Cimetidine and Other Histamine2-Receptor Antagonist Use in Relation to Risk of Breast Cancer

H2 antihistamines: May be useful for combination therapies in cancer?

Cancer morbimortality is still a great concern despite advances in research and therapies. Histamine and its receptors' ligands can modulate different biological responses according to the cell type and the receptor subtype involved. Besides the wide variety of histamine functions in normal tissues, diverse roles in the acquisition of hallmarks of cancer such as sustained proliferative signaling, resistance to cell death, angiogenesis, metastasis, altered immunity and modified microenvironment have been described. This review summarizes the present knowledge of the various roles of histamine H2 receptor (H2R) ligands in neoplasias. A bioinformatic analysis of human tumors showed dissimilar results in the expression of the H2R gene according to tumor type when comparing malignant versus normal tissues. As well, the relationship between patients' survival parameters and H2R gene expression levels also varied, signaling important divergences in the role of H2R in neoplastic progression in different cancer types. Revised experimental evidence showed multiple effects of H2R antihistamines on several of the cited hallmarks of cancer. Interventional and retrospective clinical studies evaluated different H2R antihistamines in cancer patients with two main adjuvant uses: improving antitumor efficacy (which includes regulation of immune response) and preventing toxic adverse effects produced by chemo or radiotherapy. While there is a long path to go, research on H2R antihistamines may provide new opportunities for developing more refined combination therapeutic strategies for certain cancer types to improve patients' survival and health-related quality of life.

The association between acid-suppressive agent use and the risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acid-suppressive agents (ASAs) may be associated with cancer; previous studies reported that the risk of cancer with acid suppressants has differed depending on the site of cancer. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between ASA use and the type of cancer risk.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were searched for publications up to the end of September 2019 for MeSH terms and text words related to cancer and ASAs. Studies on the association between ASAs and cancer risk, which included a control group and reported the relative risk of cancer, were included. The inverse-variance random effect model was used to estimate the pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and subgroup analysis for type of acid suppressants, drug uptake duration, and cumulative doses was performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² test and Q statistic.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine cohort and case-control studies were included. ASA use was found to be significantly associated with a 46% higher risk of gastric cancer (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.18-1.80) and a 53% higher risk of liver cancer (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.31-1.78) compared with nonuse; however, there was no significant association for esophageal, colorectal, pancreatic, lung, breast, prostate, and kidney cancer; melanoma; and lymphoma.

CONCLUSIONS

ASAs were significantly associated with an increased risk of gastric and liver cancer; therefore, special attention of ASA use considering the potential risk of gastric and liver cancer is needed.

Lack of Association between rs2067474 Polymorphism in Histamine Receptor H2 Gene and Breast Cancer in Chinese Han Population

Histamine H₂ receptor (HRH2) was previously suggested to affect the proliferation of breast cancer cells and disease-free survival of breast cancer patients. Furthermore, a common polymorphism, rs2067474, was identified in an enhancer element of the HRH2 gene promoter and was reported to be associated with various diseases including cancer. However, the relationship between this polymorphism and breast cancer risk and malignant degree remains unclear. The aim of this study was to clarify the clinical association of rs2067474 polymorphism with breast cancer. A total of 201 unrelated Chinese Han breast cancer patients and 238 ethnicity-matched health controls were recruited and rs2067474 polymorphism was genotyped. Logistic regression analyses were performed to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) as a measure of association of genotype with breast cancer according to 3 genetic models (dominant, recessive, and additive). Although the percentage of hormone receptor negative cases tended to be higher in AA genotypes, we did not find any significant associations of rs2067474 polymorphism with breast cancer risk or with related clinicopathological parameters in the present study, which indicates that rs2067474 polymorphism of HRH2 gene might not be a risk factor in the development of breast cancer in Chinese Han population.

Pregnancy and lactation after breast cancer elevate plasma prolactin, do not shorten and may prolong survival

