Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Reviews

A Review of the Application of Inflammatory Biomarkers in Epidemiologic Cancer Research

Darren R. Brenner, Dominique Scherer, Kenneth Muir, Joellen Schildkraut, Paolo Boffetta, Margaret R. Spitz, Loic Le Marchand, Andrew T. Chan, Ellen L. Goode, Cornelia M. Ulrich and Rayjean J. Hung
Darren R. Brenner
1Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
2Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Cancer Control Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dominique Scherer
3Division of Preventive Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kenneth Muir
4University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joellen Schildkraut
5Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paolo Boffetta
6Tisch Cancer Institute, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Margaret R. Spitz
7Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Loic Le Marchand
8Hawaii Cancer Research Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew T. Chan
9Dana Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ellen L. Goode
10Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cornelia M. Ulrich
3Division of Preventive Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
11Cancer Prevention Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: rayjean.hung@lunenfeld.ca neli.ulrich@nct-heidelberg.de
Rayjean J. Hung
1Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: rayjean.hung@lunenfeld.ca neli.ulrich@nct-heidelberg.de
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0064 Published September 2014
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Inflammation is a facilitating process for multiple cancer types. It is believed to affect cancer development and progression through several etiologic pathways, including increased levels of DNA adduct formation, increased angiogenesis, and altered antiapoptotic signaling. This review highlights the application of inflammatory biomarkers in epidemiologic studies and discusses the various cellular mediators of inflammation characterizing the innate immune system response to infection and chronic insult from environmental factors. Included is a review of six classes of inflammation-related biomarkers: cytokines/chemokines, immune-related effectors, acute-phase proteins, reactive oxygen and nitrogen species, prostaglandins and cyclooxygenase-related factors, and mediators such as transcription factors and growth factors. For each of these biomarkers, we provide a brief overview of the etiologic role in the inflammation response and how they have been related to cancer etiology and progression within the literature. We provide a discussion of the common techniques available for quantification of each marker, including strengths, weaknesses, and potential pitfalls. Subsequently, we highlight a few under-studied measures to characterize the inflammatory response and their potential utility in epidemiologic studies of cancer. Finally, we suggest integrative methods for future studies to apply multifaceted approaches to examine the relationship between inflammatory markers and their roles in cancer development. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(9); 1729–51. ©2014 AACR.

Introduction

The role of inflammation in the development and progression of cancer is of great scientific and public health interest and has drawn much attention of late. Several excellent reviews have described the likely cellular and molecular roles of inflammation in the development of cancer (1–13) and have outlined the consistent associations between chronic inflammatory conditions (14–19) and inflammation-inducing risk factors (such as tobacco; refs. 20–22) in the development of cancer at various sites. As the burden of cancer increases globally (23, 24), so does the value of identifying therapeutic targets. The role of inflammation in carcinogenesis requires additional research to clarify the mediators, pathways, and steps through which increased or altered inflammation leads to neoplastic development or progression. Ultimately, continued research is required to identify the key points of potential intervention to successfully improve outcomes. To proceed, epidemiologic studies will require integrative techniques across many platforms to elucidate meaningful mechanisms and improve outcomes.

In this review, we provide an overview of several effectors of inflammation involving the response of the immune system to infection and to chronic insult from environmental factors. We summarize the commonly used measurements to evaluate inflammatory status or alteration in the development of cancer, including the strengths and weaknesses of the common techniques available for each marker. We have provided recent evidence and findings to date about associations with cancer etiology and progression. Our literature summaries are not meant to be exhaustive due to the extent of this field and, where possible, we refer readers to relevant meta-analyses and literature reviews for concision. Subsequently, we highlight several under-studied measures of the inflammatory response. A general framework for the biomarkers of interest and their inter-relationships with cancer risk is depicted in Fig. 1. We suggest integrative multifaceted approaches for future studies seeking to examine the relationship between the markers and their roles in cancer development. Per definition, we refer to all of the biologic measures of the immune and inflammation responses included in this article as “inflammation biomarkers” for simplicity, although there is certainly great variety in the measures discussed.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

The complex interactions involved in the role of inflammation in the cancer progression spectrum.

Methodologic issues in epidemiologic studies on inflammation and cancer

In the evaluation of the associations between inflammation and cancer risk, careful consideration must be taken to address the potential for biased associations due to the well-known proinflammatory potential of tumors and, thus, their microenvironment (6). Prospective studies are, therefore, preferable due to lower risk of presenting temporally biased associations. Prospective designs also allow for latency analyses to determine whether the inflammatory marker associations are causal drivers of carcinogenesis or simply prediagnosis manifestation of tumor-related inflammation. Therefore, ideal prospective research designs investigating inflammatory markers should be conducted on samples taken many years, perhaps even decades, before diagnosis. Repeat sampling is useful because of the different mechanisms by which inflammation can drive carcinogenesis, for example, DNA damage (in earlier years) versus enhancement of angiogenesis (later). Samples collected only a few years before diagnosis may no longer reflect an evaluation of causality of the biomarker, instead becoming an evaluation of an early disease prediction marker, which although still clinically relevant, reflects a different hypothesis. In this context, large population-based cohorts with biobanking initiatives are extremely valuable in evaluating associations of inflammatory biomarkers. In our presentation of the literature, we emphasized large, prospective studies over retrospective designs. We also emphasize evidence from biomarkers measured in blood and to a lesser degree urine samples in large epidemiologic studies. Although several protocols exist for measuring target organ-specific inflammation-related compounds in several media, including exhaled breath and its condensate (25), sputum (26, 27), brochioalveolar lavage (28), and feces (29) among others (30), at present, these biospecimens are prohibitively expensive to feasibly collect in large population-based initiatives.

The inflammation responses under investigation may be due to a multiplicity of factors that have been consistently linked to cancer risk including, but not limited to, tobacco consumption (31), overweight and obesity (32, 33), physical inactivity (34, 35), persistent and/or transient infection (36), and immunosuppression (37–39). Thus, in a well-designed epidemiologic evaluation of the causality of inflammatory biomarkers during carcinogenesis, these factors should be accounted for, depending on which specific biomarkers are being evaluated, in both the design and analysis stages to best isolate the causal associations being examined.

In studies of inflammation and subsequent cancer-related clinical outcomes and survival, presurgical or pretreatment blood samples should be collected to avoid the impact of treatment on levels of inflammatory and immune markers. In population-based studies examining inflammatory biomarkers on survival outcomes through active follow-up or passive cancer registry linkage, attention must be taken to collect detailed staging information for adjustment in analysis. Failure to do so invites the possibility of confounding due to a third factor related to inflammation and advanced stage at diagnosis, therefore affecting survival. Below we review six main classes of inflammation-related biomarkers: cytokines/chemokines, immune-related effectors, acute-phase proteins [C-reactive protein (CRP) and serum amyloid A (SAA)], reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS), prostaglandins and cyclooxygenase (COX)-related factors, and mediators such as transcription factors and growth factors.

Inflammation Biomarkers

Cytokines/chemokines

Background.

During both acute and chronic inflammatory processes, a variety of soluble factors known as cytokines are involved in leukocyte recruitment through increased expression of cellular adhesion molecules and chemoattraction (40–43). To a large extent, they orchestrate the inflammatory response, that is, they are major determinants of the make-up of the cellular infiltrate, the state of cellular activation, and the systemic responses to inflammation (44). Cytokines are central in extensive networks that involve synergistic as well as antagonistic interactions and exhibit both negative and positive regulatory effects on various target cells (42). Although produced by a wide variety of cell types, macrophages and T lymphocytes (T cells) are the primary producers of cytokines, which may have predominantly proinflammatory (inflammation-promoting; IL1α, IL1β, IL2, IL6, IL8, IL12, TNFα, IFNγ; ref. 45) or anti-inflammatory (inflammation-suppressive; IL4, IL5, IL10, TGFβ) abilities.

