|
IPRS, Inc.
|
 Promoting Innovation Since 1985 |
|
|
The Magnesium Project Prostate Cancer Prostate cancer is characteristic of most types of cancer in that it is multi-focal. There may be a number of genes involved and many different proteins and regulatory pathways involved. Included are apoptosis, angiogenesis, metastasis and other disruptions in the normal cell cycle. There are a number of studies that have shown that Mg is an important factor in a number of cancers. This is not surprising since many of the biochemical pathways that become high jacked by the cancer cell are dependent upon enzymes and reactions that are Mg activated. Foremost among these are the various kinases. Src family kinases (SFKs) is the largest family of non-receptor protein tyrosine kinases. It is comprised of nine members of which Src is the most prominent regarding its potential role in prostate cancer (See K. Fizazi, 2007). It is believed that an aberrant form of Src activity contributes to cancer development. SFK-activated pathways are also involved in tumor adhesion, motility, invasion, and angiogenesis. Increased activity or expression of Src has been reported in several malignancies including in colorectal cancer and it is higher in metastatic tissue than in primary tumor tissue. Another kinase implicated in prostate cancer is the phosphoinositide-3-kinase (PI3K) pathway. A low expression of the PTEN gene or an increase in the Insulin-like Growth Factor I Receptor (IGF-IR) has recently been shown to worsen prognosis. IGF-IR is a direct activator of the PI3K pathway (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(11); 1984–93, 2013 AACR). One of the treatments for prostate cancer is identified as "hormone therapy" or "anti-androgen therapy" or "chemical castration." For the most part it involves taking estrogen-like compounds. Estrogens are one of the major female sex hormones. These compounds block the androgen receptors in the male and are found to be helpful in preventing cancer growth subsequent to other treatments such as radiation and surgery. One of the side effects of these compounds is the loss of calcium from the bones and development of bone pain if the cancer has metastasized into the bones. Loss of calcium and bone structure is identified as the disease of osteoporosis. The osteoporosis may be treated with bisphosphonates that help retard bone loss. Some of the processes altered in the "hormone therapy" are likely influenced by Mg which may act in conjunction with or in opposition to the normal Ca-Phosphate balances in the blood and bone depending upon relative levels. See below for two IPRS initiatives on Prostate Cancer pending funding. IPRS Initiative in Developing a Guide to Decision Making in The typical person who has just been diagnosed with cancer is faced with many treatment options ranging from doing nothing (watchful waiting or surveillance) to having radical surgery with many choices in between these two extremes. Often the choices that are made are dependent upon which specialist they are directed to whether it be an oncological surgeon or physician, a radiology specialists or an advocate of chemotherapy. The benefits of each may be skewed depending upon one's personal preferences and experience and the risks of each may be minimized. If the patient talks to friends and neighbors, other health care providers and searches the Internet, they can become even more confused about which options are best for them. There is a need for a tool that provides a framework for decision making and risk assessment that is not biased by a particular specialty's point of view. The decision flow charts that would be appropriate for a person recently diagnosed with prostate cancer are available here: Decision Options IPRS Initiative in Developing a Primer on Prostate Cancer Research Every year there are hundreds of scientific review panels called together by major cancer funding agencies (both governmental and private non-profits) with the purpose of reviewing thousands of proposals each claiming to be important in finding a cure and treatment for cancer. Billions of dollars are at stake as scientists and clinicians seek support for their favorite research program. Some agencies (notably CDMRP administered by the U.S. Army) spend considerable time and resources in developing strategic plans and setting funding priorities based upon collective inputs from the scientific and user community. Others however too often have little resources and receive guidance from a small set of “scientific advisors” with the result that research gets funded that is based more on who has an inside track or who has the appropriate affiliation and less on the potential impact or value towards furthering our knowledge of cancer biology and toward the development of innovative means to alleviate suffering and death. Even in programs that spend considerable effort in seeking innovative and high impact research topics, there is the problem of then finding sufficient number of reviewers who have the breadth of understanding of the whole field to conduct meaningful evaluations of specific proposals. Most researchers have their own narrow fields of expertise and narrow circle of contacts as to who are the best people with the best available resources to most likely meet the research objectives proposed. While there is often great care in selecting panel members to review a given set of proposals, the persons with the most expertise often have conflicts of interests (they are collaborators or colleagues with the principal investigator for example). Or, the persons most able to judge the merits of a proposal are unavailable or uninterested in taking time to review proposals. Thus review panels may be comprised of persons who are not as familiar with the methodology, the area of research, the state of the art, the literature or the institution’s or investigator’s reputation. There is therefore a need to provide training to the reviewers of technical proposals. This training is different from the training often provided regarding the scoring criteria and processes. The training that is needed and lacking should provide some basic information including a glossary of terms, to make it easy to understand what is being proposed. Beyond this would be an overview of the state of the art and understanding of current views of causes and treatments of the disease. This would include an overview of detection and diagnostic tools, biomarkers, methodologies, treatment options and maintenance and after-care. It would also include a high level overview of study methodologies including statistical analysis, design of experiments and determining levels of confidence in outcomes. It might also include a discussion of tools ranging from the molecular level, in silico, in vitro, in vivo, animal models and clinical protocols. See Glossary of terms in cancer research. Bibliography for Cancer Research - Available to donors by request. Genetic conditions that may be pre-disposing to any of the foregoing conditions are yet to be fully evaluated. For further discussion of genetics and genomics see the Genomics. There are a number of similarities between prostate cancer and breast cancer. They are both cancers of glandular tissues. They both have a strong inherited aspect and they both take a significant toll on the population. The are many common areas of research. For more details see the following web page on Breast Cancer.
Interested in advocating for research on Prostate Cancer? See our page on Community Advocacy opportunities (CDMRP program and Consumer Reviewers program). Cancer Research Advocate
------------------------------
© 2013-2024. All Rights Reserved, IPRS Inc. |