The affliction of breast cancer is doubled for young patients wishing to have a child. Because estrogens can cause breast cancer and its elevation during pregnancy, clinical advice historically restricted pregnancy to at least 5 years post-diagnosis. Opposing evidence gradually relaxed this. Furthermore, in the last decade it was clarified that overall, post-treatment pregnancy and breast-feeding do not shorten survival. Despite this evidence and patients such as S.B. (deceased) and remarkable L.H. (five children, starting immediately after treatment for node-positive breast cancer), much opposition and restrictive advice remain: additional therapy preferred over pregnancy. In healthy women, pregnancy reduces (cause unknown) the risk of breast cancer and lactation may reduce it. These are accompanied by highly elevated plasma prolactin (PRL) over many months (pregnancy, 15-25 x daily mean 10 ng/ml; lactation, up to 30 x daily mean). PRL concentration too increases in other natural and non-biological conditions, also apparently without increasing breast cancer incidence. Nevertheless, firm and implied support for early pregnancy (and lactation) post-diagnosis and treatment may face a new issue. Over a decade, some studies have claimed epidemiological evidence that a relatively minute PRL elevation (from zero to 0.6-0.8 ng/ml) over mean level increases the risk of breast cancer (i.e. it is a carcinogen) and that this supports (and is supported by) a similar view from some laboratory research. This two-pronged mutuality could create further anxiety and unjustified advice dashing the wish for a child. Is this justified? Epidemiology on PRL and breast cancer risk in the eighties/nineties was contradictory and inconclusive; in the last decade, it was also biologically implausible. 'Positive' laboratory results targeting a 'tamoxifen for PRL' have over-shadowed confounding, negative (often called 'inconsistent') laboratory evidence. Increasingly evident complexity of conflicting biochemical, hormonal, cellular and tissue interactions, confused further by failure of molecular genetics to confirm PRL as a carcinogen, make this target more a mirage than an oasis. While recognizing the value of laboratory research primarily for facts, future progress will be most sound and rapid from observation starting with the human entity, not with its parts. Molecular genetics makes this possible and will be the epicentre of breast cancer research. Meanwhile, young breast cancer patients after initial treatment and eager for a child can today reasonably benefit from advice based on phenomena evolved over eons: pregnancy, lactation and accompanying highly-elevated PRL will not increase risk of recurrence and will in some cases prolong survival.

Prolactin and breast cancer etiology: an epidemiologic perspective

A number of epidemiologic studies of prolactin and breast cancer etiology have recently become available. Retrospective case-control studies have suggested a modest positive or null relationship between circulating prolactin concentrations and risk of breast cancer. However these studies are limited by small sample sizes and the collection of blood after case diagnosis. Several large prospective studies, in which blood was collected prior to diagnosis, have observed modest positive associations between prolactin and risk. In a pooled analysis of approximately 80% of the world's prospective data, the relative risk (RR) comparing women in the top vs bottom quartile of prolactin levels was 1.3 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1, 1.6, p-trend = 0.002). The results were similar for premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Most notably, high prolactin levels were associated with a 60% increased risk of estrogen receptor (ER) positive tumors, but not with ER negative tumors. Limited genetic data suggest a role of polymorphisms in the prolactin and prolactin receptor genes in risk of breast cancer. Studies of survival have suggested that high pretreatment prolactin levels were associated with treatment failure, earlier recurrence, and worse overall survival. Parity and certain medications are the only confirmed factors associated with prolactin levels in women. Overall, epidemiologic data suggest that prolactin is involved in breast cancer etiology. Further research to better elucidate these associations and their underlying mechanisms is warranted.

Prolactin does not cause breast cancer and may prevent it or be therapeutic in some conditions

The polypeptide hormone prolactin (PRL), ubiquitous and multifunctional in vertebrates, always interested biologists, was of restricted concern to clinicians and researched little compared to insulin and growth hormone. PRL in lactation initially aroused relatively little interest, but it rose when with ovarian steroids and chemical carcinogens, it was implicated in rodent mammary carcinoma. It declined when PRL suppression did not counter breast cancer. Meanwhile, long-known, estrogen-related cancers in the ovary and breast did not deter wide estrogen use for contraception and supplementation despite risk, and estrogen blockers and inhibitors have improved treatment and are on trial for prophylaxis, despite serious short and long term side-effects. Despite the great differences between steroid and polypeptide, research on PRL and breast cancer mirroring that on estrogens is now growing. This is mainly negative, much due to recent prospective research reporting minor rises in plasma levels as a basis, together with some recent laboratory research, for a hypothesis that PRL induces post-menopausal breast cancer. That view contradicts a reproductive biology that evolved to benefit women and offspring. Elevated PRL in pregnancy and probably that in lactation, reduce risk. Many exogenous chemical and physical PRL-stimulants also do not increase risk. It has not been shown that PRL increases risk of breast cancer and some older and recent cell and tissue data suggest it may be the key, two-sided, in human breast tissue homeostasis. Excessive disturbance of this is unlikely to originate in PRL itself. The natural biology of PRL, the reproductive woman's hormone par excellence, and research in various fields, suggest a positive potential in the PRL family for direct prevention and treatment of breast cancer, possibly greater than that in the estrogens. It is time to debate and research this.