Comparative evaluation of the treatment efficacy of suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid (SAHA) and paclitaxel in ovarian cancer cell lines and primary ovarian cancer cells from patients

BACKGROUND: In most patients with ovarian cancer, diagnosis occurs after the tumour has disseminated beyond the ovaries. In these cases, post-surgical taxane/platinum combination chemotherapy is the "gold standard". However, most of the patients experience disease relapse and eventually die due to the emergence of chemotherapy resistance. Histone deacetylase inhibitors are novel anticancer agents that hold promise to improve patient outcome. METHODS: We compared a prototypic histone deacetylase inhibitor, suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid (SAHA), and paclitaxel for their treatment efficacy in ovarian cancer cell lines and in primary patient-derived ovarian cancer cells. The primary cancer cells were isolated from malignant ascites collected from five patients with stage III ovarian carcinomas. Cytotoxic activities were evaluated by Alamar Blue assay and by caspase-3 activation. The ability of SAHA to kill drug-resistant 2780AD cells was also assessed. RESULTS: By employing the cell lines OVCAR-3, SK-OV-3, and A2780, we established SAHA at concentrations of 1 to 20 μM to be as efficient in inducing cell death as paclitaxel at concentrations of 3 to 300 nM. Consequently, we treated the patient-derived cancer cells with these doses of the drugs. All five isolates were sensitive to SAHA, with cell killing ranging from 21% to 63% after a 72-h exposure to 20 μM SAHA, while four of them were resistant to paclitaxel (i.e., <10% cell death at 300 nM paclitaxel for 72 hours). Likewise, treatment with SAHA led to an increase in caspase-3 activity in all five isolates, whereas treatment with paclitaxel had no effect on caspase-3 activity in three of them. 2780AD cells were responsive to SAHA but resistant to paclitaxel. CONCLUSION: These ex vivo findings raise the possibility that SAHA may prove effective in the treatment of paclitaxel-resistant ovarian cancer in vivo

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p