Measurement.

The measurement of cytokines as an indicator of inflammatory status in population-based initiatives is an area of great promise; yet, it provides several challenges due to the biochemistry of the molecules, particularly their short half-life (46, 47). Considering the immediate response of the body to injury, it can be advisable to draw the blood tube that is dedicated for cytokine measurements first during a blood draw. Cytokines can be measured in serum and plasma samples; however, measurements from the different sample types cannot be used interchangeably (48, 49). They can also be measured in tissues or as supernatant from cultured peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) preparations (50). Cytokine measurements can be multiplexed to simultaneously assess multiple targets (51), presenting the opportunity to broaden the scope of investigation or test for possible interactions between the mediators. These techniques are, however, limited by differential concentrations of the varying cytokines. In addition, cytokine quantification can be affected by degradation through freeze/thaw cycles over longitudinal storage (52). Also, issues of standardized sample collection, processing, and study design must be carefully considered or sensitivities in the protein measurements may create artifactual associations if care is not taken (46). Concentrations of cytokines are known to vary in different tissues and a standard blood draw may not adequately reflect tissue-specific levels of inflammation (53). However, measurements of circulating cytokines may provide a general sense of an individual's inflammatory state. Additional advantages and disadvantages to measurement of cytokines are summarized in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Summary of inflammatory markers, associated techniques, and tissue requirements with corresponding advantages and disadvantages of their application

Cancer associations.

Risk.

Systemic cytokine concentrations have been associated with both cancer risk (54–57) and cancer progression (58–62), suggesting a pivotal role in carcinogenesis. For example, in the Health, Aging, and Body Composition cohort, circulating IL6 and TNFα were associated with lung cancer, IL6 was also associated with colorectal cancer; however, neither were associated with breast and prostate cancer (62). Investigation of serum IL6 and IL8 levels in the Prostate Lung Colon and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial showed associations with lung cancer [IL6: odds ratio (OR), 1.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04–2.10; IL8: OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.10–2.24], compared with the lowest quartile. However, increased IL6 levels were only associated with cancers diagnosed within 2 years of blood collection, whereas increased IL8 levels were associated with cancers diagnosed more than 2 years after blood collection (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.15–2.13; ref. 54). Whether this difference in association is due to cytokine degradation over time or due to a real association remains to be determined.

IL10 has been investigated in the development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in a prospective study with a significant positive association observed (63) as well as with prediagnostic levels of IL10, TNFα, and sTNF-R2 in a separate prospective investigation (64).

Progression.

Several studies have observed negative prognosis of various cancers associated with IL6 level, including prostate cancer (65), renal cell carcinoma (RCC; ref. 66), non–small cell lung cancer (67), ovarian cancer (68), lymphoma (69, 70), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL; ref. 71), esophageal cancer (72), colorectal cancer, and breast cancer (73).

Investigation of prognosis with IL6 serum concentrations (≥4.0 pg/mL) in the Multiethnic Cohort Study showed associations with significantly poorer survival in both African Americans [hazard ratio (HR), 2.71; 95% CI, 1.26–5.80] and Caucasians (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.22–2.40). IL10 (HR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.33–5.15) and IL12 (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.14–3.44) were associated with lung cancer survival only in African Americans (74). Serum levels of IL6 have also been associated with tumor-proliferative activity among patients with colorectal cancer (75).

An examination of clinical outcomes among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after potentially curative hepatectomy reported that higher pretherapy serum levels of IL17 and lower levels of IL1 were associated with early recurrence. After adjustment for general tumor clinicopathologic factors, elevated serum levels of IL17 (≥0.9 pg/mL) were found to be an independent risk factor for HCC early recurrence with an HR of 2.46 (95% CI, 1.34–4.51). Patients with larger tumors (>5 cm in diameter) and elevated serum levels of IL17 had the highest risk of early recurrence as compared with those with only one of these factors (P = 0.009) or without any (P < 0.001). The authors suggest that these factors showed similar effects on the overall survival (OS) of patients with HCC (76).

Immune-related effectors

Background.

Leukocytes comprise an integral portion of the innate, as well as of the adaptive, immune system and include granulocytes (neutrophils, basophils, and eosinophils), monocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells, and lymphocytes (B&T cells), which can exert immune-stimulating or immunosuppressive functions (77). In patients with cancer, several pathways can be activated to suppress the effective adaptive immune response, triggered to avoid the destruction of the tumor by immune cells (78). Leukocytes also activate to release cytokines and growth factors, which support tumor growth. The activities of the immune system lead to a change of blood leukocytes profile, which serves as a marker of the systemic inflammatory response. On the basis of this principle, several measurements of inflammation and a shift in number or ratios of immune cells have been investigated for the association with cancer risk or outcome of the disease such as the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS; ref. 79), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR; ref. 80), and platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR; ref. 81).

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) are white blood cells (WBC) found within the tumor that presumably reflect an immune response against the tumor (82). It is thought that TILs work in combination with chemotherapies that can promote cytotoxic T lymphocytes that can produce antitumor immunity and thus lead to improved outcomes (83). However, a role in supporting tumor growth cannot be excluded. T helper 17 (Th17) cells are a CD4+ T-cell subset in addition to Th1 and Th2 that lead to increased levels of IL17, IL22, and IL21 production (84–86). IL6 and other cytokines, including IL23, are thought to play a key role in the production of the Th17 cells (84, 87, 88). They mediate host-defensive mechanisms to various infections to provide antimicrobial immunity at epithelial–mucosal barriers and are involved in the pathogenesis of many autoimmune diseases (86).

Measurement.

The measurement of lymphocytes can be performed using tissue or peripheral blood samples and is based on standard clinical routines (WBC counts). Flow cytometry has also become a widely used tool to quantify phenotypic subsets of immune cells and thus provides a snapshot that allows for some understanding of the current immune response (89–91). Flow cytometry can also be used to quantify T-cell proliferation using dyes (92).

Despite great promise, flow cytometry is limited in its epidemiologic application as the experiments are sensitive to issues of standardization particularly from differences in reagents, sample handling, instrument setup, and data analysis. These differences across study sites are known to affect outcome measurements (91, 93, 94) and have been shown to affect results in multicentered projects (95). Attention to standardization of procedures along the project pipeline may aid in alleviating these concerns and promote cross-project collaborations, which is one of the goals of the human immunology project (96). In addition, the quantification of immune cells generally requires fresh biospecimen, which limits its use in epidemiologic studies.

TILs can be measured by immunohistochemistry (IHC; ref. 97) using different stains, including hematoxylin and eosin, and through the use of multicolor flow cytometry (98). TILs can be quantified using tissue microarrays (TMA) and whole tissue sections (99). Th17 can be measured by multicolor flow cytometry (100) and can be evaluated in peripheral blood and other body fluids (101, 102).

Cancer associations.

Etiology.

A comprehensive review of the associations between these immunologic markers and outcomes is beyond the scope of this review. Briefly, various measures of leukocyte quantities, such as WBC count, PLR, and NLR, have been associated not only with increased risk of several types of cancer, including breast cancer, colorectal cancer and endometrial Cancer, but also with tumor progression (81, 103). The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) observed a significant association between WBC count and increased risk of invasive breast cancer, colorectal cancer, endometrial Cancer, and lung cancer in more than 140,000 postmenopausal women (103).

Prognosis.

Likewise, a study investigating the association between several inflammation-based prognostic scores, such as mGPS, NLR, and PLR, and cancer survival observed strong prognostic values of all three scores for cancer survival independent of tumor site (breast cancer, bladder cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, gastro-esophageal, hematological, RCC, colorectal cancer, NHC, hepatopancreaticobiliary, and lung cancer) in more than 27,000 patients (104).

TILs have been the focus of many studies and were shown to be positively associated with improved survival among patients with cancer, including colorectal cancer (105), lung cancer (106), and others sites (107–109). In addition, the assessments of TIL densities at the margin of liver metastasis in patients with colorectal cancer were predictive for chemotherapy response (110). CD8+ TILs were independently predictive of improved breast cancer survival; however, results vary by molecular subtype (improved in basal, but not in triple-negative; ref. 111) and by estrogen receptor status and histologic grade (112).

The presence of Th17 cells in ovarian cancer (113), prostate cancer (114), lung cancer (115), and pancreatic cancer (116) as well as in melanoma (117) were repeatedly associated with better survival of patients (118).

Acute-phase proteins

CRP.

Background.

CRP is an acute-phase protein found in blood, which is synthesized in the liver in response to inflammation. Physiologically the protein activates the complement system via the Q1 complex (119). Once activated, the complement system aids in clearing the injured or dead cells from tissues. CRP has been related to systemic levels of inflammation in various inflammatory conditions as well as chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes (120). CRP is also highly related to obesity [generally measured using body mass index (BMI) in population studies] across genders and study populations (121), although most research has been done on Caucasian populations, as obesity is a chronic inflammatory state/condition (122). Obesity has been associated with cancer risk and progression at various sites with one of the suggested mechanisms to be operating through chronic altered inflammation (32, 33, 123–127). Therefore, CRP may act not as a causal protein but as a marker of systemic inflammation. Elevated CRP levels have also been correlated with other elevated inflammatory markers (128).

Measurement.

CRP measurements can be performed in whole blood, plasma, and serum using various immunoassays (129) with high-sensitivity nephelometry being the gold standard. As with other inflammatory markers, CRP has a relatively short half-life, and thus proper sample processing is essential (130). Transient conditions, such as a common cold or mild injury/trauma, can drastically alter individual CRP levels (131). Thus, variability of CRP levels may lead to issues in analyses and/or biased statistical estimates. It is possible to recognize and eliminate very high infection-induced values by reviewing CRP levels against age- and BMI-standardized rates and excluding individuals with a certain level of variability above. Nevertheless, single studies with single measurements can be affected by transient conditions. One investigation into the effects of a single CRP measurement in epidemiologic studies suggested that conducting a single measurement could largely attenuate observed effect sizes from true effect sizes (132). Multiple measurements would therefore be optimal to track changes in levels over time. However, an analysis with repeated measurements has shown that a small index of individuality was observed in healthy individuals with relative rankings over a 6-month interval differing minimally (133).

Cancer associations.
Etiology.

Several prospective analyses have shown that CRP is associated with risk of cancer at various sites (54, 134, 135). An investigation of risk at multiple sites in the Healthy, Aging, and Body Composition Study showed that baseline levels were associated with lung cancer, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer risk. A nested case–control study also suggested associations for HCC, lung cancer, skin cancer, RCC, and bladder cancer (136). Prospective investigations have observed null associations for breast cancer (137, 138) but increased risk for ovarian cancer (139).

The association results for CRP and colorectal cancer risk, however, are contradictory, as a previous meta-analysis of eight prospective studies suggested that increased CRP levels collected at baseline was related to a modest increase in colorectal cancer risk [relative risk (RR), 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01–1.25; ref. 134], whereas a recent nested case–control conducted in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial observed a 15% reduction in risk of developing colorectal adenoma (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75–0.98; Ptrend = 0.01; ref. 140). A study by Toriola and colleagues (141) using repeat assessments of CRP in the WHI Observational Study Cohort among 980 women and controls demonstrated that CRP was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer; however, the change in CRP over time was not predictive, thus suggesting little value as an early detection marker.

For lung cancer, the associations seem to be consistent across studies. A meta-analysis of 10 studies involving 1,918 lung cancer cases showed a pooled RR of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.17–1.41) for one unit change in natural logarithm (ln) CRP (142).

Prognosis.

CRP has also been shown to be associated with cancer progression (143) and survival (144, 145). Clinical investigations have shown that CRP levels of patients with pancreatic cancer (146), esophageal cancer (147), prostate cancer (148), and NHL had advanced staging (149), higher disease recurrence (150, 151), and shorter survival, which was also observed for colorectal cancer (152).

A meta-analysis of 10 breast cancer studies that involved 4,502 patients observed significantly decreased OS (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.20–2.18) and disease-free survival (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.44–2.26) when CRP levels were elevated. For cancer-specific survival, the pooled HR in higher CRP expression in breast cancer was 2.08 (95% CI, 1.48–2.94), which could strongly predict poorer survival in breast cancer (153).

SAA.

Background.

SAA is another acute-phase protein similar to CRP. However, circulating SAA levels are thought to be more responsive to inflammation as levels drop off more rapidly following an inflammatory stimulus (154). Unlike CRP, which activates the complement system, to eliminate target cells and induce inflammatory cytokines and tissue factor in monocytes (155, 156), the physiologic effects of SAA are far less understood.

Measurement.

SAA is measured in serum, similarly to CRP, using high-sensitivity nephelometry often with micro-latex agglutination tests as the gold standard. Levels can also be detected in saliva using different techniques, including fluorescent immunoassays (157).

Cancer associations.
Etiology.

SAA has been related to risk at several cancer sites, including colon (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.12–2.00), among women (141). Elevated SAA levels have also been highly related to lung cancer risk in the PLCO study as well as gastric cancer in the Japan Public Health Center–based prospective study (158). These analyses have also shown a strong correlation between SAA and CRP, suggesting that measurement of both is essential to control for possible confounded associations and that any independent predictive ability remains to be determined.

Prognosis.

SAA is related to stage of disease (159) and strongly associated with reduced long-term survival of breast cancer (160), lung cancer (161), and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (162). SAA may represent a link between inflammation and metastasis, thereby reducing survival outcomes in colorectal cancer (163).

ROS and RNS

Background.

ROS and RNS are free radicals that are produced as part of the normal metabolic cycle. ROS generation is based on the reduction of molecular oxygen, catalyzed by NAD(P)H oxidases and xanthine oxidase or in a nonenzymatic reaction by redox–reactive compounds of the mitochondrial electron transport chain (164). RNS are produced as byproducts of the conversion of arginine to citrulline by nitric oxide synthase (NOS). Both ROS and RNS are important signaling molecules and involved in metabolism, cell-cycle signaling cascades, and intercellular signaling cascades, especially in inflammation processes (41), as their formation is stimulated by cytokines and chemokines through activation of protein kinase signaling cascades (165). In a vicious cycle, ROS and RNS recruit additional inflammatory cells, leading to further generation of free radicals. An overproduction of ROS or RNS and limited antioxidative capacities can result in unbalanced metabolism and consequently lead to oxidative or nitrosative stress (166). This is accompanied by damage of DNA, protein, lipids, carbohydrates, and small metabolites and can be deleterious for cells, tissues, and organisms (14, 165, 167). DNA damage through nitrosative deamination of nucleobases or guanosine peroxidation results in 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-oxodG), the addition of a hydroxyl radical to the c8 position of the guanine ring. This alteration can subsequently lead to single- or double-stranded breaks, deoxynucleotide or deoxyribose modifications, and DNA cross-links (168). These genomic alterations can exert oncogenic effects through altered replication, transcription, and translation (169, 170). Oxidation of the guanine base is the most abundant DNA lesion and can be a highly mutagenic miscoding lesion (171). Measurement of oxidatively generated DNA damage products in urine has been shown to be useful for epidemiologic studies to quantify inflammatory exposures (172). 8-oxodG is often referred to as 8-hydroxy-2′deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG); however, for consistency in the review, we henceforth refer only to 8-oxodG even for those studies who have used the term 8-OHdG. For a discussion of this nomenclature, see Cooke and colleagues (173), who recommend this term as it conforms with the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. Furthermore, this is the more appropriate term as the oxidized nucleobase (8-oxoGua) is a tautomer that at physiologic pH is mainly present in the oxo form and not in the hydroxy form.

ROS also leads to lipid peroxidation (LPO) whose products are genotoxic and mutagenic and can react with protein and DNA (174). Two LPO products generated by ROS that have been investigated in cancer etiology are DNA-reactive aldehyde byproducts trans-4-hydroxy-2-nonenal (HNE) and malondialdehyde (MDA). These molecules react with DNA bases to form exocyclic DNA adducts (175, 176). Reaction of DNA bases with these LPO end products yields five-membered rings (etheno-DNA adducts) attached to DNA, including 1,N6-etheno-2′-deoxyadenosine (εdA) and 3,N4-etheno-2′-deoxycytidine (εdC; ref. 177). εdA and εdC seem to be promising tools for quantifying promutagenic DNA damage in early, premalignant stages of the carcinogenesis process (178). These etheno-DNA adducts can be directly quantified in tissues and urine. They have been implicated in clinical studies (179) and may serve as potential risk markers for associations between inflammatory diseases and cancer (180).

A F2-isoprostane isomer, 8-isoprostaglandin F2α (8-Iso-PGF2α), has also been found to be a sensitive and reliable index of in vivo oxidative stress reflective of DNA damage through LPO (181).

In addition, ROS play a crucial role in angiogenesis by triggering the release of angiogenic factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Thus, it is hypothesized that ROS are involved not only in developing cancer, but also in cancer progression (13, 182).

Measurement.

The measurement of ROS presents an interesting and challenging possibility to directly quantify the oxidative burden within tissues. ROS/RNS can be measured either directly in several different tissue types (182–184) or indirectly by measuring the product of ROS/RNS reactions. The main limitation of the direct measurement of ROS/RNS is the extremely short half-life with an estimated lifespan of OH component of <1 nanosecond in blood (185). Consequently, most blood and tissue storage protocols used in observational study designs are not feasible. Measurement of H2O2 can be measured directly in urine as a proxy of whole body oxidative stress (186); however, as dietary factors can also raise urinary H2O2 (187), associations may be confounded. H2O2 can also be measured in exhaled air and breath condensate (188), this, however, may not be feasible on a large scale for population-based studies. Probes such as dichloro-dihydro-fluorescein diacetate (DCFH-DA) can also be used to detect “cellular peroxides” in cells (189).

Methods have been developed that assess oxidative DNA and protein damage that results from ROS/RNS using tissue-specific measures of protein residues (190). Oxidative DNA damage can be measured by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS), high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to electrochemical detection (HPLC-ECD), HPLC–mass spectrometry (MS) as well as immunoassays and enzymatic assays among others (167, 191).

8-oxodG in urine serves as a reliable measure of “whole-body” oxidative stress (192, 193) and can be quantified using HPLC-MS (194–196) or HPLC-ECD (197). Both 8-oxodG and 8-Iso-PGF2_α can also be measured in plasma using commercially available ELISA protocols. Of concern for epidemiologic studies is the poor agreement between ELISA and tandem mass spectrometric HPLC-MS in methodologic comparisons of measurements from urine (198–200).

MDA can be quantified in plasma, urine, and tissue using several methods, including HPL-ECD, GC-MS, and liquid chromatography—electrospray with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-ES-MS/MS; ref.201). MDA quantification by HPLC has shown good interlaboratory validity in replicate human EDTA-treated plasma samples sent to multiple laboratories (202). HNE can also be reliably detected in plasma and urine using both HPLC (203) methods and ELISAs (204).

Etheno-DNA adducts can be directly quantified in tissues and urine (179). εdA can be quantified using immunoprecipitation/HPLC/fluorescence detection methods (205) and εdC can be quantified using modified thin-layer chromatographic protocols (206). HPLC-MS protocols have also been developed to quantify εdA and εdC from a single DNA sample using purified DNA from cells or tissues (207). A recent population-based application of immunoaffinity/32P-postlabeling (208) successfully quantified εdA and εdC from buffy coat collected in a population-based study [European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Heidelberg], suggesting potential utility in larger population-based investigations as a direct measure of exposure-related DNA alterations from oxidative stress (209).

Nitrotyrosine, a byproduct of reactions with nitrogen radicals and RNS, can be measured in various tissues. 3-Nitrotyrosine can be assayed in serum or from tissue sample using commercially available ELISA kits; however, commercially available kits have provided low reproducibility and conflicting results (210). It can also be measured using electron spin resonance (211), polychromatic flow cytometry (FACS; ref. 212), and GC-MS (213). These techniques have been limited in their application in population-based studies; however, these biomarkers present as an interesting avenue for inflammation quantification projects.

Cancer associations.

Etiology.

Epidemiologic studies have shown that serum 8-oxodG levels were significantly increased in patients with colorectal cancer compared with controls. A Japanese study suggested that levels of 8-oxodG and fibrosis were significant risk factors for HCC, especially in patients with hepatitis C virus infection (214). Several studies have observed either elevated blood (215), urinary, or salivary levels of 8-oxodG in oral cancer compared with controls. For example, an investigation of salivary 8-oxodG levels in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma showed a 65% increase compared with controls (216). Urinary 8-oxodG levels were also significantly higher among patients with breast (217, 218) and colorectal (219) cancer than among control subjects in adjusted analyses. Elevated 8-oxodG levels have also been observed in blood from patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (220–222). Elevated 8-oxodG levels have been associated with a modestly increased risk of breast cancer [incidence rate ratio (IRR), 1.08 (1.00–1.17 per nmol/mmol creatinine excretion) increase; ref. 223] and lung cancer among never smokers [IRR, 1.17 (1.03–1.31); ref. 224].

Epidemiologic data examining DNA damage using LPO suggest that increased 8-Iso-PGF2α is positively associated with risk of breast cancer (225, 226) and colorectal cancer (227). MDA levels have been associated with lung cancer (228, 229). In a prospective investigation of prediagnostic serum levels of reactive oxygen metabolites (ROM), specifically hydroperoxides, in the EPIC, ROM were associated with overall colorectal cancer risk when comparing highest tertile with lowest tertile (adjusted IRR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.47–2.48). This association was, however, seen only in subjects with relatively short follow-up, suggesting that the association results from production of ROS by preclinical tumors (230). In a study of patients with oral cavity cancer, LPO products, such as lipid hydroperoxide (LHP) and MDA, and nitric oxide products, such as nitrite (NO2−), nitrate (NO3−), and total nitrite (TNO2−), were significantly elevated, whereas enzymatic and nonenzymatic antioxidants were significantly lowered in patients with cancer when compared with healthy subjects (231).

Progression.

ROS have been much less well studied in regard to disease progression, likely because of the related difficulties in collecting appropriate materials for measurement and the influence of cancer treatment modalities on ROS generation and subsequent byproducts. Expression of nitrotyrosine and inducible NOS has, however, been associated with poor survival in patients with stage III melanoma (232).

Prostaglandins, cyclooxygenases, lipoxygenases, and related factors

Background.

Prostaglandins have a wide range of strong physiologic effects and can be found in most tissues and organs (233). Prostaglandins constitute a group of lipid compounds that are enzymatically derived from essential fatty acids (EFA) and have important functions in different cell types (234). EFAs are modified by either of two pathways: the prostaglandin H synthase–COX pathway or the lipoxygenase (ALOX) pathway. The COX pathway produces thromboxane, prostacyclin, and prostaglandins D, E, and F. The COX pathway includes two rate-limiting enzymes, COX1 and COX2 (235). COX1 has been traditionally characterized as constitutionally expressed, and thus responsible for baseline prostaglandin levels, whereas COX2 is more easily inducible, including through IL6 and peroxides. The ALOX pathway is inactive in leukocytes and synthesizes leukotrienes in macrophages (236). Both of these pathways, their intermediates, or end products are involved in the inflammation response, although COX2 has been given more attention in the investigation of cancer etiology in population-based research (235).

Measurement.

The role of disruption in prostaglandin synthesis in cancer development can be evaluated at several points in the various pathways using several techniques. The most frequently used methods to measure levels of prostaglandins in a variety of liquid biospecimens are chromatography-based methods, such as GC-MS, and antibody-based methods, such as ELISAs and RIAs (237, 238). Although GC-MS provides high sensitivity and specificity, the method also involves labor-intensive sample preparation and is not suitable for high-throughput analysis. In contrast, antibody-based methods enable the measurements of multiple samples simultaneously; however, these assays frequently lack specificity (238). At present, the most precise, informative, and reliable method with a reasonable throughput is LC/MS-MS (239), which was recently optimized for the measurement of PGE2 and PGD2, by incorporating special standards in the samples (240). However, this approach is not high throughput. COX2 expression can also be measured by quantitative IHC in tissue.

Cancer associations.

Etiology.

Direct measurement of urinary PGE metabolites (PGE-M) has been associated with increased cancer risk for breast cancer among postmenopausal women who did not regularly use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAID; HR, 2.1 (95% CI, 1.0–4.3), 2.0 (95% CI, 1.0–3.9), and 2.2 (95% CI, 1.1–4.3)] for the second, third, and highest quartiles of PGE-M (241). Increasing quartiles of urinary PGE-M levels were also associated with risk of gastric cancer [statistically significant test for trend (P = 0.04); ref. 242].

Prognosis.

A meta-analysis of 23 studies evaluating COX2 expression from IHC suggested that COX2 overexpression in tumor tissues had an unfavorable impact on OS in patients with colorectal cancer (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02–1.37; ref. 243). COX2 correlates with poor prognostic markers in breast cancer (large tumor size and high tumor grade), but not with outcome (244) and with reduced survival in cervical and ovarian cancer (245–247). In an investigation of COX2 expression in bladder cancer, a weak association with recurrence in non–muscle-invasive bladder tumors was observed (P = 0.048). In the multivariable analyses, COX2 expression did not independently predict any of the considered outcomes (248).

Transcription factors and growth factors as mediators of an inflammation and cancer association

Background.

Several substances created by the cellular mediators of inflammation propagate the inflammation response and their actions elicit a cellular growth response. These growth factors/transcription factors are proteins that bind to cellular and nuclear receptors to elicit a downstream response. NF-κB one such transcription factor that has been suggested to play a strong molecular role linking inflammation and cancer development (249, 250). NF-κB is activated downstream through (i) the Toll-like receptor (TLR)–MYD88 pathway responsible for sensing microbes and tissue damage, as well as the inflammatory cytokines TNFα and IL1B (251). NF-κB activation can also be the result of cell-autonomous genetic alterations (252). NF-κB functions in inflammatory pathways by inducing the expression of inflammatory cytokines, adhesion molecules, COX, NOS, and angiogenic factors, all propagating an exacerbated inflammation response (253). It also promotes tumor survival by inducing antiapoptotic genes (BCL2; ref. 254). A lack of checkpoint for growth factors, such as NF-κB activation, leads to increased proinflammatory cytokine and chemokine secretion as well prostaglandin release downstream of NF-κB signaling, which were shown to promote neoplasia (255).

Another transcription factor also believed to play a pivotal role in linking inflammation and cytokines to cancer development and progression is STAT3. Most inflammatory signals affect tumorigenesis by activating STAT3 in a similar method to those described for NF-κB (256, 257). Persistent STAT3 activation in malignant cells stimulates proliferation, survival, angiogenesis, invasion, and tumor-promoting inflammation (258, 259).

Measurement.

Transcription factors, such as NF-κB activity, can be measured on various levels, including (i) quantity in fluids, (ii) levels of activation, and (iii) translocation. Quantification can be completed using ELISA and other high-sensitivity assays; however, stability in blood samples is an issue. Levels of NF-κB activation in stimulated normal peripheral blood lymphocytes can be completed using a real-time PCR to measure of Iκβα mRNA levels as a rapid, sensitive, and powerful method to quantify the transcriptional power of NF-κB. It can be used for clinical evaluation of NF-κB status, but requires cell culture and is thus not easily adaptable in epidemiologic studies (260). NF-κB translocation to the nucleus, where it regulates cytokine and immunoglobulin expression, can be measured by both confocal microscopy and flow cytometry (261).

Cancer associations.

In comparison with the other markers discussed in this review, comparatively fewer studies directly quantifying cancer risk and prognosis related to changes in NF-κB and STAT3 quantity in fluids, levels of activation, and translocation have been completed, perhaps due to the difficulty of appropriate biospecimen collection. Several investigations have examined polymorphisms in NF-κB genes in the development of ovarian cancer (262) and colorectal cancer (263, 264). Examination of NF-κB activation has suggested an association with a high-risk subset of hormone-dependent breast cancer (263) with increased expansion of cancer stem cells in basal-like breast cancers (265). Results also suggest that NF-κB activation may be predictive of response to treatment (266) and survival (267) in colorectal cancer. Proteasome inhibitors used for treatment of various cancers, including multiple myeloma and NHL (268), elicit their effects partially reducing NF-κB activity (269).

Discussion

The potential for prevention and therapeutic intervention

Prevention.

Several of the biomarkers discussed in this review presently have the potential to be used for cancer prevention. From a primary and tertiary prevention perspective, the use of NSAIDs has been related to reduced cancer risk at several sites, including breast cancer, colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, gastric cancer, and lung cancer (270–276), and improved disease outcomes (277). These data suggest that blocking inflammatory pathways, in this case the prostaglandin-related and subsequent downstream pathways (278), can prevent the development of cancer at the population level. Evaluations of whether intervention at different points across the inflammation spectrum can prevent cancer are an interesting area of developing research (279–281) that could yield great impact in the prevention of cancer.

From a secondary prevention perspective, several research groups have and continue to evaluate the utility of inflammatory biomarkers in the development of risk prediction models. For example, Pine and colleagues (54) observed that 10-year predicted risk for lung cancer was highest among those smokers with elevated CRP and IL8 in the PLCO study. Extensions of these methods and models with other types of inflammatory markers and other cancer sites may help to identify those at greatest risk for developing cancer, and therefore refine the population that would most benefit from increased screening based on their inflammatory profiles.

Therapeutic intervention.

Several developing avenues of immune-based therapies, including tumor vaccine approaches, immune-checkpoint inhibitors, and antagonists of immunosuppressive molecules such as cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and programmed death-1 (PD-1), among others, seem promising in early stages of development and trials (282). This topic is beyond the scope of this review, but it is a rapidly emerging area in cancer therapeutics and early results seem quite promising with cancer immunotherapy heralded as the scientific breakthrough of 2013 (283).

The need for integrative targeted approaches to examine inflammation in cancer

As the inflammation response and its role in carcinogenesis is vastly complex in nature, novel approaches to characterize the roles of inflammatory markers in cancer development and progression to identify elevated risk profiles and subsequent intervention targets are needed. An approach limited to single markers will yield ineffective and fragmented results suboptimal for the reduction of cancer burden. Three overarching principles should be the goal of future research in this area.

First, investigations should aim to be as comprehensive as possible to examine multiple exposures as well as their interactions (Fig. 1). For example, assessing a comprehensive set of biomarkers will provide a better picture and will enable more pathway-based analyses. In addition, evaluating germline variation, epigenetic modification, expression, and protein product levels in a comprehensive pathway-based analytic approach would provide a more resolute image of the relevant associations. This will, however, require substantial funding and access to a diverse set of biospecimens.

Second, the use of existing data platforms, such as large prospective studies and bio-repositories, should be targeted for the evaluation of these integrative hypotheses to be able to better address the issue of causality. This approach will require focusing on analytes that are less sensitive to degradation over time. Integration with lifestyle factors in these data platform would be also important as several of them (per Introduction) are correlated with the inflammatory markers of interest. Mediation analyses or structural equation modeling/path analyses may be necessary to adequately unravel the complex associations of interest.

Finally, etiologic and prognostic associations should be evaluated across cancer sites where possible. As discussed, imbalances in the markers of altered inflammation have been associated differently with cancers at multiple sites, yet it is clear that inflammatory imbalances play a role to some degree across the majority of solid tumor sites. Comprehensively evaluating associations similarly across cancer sites where sample availability permits, for example, in a large cohort setting, dramatically increases the potential benefit of identifying chemopreventive or therapeutic targets. Several initiatives are under way to advance this cross-cancer inflammation hypothesis, yet more research is needed.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

C.M. Ulrich is a consultant/advisory board member for Bayer. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Grant Support

The scientific development and funding of this project were, in part, supported by the Genetic Associations and Mechanisms in Oncology (GAME-ON), an NCI Cancer Post-GWAS Initiative, and U19 CA148127 (Principal Investigator: Amos). L. Le Marchand is supported by NIH funding: National Cancer Institute (R01 CA129063; Principal Investigator: L. Le Marchand), “Inflammation and Innate Immunity Genes and Colorectal Cancer Risk.” A.T. Chan is supported by NIH funding: (R01 CA137178; Principal Investigator: A.T. Chan) and (K24 DK098311; Principal Investigator: A.T. Chan). E.L. Goode is supported by NIH funding: (R01-CA-122443; Principal Investigator: E.L. Goode) and (P50-CA-136393; Principal Investigator: E.L. Goode). R.J. Hung is supported by Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (no. 020214, Principal Investigator: Hung).

