Bone Cancer: Epidemiologic and Etiologic Considerations

2015 ◽  
pp. 17-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph F. Fraumeni
Keyword(s):  
Bone Cancer

23. Coley's toxin and spontaneous tumour regression

2007 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. S. Hayre
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Primary Tumour ◽  
Bone Cancer ◽  
Tumour Regression ◽  
Strong Reaction ◽  
Young Surgeon ◽  
Naturally Occurring ◽  
Excellent Health ◽  
Natural Response ◽  
Fever Response

William Coley, a young surgeon at New York Memorial Hospital, was traumatized by the loss of his first patient to bone cancer in 1891. He was unable to save this young patient and she succumbed to her Sarcoma within 3 months of surgery. He searched the hospital archive to learn more about Sarcoma and discovered the case of a patient with a large sarcoma who had undergone five unsuccessful surgeries over a 3 year period. This case had been determined to be hopeless. After the last of these operations, the patient became very ill from an erysipelas infection. Coley was astonished to read that after the fever broke and the patient had recovered, the tumour had vanished. Seven years later, the patient was still alive and well. Coley concluded that whatever had caused the fever must also have destroyed the cancer. Coley searched for and found this patient still in excellent health. Coley reasoned that if a chance infection could make tumours vanish, then a purposefully induced infection could do the same. The hypothesis was tested by infecting his next 10 patients with Streptococcus pyogenes to cause Erysipelas. Some of the patients were difficult to infect, some died, and some had a strong reaction and their disease regressed. Coley switched to deactivated S. pyogenes to avoid the mortality observed with the live strain. Afterxperimentation with various formulations, a combination of S pyogenes and Serratia marcescens was decided upon and became known as Coley’s Toxin. The preferred method of delivery was injection of the toxin directly into the primary tumour or metastases in increasing doses to avoid immune tolerance. Fever response in the patient was essential to imitate a naturally occurring infection and the body’s natural response. Though Coley met with success, this therapy was abandoned as chemotherapy became more popular. Hoption Cann SA, Gunn HD, van Netten JP, van Netten C. Dr William Coley and tumour regression: a place in history or in the future. Post Graduate Medical Journal 2003; 79:672-680. Hobohm U. Fever and Cancer in Perspective. Cancer Immunology & Immunotherapy 2001; 50:391-396. Grange JM, Standord JL, Stanford CA. Campbell De Morgan’s ‘Observations on cancer’, and their relevance today. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2002 (June); 95:296-299.

Pain Biomarkers in Cancer: An Overview

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Calapai ◽  
Epifanio Mondello ◽  
Carmen Mannucci ◽  
Emanuela Elisa Sorbara ◽  
Sebastiano Gangemi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Bone Cancer ◽  
Common Symptom ◽  
Scientific Databases ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Cancer Breast ◽  
Oncologic Patients ◽  
Few Data ◽  
Analgesic Response ◽  
Pro Inflammatory Cytokines

Background: Pain is a common symptom in oncologic patients and its management is generally guided by pain individually perceived by patients and expressed through self-reported scales. However, the utility of these tools is limited because strongly dependent on patients’ opinions. For this reason, more objective instruments are desirable. Objective: In this overview scientific articles indicating potential markers to be used for pain management in cancer were collected and discussed. Methods: research was performed on principal electronic scientific databases by using the words “pain”, “cancer”, “markers” as “biomarkers” as the main keywords, and findings describing potential biomarkers for the management of cancer pain were reported. Results: Studies on pain markers not specific for cancer typology (inflammatory, genetic, markers predicting response to analgesic drugs, neuroimaging markers) and pain markers for specific types of cancer (bone cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, head and neck cancer, prostate cancer, cancer in pediatrics) are presented and commented. Conclusion: This overview supports the view of the involvement of inflammatory mediators in the mechanisms underlying cancer pain. Up today only a few data from research on markers can help in the management of pain, except for pro-inflammatory cytokines and other inflammatory indexes such as C-reactive protein (CRP). However, biomarkers are a promising strategy useful to predict pain intensity and to purchase objective quantification of analgesic response in guiding decisions on individual-tailored treatments in cancer patients.

Dual-targeting Janus Dendrimer Based Peptides for Bone Cancer: Synthesis and Preliminary Biological Evaluation

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 594-601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo Jiang ◽  
Jing Zhao ◽  
Yanhua Li ◽  
Dongsheng He ◽  
Junzhu Pan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Cancer ◽  
Biological Evaluation ◽  
Dual Targeting
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document