A chicken-killing virus? To treat cancer?
Why is this treatment so important?
Such
an investigation has significant clinical implications, given that prostate
cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United
States. To put things in perspective, almost 17% of men will develop prostate
cancer at some point in their lives. Treatment of prostate cancer typically
involves hormone therapy or chemotherapy, both of which have significant
adverse side effects. Furthermore, current treatments for hormone-resistant
prostate cancer only marginally increase survival and are often aimed at
palliative, or pain management, care. Given the adverse effects and low
effectiveness of the typical treatment approaches, there is much hope that we
can begin to turn to oncolytic virotherapy as a novel approach to prostate
cancer treatment. Using NDV as the vector in this therapy would alleviate
patients from the often painful side effects of more standard cancer
treatments. Although many issues are still associated with oncolytic
virotherapy, Shobana et al. (2013)
present findings that make scientists hopeful such a treatment will soon have
real clinical applications for treatment of what is now the second leading
cause of cancer death in men.
You
may be wondering how a seemingly harmful virus can be used to deliver
treatment. Wouldn’t the negative effects of the virus itself negate its
positive oncolytic capabilities? Thankfully scientists have already developed
strategies to mediate this potentially problematic association. Not only is NDV
essentially non-pathogenic for humans, but it can also be modified in such a
way so as to ensure that it only its oncolytic effects are at work when it
infected patient cells. Shobana et al. (2013) were able to perform such a
modification by altering the virus so that it is only capable of replication
when in the presence of an active prostate-specific antigen. This antigen is a
specific substance on the prostate cells that is recognized by the patient’s
immune system. In the case of this study, the authors altered a protein on the
NDV (called the F protein) so that it could only be cleaved, or cut, by the
prostate-specific antigen. This cleavage event is needed for NDV to replicate.
The virus therefore targets prostate cancer cells with this prostate-specific
antigen. The authors were essentially able to engineer a highly specific virus
that efficiently and specifically replicates in prostate cancer cells.
How well did it work?
Their
modification of the virus ensured that it would specifically target prostate
cancer cells, but the next question they needed to answer was how well this
targeting could translate into efficacy for oncolytic virotherapy. In other
words, can the modified virus really kill cancer cells? In order to answer this
question, they performed experiments using the NDV in a tumor model. This model
mimics prostate cancer in a real human host but is done in the control of a
laboratory. What they found was pretty exciting. The virus did in fact kill
prostate cancer cells! Furthermore, because they engineered it to have high
specificity for cancerous cells, it did not harm normal human cells. The results
from this study show that, at least in the laboratory model, the modified NDV
seems to have effective oncolytic capabilities. Also, past studies that have
used an unmodified or natural version of this virus as a treatment tool have
had to use very large doses to see effects. Yet with the modification done in
this study, the authors believe that their specific strain of NDV can be
effective at destroying prostate cancer at much lower doses.
What does all this mean?
The
modification of NDV’s F protein yields a newly engineered viral strain has the
potential to be safer and even more effective at lower doses. Ideally, this
virus could be injected into a prostate cancer patient, either into the
bloodstream or directly into a prostate tumor, and the NDV could find and
destroy cancerous cells. Does this method seem a little too good to be true?
That may be the case, at least at this point in time. Shobana et al. (2013)
performed their experiments in a tumor model in the lab, rather than in an
actual human patient. As you might expect, the human body is much more
complicated than a fully controlled experimental tumor model. Before this
specific form of oncolytic virotherapy can be used as a viable treatment
method, more trials need to be performed to assess the efficacy of the modified
NDV in an actual human or animal host. Nevertheless, if this method is in fact successful
in clinical trials in the future, we may find ourselves thanking a
chicken-killing virus for countless lives saving lives. Who would have thought?
References
Primary article:
Shobana R, Samal SK, and Elankumaran S. 2013.
Prostate-specific antigen-retargeted
recombinant Newcastle disease virus
for prostate cancer virotherapy. Journal of Virology 87(7): 3792-800.
Secondary articles:
Newcastle disease
virus. (2013, February 20). Retrieved from
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/NDV/patient/page1
Prostate Cancer
Overview. (2013, January 17). Retrieved from
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostatecancer/overviewguide/prostate-cancer-overview-key-statistics
Russell SJ, Peng KW, and Bell JC. 2012. Oncolytic
virotherapy. Nature Biotechnology
30: 658-670.
Virginia Tech study
finds virus promising for cancer treatment. (2013, April 8).
Retrieved from http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2013/04/040813-vetmed-prostatecancer.html
I've heard something about it before. Me and Dr Fredda Branyon is excited to see more about this matter soon. Give us further and deeper case studies. We'll be excited to see that!
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the work you are doing on your blog. I am an NP and Stage IV cancer patient myself. However, Ms Burns...whoever she is...is posting inane comments on any blog she can find with the word "Cancer" in it, trying to "sell" Branyon who is NOT a licensed MD. Rather, she is a criminal who plead guilty to the illegal manufacture and sell of "stem cells" and was facing 3 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. (You can learn more in my response to her comment on my blog post of May 8, 2013.)Thought you should know. Wishing you the best.
ReplyDelete