  • Received January 29, 2014.
  • Revision received May 25, 2014.
  • Accepted June 17, 2014.
  • ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Allavena P,
    2. Garlanda C,
    3. Borrello MG,
    4. Sica A,
    5. Mantovani A
    . Pathways connecting inflammation and cancer. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2008;18:3–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ballaz S,
    2. Mulshine JL
    . The potential contributions of chronic inflammation to lung carcinogenesis. Clin Lung Cancer 2003;5:46–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Coussens LM,
    2. Werb Z
    . Inflammation and cancer. Nature 2002;420:860–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Engels EA
    . Inflammation in the development of lung cancer: epidemiological evidence. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2008;8:605–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Fitzpatrick FA
    . Inflammation, carcinogenesis and cancer. Int Immunopharmacol 2001;1:1651–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Mantovani A,
    2. Allavena P,
    3. Sica A,
    4. Balkwill F
    . Cancer-related inflammation. Nature 2008;454:436–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Mantovani A,
    2. Pierotti MA
    . Cancer and inflammation: a complex relationship. Cancer Lett 2008;267:180–1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Peek RM Jr.,
    2. Mohla S,
    3. DuBois RN
    . Inflammation in the genesis and perpetuation of cancer: summary and recommendations from a national cancer institute-sponsored meeting. Cancer Res 2005;65:8583–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Schetter AJ,
    2. Heegaard NH,
    3. Harris CC
    . Inflammation and cancer: interweaving microRNA, free radical, cytokine and p53 pathways. Carcinogenesis 2010;31:37–49.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Sica A,
    2. Allavena P,
    3. Mantovani A
    . Cancer related inflammation: the macrophage connection. Cancer Lett 2008;267:204–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Rakoff-Nahoum S,
    2. Medzhitov R
    . Toll-like receptors and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2009;9:57–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Weitzman SA,
    2. Gordon LI
    . Inflammation and cancer: role of phagocyte-generated oxidants in carcinogenesis. Blood 1990;76:655–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Azad N,
    2. Rojanasakul Y,
    3. Vallyathan V
    . Inflammation and lung cancer: roles of reactive oxygen/nitrogen species. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 2008;11:1–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. O'Byrne KJ,
    2. Dalgleish AG
    . Chronic immune activation and inflammation as the cause of malignancy. Br J Cancer 2001;85:473–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Kontos M,
    2. Fentiman IS
    . Systemic lupus erythematosus and breast cancer. Breast J 2008;14:81–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Parikh-Patel A,
    2. White RH,
    3. Allen M,
    4. Cress R
    . Cancer risk in a cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in California. Cancer Causes Control 2008;19:887–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Parikh-Patel A,
    2. White RH,
    3. Allen M,
    4. Cress R
    . Risk of cancer among rheumatoid arthritis patients in California. Cancer Causes Control 2009;20:1001–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Mellemkjaer L,
    2. Linet MS,
    3. Gridley G,
    4. Frisch M,
    5. Moller H,
    6. Olsen JH
    . Rheumatoid arthritis and cancer risk. Eur J Cancer 1996;32A:1753–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    1. Brenner DR,
    2. McLaughlin JR,
    3. Hung RJ
    . Previous lung diseases and lung cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e17479.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Boffetta P
    . Involuntary smoking and lung cancer. Scand J Work Environ Health 2002;28(Suppl 2):30–40.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Iodice S,
    2. Gandini S,
    3. Maisonneuve P,
    4. Lowenfels AB
    . Tobacco and the risk of pancreatic cancer: a review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2008;393:535–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Khuder SA,
    2. Mutgi AB
    . Effect of smoking cessation on major histologic types of lung cancer. Chest 2001;120:1577–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Jemal A,
    2. Siegel R,
    3. Ward E,
    4. Hao Y,
    5. Xu J,
    6. Thun MJ
    . Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:225–49.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Bray F,
    2. Jemal A,
    3. Grey N,
    4. Ferlay J,
    5. Forman D
    . Global cancer transitions according to the Human Development Index (2008–2030): a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:790–801.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Montuschi P
    . Analysis of exhaled breath condensate in respiratory medicine: methodological aspects and potential clinical applications. Ther Adv Respir Dis 2007;1:5–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Prieto L
    . [Induced sputum as a method for the study of bronchial inflammation]. Arch Bronconeumol 2011;47:323–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Aaron SD,
    2. Vandemheen KL,
    3. Ramsay T,
    4. Zhang C,
    5. Avnur Z,
    6. Nikolcheva T,
    7. et al.
    Multi analyte profiling and variability of inflammatory markers in blood and induced sputum in patients with stable COPD. Respir Res 2010;11:41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Bargagli E,
    2. Mazzi A,
    3. Rottoli P
    . Markers of inflammation in sarcoidosis: blood, urine, BAL, sputum, and exhaled gas. Clin Chest Med 2008;29:445–58.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Peterson CG,
    2. Eklund E,
    3. Taha Y,
    4. Raab Y,
    5. Carlson M
    . A new method for the quantification of neutrophil and eosinophil cationic proteins in feces: establishment of normal levels and clinical application in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1755–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Pitrez PM,
    2. Brennan S,
    3. Turner S,
    4. Sly PD
    . Nasal wash as an alternative to bronchoalveolar lavage in detecting early pulmonary inflammation in children with cystic fibrosis. Respirology 2005;10:177–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Pryor WA
    . Cigarette smoke radicals and the role of free radicals in chemical carcinogenicity. Environ Health Perspect 1997;105(Suppl 4):875–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Renehan AG,
    2. Roberts DL,
    3. Dive C
    . Obesity and cancer: pathophysiological and biological mechanisms. Arch Physiol Biochem 2008;114:71–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Renehan AG,
    2. Tyson M,
    3. Egger M,
    4. Heller RF,
    5. Zwahlen M
    . Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Lancet 2008;371:569–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Courneya KS,
    2. Friedenreich CM
    . Physical activity and cancer. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2011.
  35. 35.↵
    1. Ulrich C,
    2. Steindorf K,
    3. Berger NA
    . Exercise, energy balance, and cancer. New York: Spinger; 2013.
  36. 36.↵
    1. Brenner DR,
    2. Boffetta P,
    3. Duell EJ,
    4. Bickeboller H,
    5. Rosenberger A,
    6. McCormack V,
    7. et al.
    Previous lung diseases and lung cancer risk: a pooled analysis from the International Lung Cancer Consortium. Am J Epidemiol 2012;176:573–85.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Kirk GD,
    2. Merlo C,
    3. O'Driscoll P,
    4. Mehta SH,
    5. Galai N,
    6. Vlahov D,
    7. et al.
    HIV infection is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer, independent of smoking. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:103–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Frisch M,
    2. Biggar RJ,
    3. Engels EA,
    4. Goedert JJ
    . Association of cancer with AIDS-related immunosuppression in adults. JAMA 2001;285:1736–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Grulich AE,
    2. van Leeuwen MT,
    3. Falster MO,
    4. Vajdic CM
    . Incidence of cancers in people with HIV/AIDS compared with immunosuppressed transplant recipients: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2007;370:59–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Rankin JA
    . Biological mediators of acute inflammation. AACN Clin Issues 2004;15:3–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Conner EM,
    2. Grisham MB
    . Inflammation, free radicals, and antioxidants. Nutrition 1996;12:274–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Feghali CA,
    2. Wright TM
    . Cytokines in acute and chronic inflammation. Front Biosci 1997;2:d12–26.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Press EA
    1. Mak TW,
    2. Saunders ME
    . The immune response. Basic and clinical principles. In: Press EA , editor. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2006. p. 464–516.
  44. 44.↵
    1. Nathan C
    . Points of control in inflammation. Nature 2002;420:846–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Dinarello CA
    . Proinflammatory cytokines. Chest 2000;118:503–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Zhou X,
    2. Fragala MS,
    3. McElhaney JE,
    4. Kuchel GA
    . Conceptual and methodological issues relevant to cytokine and inflammatory marker measurements in clinical research. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2010;13:541–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Brower V
    . Researchers attempting to define role of cytokines in cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1175–7.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Riches P,
    2. Gooding R,
    3. Millar BC,
    4. Rowbottom AW
    . Influence of collection and separation of blood samples on plasma IL-1, IL-6 and TNF-alpha concentrations. J Immunol Methods 1992;153:125–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Wong HL,
    2. Pfeiffer RM,
    3. Fears TR,
    4. Vermeulen R,
    5. Ji S,
    6. Rabkin CS
    . Reproducibility and correlations of multiplex cytokine levels in asymptomatic persons. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:3450–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Bienvenu JAD,
    2. Monneret G,
    3. Gutowski MC,
    4. Fabien N
    . Cytokine assays in human sera and tissues. Toxicology 1998;129:55–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Khan SS,
    2. Smith MS,
    3. Reda D,
    4. Suffredini AF,
    5. McCoy JP Jr.
    . Multiplex bead array assays for detection of soluble cytokines: comparisons of sensitivity and quantitative values among kits from multiple manufacturers. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2004;61:35–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. de Jager W,
    2. Bourcier K,
    3. Rijkers GT,
    4. Prakken BJ,
    5. Seyfert-Margolis V
    . Prerequisites for cytokine measurements in clinical trials with multiplex immunoassays. BMC Immunol 2009;10:52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Sullivan KE,
    2. Cutilli J,
    3. Piliero LM,
    4. Ghavimi-Alagha D,
    5. Starr SE,
    6. Campbell DE,
    7. et al.
    Measurement of cytokine secretion, intracellular protein expression, and mRNA in resting and stimulated peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000;7:920–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Pine SR,
    2. Mechanic LE,
    3. Enewold L,
    4. Chaturvedi AK,
    5. Katki HA,
    6. Zheng YL,
    7. et al.
