DYNAMICS OF THE VENOUS BLOOD ACID-BASE BALANCE AND RELATIONSHIP BLOOD PH VS TUMOR IN LARYNGEAL CANCER PATIENTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34287/MMT.1(44).2020.3Abstract
The characteristic for most solid tumors cells is the intracellular alkalinization and acidification of the extracellular milieu and this pH gradient inversion (pHe < pHi) is associated with tumor proliferation, invasion, metastasis, aggressiveness, and treatment resistance. However is there tumor pH (pHi and/or pHe) changes affect on venous blood plasma pH?
Purpose of the study. The venous blood acid-base balance before and after the combined treatment, correlation of the venous blood pH indicators (pHb), relationship neoplasm and blood pH in patients with laryngeal cancer was study.
Material and methods. Studies were performed in patients with laryngeal cancer categories T2–3 N0 M0 before and after the combined treatment. The patients were divided into four groups: Group 1 – 25 patients before the start of treatment; Group 2 – 21 patients (from Group 1) after completion of the combined treatment; Group 3 – 14 patients from Group 2 with positive results of treatment and Group 4 – 7 patients from Group 2 with a negative result of treatment (recurrence and/or metastasis of the neoplasm). The control group consisted of 15 practically healthy people (Group C).
Examination of venous blood acid-base balance of patients, tumor pH and tumor cells pHi and pHe was carried.
Results and discussion. The increase in pCO2 and HCO – concentration will result in decrease in the pH, but if these indicators have a clear correlation in the control group, then in patients groups there was a correlation for pHb & pCO2 and pO2 only. Besides, we marked increase in pCO2, HCO –, K+, while pO decreased in pHb after the combined treatment.
It is necessary to point out the differences between some benchmarks and indicators of acid-base balance in the plasma of venous blood in primary patients and patients with recurrent laryngeal cancer. So, if pHb, pO2, and Cl– patients have statistically significant differences from control data, then differences with control pCO2 values are characteristic only for patients of Groups 1 and 3. On the pHb, pO , HCO – і mOsm.
contrary, differences in the HCO – indices are characteristic only for patients of Group 4. There are statistically significant differences from the control indicators K+, Na+, Ca2+, Glu, Lac, mOsm in patients of the first group and Cl– and Lac of patients in the third group. Among the indicators in the third and fourth groups of patients, statistically significant differences were noted in the values of pHb, HCO – and Glu.
In patients of groups 1 and 4, the determination of pHt and the calculation of pHi, pHe revealed decrease in pHt and pHe with increasing pHi in patients with recurrence of the neoplasm.
The final stage of the study was to determine the relationship (and not correlation) of blood pH and laryngeal tumors and the relationship was noted in the «pHb-tumor» system in primary patients, but in patients in 3 and 4 Groups, that «pHb-tumor» connection is rather contradictory.
Conclusion. Acid-base balance indicators obviously cannot be considered as unconditional markers of carcinogenesis, but their monitoring and, in particular, venous blood pH, of patients after special treatment, can help determine the risk group of patients who may develop of a malignant neoplasm recurrence.
References
DiGiammarino EL, Lee AS, Cadwell C, Zhang W et al. A novel mechanism of tumorigenesis involving pH-dependent destabilization of a mutant p53 tetramer. Nat. Struct. Biol. 2002; 9 (1): 12–16. DOI: 10.1038/nsb730.
Capuano P, Capasso G. The importance of intracellular pH in the regulation of cell function. G Ital Nefrol. 2003; 20 (2): 139–150.
Legadic-Gossmann D, Huc L, Lecureul V. Alterations of intracellular pH homeostasis in apoptosis: origins and roles. Cell Death Differ. 2004; 11 (9): 953–961. DOI: 10.1038/sj.cdd.4401466
Helmlinger G, Yuan F, Dellian M, Jain, RK. Interstitial pH and pO2 gradients in solid tumors in vivo: high-resolution measurements reveal a lack of correlation. Nat. Med. 1997; 3 (2): 177–182.
Casey, JR, Grinstein, S, Orlowski J. Sensors and regulators of intracellular pH. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010; 11 (1): 50–61. DOI: 10.1038/nrm2820.
Webb BA., Chimenti M, Jacobson MP, Barber DL. Dysregulated pH: a perfect storm for cancer progression. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011; 11 (9): 671–677. DOI: 10.1038/nrc3110
Persi E, Duran-Frigola M, Damaghi M, Roush WR et al. Systems analysis of intracellular pH vulnerabilities for cancer therapy. Nat Commun. 2018; 9 (1): 2997. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05261-x.
Barathova M, Takacova M, Holotnakova T, Gibadulinova A et al. Alternative splicing variant of the hypoxia marker carbonic anhydrase IX expressed independently of hypoxia and tumour phenotype. Br J Cancer. 2008; 98 (1): 129-136. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604111.
Damaghi M, Wojtkowiak JW, Gillies RJ. pH sensing and regulation in cancer. Front Physiol. 2013; 4: 370. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2013.00370.
Kulikov VA, Belyaeva LE. On bioenergetics of a tumoral cell. Vestnik vitebskogo gosudarstvennogo meditsinskogo universiteta. 2015; 14 (6): 5–14.
Ludwig MG, Vanek M, Guerini D, Gasser JA et al. Proton-sensing G-proteincoupled receptors. Nature. 2003; 425 (6953): 93–98. DOI: 10.1038/nature01905.
Bumke MA, Neri D, Elia G Modulation of gene expression by extracellular pH variations in human fibroblasts: a transcriptomic and proteomic study. Proteomics. 2003; 3 (5): 675–688. DOI: 10.1002/pmic.200300395.
Chiche J, Brahimi-Horn MC, Pouysségur J. Tumour hypoxia induces a metabolic shift causing acidosis: a common feature in cancer. J Cell Mol Med. 2010; 14 (4): 771–794. DOI: 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2009.00994.x.
McCarty MF, Whitaker J. Manipulating tumor acidification as a cancer treatment strategy. Altern Med Rev. 2010; 15 (3): 264–272.
Miranda-Gonçalves V, Reis RM, Baltazar F. Lactate Transporters and pH Regulation: Potential Therapeutic Targets in Glioblastomas. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2016; 16 (5): 388-399.
Corbet C, Feron O. Tumour acidosis: from the passenger to the driver’s seat. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2017; 17 (10): 577–593. DOI: 10.1038/nrc.2017.77.
Granja S, Tavares-Valente D, Queiros O, Baltazar F. Value of pH regulators in the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 2017; 43: 17–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2016.12.003.
Parks SK, Pouyssegus J. Targeting pH regulating proteins for cancer therapy-Progress and limitations. Semin Cancer Biol. 2017; 43: 66–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2017.01.007.
Prescott DM, Charles HC, Poulson JM, Page RL et al. The relationship between intracellular and extracellular pH in spontaneous canine tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2000; 6 (6): 2501-2505.
Fellenz MP, Gerweck LE. Influence of extracellular pH on intracellular pH and cell energy status: relationship to hyperthermic sensitivity. Radiat Res. 1988; 116 (2): 305–312.
Kellum JA. Determinants of blood pH in health and disease. Crit Care. 2000; 4 (1): 6–14. DOI: 10.1186/cc644.
Capuano P, Capasso G. The importance of intracellular pH in the regulation of cell function. G Ital Nefrol. 2003; 20 (2): 139–150.
Hanahan, D. & Weinberg, R. A. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011; 144 (5), 646–674. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013.
Criscitiello C, Esposito A, Curigliano G. Tumor-stroma crosstalk: targeting stroma in breast cancer. Curr Opin Oncol. 2014; 26 (6): 551–555. DOI: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000122.
Swietach P, Vaughan-Jones RD, Harris AL, Hulikova A. The chemistry, physiology and pathology of pH in cancer. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014; 396 (1638): 20130099. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0099.
Huber V, Camisaschi C, berzi A, Ferro S et al. Cancer acidity: An ultimate frontier of tumor immuneescapeandanoveltargetofimmunomodulation. Seminars in Cancer Biology. 2017; 43: 74–89. DOI: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2017.03.001.
Puppulin L, Hosogi S, Sun H, Matsuo K et al. Bioconjugation strategy for cell surface labelling with gold nanostructures designed for highly localized pH measuremen. Nature Communications. 2018; 9, Article number: 5278. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-07726.
Engin K, Leeper DB, Cater JR et al. Extracellular pH distribution in human tumours. Int J Hyperthermia. 1995; 11 (2): 211–216.
Swietach P, Vaughan-Jones RD, Harris AL. Regulation of tumor pH and the role of carbonic anhydrase 9. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2007; 26 (2): 299-310. DOI: 10.1007/s10555-007-9064-0.
Swietach P, Hulikova A, Vaughan-Jones RD, Harris AL. New insights into the physiological role of carbonic anhydrase IX in tumour pH regulation. Oncogene. 2010; 29 (50): 6509–6521. DOI: 10.1038/ONC.2010.455.
Damaghi M, Tafreshi NK, Lloyd MC, Sprung R et al. Chronic acidosis in the tumour microenvironment selects for overexpression of LAMP2 in the plasma membrane. Nat Commun. 2015; 6: 8752. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9752
Morishima H, Jumpei Washio J, Kitamura J, Shinohara Y et al. Real-time monitoring system for evaluating the acid-producing activity of oral squamous cell carcinoma cells at diferent environmental pH. Scientific Reports 7, Article number: 10092 (2017). DOI: 10.1038/ s41598-017-10893-y.
Harris AL. Hypoxia – a key regulatory factor in tumor growth. Nature Rev Cancer. 2002; 2 (1): 38–47. DOI: 10.1038/nrc704
Cheng C, Sharp PA. Regulation of CD44 alternative splicing by SRm160 and its potential role in tumor cell invasion. Mol Cell Biol. 2006; 26 (1): 362–370. DOI:10.1128/MCB.26.1.362-370.2006.
Prochazka L, Tesarik R, Turanek J. Regulation of alternative splicing of CD44 in cancer. Cell Signal. 2014; 26 (10): 2234–2239. DOI: 10.1016/j.cellsig.2014.07.011.
Cali B, Molon B, Viola A. Tuning cancer fate: the unremitting role of host immunity. Open Biol. 2017; 7 (4): pii: 170006. DOI: 10.1098/rsob.170006.
Marquardt S, Solanki M, Spitschak A, Vera J, Pützer BM. Emergingfunctionalmarkersforcancer stem cell-based therapies: Understanding signaling networks for targeting metastasis. Semin Cancer Biol. 2018; 53: 90–109. DOI: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2018.06.006.
