THE FAILURE OF CHEMOTHERAPY
Cancer chemotherapy kills some tumour cells, leaving behind resistant clones with less competition for space and resources. These clones, groups of cells that share common ancestry, proliferate without restriction causing disease relapse.
Tumours contain a host of cancer clones that are genetically and epigenetically different from one another [1]. These clones follow a Darwinian process of somatic selection where they compete for space and resources within their microenvironments [2]. Cancer cells acquire mutations over time that affect their fitness, giving some clones a survival advantage over others [3].
Chemotherapy itself is a selective pressure that influences tumour heterogeneity and clonal evolution. Most cancer deaths are caused by clones that are therapeutically resistant [3]. The evolution of resistant clones occurs rapidly, resulting in the appearance of new clones that are not susceptible to conventional therapy. Evolutionary principles describe the process of clonal evolution and aid in formulating novel strategies for disease management and prognosis [4].
EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES
An understanding of tumour heterogeneity and clone fitness is key to developing better treatment options. Intra-tumoural genetic variability and instability affect the process of somatic evolution [4].
Variations in the tumour microenvironment, including nutrient availability and blood supply access, drive clone evolution in both the presence and absence of chemotherapeutic drugs [3, 5]. The more genetic or environmental variation there is, the greater the likelihood that some clones will develop a survival advantage over others [4].
In some instances, resistant clones can co-operate with one another in ways that promote their survival [6], leading to faster cancer progression or increased aggressiveness. When chemo-sensitive cells are killed, space and resources become abundantly available to resistant clones, which then proliferate without inhibition by neighbouring cells. Understanding clonal evolution and the pressures that select for resistant clones can inform the development of new therapeutic approaches.
FUTURE IMPLICATIONS
With the advent of molecular data and computational frameworks, alternate strategies are being investigated to manipulate the microenvironment to control and contain tumours [5, 7]. Genetic profiling of tumour progression over time allows analysis of DNA methylation patterns and base pair mutations of clones, linking the evolution of clones to specific genetic events [8]. Single cell analysis helps in understanding tumour progression and intra-tumoural heterogeneity [9], and next-generation sequencing uncovers genetic complexities in individual clones [3, 10].
Mathematical and computational modelling provides frameworks for determining vital mutations and microenvironmental changes, bridging the gap between laboratory data and clinical information [7, 9, 11].
The strategies being investigated include using cell competition to control resistant clones, manipulating blood and nutrient supply, and using drugs that contain tumour growth instead of killing cells [7, 8, 11]. Many of these approaches are being tested in animal models, with the hope that some of these interventions will make their way into clinical practice.
One promising approach is to utilize tradeoffs by manipulating clones to compromise themselves by becoming dependent on mutations that protect them from one drug, but that make them susceptible to other drugs [12].
FUNDING
The National Research Foundation (NRF) Thuthuka program, grant number TTK20110727000022309.
REFERENCES
- 1. Aktipis CA, Kwan VSY, Johnson KA. et al. Overlooking evolution: a systematic analysis of cancer relapse and therapeutic resistance research. PLoS One 2011; 6:e26100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Nowell PC. The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. Science 1976; 194:23–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Greaves M, Maley CC.. Clonal evolution in cancer. Nature 2012; 481:306–13. doi: 10.1038/nature10762. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Aktipis CA, Nesse RM.. Evolutionary foundations for cancer biology. Evol Appl 2013; 6:144–59. doi: 10.1111/eva.12034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Mumenthaler SM, Foo J, Choi NC. et al. The impact of microenvironmental heterogeneity on the evolution of drug resistance in cancer cells. Cancer Inform 2015; 14:19–31. doi: 10.4137/CIN.S19338. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Axelrod R, Axelrod DE, Pienta KJ.. Evolution of cooperation among tumor cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2006; 103:13474–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0606053103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Hochberg ME, Thomas F, Assenat E. et al. Preventive evolutionary medicine of cancers. Evol Appl 2013; 6:134–43. doi: 10.1111/eva.12033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Chen J, Sprouffske K, Huang Q. et al. Solving the puzzle of metastasis: the evolution of cell migration in neoplasms. PLoS One 2011; 6:e17933. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Beerenwinkel N, Schwarz RF, Gerstung M. et al. Cancer evolution: mathematical models and computational inference. Syst Biol 2015; 64:e1–25. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syu081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Ding L, Raphael BJ, Chen F. et al. Advances for studying clonal evolution in cancer. Cancer Lett 2013; 340:212–9. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2012.12.028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Gatenby RA, Silva AS, Gillies RJ. et al. Adaptive therapy. Cancer Res 2009; 69:4894–903. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-3658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Szakacs G, Hall MD, Gottesman MM. et al. Targeting the Achilles heel of multidrug-resistant cancer by exploiting the fitness cost of resistance. Chem Rev 2014; 114:5753–74. doi: 10.1021/cr4006236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]