Abstract
The acquisition of the malignant phenotype (invasiveness and metastasis) by tumor cells has been attributed to tumor progression, a term used by Foulds to describe the acquisition of permanent irreversible changes in a neoplasm1. Progression in turn has generally been presumed to result from “genetic instability” that results in the emergence of neoplastic cells that have lost control of the mechanisms governing or regulating gene expression2,3. From these ideas evolved the proposal that tumor progression is generally unidirectional, since genetic or genomic changes favoring malignant cells with some form of a presumed growth advantage generally come to dominate tumor growth. The advantages acquired by these cells were hypothesized to be due to an increasing rate of genomic instability that accompanied the increasingly malignant phenotype4,5. Thus, it is believed that only cells with an increased rate of genomic instability become malignant (metastatic). In short the transformation of normal cells into tumor cells is thought to be accompanied by the destabilization of the genome, leading to tumor heterogeneity which in turn accompanies tumor progression to a malignant phenotype. One difficulty with this paradigm is that we have only a minimal understanding of the events responsible for the transformation of a normal to a malignant cell. It has therefore been accepted a priori that any analysis of tumor initiation, promotion and progression accept this gap in knowledge and proceed from there.
Supported in part by Grant number 38953 from the PHS and Cancer Development Funds of The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
L. Foulds, The experimental study of tumor progression: a review, Cancer Res. 14:327–339 (1954).
P. C. Nowell, The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations, Science 194:23–28 (1976).
P. C. Nowell, Mechanisms of tumor progression, Cancer Res. 46:2203–2207 (1986).
W. A. Kendal and P. Frost, Constancy of genomic instability in tumor progression, J. Theor. Biol. 126-369–371 (1987).
W. A. Kendal and P. Frost, Genetic instability and tumor progression, Pathol. Immunopathol. Res. 5:455–467 (1986).
B. C. Morson and I. M. P. Dawson, “Gastrointestinal Pathology,” 2nd ed., Blackwell Scientific, London (1979).
B. Vogelstein, E. R. Fearon, S. R. Hamilton, et al., Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development, NEJM 319:535–532 (1988).
Y. H. Pilch, Malignant Melanoma, in: “Surgical Oncology”, Y. H. Pilch, McGraw Hill, New York (1984).
S. Goelz, B. Vogelstein, S. R. Hamilton, and A. P. Feinberg, Hypomethylation of DNA from benign and malignant human colon neoplasms, Science 228:187–190 (1985).
J. Bos, E. Fearon, S. Hamilton, M. Verlaan de Vries, J. van de Boom, A. van der Eb, and B. Vogelstein, Prevalence of ras gene mutations in human colorectal cancers, Nature 327:293–297 (1987).
M. Cifone and I. J. Fidler, Increasing metastatic potential is associated with increasing genetic instability for clones isolated from murine neoplasms, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 78:6949–6952 (1981).
W. S. Kendal and P. Frost, Metastatic potential and spontaneous mutation rates: Studies with two murine cell lines and their recently induced metastatic variants, Cancer Res. 46:6131–6135 (1986).
W. S. Kendal, R. U. Wang, T. C. Hsu, and P. Frost, Rate of generation of major karyotypic abnormalities in relationship to the metastatic potential of B16 murine melanoma, Cancer Res. 47:3835–3841 (1987).
W. S. Kendal, R. Y. Wang, and P. Frost, Spontaneous mutation rates in cloned murine tumors do not correlate with metastatic potential, whereas the prevalence of karyotypic abnormalities in the parental tumor does, Intl. J. Cancer 40:408–413 (1987).
P. Frost, W. S. Kendal, B. Hunt, and M. Ellis, The prevalence of ouabain resistant variants after mutagen treatment: failure to correlate the frequency of variant expression with the metastatic phenotype, Invasion and Metastasis 8:73–86 (1988).
T. C. Everson and W. H. Cole, “Spontaneous Regression of Cancer,” Saunders Pub., Philadelphia (1966).
P. Frost, W. S. Kendal, and R. S. Kerbel, The limits of tumor heterogeneity, in: “Neo-adjuvant Chemotherapy,” Colloque INSERM/John Libbey Eurotext Ltd. 137-57-60 (1986).
J. L. Abbruzzese, M. N. Raber, and P. Frost, An effective strategy for the evaluation of unknown primary tumors, Cancer Bulletin (1988).
C. Bell and P. Frost, Characterization of two cell lines derived from human metastatic adenocarcinomas of unknown primary origin (UPT), Proc AACR 29:28 (1988).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1991 Plenum Press, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Frost, P. (1991). Unknown Primary Tumors: An Example of Accelerated (Type 2) Tumor Progression. In: Sudilovsky, O., Pitot, H.C., Liotta, L.A. (eds) Boundaries between Promotion and Progression during Carcinogenesis. Basic Life Sciences, vol 57. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5994-4_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5994-4_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-5996-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-5994-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive