A randomized phase II study of aromatase inhibitors plus metformin in pre-treated postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer

Clinical significance of lipid pathway-targeted therapy in breast cancer

Globally, breast cancer represents the most common cancer and the primary cause of death by cancer in women. Lipids are crucial in human physiology, serving as vital energy reserves, structural elements of biological membranes, and essential signaling molecules. The metabolic reprogramming of lipid pathways has emerged as a critical factor in breast cancer progression, drug resistance, and patient prognosis. In this study, we delve into the clinical implications of lipid pathway-targeted therapy in breast cancer. We highlight key enzymes and potential therapeutic targets involved in lipid metabolism reprogramming, and their associations with cancer progression and treatment outcomes. Furthermore, we detail the clinical trials exploring the anticancer and cancer chemopreventive activity of therapies targeting these molecules. However, the clinical efficacy of these therapies remains controversial, highlighting the urgent need for predictive biomarkers to identify patient subpopulations likely to benefit from such treatment. We propose the Selective Lipid Metabolism Therapy Benefit Hypothesis, emphasizing the importance of personalized medicine in optimizing lipid pathway-targeted therapy for breast cancer patients.

Targeting cancer and immune cell metabolism with the complex I inhibitors metformin and IACS-010759

Metformin and IACS-010759 are two distinct antimetabolic agents. Metformin, an established antidiabetic drug, mildly inhibits mitochondrial complex I, while IACS-010759 is a new potent mitochondrial complex I inhibitor. Mitochondria is pivotal in the energy metabolism of cells by providing adenosine triphosphate through oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS). Hence, mitochondrial metabolism and OXPHOS become a vulnerability when targeted in cancer cells. Both drugs have promising antitumoral effects in diverse cancers, supported by preclinical in vitro and in vivo studies. We present evidence of their direct impact on cancer cells and their immunomodulatory effects. In clinical studies, while observational epidemiologic studies on metformin were encouraging, actual trial results were not as expected. However, IACS-01075 exhibited major adverse effects, thereby causing a metabolic shift to glycolysis and elevated lactic acid concentrations. Therefore, the future outlook for these two drugs depends on preventive clinical trials for metformin and investigations into the plausible toxic effects on normal cells for IACS-01075.

Effects of metformin on cancers in experimental and clinical studies: Focusing on autophagy and AMPK/mTOR signaling pathways

Metformin (MET) is a preferred drug for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Recent studies show that apart from its blood glucose-lowering effects, it also inhibits the development of various tumours, by inducing autophagy. Various studies have confirmed the inhibitory effects of MET on cancer cell lines' propagation, migration, and invasion. The objective of the study was to comprehensively review the potential of MET as an anticancer agent, particularly focusing on its ability to induce autophagy and inhibit the development and progression of various tumors. The study aimed to explore the inhibitory effects of MET on cancer cell proliferation, migration, and invasion, and its impact on key signaling pathways such as adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK), mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), and PI3K. This review noted that MET exerts its anticancer effects by regulating key signalling pathways such as phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), LC3-I and LC3-II, Beclin-1, p53, and the autophagy-related gene (ATG), inhibiting the mTOR protein, downregulating the expression of p62/SQSTM1, and blockage of the cell cycle at the G0/G1. Moreover, MET can stimulate autophagy through pathways associated with the 5' AMPK, thereby inhibiting he development and progression of various human cancers, including hepatocellular carcinoma, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, osteosarcoma, myeloma, and non-small cell lung cancer. In summary, this detailed review provides a framework for further investigations that may appraise the autophagy-induced anticancer potential of MET and its repurposing for cancer treatment.

Cancer biology in diabetes update: Focusing on antidiabetic drugs

The association of type 2 diabetes with certain cancer risk has been of great interest for years. However, the effect of diabetic medications on cancer development is not fully understood. Prospective clinical trials have not elucidated the long-term influence of hypoglycemic drugs on cancer incidence and the safety for cancer-bearing patients with diabetes, whereas numerous preclinical studies have shown that antidiabetic drugs could have an impact on carcinogenesis processes beyond the glycemic control effect. Because there is no evidence of the safety profile of antidiabetic agents on cancer biology, careful consideration would be required when prescribing any medicines to patients with diabetes and existing tumor. In this review, we discuss the potential influence of each diabetes therapy in cancer 'initiation', 'promotion' and 'progression'.

Ianus Bifrons: The Two Faces of Metformin

The ancient Roman god Ianus was a mysterious divinity with two opposite faces, one looking at the past and the other looking to the future. Likewise, metformin is an "old" drug, with one side looking at the metabolic role and the other looking at the anti-proliferative mechanism; therefore, it represents a typical and ideal bridge between diabetes and cancer. Metformin (1,1-dimethylbiguanidine hydrochloride) is a drug that has long been in use for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, but recently evidence is growing about its potential use in other metabolic conditions and in proliferative-associated diseases. The aim of this paper is to retrace, from a historical perspective, the knowledge of this molecule, shedding light on the subcellular mechanisms of action involved in metabolism as well as cellular and tissue growth. The intra-tumoral pharmacodynamic effects of metformin and its possible role in the management of different neoplasms are evaluated and debated. The etymology of the name Ianus is probably from the Latin term ianua, which means door. How many new doors will this old drug be able to open?

Metformin and Breast Cancer: Current Findings and Future Perspectives from Preclinical and Clinical Studies

Over the last several decades, a growing body of research has investigated the potential to repurpose the anti-diabetic drug metformin for breast cancer prevention and/or treatment. Observational studies in the early 2000s demonstrated that patients with diabetes taking metformin had decreased cancer risk, providing the first evidence supporting the potential role of metformin as an anti-cancer agent. Despite substantial efforts, two decades later, the exact mechanisms and clinical efficacy of metformin for breast cancer remain ambiguous. Here, we have summarized key findings from studies examining the effect of metformin on breast cancer across the translational spectrum including in vitro, in vivo, and human studies. Importantly, we discuss critical factors that may help explain the significant heterogeneity in study outcomes, highlighting how metformin dose, underlying metabolic health, menopausal status, tumor subtype, membrane transporter expression, diet, and other factors may play a role in modulating metformin's anti-cancer effects. We hope that these insights will help with interpreting data from completed studies, improve the design of future studies, and aid in the identification of patient subsets with breast cancer or at high risk for the disease who are most likely to benefit from metformin treatment.

Cardiovascular/anti-inflammatory drugs repurposed for treating or preventing cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Due to encouraging pre-clinical data and supportive observational studies, there has been growing interest in applying cardiovascular drugs (including aspirin, angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, statins, and metformin) approved to treat diseases such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus to the field of oncology. Moreover, given growing costs with cancer care, these medications have offered a potentially more affordable avenue to treat or prevent recurrence of cancer. We sought to investigate the anti-cancer effects of drugs repurposed from cardiology or anti-inflammatories to treat cancer. We specifically evaluated the following drug classes: HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors, aspirin, metformin, and both angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. We also included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) because they exert a similar mechanism to aspirin by blocking prostaglandins and reducing inflammation that is thought to promote the development of cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review using PubMed and Web of Science with search terms including "aspirin," "NSAID," "statin" (including specific statin drug names), "metformin," "ACE inhibitors," and "ARBs" (including specific anti-hypertensive drug names) in combination with "cancer." Searches were limited to human studies published between 2000 and 2023.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The number and percentage of studies reported positive results and pooled estimates of overall survival, progression-free survival, response, and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

We reviewed 3094 titles and included 67 randomized clinical trials. The most common drugs that were tested were metformin (n = 21; 30.9%), celecoxib (n = 20; 29.4%), and simvastatin (n = 8; 11.8%). There was only one study that tested cardiac glycosides and none that studied ACE inhibitors. The most common tumor types were non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 19; 27.9%); breast (n = 8; 20.6%), colorectal (n = 7; 10.3%), and hepatocellular (n = 6; 8.8%). Most studies were conducted in a phase II trial (n = 38; 55.9%). Most studies were tested in metastatic cancers (n = 49; 72.1%) and in the first-line setting (n = 36; 521.9%). Four studies (5.9%) were stopped early because of difficulty with accrual. The majority of studies did not demonstrate an improvement in either progression-free survival (86.1% of studies testing progression-free survival) or in overall survival (94.3% of studies testing overall survival). Progression-free survival was improved in five studies (7.4%), and overall survival was improved in three studies (4.4%). Overall survival was significantly worse in two studies (3.8% of studies testing overall survival), and progression-free survival was worse in one study (2.8% of studies testing progression-free survival).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Despite promising pre-clinical and population-based data, cardiovascular drugs and anti-inflammatory medications have overall not demonstrated benefit in the treatment or preventing recurrence of cancer. These findings may help guide future potential clinical trials involving these medications when applied in oncology.

Efficacy and safety of metformin in combination with chemotherapy in cancer patients without diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The results of a meta-analysis of retrospective studies suggest that the use of metformin in cancer patients may prolong progression-free disease survival and overall survival. However, the studies included in the meta-analysis did not strictly distinguish between patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, further studies are needed to assess whether the use of adjuvant chemotherapy with metformin in cancer patients without diabetes improves prognosis.

Method

Systematic searches of Embase, Pubmed, and The Cochrane library were performed for the subject terms metformin and neoplasm and for free words. Data related to PFS, OS were extracted according to inclusion exclusion criteria. The data were combined and meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 to confirm the efficacy and safety of metformin administration.

Results

There were 3228 publications retrieved from the database and a total of 13 publications with 955 patients were included in the meta-analysis after screening. All included studies were randomised controlled trials. Metformin combined with adjuvant chemotherapy did not improve progression-free survival (HR=1,95CI 0.79-1.25), overall survival (HR=0.91,95% CI 0.69-1.20) and did not improve objective disease response rates in patients. There was no significant difference in grade 3-4 adverse reactions compared to placebo.

Conclusion

In this meta-analysis of randomised controlled trial studies, we found that chemotherapy in combination with metformin in cancer patients without diabetes did not prolong progression-free survival and overall survival and improved disease control in patients, although there was no significant difference in terms of safety. More high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed in the future to confirm the in vivo anti-tumour activity and survival benefit of metformin.

Obesity Is Associated with Immunometabolic Changes in Adipose Tissue That May Drive Treatment Resistance in Breast Cancer: Immune-Metabolic Reprogramming and Novel Therapeutic Strategies

White adipose tissue (WAT) represents an endocrinologically and immunologically active tissue whose primary role is energy storage and homeostasis. Breast WAT is involved in the secretion of hormones and proinflammatory molecules that are associated with breast cancer development and progression. The role of adiposity and systemic inflammation in immune responses and resistance to anti-cancer treatment in breast cancer (BC) patients is still not clear. Metformin has demonstrated antitumorigenic properties both in pre-clinical and clinical studies. Nevertheless, its immunomodulating properties in BC are largely unknown. This review aims to evaluate the emerging evidence on the crosstalk between adiposity and the immune-tumour microenvironment in BC, its progression and treatment resistance, and the immunometabolic role of metformin in BC. Adiposity, and by extension subclinical inflammation, are associated with metabolic dysfunction and changes in the immune-tumour microenvironment in BC. In oestrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast tumours, it is proposed that these changes are mediated via a paracrine interaction between macrophages and preadipocytes, leading to elevated aromatase expression and secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines and adipokines in the breast tissue in patients who are obese or overweight. In HER2+ breast tumours, WAT inflammation has been shown to be associated with resistance to trastuzumab mediated via MAPK or PI3K pathways. Furthermore, adipose tissue in patients with obesity is associated with upregulation of immune checkpoints on T-cells that is partially mediated via immunomodulatory effects of leptin and has been paradoxically associated with improved responses to immunotherapy in several cancers. Metformin may play a role in the metabolic reprogramming of tumour-infiltrating immune cells that are dysregulated by systemic inflammation. In conclusion, evidence suggests that body composition and metabolic status are associated with patient outcomes. To optimise patient stratification and personalisation of treatment, prospective studies are required to evaluate the role of body composition and metabolic parameters in metabolic immune reprogramming with and without immunotherapy in patients with BC.

Is it still worth pursuing the repurposing of metformin as a cancer therapeutic?

Over the past 15 years, there has been great interest in the potential to repurpose the diabetes drug, metformin, as a cancer treatment. However, despite considerable efforts being made to investigate its efficacy in a number of large randomised clinical trials in different tumour types, results have been disappointing to date. This perspective article summarises how interest initially developed in the oncological potential of metformin and the diverse clinical programme of work to date including our contribution to establishing the intra-tumoral pharmacodynamic effects of metformin in the clinic. We also discuss the lessons that can be learnt from this experience and whether a further clinical investigation of metformin in cancer is warranted.

Efficacy of metformin therapy in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of 22 randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To investigate whether metformin monotherapy or adjunctive therapy improves the prognosis in patients with any type of cancer compared to non-metformin users (age ≥18).

METHODS

Databases (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and clinical trial registries ( ClinicalTrials.gov ; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were screened for randomized, controlled trials (RCT) reporting at least progression-free survival (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS). Main outcome measures included hazard ratios (HR), and combined HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Of the 8419 records screened, 22 RCTs comprising 5943 participants were included. Pooled HRs were not statistically significant in both PFS (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82-1.15, I² = 50%) and OS (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.13, I² = 33%) for patients with cancer between the metformin and control groups. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that metformin treatment was associated with a marginally significant improvement in PFS in reproductive system cancers (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-1.00) and a significantly worse PFS in digestive system cancers (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.03-2.04). The PFS or OS was observed consistently across maintenance dose, diabetes exclusion, median follow-up, risk of bias, and combined antitumoral therapies.

CONCLUSION

Metformin treatment was not associated with cancer-related mortality in adults compared with placebo or no treatment. However, metformin implied beneficial effects in the PFS of the patients with reproductive system cancers but was related to a worse PFS in digestive system cancers.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42022324672.

Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition Suppresses AMPK and Sensitizes Cancer Cells to Pyroptosis under Energy Stress

Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is implicated in tumor metastasis and therapeutic resistance. It remains a challenge to target cancer cells that have undergone EMT. The Snail family of key EMT-inducing transcription factors directly binds to and transcriptionally represses not only epithelial genes but also a myriad of additional genomic targets that may carry out significant biological functions. Therefore, we reasoned that EMT inherently causes various concomitant phenotypes, some of which may create targetable vulnerabilities for cancer treatment. In the present study, we found that Snail transcription factors bind to the promoters of multiple genes encoding subunits of the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) complex, and expression of AMPK genes was markedly downregulated by EMT. Accordingly, high AMPK expression in tumors correlated with epithelial cell markers and low AMPK expression in tumors was strongly associated with adverse prognosis. AMPK is the principal sensor of cellular energy status. In response to energy stress, AMPK is activated and critically reprograms cellular metabolism to restore energy homeostasis and maintain cell survival. We showed that activation of AMPK by energy stress was severely impaired by EMT. Consequently, EMT cancer cells became hypersensitive to a variety of energy stress conditions and primarily underwent pyroptosis, a regulated form of necrotic cell death. Collectively, the study suggests that EMT impedes the activation of AMPK signaling induced by energy stress and sensitizes cancer cells to pyroptotic cell death under energy stress conditions. Therefore, while EMT promotes malignant progression, it concurrently induces collateral vulnerabilities that may be therapeutically exploited.

A precision medicine approach to metabolic therapy for breast cancer in mice

Increasing evidence highlights approaches targeting metabolism as potential adjuvants to cancer therapy. Sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are the newest class of antihyperglycemic drugs. To our knowledge, SGLT2 inhibitors have not been applied in the neoadjuvant setting as a precision medicine approach for this devastating disease. Here, we treat lean breast tumor-bearing mice with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin as monotherapy and in combination with paclitaxel chemotherapy. We show that dapagliflozin enhances the efficacy of paclitaxel, reducing tumor glucose uptake and prolonging survival. Further, the ability of dapagliflozin to enhance the efficacy of chemotherapy correlates with its effect to reduce circulating insulin in some but not all breast tumors. Our data suggest a genetic signature for breast tumors more likely to respond to dapagliflozin in combination with paclitaxel. In the current study, tumors driven by mutations upstream of canonical insulin signaling pathways responded to this combined treatment, whereas tumors driven by mutations downstream of canonical insulin signaling did not. These data demonstrate that dapagliflozin enhances the response to chemotherapy in mice with breast cancer and suggest that patients with driver mutations upstream of canonical insulin signaling may be most likely to benefit from this neoadjuvant approach.

Metformin and Cancer, an Ambiguanidous Relationship

The deregulation of energetic and cellular metabolism is a signature of cancer cells. Thus, drugs targeting cancer cell metabolism may have promising therapeutic potential. Previous reports demonstrate that the widely used normoglycemic agent, metformin, can decrease the risk of cancer in type 2 diabetics and inhibit cell growth in various cancers, including pancreatic, colon, prostate, ovarian, and breast cancer. While metformin is a known adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK) agonist and an inhibitor of the electron transport chain complex I, its mechanism of action in cancer cells as well as its effect on cancer metabolism is not clearly established. In this review, we will give an update on the role of metformin as an antitumoral agent and detail relevant evidence on the potential use and mechanisms of action of metformin in cancer. Analyzing antitumoral, signaling, and metabolic impacts of metformin on cancer cells may provide promising new therapeutic strategies in oncology.

The impact of metformin use on the outcomes of locally advanced breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: an open-labelled randomized controlled trial

Recently, several clinical trials have attempted to find evidence that supports the anticancer use of metformin in breast cancer (BC) patients. The current study evaluates the anticancer activity of metformin in addition to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in locally advanced BC patients. Additionally, we assess the safety and tolerability of this combination and its effect on the quality of life (QoL) of BC patients. Eighty non-diabetic female patients with proven locally advanced BC were randomized into two arms. The first arm received anthracycline/taxane-based NACT plus metformin. The second arm received anthracycline/taxane-based NACT only. Overall response rate (ORR), clinical complete response (cCr), pathological complete response (pCR), and breast conservative rate (BCR) were evaluated between both groups, and correlated with serum metformin concentration. ORR, cCr, pCR, and BCR increased non-significantly in the metformin group compared to the control group; 80.6% vs 68.4%, 27.8% vs 10.5%, 22.2% vs 10.5%, and 19.4% vs 13.2%, respectively. A trend towards cCR and pCR was associated with higher serum metformin concentrations. Metformin decreased the incidence of peripheral neuropathy, bone pain, and arthralgia, although worsened the gastrointestinal adverse events. Metformin combination with NACT has no effect on the QoL of BC patients. Metformin combination with NACT is safe, tolerable, and improves non-significantly the clinical and pathological tumor response of BC patients.

The metformin has no significant anticancer effect on patients with advanced or unresectable cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

At present, the antitumor effect of metformin is controversial. Previous meta-analyses included observational studies, of which the results can be influenced by many confounders, affecting the result of meta-analyses and weakening the strength of evidence. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to confirm the effect of metformin use on patients with advanced or unresectable cancers, including randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched for RCTs in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A meta-analysis was conducted to combine hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Finally, 7 eligible RCTs were included in meta-analysis. Overall, the combined results revealed that treatment with metformin did not improve the overall survival (OS) of patients (HR, 1.12; 95%CI, 0.91-1.37, P>0.05), and there was no clear evidence that metformin use was related to improved progression-free survival (PFS) (HR,1.17; 95%CI, 0.97-1.40; P>0.05). The pooled RR for grade III or IV adverse events was 0.92 (95%CI, 0.52-1.60; P>0.05), indicating that the use of metformin was not significantly related to increased toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Metformin does not significantly improve the survival of patients with advanced or unresectable cancer, regardless of cancer type and region. Open Science Framework： DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/SPKE8.

