spent my summer reading and thinking about trophoblasts. Trophoblastic
form the layer of embryonic tissue that attaches the embryo or fetus
to the wall of the mother's uterus. Trophoblasts provide protective
armor by completely surrounding the embryo, while also carrying nutrients
from the mother's blood to that of the developing fetus. The
National Institutes of Health (NIH) define trophoblast as "the
extra-embryonic tissue responsible for implantation, developing into
the placenta, and controlling the exchange of oxygen and metabolites
between mother and embryo."
The word trophoblast means "original feeding tissue" and was so named
by the Dutch embryologist Ambrosius Arnold Willem Hubrecht (1853-1915), who discovered
it in the course of his study of the placenta of the hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus).
Soon trophoblasts were identified in other mammals, including man – or,
Most Western people are vaguely aware of the placenta, or afterbirth, which is
the final act in the life drama of the trophoblast. In some cultures, the placenta
is honored. According to one author, the Balinese wash the placenta in perfumed
water after birth, wrap it in a cloth, and then bury it on the threshold of the
family home in a carefully prepared coconut (Young 2001). The ancient Egyptians
preserved the Pharaoh's placenta in a special jar. The Japanese used to
bury placentas in a cedarwood placental pot, and even today, the website of the
Osaka City Bureau of Waste Management offers to dispose of an afterbirth for
1,700 Yen (about $14 USD). Perhaps our haste to dispose of afterbirth reveals
some subliminal fear. One leading expert on placentas, the late Dame Anne McLaren,
revealed in a scientific account that she had "always found trophoblast
Trophoblasts are unique in many ways, not least for their explosive growth rate.
In the mouse, for example, between days 3 and 7 after conception, there is a
500-fold increase in tissue volume. This is mainly due to the power of the burgeoning
trophoblast. What is more, "trophoblast is able to organize its own program
of development within a well-defined time span that is independent of the embryo," according
to Y.W. Loke of King's College, Cambridge.
Although the placenta comes between the mother and the developing baby, it is
independent of both. It arises before the embryo – the first differentiation
of the fertilized egg is into trophoblast – and it has a separate life
cycle. Having done its remarkable job, it dies upon delivery of the afterbirth,
while the baby (hopefully) goes forward to a long and glorious life. Both scary
and autonomous, and growing at an enormous rate, the placenta is rather like
the Monster that Ate Pittsburgh.
In the early part of the twentieth century, scientists began to notice a remarkable
similarity between trophoblastic cells and cancer. It was said that if you mixed
up microscope slides of both trophoblasts and cancer, you could never again tell
them apart. Both tumor tissue and trophoblast are highly proliferative, migratory,
and invasive, with an almost limitless ability to perpetuate themselves unless
The main difference between cancer and trophoblast is that trophoblast's
growth is a naturally self-contained process, limited to the environment of the
uterus. In rare instances, however, trophoblast can escape from these natural
boundaries, and the result is choriocarcinoma, a highly malignant form of cancer
that is deadly, unless treated by chemotherapy. In the vast majority of cases,
the cancer-like growth of trophoblast is kept in check by a cascade of hormonal
and cytokine signals.
Over the past several years, there has been a stream of articles on the similarity
between cancer and these trophoblastic cells of pregnancy. Here are excerpts
from a few recent examples:
"The metastatic properties of cancer may also have its counterpart
in the migratory behavior of germ cells, and in the propensity of normal
trophoblast cells to migrate to other organs...." – L.
"Extravillous trophoblast cells are...reminiscent of cancer
cells." – F. M. Corvinus et al., 2003
"Extravillous trophoblast cells resemble malignancies in their
invasive and destructive features...." – T. G. Poehlmann
et al., 2005
"Trophoblast cells have remarkable growth and invasive properties
in vivo, so much so that they resemble neoplastic cells...." – Y.W.
Loke in A. Moffett et al. 2006
In 2007, Dominique Bellet and her Parisian
colleagues conducted a comprehensive review of the points of resemblance
and cancer at the molecular level. They remarked on the "striking
similarities between the proliferative, migratory, and invasive properties
of placental cells and those of cancer cells" (Ferretti et al.
