The Tumor’s Normativity: Normative Structures, Action Norms and Decision Maxims as Therapeutic Targets for Tumor Therapy

Chapter

Abstract

Are normative notions, i.e., normative structures (morphology, and topology), action norms (including the hallmarks of cancer), and decision maxims (hubs, nodes) physically rationalized, functionally established, and even protected? The inseparable relation between rationalization processes and normative notions may be shown at three observational levels. (1) For many reasons, normative notions do not constitute a posteriori classifying phrases or dummies that hide a broad variety of arbitrary tumor-associated phenomena. On the contrary, normative notions are a source of the ‘metabolism’ of evolution, supplied by the substance of all rationalization processes mediating normative structures, action norms, and decision maxims. (2) Furthermore, the catalytic role of normative notions in composing rationalization processes of the ‘metabolism’ of evolution can be systematically highlighted from historic aspects and from a therapeutic point of view. (3) Finally, the origin of rationalization processes deriving from normative notions explains the context-disrupting explosive nature of a concrete ‘utopia’ realized in a normative notion. This condition turns on the general distortion of rationalization processes in tumors (inconsistencies, deformations, and Achilles’ heels) as well as on their radical substance (corrupt rationalizations), which is best outlined by its observable robustness towards external (therapeutic) disturbances. The study of normative notions and respective rationalizations in tumor systems including their systematic classification needs to be institutionalized to constitute evolution-adjusted tumor pathophysiology as the novel language of tumor biology and to facilitate biomodulatory therapy approaches.

Keywords

Normative notions Rationalization Tumor pathophysiology Convergent evolution Biomodulatory therapy Acute myelocytic leukemia 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was greatly facilitated by the use of previously published and publicly accessible research data, also by communication-theoretical considerations of J Habermas. I would like to thank all colleagues who contributed to the multi-center trials.

Glossary

Background knowledge

The communicative substance of a systems object is dependent on the communicative presuppositions, which determine the system’s object validity and denotation within an evolutionary compliant systems stage. Background knowledge constitutes the validity of informative intercellular processes, which is the prerequisite for therapeutic success. Background knowledge about the tumor’s living world is subjected to other conditions of scientific comprehension: Intentional ways fail to describe risk-absorbing knowledge, in which context-dependent knowledge about commonly administered reductionist therapy approaches is rooted. After this second objectifying step (physicians as operators of tumor systems), the network of the holistic communicative activities turns out to be the medium through which the tumor’s living world is mirrored and generated in rationalizations [26].

‘Metabolism’ of Evolution

Generally, communicatively linked biological systems are interweaving the nude identity of their systems’ objects, or the arrangement of compartmentalized knowledge (on the observer site) with situative biological stages, or with communicative arrangements of systems’ objects validity and denotation (on the participator site) by allowing implementation of internally or externally derived modular knowledge according to rules, which are present in modularly arranged and rationalized systems’ textures, equitable with the metabolism of evolutionary systems, and which purport the frame for evolutionary multiplicity [22]. As the ‘metabolism’ of evolution may be redeemed in specified rationalizations, the expansion of rationalizations shows a Janus face, which is simultaneously directed at the ‘metabolism’ of evolution and at the communication-derived norms (rules) for constituting rationalizations.

Modularity

In the present context, modularity is a formal pragmatic communicative systems concept, describing the degree and specificity to which systems objects (cells, pathways, proteins etc.) may be communicatively separated in a virtual continuum and recombined and rededicated to alter the validity and denotation of communication processes in the tumor.

Normative notions

Normative notions comprise defaults in biologic systems, which are realized by evolutionarily compliant rationalizations. For their formal description the discrimination between normative structures (morphology, topology), action norms (e.g., hallmarks of cancer) and decision maxims (nodes, hubs) is useful. The idea of normative notions is the conceptual hinge that merges the ‘metabolism’ of evolution in every cellular structure and function with respective physically comprehensive and directly scientifically accessible rationalization processes. Normative notions, which outreach the traditionally noted hallmarks of cancer by far, are the framework by which the universal substance of the ‘metabolism’ of evolution is imported into novel rationalization processes.

Rationalization

Rationalizations describe how normative notions, i.e., normative structures, action norms and decision maxims are differentially and physically established as well as functionally organized [7]. Rationalizations equally encompass both the digitalized genome-centric ‘world’ and the modularly structured cellular ‘world’ [26, 27, 36].

Tumor’s living world

The living world comprises the tumor’s holistic communication processes, which we rely on in every therapy. With experimental or therapeutic experiences (modular therapies) the tumor’s living world may be separated into categories of knowledge, for example, into modular systems. Specific conditions of compliance, for redeeming validity constitute relations between communication technique (specified biomodulatory therapy approaches) and distinct tumor-associated systems stages [26].

References

  1. 1.
    Puglisi R, Maccari I, Pipolo S, Conrad M, Mangia F, Boitani C (2011) The nuclear form of Glutathione Peroxidase 4 is associated with sperm nuclear matrix and is required for proper paternal chromatin decondensation at fertilization. J Cell Physiol. doi: 10.1002/jcp.22857Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Galon J, Costes A, Sanchez-Cabo F et al (2006) Type, density, and location of immune cells within human colorectal tumors predict clinical outcome. Science 313:1960–1964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144(5):646–674 (Review)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kar G, Gursoy A, Keskin O (2009) Human cancer protein-protein interaction network: a structural perspective. PLoS Comput Biol 5(12):e1000601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ben-Neriah Y, Karin M (2011) Inflammation meets cancer, with NF-κB as the matchmaker. Nat Immunol 12(8):715–723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Menendez D, Inga A, Resnick MA (2009) The expanding universe of p53 targets. Nat Rev Cancer 9(10):724–737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reichle A (2009) Tumor systems need to be rendered usable for a new action-theoretical abstraction: the starting point for novel therapeutic options. Curr Cancer Ther Rev 5(10):232–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kvinlaug BT, Chan WI, Bullinger L, Ramaswami M, Sears C, Foster D, Lazic SE, Okabe R, Benner A, Lee BH, De Silva I, Valk PJ, Delwel R, Armstrong SA, Döhner H, Gilliland DG, Huntly BJ (2011) Common and overlapping oncogenic pathways contribute to the evolution of acute myeloid leukemias. Cancer Res 71(12):4117–4129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gatenby RA, Gillies RJ, Brown JS (2011) Of cancer and cave fish. Nat Rev Cancer 11(4):237–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pfirrmann M, Ehninger G, Thiede C, Bornhäuser M, Kramer M, Röllig C, Hasford J, Schaich M (2011) For the study alliance leukaemia (SAL). Prediction of post-remission survival in acute myeloid leukaemia: a post-hoc analysis of the AML96 trial. Lancet Oncol (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marcucci G, Haferlach T, Döhner H (2011) Molecular genetics of adult acute myeloid leukemia: prognostic and therapeutic implications. J Clin Oncol 29(5):475–486 (Epub 2011 Jan 10. Review. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol 29(13):1798)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reichle A (2011) Biomodulatorische Therapiemöglichkeiten beim Nierenzellkarzinom. J Onkologie 6:21–24Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heinz S, Glass CK (2011) Roles of lineage-determining transcription factors in establishing open chromatin: Lessons from high-throughput studies. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reichle A, Hildebrandt GC (2008) Systems biology: a therapeutic target for tumor therapy. Cancer Microenviron 1(1):159–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reichle A, Vogt T, Coras B, Terheyden P, Neuber K, Trefzer U, Schultz E, Berand A, Brocker EB, Landthaler M, Andreesen R (2007) Targeted combined anti-inflammatory and angiostatic therapy in advanced melanoma: a randomized phase II trial. Melanoma Res 17:360–364. doi: 10.1097/CMR.0b013e3282f1d2c8Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reichle A, Vogelhuber M, Feyerabend S, Suedhoff T, Schulze M, Hubner J, Oberneder R, Baier M, Ruebel A, Birkholz K, Bakhshandeh-Bath A, Andreesen R (2011) A phase II study of imatinib with pioglitazone, etoricoxib, dexamethasone, and low-dose treosulfan: combined anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and angiostatic treatment in patients (pts) with castration-refractory prostate cancer (CRPC). J Clin Oncol 29(Suppl):abstr 4599Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pahler JC, Tazzyman S, Erez N et al (2008) Plasticity in tumor promoting inflammation: impairment of macrophage recruitment evokes a compensatory neutrophil response. Neoplasia 10:329–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lenz G (2012) Endogenous anticancer mechanisms (EACMs). Front Biosci (Schol Ed) 4:1017–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kitano H (2003) Cancer robustness: tumour tactics. Nature 426(6963):125 (No abstract available)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stelling J, Sauer U, Szallasi Z, Doyle FJ, III, Doyle J (2004) Robustness of cellular functions. Cell 118:675–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin C, Yang L, Tanasa B et al (2009) Nuclear receptor-induced chromosomal proximity and DNA breaks underlie specific translocations in cancer. Cell 11(139):1069–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reichle A, Hildebrandt GC (2010) Searching for the ‘metabolism’ of evolution. In: From molecular to modular tumor therapy: the tumor microenvironment, vol 3, part 4. Springer, pp 305–309. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9531-2_14Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Raaijmakers MH, Mukherjee S, Guo S et al (2010) Bone progenitor dysfunction induces myelo-dysplasia and secondary leukaemia. Nature 21 (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Witz IP (2008) Tumor-microenvironment interactions: dangerous liaisons. Adv Cancer Res 100:203–229. doi: 10.1016/S0065-230X(08)00007-9Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reichle A (2010) Bridging theory and therapeutic practice: from generalized disease models to particular patients. In: From molecular to modular tumor therapy: the tumor microenvironment, vol 3, part 1. Springer, pp 3–7. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9531-2_1Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reichle A, Hildebrandt GC (2009) Principles of modular tumor therapy. Cancer Microenviron 2(Suppl 1):227–237Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reichle A, Hildebrandt GC (2010) The comparative uncovering of tumor systems biology by modularly targeting tumor-associated inflammation. In: From molecular to modular tumor therapy: the tumor microenvironment, vol 3, part 4. Springer, pp 287–303. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9531-2_13Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schlenk RF, Fröhling S, Hartmann F, Fischer JT, Glasmacher A, del Valle F, Grimminger W, Götze K, Waterhouse C, Schoch R, Pralle H, Mergenthaler HG, Hensel M, Koller E, Kirchen H, Preiss J, Salwender H, Biedermann HG, Kremers S, Griesinger F, Benner A, Addamo B, Döhner K, Haas R, Döhner H (2004) AML study group Ulm. Phase III study of all-trans retinoic acid in previously untreated patients 61 years or older with acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 18(11):1798–1803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Soria JC, Mok TS, Cappuzzo F, Jänne PA (2011) EGFR-mutated oncogene-addicted non-small cell lung cancer: Current trends and future prospects. Cancer Treat Rev (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pao W, Girard N (2011) New driver mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer. Lancet Oncol 12(2):175–180 (Review)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Choi PS, van Riggelen J, Gentles AJ, Bachireddy P, Rakhra K, Adam SJ, Plevritis SK, Felsher DW (2011) Lymphomas that recur after MYC suppression continue to exhibit oncogene addiction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S. A 108(42):17432–17437Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Corbin AS, Agarwal A, Loriaux M, Cortes J, Deininger MW, Druker BJ (2011) Human chronic myeloid leukemia stem cells are insensitive to imatinib despite inhibition of BCR-ABL activity. J Clin Invest 121(1):396–409 (Erratum in: J Clin Invest 121(3):1222)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wassmann B, Pfeifer H, Goekbuget N, Beelen DW, Beck J, Stelljes M, Bornhäuser M, Reichle A, Perz J, Haas R, Ganser A, Schmid M, Kanz L, Lenz G, Kaufmann M, Binckebanck A, Brück P, Reutzel R, Gschaidmeier H, Schwartz S, Hoelzer D, Ottmann OG (2006) Alternating versus concurrent schedules of imatinib and chemotherapy as front-line therapy for Philadelphia positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph + ALL). Blood 108(5):1469–1477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Almhanna K, Philip PA (2009) Safety and efficacy of sorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Onco Targets Ther 2:261–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kane RC, Farrell AT, Saber H, Tang S, Williams G, Jee JM, Liang C, Booth B, Chidambaram N, Morse D, Sridhara R, Garvey P, Justice R, Pazdur R (2006) Sorafenib for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 12(24):7271–7278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Heng HH, Bremer SW, Stevens JB, Ye KJ, Liu G, Ye CJ (2009) Genetic and epigenetic heterogeneity in cancer: a genome-centric perspective. J Cell Physiol 220(3):538–547 (Review)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yeung WWS, Ho MKC, Wong YH (2010) Functional impacts of signal integration: regulation of inflammation-related transcription factors by heterotrimeric G proteins. In: From molecular to modular tumor therapy: the tumor microenvironment, vol 3, part 3. Springer, pp 161–189. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9531-2_9Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ben-Neriah Y, Karin M (2011) Inflammation meets cancer, with NF-κB as the matchmaker. Nat Immunol 12(8):715–723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pitteri SJ, Kelly-Spratt KS, Gurley KE, Kennedy J, Buson TB, Chin A, Wang H, Zhang Q, Wong CH, Chodosh LA, Nelson PS, Hanash SM, Kemp CJ (2011) Tumor microenvironment-derived proteins dominate the plasma proteome response during breast cancer induction and progression. Cancer Res 71(15):5090–5100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Paulitschke V et al (2010) Secretome proteomics, a novel tool for Biomarkers discovery and for guiding biomodulatory therapy approaches. In: From molecular to modular tumor therapy: the tumor microenvironment, vol 3, part 6. Springer, pp 405–431.doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9531-2_21Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kiessling F, Lederle W (2010) Early detection of systems response: Molecular and functional imaging of angiogenesis. In: Reichle A (ed) From molecular to modular tumor therapy: the tumor microenvironment, vol 3, part 6. Springer, pp 385–403. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9531-2_20Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Hematology and OncologyUniversity Hospital RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations