to the preponderance of cellular mechanisms that keep tumor cells quiescent or to a balance between overall cell division and death, respectively. Cellular dormancy is characterized by autophagy, stress-tolerance signaling, microenvironmental cues and, of prime relevance, epigenetic modifications. It has been found that the epigenome alters during cellular quiescence, thus representing the driving force for short-term cancer progression. Population-level dormancy is characterized by processes that counteract proliferation, such as inappropriate blood supply and intense immune responses. The latter two mechanisms are not mutually exclusive and may affect tumor masses both simultaneously and subsequently. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, tumor dormancy may represent an additional step in the acquisition of cancer characteristics, and its comprehension may clarify both theoretical and practical aspects of cancer development. Clinically, only a deep understanding of dormancy may explain the course of tumor development in different patients, thus representing a process that may be targeted to prevent and/or treat advanced-stage cancers. That is especially the case for breast cancer, against which the mTOR inhibitor everolimus displays potent antitumor activity in patients with metastatic disease by impeding autophagy and tumor dormancy onset. Here we will also discuss other targeted therapies directed towards tumor dormancy onset, e.g. specific inhibitors of SFK and MEK, or aimed at keeping tumor cells dormant, e.g. prosaposin derivatives, that may shortly enter clinical assessment in breast, and possibly other cancer types.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer hallmarks; Metastasis; Progression; Therapy resistance; Tumor dormancy
Authors: Jesco Pfitzenmaier; William J Ellis; Edward W Arfman; Sarah Hawley; Patrick O McLaughlin; Paul H Lange; Robert L Vessella Journal: BJU Int Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jean Albrengues; Mario A Shields; David Ng; Chun Gwon Park; Alexandra Ambrico; Morgan E Poindexter; Priya Upadhyay; Dale L Uyeminami; Arnaud Pommier; Victoria Küttner; Emilis Bružas; Laura Maiorino; Carmelita Bautista; Ellese M Carmona; Phyllis A Gimotty; Douglas T Fearon; Kenneth Chang; Scott K Lyons; Kent E Pinkerton; Lloyd C Trotman; Michael S Goldberg; Johannes T-H Yeh; Mikala Egeblad Journal: Science Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Yvonne Kienast; Louisa von Baumgarten; Martin Fuhrmann; Wolfgang E F Klinkert; Roland Goldbrunner; Jochen Herms; Frank Winkler Journal: Nat Med Date: 2009-12-20 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Catherine M Koebel; William Vermi; Jeremy B Swann; Nadeen Zerafa; Scott J Rodig; Lloyd J Old; Mark J Smyth; Robert D Schreiber Journal: Nature Date: 2007-11-18 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Yogev Sela; Jinyang Li; Shivahamy Maheswaran; Robert Norgard; Salina Yuan; Maimon Hubbi; Miriam Doepner; Jimmy P Xu; Elaine S Ho; Clementina Mesaros; Colin Sheehan; Grace Croley; Alexander Muir; Ian A Blair; Ophir Shalem; Chi V Dang; Ben Z Stanger Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 13.312
Authors: Eric T Alexander; Olivia El Naggar; Erin Fahey; Kelsey Mariner; Julia Donnelly; Katelyn Wolfgang; Otto Phanstiel; Susan K Gilmour Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Caroline Hochheuser; Laurens J Windt; Nina Y Kunze; Dieuwke L de Vos; Godelieve A M Tytgat; Carlijn Voermans; Ilse Timmerman Journal: Stem Cells Dev Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 3.272
Authors: Masum Rahman; Ian Olson; Moustafa Mansour; Lucas P Carlstrom; Rujapope Sutiwisesak; Rehan Saber; Karishma Rajani; Arthur E Warrington; Adam Howard; Mark Schroeder; Sisi Chen; Paul A Decker; Eliot F Sananikone; Yi Zhu; Tamar Tchkonia; Ian F Parney; Sandeep Burma; Desmond Brown; Moses Rodriguez; Jann N Sarkaria; James L Kirkland; Terry C Burns Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 6.333