Factors influencing the anticancer effects of metformin on breast cancer outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Several clinical trials have attempted to find evidence that supports the use of metformin as an anticancer treatment. However, the observed effects on various breast cancer (BC) outcomes have been heterogeneous.

AREAS COVERED

Based on the outcomes of previous clinical trials, this review discusses the patients' characteristics, cancer intrinsic subtypes, cancer stage, and anticancer treatments that may influence the anticancer effect of metformin on BC outcomes. Additionally, the safety and tolerability of metformin addition to various anticancer regimens are reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

Metformin is a challenging anticancer agent in BC cohorts, besides being safe and well-tolerated at antidiabetic doses. Survival benefits of metformin have been observed in BC patients with: hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 overexpression, and high insulin like growth factor-1 receptor expression on the tumor surface. Moreover, patients with diabetes receiving metformin experienced better survival outcomes compared to diabetic patients not receiving metformin. Additionally, metformin has anti-proliferative activity in patients with BC who have high insulin resistance and high body mass index. Besides, metformin has been shown to decrease metastatic events, and enhance the level of metabolic- and insulin-related biomarkers associated with carcinogenesis. Finally, most adverse events following metformin treatment were low-grade GIT toxicities.

Metformin Intervention—A Panacea for Cancer Treatment?

The molecular mechanism of action and the individual influence of various metabolic pathways related to metformin intervention are under current investigation. The available data suggest that metformin provides many advantages, exhibiting anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer, hepatoprotective, cardioprotective, otoprotective, radioprotective, and radio-sensitizing properties depending on cellular context. This literature review was undertaken to provide novel evidence concerning metformin intervention, with a particular emphasis on cancer treatment and prevention. Undoubtedly, the pleiotropic actions associated with metformin include inhibiting inflammatory processes, increasing antioxidant capacity, and improving glycemic and lipid metabolism. Consequently, these characteristics make metformin an attractive medicament to translate to human trials, the promising results of which were also summarized in this review.

Metformin and Breast Cancer: Where Are We Now?

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related death among women worldwide. Type 2 diabetes–associated metabolic traits such as hyperglycemia, hyperinsulinemia, inflammation, oxidative stress, and obesity are well-known risk factors for breast cancer. The insulin sensitizer metformin, one of the most prescribed oral antidiabetic drugs, has been suggested to function as an antitumoral agent, based on epidemiological and retrospective clinical data as well as preclinical studies showing an antiproliferative effect in cultured breast cancer cells and animal models. These benefits provided a strong rationale to study the effects of metformin in routine clinical care of breast cancer patients. However, the initial enthusiasm was tempered after disappointing results in randomized controlled trials, particularly in the metastatic setting. Here, we revisit the current state of the art of metformin mechanisms of action, critically review past and current metformin-based clinical trials, and briefly discuss future perspectives on how to incorporate metformin into the oncologist’s armamentarium for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer.

Targeting OXPHOS and the electronic transport chain in cancer; molecular and therapeutic implications

Oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) takes place in mitochondria and is the process whereby cells use carbon fuels and oxygen to generate ATP. Formerly OXPHOS was thought to be reduced in tumours and that glycolysis was the critical pathway for generation of ATP but it is now clear that OXPHOS, at least in many tumour types, plays a critical role in delivering the bioenergetic and macromolecular anabolic requirements of cancer cells. There is now great interest in targeting the OXPHOS and the electron transport chain for cancer therapy and in this review article we describe current therapeutic approaches and challenges.

Perspectives of metformin use in endometrial cancer and other gynaecological malignancies

Insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia play a key role in type 1 endometrial cancer pathogenesis. Most of these cancers develop on a background of overweight or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). One of the medications widely used in the treatment of T2DM is biguanide derivative, metformin, which exerts promising anticancer properties principally through activation of adenosine monophosphate kinase (AMPK) and inhibition of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways. Many epidemiological studies on diabetic patients show potential preventative role of metformin in endometrial cancer patients, but data regarding its therapeutic role is still limited. So far, most of attention has been paid to the concept of metformin use in fertility sparing treatment of early-stage cancer. Another investigated alternative is its application in patients with primary advanced or recurrent disease. In this review we present the latest data on clinical use of metformin in endometrial cancer patients and potential underlying mechanisms of its activity. Finally, we present some most important clinical information regarding metformin efficacy in other gynaecological malignancies, mainly breast and ovarian cancer.

Metformin-induced chemosensitization to cisplatin depends on P53 status and is inhibited by Jarid1b overexpression in non-small cell lung cancer cells

Metformin has been tested as an anti-cancer therapy with potential to improve conventional chemotherapy. However, in some cases, metformin fails to sensitize tumors to chemotherapy. Here we test if the presence of P53 could predict the activity of metformin as an adjuvant for cisplatin-based therapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A549, HCC 827 (TP53 WT), H1299, and H358 (TP53 null) cell lines were used in this study. A549 cells were pre-treated with a sub-lethal dose of cisplatin to induce chemoresistance. The effects of metformin were tested both in vitro and in vivo and related to the ability of cells to accumulate Jarid1b, a histone demethylase involved in cisplatin resistance in different cancers. Metformin sensitized A549 and HCC 827 cells (but not H1299 and H358 cells) to cisplatin in a P53-dependent manner, changing its subcellular localization to the mitochondria. Treatment with a sub-lethal dose of cisplatin increased Jarid1b expression, yet downregulated P53 levels, protecting A549Res cells from metformin-induced chemosensitization to cisplatin and favored a glycolytic phenotype. Treatment with FL3, a synthetic flavagline, sensitized A549Res cells to cisplatin. In conclusion, metformin could potentially be used as an adjuvant for cisplatin-based therapy in NSCLC cells if wild type P53 is present.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of metformin as adjunctive therapy among women with metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women worldwide and is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortalities. Metformin has been found to have direct and indirect antitumor mechanisms, and because of its availability and good safety profile, it has been investigated to be useful in various malignancies including breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to determine the efficacy and safety of metformin administration as adjunctive therapy on mortality among females with breast cancer.

METHODS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the use of metformin as adjunctive therapy when combined with standard chemotherapy on the outcomes of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and clinical benefit rate (CBR).

RESULTS

After a comprehensive literature search, only three phase 2 RCTs on the use of metformin as adjunctive therapy for locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer were included. Clinical trials on early breast cancer are still ongoing and none were included in the present review. This study, based on the systematic review, revealed that metformin added to standard chemotherapy does not improve the PFS and OS among women with metastatic breast cancer, and likewise, has no impact on the ORR with a relative risk of 1.42 95% CI 0.45-4.55 and CBR with an RR of 0.87, 95% CI 0.55-1.37. It appears to be safe and may even be protective for the development of neutropenia based on at least one study.

CONCLUSION

This study clarifies that there is insufficient evidence on the benefits of metformin on survival among women with metastatic breast cancer.

Metformin and survival of women with breast cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Metformin has been suggested to confer anticancer efficacy. However, it remains uncertain whether additional use of metformin could improve survival of women with breast cancer. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the influence of metformin on survival outcome in women with breast cancer.

METHODS

Relevant RCTs were obtained by search of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane's Library databases from inception to 15 May 2021. A random-effects model incorporating the potential publication bias was used to pool the results.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Five phase II RCTs including 396 non-diabetic women with breast cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that additional use of metformin was not associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70 to 1.43, p = 0.98; I²  = 32%) or overall survival (OS, HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.39, p = 0.98; I²  = 0%). Sensitivity analysis by excluding one study at a time showed consistent results (HR for PFS: 0.91 to 1.14, p all >0.05; HR for OS: 0.88 to 1.21, P all >0.05).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Current evidence from phase II clinical trials does not support that additional use of metformin could improve the survival outcome in women with breast cancer.

Efficacy of Metformin in Patients With Breast Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy or Endocrine Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have suggested that metformin might improve survival outcomes in patients with breast cancer. However, findings on the efficacy of metformin with chemotherapy or endocrine therapy are inconsistent.

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the efficacy of metformin with chemotherapy or endocrine therapy in breast cancer patients according to the treatment setting, including neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastasis/recurrence.

METHODS

We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and EMBASE from inception through July 2020. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and hypoglycemia rate were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included severe adverse events (SAEs) and relapse-free survival. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of metformin with chemotherapy and endocrine therapy in patients with breast cancer.

RESULTS

Our systematic review included 412 participants from 5 trials. Metformin showed little to no difference in OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13; 95% CI = 0.71-1.81; certainty of evidence [COE], moderate) and PFS (HR = 1.14; 95% CI = 0.86-1.50; COE, moderate) in patients with metastasis/recurrence. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of metformin on survival outcomes in patients who received metformin with neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment. Metformin showed little to no difference in hypoglycemia and SAEs.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Metformin should be discouraged routinely in nondiabetic patients with metastatic/recurrent breast cancer. Further RCTs are needed to verify whether metformin with chemotherapy or endocrine therapy results in significant clinical benefits in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting.

Monitoring vascular normalization: new opportunities for mitochondrial inhibitors in breast cancer

Preclinical evidence indicates the potential of targeting mitochondrial respiration as a therapeutic strategy. We previously demonstrated that mitochondrial inhibitors’ efficacy was restricted to a metabolic context in which mitochondrial respiration was the predominant energy source, a situation achievable by inducing vascular normalization/hypoxia correction with antiangiogenics. Using molecular imaging, we showed how the same antiangiogenic agent may display different normalizing properties in patients with the same tumor type. This is of key importance, since patients experiencing normalization seem to get more benefit from standard chemotherapy combinations, and also could be eligible for combination with antimitochondrial agents. This scenario emphasizes the need for monitoring vascular normalization in order to optimize the use of antiangiogenics. We have also proposed a method to evaluate anti-mitochondrial agents’ pharmacodynamics; despite promising accuracy in animal studies the clinical results were inconclusive, highlighting the need for research in this field. Regarding patients that respond to antiangiogenics increasing vessel abnormality, in this case an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment is generated. Whether anti-mitochondrial agents can positively modulate the activity of T effector cell subpopulations remains an area of active research. Our research sheds light on the importance of refining the use of antiangiogenics, highlighting the relevance of tracing vascular normalization as a potential biomarker for antiangiogenics to assist patient-tailored medicine and exploring the role of mitochondrial inhibitors in the context of vascular normalization and correction of hypoxia.

The potential adjunctive benefit of adding metformin to standard treatment in inoperable cancer patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Recently, there have been several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of metformin plus standard treatment in inoperable cancer patients. Our meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of metformin in combination with standard treatment in inoperable cancer patients.

Methods

PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched for relevant RCTs investigating the efficacy of adding metformin to standard treatment for cancer patients. The pooled relative risk (RR) for tumor response and safety was calculated to assess the efficacy of combining metformin with standard treatment. Meta-analysis was subsequently performed to pool the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

Ten RCTs comprising 1033 patients were included in our current meta-analysis. In patients with breast cancer, results of meta-analysis showed that the addition of metformin to standard treatment was beneficial to objective response rate (ORR) with 30.3% (33/109) in the metformin plus standard treatment group and 16.1% (18/112) in the placebo group (RR 1.92, 95% CI: 1.19–3.10, P=0.008). OS and PFS were not significantly improved in patients who received metformin plus standard treatment compared with those who received placebo plus standard treatment (OS: HR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.71–1.46, P=0.916; PFS: HR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.86–1.50, P=0.366). For lung cancer patients, meta-analysis results showed adding metformin to standard treatment could benefit ORR (metformin 65.3% vs. placebo 54.6%, RR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.03–1.43, P=0.018) with no significant survival benefit in the metformin group. For patients with pancreatic cancer, the pooled ORR was 17.6% (16/91) in metformin plus standard treatment group and 20% (18/90) in the placebo group, indicating metformin did not benefit ORR (RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.49–1.49, P=0.576). Besides, the addition of metformin to standard treatment did not increase the incidence rate of adverse effects.

Conclusions

Our results indicated that addition of metformin to standard treatment was beneficial to ORR in inoperable breast or lung cancer patients without increasing the incidence of adverse effects. However, adding metformin to standard treatment could not benefit OS and PFS.

Counteracting Chemoresistance with Metformin in Breast Cancers: Targeting Cancer Stem Cells

Despite the leaps and bounds in achieving success in the management and treatment of breast cancers through surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, breast cancer remains the most frequently occurring cancer in women and the most common cause of cancer-related deaths among women. Systemic therapeutic approaches, such as chemotherapy, although beneficial in treating and curing breast cancer subjects with localized breast tumors, tend to fail in metastatic cases of the disease due to (a) an acquired resistance to the chemotherapeutic drug and (b) the development of intrinsic resistance to therapy. The existence of cancer stem cells (CSCs) plays a crucial role in both acquired and intrinsic chemoresistance. CSCs are less abundant than terminally differentiated cancer cells and confer chemoresistance through a unique altered metabolism and capability to evade the immune response system. Furthermore, CSCs possess active DNA repair systems, transporters that support multidrug resistance (MDR), advanced detoxification processes, and the ability to self-renew and differentiate into tumor progenitor cells, thereby supporting cancer invasion, metastasis, and recurrence/relapse. Hence, current research is focusing on targeting CSCs to overcome resistance and improve the efficacy of the treatment and management of breast cancer. Studies revealed that metformin (1, 1-dimethylbiguanide), a widely used anti-hyperglycemic agent, sensitizes tumor response to various chemotherapeutic drugs. Metformin selectively targets CSCs and improves the hypoxic microenvironment, suppresses the tumor metastasis and inflammation, as well as regulates the metabolic programming, induces apoptosis, and reverses epithelial-mesenchymal transition and MDR. Here, we discuss cancer (breast cancer) and chemoresistance, the molecular mechanisms of chemoresistance in breast cancers, and metformin as a chemo-sensitizing/re-sensitizing agent, with a particular focus on breast CSCs as a critical contributing factor to acquired and intrinsic chemoresistance. The review outlines the prospects and directions for a better understanding and re-purposing of metformin as an anti-cancer/chemo-sensitizing drug in the treatment of breast cancer. It intends to provide a rationale for the use of metformin as a combinatory therapy in a clinical setting.

Endocrine therapy-based treatments in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several endocrine therapy (ET)-based treatments are available for patients with advanced breast cancer. We assessed the efficacy of different ET-based treatments in patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with endocrine-sensitive or endocrine-resistant disease.

METHODS

We searched Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 15 October 2019 and abstracts from major conferences from 2016 to October 2019. We included phase II/III randomised trials, comparing ≥2 ET-based treatments. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed by network meta-analyses using MTC Bayesian models based on both fixed-effect and random-effect models; relative treatment effects were measured as HRs and 95% credibility intervals (CrI). All statistical tests were two-sided. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed and this systematic review is registered in the PROSPERO database.

RESULTS

55 publications reporting on 32 trials (n=12 293 patients) were included. Regarding PFS in the endocrine sensitive setting (n=5200; 12 trials), the combination of cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK)4/6-inhibitors (CDK4/6i)+fulvestrant 500 mg (F500) was likely the most effective treatment (surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA)=97.3%), followed by CDK4/6i+aromatase inhibitor ±goserelin; there was no significant difference between them (HR 0.82; 95% CrI 0.54-1.25). Regarding OS (n=2157; five trials), the most effective treatment was probably CDK4/6i+F500 (SUCRA=97.3%); comparing CDK4/6i+F500 versus F500 held a HR of 0.77 (95% CrI 0.63-0.95). Regarding PFS in the endocrine-resistant setting (n=6635; 20 trials), CDK4/6i+F500 was likely the most effective treatment (SUCRA=95.7%), followed by capivasertib+F500, without significant difference between them (HR 0.91; 95% CrI 0.60-1.36). For OS (n=4377; 11 trials), the most effective treatments were capivasertib+F500 (SUCRA=84.7%) and CDK4/6i+F500 (SUCRA=69.9%). Comparing CDK4/6i+F500 versus F500 held a HR of 0.77 (95% CrI 0.67-0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

CDK4/6i+F500 is likely the best treatment option in both endocrine-sensitive and endocrine-resistant diseases for PFS, and in endocrine-sensitive patients for OS. Concerning OS in endocrine-resistant patients, capivasertib+F500 and CDK4/6i+F500 are likely the best treatments.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018104628.

Lipids and cancer: Emerging roles in pathogenesis, diagnosis and therapeutic intervention

With the advent of effective tools to study lipids, including mass spectrometry-based lipidomics, lipids are emerging as central players in cancer biology. Lipids function as essential building blocks for membranes, serve as fuel to drive energy-demanding processes and play a key role as signaling molecules and as regulators of numerous cellular functions. Not unexpectedly, cancer cells, as well as other cell types in the tumor microenvironment, exploit various ways to acquire lipids and extensively rewire their metabolism as part of a plastic and context-dependent metabolic reprogramming that is driven by both oncogenic and environmental cues. The resulting changes in the fate and composition of lipids help cancer cells to thrive in a changing microenvironment by supporting key oncogenic functions and cancer hallmarks, including cellular energetics, promoting feedforward oncogenic signaling, resisting oxidative and other stresses, regulating intercellular communication and immune responses. Supported by the close connection between altered lipid metabolism and the pathogenic process, specific lipid profiles are emerging as unique disease biomarkers, with diagnostic, prognostic and predictive potential. Multiple preclinical studies illustrate the translational promise of exploiting lipid metabolism in cancer, and critically, have shown context dependent actionable vulnerabilities that can be rationally targeted, particularly in combinatorial approaches. Moreover, lipids themselves can be used as membrane disrupting agents or as key components of nanocarriers of various therapeutics. With a number of preclinical compounds and strategies that are approaching clinical trials, we are at the doorstep of exploiting a hitherto underappreciated hallmark of cancer and promising target in the oncologist's strategy to combat cancer.

Anticancer mechanisms of metformin: A review of the current evidence

Metformin, a US Food and Drug Administration-approved "star" drug used for diabetes mellitus type 2, has become a topic of increasing interest to researchers due to its anti-neoplastic effects. Growing evidence has demonstrated that metformin may be a promising chemotherapeutic agent, and several clinical trials of metformin use in cancer treatment are ongoing. However, the anti-neoplastic effects of metformin and its underlying mechanisms have not been fully elucidated. In this review, we present the newest findings on the anticancer activities of metformin, and highlight its diverse anticancer mechanisms. Several clinical trials, as well as the limitations of the current evidence are also demonstrated. This review explores the crucial roles of metformin and provides supporting evidence for the repurposing of metformin as a treatment of cancer.

Metformin: current clinical applications in nondiabetic patients with cancer

Metformin is one of the most commonly used first-line oral medications for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Multiple observational studies, reviewed in numerous systematic reviews, have shown that metformin treatment may not only reduce the risk of cancer but may also improve the efficacy of cancer treatment in diabetic patients. Recent studies have been conducted to determine whether a similar protective effect can be demonstrated in nondiabetic cancer patients. However, the results are controversial. The potential optimal dose, schedule, and duration of metformin treatment and the heterogeneity of histological subtypes and genotypes among cancer patients might contribute to the different clinical benefits. In addition, as the immune property of metformin was investigated, further studies of the immunomodulatory effect of metformin on cancer cells should also be taken into account to optimize its clinical use. In this review, we present and discuss the latest findings regarding the anticancer potential of metformin in nondiabetic patients with cancer.

The addition of metformin to systemic anticancer therapy in advanced or metastatic cancers: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Preclinical studies have demonstrated that metformin has anticancer properties and act in additive or synergistic way when combined with anticancer agents. We conducted this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to evaluate the effect of metformin added to systemic anticancer therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer. A computerized systematic electronic search was performed using PubMed, PMC, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases (up to June 2020). From nine randomized clinical trials, 821 patients were included in the pooled analyses of odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall response rate (ORR) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The concomitant use of metformin with systemic anticancer therapy did not increase tumor response (the pooled OR of ORR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.89-1.71, p = 0.21), compared with anticancer therapy alone. In terms of survival, metformin added to anticancer agents failed to prolong PFS (HR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.75-1.21, p = 0.68) and OS (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.80-1.16, p = 0.71). In conclusion, this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials indicates that the addition of metformin to systemic anticancer therapy has no clinical benefits in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer.

Study protocol of a phase II clinical trial of oral metformin for the intravesical treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

BACKGROUND

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is the most common neoplasm of the urinary tract and requires life-long invasive surveillance to detect disease recurrence. Currently, there are no effective oral therapies that delay disease recurrence or progression. We recently demonstrated that in mice, metformin accumulates unchanged in the urine. Urothelial cells are exposed to metformin concentrations ~ 240-fold higher than in serum. This was effective in the treatment of mouse bladder cancer models.

METHODS

We describe the protocol of a multi-centre, open-label, phase II clinical trial of metformin in up to 49 evaluable patients with intermediate-risk NMIBC with the aim to determine the overall response to administration of oral metformin for 3 months on a marker tumour deliberately left following transurethral resection of multiple, papillary NMIBC tumours. All patients will receive metformin orally at doses up to 3000 mg per day. Metformin treatment will start within 2 weeks following transurethral resection of all tumours except one marker lesion. After 3 months of metformin treatment, the effect of metformin on the marker lesion is evaluated by cystoscopy and biopsy under anaesthesia. Residual tumour, if present at this evaluation, will be resected. In case of complete disappearance of the marker lesion, the former tumour area will be biopsied. The primary outcome is the complete response rate of the marker lesion, as determined by decentralised scoring of pre- and post-treatment cystoscopy images by expert independent urologists. Secondary outcomes are the partial response rate, overall safety of metformin and the duration of the time to recurrence.

DISCUSSION

Preclinical studies show the potential role of oral metformin treatment in the management of NMIBC. It could offer an alternative to current adjuvant intravesical treatment. If positive, the reported results of this study could warrant further phase III trials to compare the efficacy of metformin against current treatments of intravesical installations with chemotherapy or Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under NCT03379909.

Targeting STAT3 and oxidative phosphorylation in oncogene-addicted tumors

Drug resistance invariably limits the response of oncogene-addicted cancer cells to targeted therapy. The upregulation of signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) has been implicated as a mechanism of drug resistance in a range of oncogene-addicted cancers. However, the development of inhibitors against STAT3 has been fraught with challenges such as poor delivery or lack of specificity. Clinical experience with small molecule STAT3 inhibitors has seen efficacy signals, but this success has been tempered by drug limiting toxicities from off-target adverse events. It has emerged in recent years that, contrary to the Warburg theory, certain tumor types undergo metabolic reprogramming towards oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) to satisfy their energy production. In particular, certain drug-resistant oncogene-addicted tumors have been found to rely on OXPHOS as a mechanism of survival. Multiple cellular signaling pathways converge on STAT3, hence the localization of STAT3 to the mitochondria may provide the link between oncogene-induced signaling pathways and cancer cell metabolism. In this article, we review the role of STAT3 and OXPHOS as targets of novel therapeutic strategies aimed at restoring drug sensitivity in treatment-resistant oncogene-addicted tumor types. Apart from drugs which have been re-purposed as OXPHOS inhibitors for-anti-cancer therapy (e.g., metformin and phenformin), several novel compounds in the drug-development pipeline have demonstrated promising pre-clinical and clinical activity. However, the clinical development of OXPHOS inhibitors remains in its infancy. The further identification of compounds with acceptable toxicity profiles, alongside the discovery of robust companion biomarkers of OXPHOS inhibition, would represent tangible early steps in transforming the therapeutic landscape of cancer cell metabolism.

Metformin and Breast Cancer: Molecular Targets

Metformin has been the first-line drug for the treatment of type II diabetes mellitus for decades, being presently the most widely prescribed antihyperglycemic drug. Retrospective studies associate the use of metformin with a reduction in cancer incidence and cancer-related death. However, despite extensive research about the molecular effects of metformin in cancer cells, its mode of action remains controversial. The major molecular targets of metformin include complex I of the mitochondrial electron transport chain, adenosine monophosphate (AMP)-activated protein kinase (AMPK), and mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1), but AMPK-independent effects of metformin have also been described. Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality among women worldwide. Several studies have reinforced a link between breast cancer risk and diabetes. Moreover, metformin significantly reduces breast cancer risk, compared to patients who are not using metformin and is independent of diabetes status. In this review, we summarize the current molecular evidence to elucidate metformin's mode of action against breast cancer cells.

Fibroblasts rescue oral squamous cancer cell from metformin-induced apoptosis via alleviating metabolic disbalance and inhibiting AMPK pathway

Metformin is an antidiabetic drug widely used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Growing evidence suggests that it may exert antitumor effects in vivo and in vitro. However, even with the promising potency on defeating cancer cells, the pre-clinical and epidemiological studies of metformin on various kinds of cancers are not satisfactory, and the reasons and underlying mechanisms remain unknown. Since cancer is a complex system, dependent on a promoting microenvironment, we hypothesize that the interactions between cancer cells and their neighborhood fibroblasts are essential for metformin resistance. To test this, we used a cell co-culture model closely mimicking the in vivo interactions and metabolic exchanges between normal stromal cells (NOFs) and oral squamous cancer cells (OSCC). Here we show that while metformin can significantly inhibit cell growth and induce apoptosis of OSCC cultured alone in a dose-dependent manner through activating p-AMPK^T172 and modulating Bcl-2, Bax, and cleaved PARP. However, when OSCC are co-cultured with NOFs the metformin effects on OSCC cells are annihilated. NOFs are rescuing OSCC from metformin - induced apoptosis, at least partially, through inhibiting the activity of AMPK and PARP, maintaining mitochondrial membrane potential and increasing the oxidative stress. Our results indicate that metformin effects on oral cancer cells are modulated by the microenvironment and that this has to be taken into consideration in the context of developing a new combination of drugs for oral cancer treatment.