2007). The many similarities of cancer and trophoblast have profound
implications for both our understanding of the natural history of cancer
and for its treatment. I find it sad that, with a few notable exceptions,
such as Dr. Lloyd J. Old of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center,
most authors in the field remain unaware of the work of John Beard,
DSc. Beard was a British scientist who, 100 years ago, wrote a series
of journal articles and a popular book on the similarity of trophoblast
to cancer. Beard was convinced that cancer was in fact trophoblast,
the outgrowth in every instance of an aberrant germ cell.
At one time, Beard was taken quite seriously, For example, the celebrated
Sir William Osler lauded Beard's work in embryology. and newspapers regarded
his utterances in embryology to be authoritative and final. Beard advocated,
as the practical corollary of his theory, the use of intravenous pancreatic
enzymes in cancer treatment. A great many physicians began using Beard's
treatment. However, Beard's therapeutic hypothesis was eventually abandoned,
possibly because of the fact that the various enzyme preparations available
in those days were uneven in quality and easily destroyed by mishandling, and
thus produced extremely inconsistent results. Today, Beard doesn't even
merit an entry in Wikipedia. Given the growing interest in the similarity of
cancer and trophoblast, this might be an opportune moment for scientists to
take a fresh look at John Beard's thinking on this still largely unexplored
Doubts about Angiogenesis Inhibitors
New doubts have been raised about the safety and efficacy of drugs known as
angiogenesis inhibitors. These drugs are designed to block the development
of new blood vessels within and around tumors. Without an effective and independent
blood supply, a tumor cannot grow bigger than the tip of a pencil.
This strategy for combating cancer was first put forward in the early 1970s
by Judah Folkman, MD, of Harvard Medical School (Folkman 1971). Folkman believed
that drugs based on his research would not only be more effective but far safer
than traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy. After an initial period of intense
resistance the idea caught on big time. There are now thousands of articles
on angiogenesis and cancer, hundreds of them by Folkman himself. More importantly,
many of the newly approved cancer drugs are based on this concept of attacking
the tumor's blood supply. But while the theory itself is elegant, and
Folkman has become an icon of modern medicine, there are serious questions
about how safe and effective many of the current generation of anti-angiogenic
drugs are in controlling tumor growth.
A study from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), published
in August, 2007 in the peer-reviewed journal Cell, shows that a widely used
group of anti-angiogenesis drugs is associated with serious and potentially
deadly side effects. These drugs are known as VEGF inhibitors. (VEGF stands
for vascular endothelial growth factor, a signaling protein that promotes the
growth of new blood vessels.)
Outside-In Vs. Inside-Out
Many of the currently used VEGF inhibitors such as Avastin (bevacuzimab) work
by blocking VEGF signaling from outside the cell. However, the UCLA researchers
are trying to understand what happens when VEGF signaling is blocked from
within the cell, which is a mechanism used by some of the newer, small molecule
anti-angiogenic drugs that are currently in late-phase clinical trials. According
to a UCLA press release, "the result was unexpected and sobering." More
than half of the mice in the study suffered heart attacks and fatal strokes.
The mice that remained alive developed serious systemic vascular disease,
according to Luisa Iruela-Arispe, a professor of molecular, cell, and developmental
biology and director of the Cancer Cell Biology program at UCLA's Jonsson
Cancer Center (Lee 2007).
"This was an extremely surprising result," said Iruela-Arispe, past
president of the North American Vascular Biology Organization and a national
expert on angiogenesis. "I think this study is cause for some caution in
the use of angiogenesis inhibitors in patients for very long periods of time
and in particular for use of those inhibitors that block VEGF signaling from
inside the cell."
It is already known that five percent of patients taking Avastin develop blood
clot-related side effects. Yet because Avastin was approved only three years
ago, it is unclear what adverse effects may occur when patients remain on the
drug for many years, according to Iruela-Arispe. In her three-year study, Iruela-Arispe
created mice that were missing VEGF in the endothelial cells that line the
inside of blood vessels and form the interface between circulating blood and
the vessel wall. The UCLA team did not expect to see much of an effect because
the amount of VEGF that is created inside endothelial cells is tiny compared
to the amount created outside the same cells. But they soon had a bombshell
finding: 55% of the mice died by 25 weeks of age, which is the equivalent of
age 30 in humans. The remaining mice lived on, but were all very ill for the
remainder of their lives.
"Some side effects have already been identified in people taking angiogenesis
inhibitors," said Iruela-Arispe. "And they've been along the
lines of what we're seeing in the lab." Oddly, even high levels of
VEGF outside the cells did not compensate for the absence of very tiny amounts
within the cells. The missing internal VEGF had "a tremendous biological
significance," Iruela-Arispe said. "Clearly there is signaling from
inside the cell that is different from signaling initiated outside the cell," she
added. "When there is no VEGF signaling inside the cell, the endothelial
cells die. The intracellular part of the VEGF signaling loop is required for
cell survival. This is the first demonstration that intracellular signaling is
an important event."
One of the most pressing concerns surrounding current angiogenesis inhibitors
is the fact that they are associated with an increased risk of thrombosis (blood
clots). Why does this happen? UCLA Prof. Luisa Iruela-Arispe's study
in the August 24, 2007 issue of Cell throws light on this urgent question. "I
believe the survival function of VEGF signaling is mediated from both outside
and inside the cell. When we block it from the inside, the outside signaling
cannot compensate. But when we block it from the outside, maybe the inside
signaling can compensate. That would explain the lesser side effects found
when using drugs such as Avastin, which block the extracellular signaling."
This aspect of angiogenesis inhibitors troubles Iruela-Arispe. Avastin, like
most angiogenesis inhibitors, is generally infused systemically (i.e., given
via a vein directly into the bloodstream). But Iruela-Arispe, who continues
to believe in the therapeutic potential of angiogenesis inhibitors, thinks
they could be made safer and more effective if they were delivered in a more
tumor-focused way. "There is enough smoke in the sky here to make me
feel there may be a fire," she added, ominously.
Personally, I share her concerns. I have frequently expressed skepticism about
many of the best-publicized "targeted" drugs. My reluctance to
jump on the targeted therapy bandwagon has been based on my reading of the
medical literature. Simply put, the current approach, at least with the present
generation of anti-angiogenic drugs, is not particularly effective. As to toxicity,
while these drugs were initially promoted as non-toxic magic bullets, there
is now accumulating evidence of toxicity and sometimes lethal side effects.
The interested reader can find dozens of my articles on targeted therapies
by searching for terms such as Avastin, Erbitux, and Iressa at my website,
www.cancerdecisions.com. The phrase "targeted therapy," applied
to these angiogenesis inhibitors, certainly has a nice ring to it. But the
fact that these drugs can cause so many devastating adverse effects yet still
be called "targeted" represents a triumph of public relations over
© 2007 by Ralph W. Moss, PhD
Berenson A. A cancer drug shows promise, at a price that many can't
pay. New York Times. Feb. 15, 2006.
Cohen MH, Gootenberg J, Keegan P, Pazdur R. FDA drug approval summary:
bevacizumab (Avastin) plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel as first-line
treatment of advanced/metastatic recurrent nonsquamous non-small cell
lung cancer. Oncologist. 2007;12:713-718.
Cooke R. Dr. Folkman's War: Angiogenesis
and the Struggle to Defeat Cancer. New York: Random House, 2001.
Correa CR, Litt HI, Hwang WT, et al. Coronary artery findings after
left-sided compared with right-sided radiation treatment for early-stage
breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(21):3031-7.
Folkman J, Merler E, Abernathy C, Williams G. Isolation of a tumor
factor responsible for angiogenesis. J Exp
Hooning MJ, Botma A, Aleman BM, et al. Long-term risk of cardiovascular
disease in 10-year survivors of breast cancer. J
Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:365-375.
Irwin K. Study finds blocking angiogenesis signaling from inside
cell may lead to serious health problems. UCLA Press Release, August
2007. Available at: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/uoc†.
Accessed September 20, 2007.
(Note: Dec. 2007: Use http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/uoc--sfb082207.php)
Lee S, Chen TT, Barber CL, et al. Autocrine VEGF signaling is required
for vascular homeostasis. Cell. 2007;130:691-703.