Impact of Addition of Metformin to Abiraterone in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients With Disease Progressing While Receiving Abiraterone Treatment (MetAb-Pro): Phase 2 Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

There is evidence linking metformin to improved prostate cancer-related outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty-five men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression while receiving treatment with abiraterone from 3 Swiss centers were included in this single-arm phase 2 trial between November 2013 and September 2016. Metformin was added to abiraterone continuously at 1000 mg twice daily in uninterrupted 4-week cycles. The primary end point was the absence of disease progression at 12 weeks (PFS12). The Fleming single-stage design was applied. With a 5% significance level and 80% power, 25 patients were required to test PFS12 ≤ 15% (H0) compared to ≥ 35% (H1). Secondary end points included toxicity and safety issues. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01677897).

RESULTS

The primary end point PFS12 was 12% (3 of 25 patients) (95% confidence interval, 3-31). Most patients had PSA progression, almost half had radiographic progression, but only 1 patient had symptomatic progression. Eleven (44%) of 25 patients had grade 1 and 2 patients each grade 2 (8%) or grade 3 (8%) gastrointestinal toxicity (nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite). One patient discontinued treatment at week 5 because of intolerable grade 3 diarrhea.

CONCLUSION

The addition of metformin to abiraterone for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and PSA progression while receiving abiraterone therapy does not affect further progression and has no meaningful clinical benefit. A higher-than-expected gastrointestinal toxicity attributed to metformin was observed.

Metformin as an Adjunctive Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer: A Review of the Literature on Its Potential Therapeutic Use

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has the worst prognosis of any cancer. New adjuvant chemotherapies are urgently required, which are well tolerated by patients with unresectable cancers. This paper reviews the existing proof of concept data, namely laboratory, pharmacoepidemiological, experimental medicine and clinical trial evidence for investigating metformin in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Laboratory evidence shows metformin inhibits mitochondrial ATP synthesis which directly and indirectly inhibits carcinogenesis. Drug-drug interactions of metformin with proton pump inhibitors and histamine H2-receptor antagonists may be of clinical relevance and pertinent to future research of metformin in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. To date, most cohort studies have demonstrated a positive association with metformin on survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, although there are many methodological limitations with such study designs. From experimental medicine studies, there are sparse data in humans. The current trials of metformin have methodological limitations. Two small randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported null findings, but there were potential inequalities in cancer staging between groups and poor compliance with the intervention. Proof of concept data, predominantly from laboratory work, supports assessing metformin as an adjunct for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in RCTs. Ideally, more experimental medicine studies are needed for proof of concept. However, many feasibility criteria need to be answered before such trials can progress.

Phase 1 lead-in to a phase 2 factorial study of temozolomide plus memantine, mefloquine, and metformin as postradiation adjuvant therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma

BACKGROUND

Repurposed memantine, mefloquine, and metformin have putative anticancer activity. The objective of this phase 1 study was to determine the maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) of combinations of these agents with temozolomide (TMZ).

METHODS

Adults with newly diagnosed glioblastoma who completed chemoradiation were eligible. The patients were assigned to receive doublet, triplet, or quadruplet therapy with TMZ combined with mefloquine, memantine, and/or metformin. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were determined, using a 3 + 3 study design.

RESULTS

Of 85 enrolled patients, 4 did not complete cycle 1 (the DLT observation period) for nontoxicity reasons, and 81 were evaluable for DLT. The MTDs for doublet therapy were memantine 20 mg twice daily, mefloquine 250 mg 3 times weekly, and metformin 850 mg twice daily. For triplet therapy, the MTDs were memantine 10 mg twice daily, mefloquine 250 mg 3 times weekly, and metformin 850 mg twice daily. For quadruplet therapy, the MTDs were memantine 10 mg twice daily, mefloquine 250 mg 3 times weekly, and metformin 500 mg twice daily. DLTs included dizziness (memantine) and gastrointestinal effects (metformin). Lymphopenia was the most common adverse event (66%). From study entry, the median survival was 21 months, and the 2-year survival rate was 43%.

CONCLUSIONS

Memantine, mefloquine, and metformin can be combined safely with TMZ in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

Repurposing old drugs in oncology: Opportunities with clinical and regulatory challenges ahead

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

In order to expedite the availability of drugs to treat cancers in a cost-effective manner, repurposing of old drugs for oncological indications is gathering momentum. Revolutionary advances in pharmacology and genomics have demonstrated many old drugs to have activity at novel antioncogenic pharmacological targets. We decided to investigate whether prospective studies support the promises of nonclinical and retrospective clinical studies on repurposing three old drugs, namely metformin, valproate and astemizole.

METHODS

We conducted an extensive literature search through PubMed to gather representative nonclinical and retrospective clinical studies that investigated the potential repurposing of these three drugs for oncological indications. We then searched for prospective studies aimed at confirming the promises of retrospective data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

While evidence from nonclinical and retrospective clinical studies with these drugs appears highly promising, large scale prospective studies are either lacking or have failed to substantiate this promise. We provide a brief discussion of some of the challenges in repurposing. Principal challenges and obstacles relate to heterogeneity of cancers studied without considering their molecular signatures, trials with small sample size and short duration, failure consider issues of ethnicity of study population and effective antioncogenic doses of the drug studied.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Well-designed prospective studies demonstrating efficacy are required for repurposing old drugs for oncology indications, just as they are for new chemical entities for any indication. Early and ongoing interactions with regulatory authorities are invaluable. We outline a tentative framework for a structured approach to repurposing old drugs for novel indications in oncology.

PCP4/PEP19 upregulates aromatase gene expression via CYP19A1 promoter I.1 in human breast cancer SK-BR-3 cells

The Purkinje cell protein 4/peptide 19 (PCP4/PEP19) is a novel breast cancer cell expressing peptide, originally found in the neural cells as an anti-apoptotic factor, could inhibit cell apoptosis and enhance cell migration and invasion in human breast cancer cell lines. The expression of PCP4/PEP19 is induced by estrogens in estrogen receptor-positive (ER⁺) MCF-7 cells but also highly expressed in ER^- SK-BR-3 cells. In this study, we investigated the effects of PCP4/PEP19 on aromatase gene expression in MCF-7 and SK-BR-3 human breast cancer cells. In SK-BR-3 cells but not in MCF-7 cells, PCP4/PEP19 knockdown by siRNA silencing decreased the aromatase expression in gene transcriptional level. When PCP4/PEP19 was overexpressed by CMV promoter-driven PCP4/PEP19 expressing plasmid transfection, aromatase gene transcription increased in SK-BR-3 cells. This aromatase gene transcription is mainly mediated through promoter region PI.1, which is usually active in the placental tissue but not in the breast cancer tissue. These results indicate a new function of PCP4/PEP19 that would enhance aromatase gene upregulation to supply estrogens in heterogeneous cancer microenvironment.