    Increased levels of circulating interleukin 6, interleukin 8, C-reactive protein, and risk of lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1112–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    1. Kuraishy A,
    2. Karin M,
    3. Grivennikov SI
    . Tumor promotion via injury- and death-induced inflammation. Immunity 2011;35:467–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Fukuda A,
    2. Wang SC,
    3. Morris JP IV.,
    4. Folias AE,
    5. Liou A,
    6. Kim GE,
    7. et al.
    Stat3 and MMP7 contribute to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma initiation and progression. Cancer Cell 2011;19:441–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Lesina M,
    2. Kurkowski MU,
    3. Ludes K,
    4. Rose-John S,
    5. Treiber M,
    6. Kloppel G,
    7. et al.
    Stat3/Socs3 activation by IL-6 transsignaling promotes progression of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and development of pancreatic cancer. Cancer Cell 2011;19:456–69.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Germano G,
    2. Allavena P,
    3. Mantovani A
    . Cytokines as a key component of cancer-related inflammation. Cytokine 2008;43:374–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Chen J,
    2. Yao Y,
    3. Gong C,
    4. Yu F,
    5. Su S,
    6. Liu B,
    7. et al.
    CCL18 from tumor-associated macrophages promotes breast cancer metastasis via PITPNM3. Cancer Cell 2011;19:541–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Michalaki V,
    2. Syrigos K,
    3. Charles P,
    4. Waxman J
    . Serum levels of IL-6 and TNF-alpha correlate with clinicopathological features and patient survival in patients with prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 2004;90:2312–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Street ME,
    2. Miraki-Moud F,
    3. Sanderson IR,
    4. Savage MO,
    5. Giovannelli G,
    6. Bernasconi S,
    7. et al.
    Interleukin-1beta (IL-1beta) and IL-6 modulate insulin-like growth factor-binding protein (IGFBP) secretion in colon cancer epithelial (Caco-2) cells. J Endocrinol 2003;179:405–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  62. 62.↵
    1. Il'yasova D,
    2. Colbert LH,
    3. Harris TB,
    4. Newman AB,
    5. Bauer DC,
    6. Satterfield S,
    7. et al.
    Circulating levels of inflammatory markers and cancer risk in the health aging and body composition cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:2413–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. 63.↵
    1. Conroy SM,
    2. Maskarinec G,
    3. Morimoto Y,
    4. Franke AA,
    5. Cooney RV,
    6. Wilkens LR,
    7. et al.
    Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and circulating markers of inflammation and adiposity in a nested case–control study: the multiethnic cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2013;22:337–47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. 64.↵
    1. Purdue MP,
    2. Lan Q,
    3. Bagni R,
    4. Hocking WG,
    5. Baris D,
    6. Reding DJ,
    7. et al.
    Prediagnostic serum levels of cytokines and other immune markers and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer Res 2011;71:4898–907.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Nakashima J,
    2. Tachibana M,
    3. Horiguchi Y,
    4. Oya M,
    5. Ohigashi T,
    6. Asakura H,
    7. et al.
    Serum interleukin 6 as a prognostic factor in patients with prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:2702–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. 66.↵
    1. Ljungberg B,
    2. Grankvist K,
    3. Rasmuson T
    . Serum interleukin-6 in relation to acute-phase reactants and survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 1997;33:1794–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. Wojciechowska-Lacka A,
    2. Adamiak E,
    3. Stryczynska G,
    4. Lacki JK
    . Prognostic value of serial serum interleukin-6 level estimation in patients with lung cancer: a preliminary report. Yale J Biol Med 1997;70:139–48.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Tempfer C,
    2. Zeisler H,
    3. Sliutz G,
    4. Haeusler G,
    5. Hanzal E,
    6. Kainz C
    . Serum evaluation of interleukin 6 in ovarian cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol 1997;66:27–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Fayad L,
    2. Cabanillas F,
    3. Talpaz M,
    4. McLaughlin P,
    5. Kurzrock R
    . High serum interleukin-6 levels correlate with a shorter failure-free survival in indolent lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 1998;30:563–71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. Preti HA,
    2. Cabanillas F,
    3. Talpaz M,
    4. Tucker SL,
    5. Seymour JF,
    6. Kurzrock R
    . Prognostic value of serum interleukin-6 in diffuse large-cell lymphoma. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:186–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Lai R,
    2. O'Brien S,
    3. Maushouri T,
    4. Rogers A,
    5. Kantarjian H,
    6. Keating M,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic value of plasma interleukin-6 levels in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer 2002;95:1071–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    1. De Vita F,
    2. Romano C,
    3. Orditura M,
    4. Galizia G,
    5. Martinelli E,
    6. Lieto E,
    7. et al.
    Interleukin-6 serum level correlates with survival in advanced gastrointestinal cancer patients but is not an independent prognostic indicator. J Interferon Cytokine Res 2001;21:45–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    1. Salgado R,
    2. Junius S,
    3. Benoy I,
    4. Van Dam P,
    5. Vermeulen P,
    6. Van Marck E,
    7. et al.
    Circulating interleukin-6 predicts survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Int J Cancer 2003;103:642–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    1. Enewold L,
    2. Mechanic LE,
    3. Bowman ED,
    4. Zheng YL,
    5. Yu Z,
    6. Trivers G,
    7. et al.
    Serum concentrations of cytokines and lung cancer survival in African Americans and Caucasians. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:215–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. 75.↵
    1. Kinoshita T,
    2. Ito H,
    3. Miki C
    . Serum interleukin-6 level reflects the tumor proliferative activity in patients with colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 1999;85:2526–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. 76.↵
    1. Wu J,
    2. Du J,
    3. Liu L,
    4. Li Q,
    5. Rong W,
    6. Wang L,
    7. et al.
    Elevated pretherapy serum IL17 in primary hepatocellular carcinoma patients correlate to increased risk of early recurrence after curative hepatectomy. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e50035.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    1. van der Valk P,
    2. Herman CJ
    . Leukocyte functions. Lab Invest 1987;56:127–37.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    1. Kim R,
    2. Emi M,
    3. Tanabe K
    . Cancer immunoediting from immune surveillance to immune escape. Immunology 2007;121:1–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    1. Al Murri AM,
    2. Bartlett JM,
    3. Canney PA,
    4. Doughty JC,
    5. Wilson C,
    6. McMillan DC
    . Evaluation of an inflammation-based prognostic score (GPS) in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2006;94:227–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    1. Walsh SR,
    2. Cook EJ,
    3. Goulder F,
    4. Justin TA,
    5. Keeling NJ
    . Neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic factor in colorectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 2005;91:181–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    1. Smith RA,
    2. Bosonnet L,
    3. Raraty M,
    4. Sutton R,
    5. Neoptolemos JP,
    6. Campbell F,
    7. et al.
    Preoperative platelet-lymphocyte ratio is an independent significant prognostic marker in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg 2009;197:466–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    1. Holmes EC
    . Immunology of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. Ann Surg 1985;201:158–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.↵
    1. Casares N,
    2. Pequignot MO,
    3. Tesniere A,
    4. Ghiringhelli F,
    5. Roux S,
    6. Chaput N,
    7. et al.
    Caspase-dependent immunogenicity of doxorubicin-induced tumor cell death. J Exp Med 2005;202:1691–701.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. 84.↵
    1. Infante-Duarte C,
    2. Horton HF,
    3. Byrne MC,
    4. Kamradt T
    . Microbial lipopeptides induce the production of IL-17 in Th cells. J Immunol 2000;165:6107–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  85. 85.↵
    1. Locksley RM
    . The roaring twenties. Immunity 2008;28:437–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    1. Ouyang W,
    2. Kolls JK,
    3. Zheng Y
    . The biological functions of T helper 17 cell effector cytokines in inflammation. Immunity 2008;28:454–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    1. Aggarwal S,
    2. Ghilardi N,
    3. Xie MH,
    4. de Sauvage FJ,
    5. Gurney AL
    . Interleukin-23 promotes a distinct CD4 T cell activation state characterized by the production of interleukin-17. J Biol Chem 2003;278:1910–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. 88.↵
    1. Langrish CL,
    2. Chen Y,
    3. Blumenschein WM,
    4. Mattson J,
    5. Basham B,
    6. Sedgwick JD,
    7. et al.
    IL-23 drives a pathogenic T cell population that induces autoimmune inflammation. J Exp Med 2005;201:233–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  89. 89.↵
    1. Bohm I
    . Quantification of absolute peripheral white blood cells and their subsets in patients with lupus erythematosus: comparison with other inflammatory diseases with and without autoimmune background. Biomed Pharmacother 2006;60:92–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  90. 90.↵
    1. Maecker HT,
    2. McCoy JP,
    3. Nussenblatt R
    . Standardizing immunophenotyping for the Human Immunology Project. Nat Rev Immunol 2012;12:191–200.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. 91.↵
    1. Gratama JW,
    2. Kraan J,
    3. Van den Beemd R,
    4. Hooibrink B,
    5. Van Bockstaele DR,
    6. Hooijkaas H
    . Analysis of variation in results of flow cytometric lymphocyte immunophenotyping in a multicenter study. Cytometry 1997;30:166–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. 92.↵
    1. Parish CR,
    2. Glidden MH,
    3. Quah BJ,
    4. Warren HS
    . Use of the intracellular fluorescent dye CFSE to monitor lymphocyte migration and proliferation. Curr Protoc Immunol 2009;Chapter 4:Unit4 9.
  93. 93.↵
    1. Gratama JW,
    2. Kraan J,
    3. Adriaansen H,
    4. Hooibrink B,
    5. Levering W,
    6. Reinders P,
    7. et al.
    Reduction of interlaboratory variability in flow cytometric immunophenotyping by standardization of instrument set-up and calibration, and standard list mode data analysis. Cytometry 1997;30:10–22.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  94. 94.↵
    1. Maecker HT,
    2. McCoy JP Jr.,
    3. Amos M,
    4. Elliott J,
    5. Gaigalas A,
    6. Wang L,
    7. et al.
    A model for harmonizing flow cytometry in clinical trials. Nat Immunol 2010;11:975–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. 95.↵
    1. Maecker HT,
    2. Rinfret A,
    3. D'Souza P,
    4. Darden J,
    5. Roig E,
    6. Landry C,
    7. et al.
    Standardization of cytokine flow cytometry assays. BMC Immunol 2005;6:13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. 96.↵
    1. Davis MM
    . A prescription for human immunology. Immunity 2008;29:835–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. 97.↵
    1. Loughlin PM,
    2. Cooke TG,
    3. George WD,
    4. Gray AJ,
    5. Stott DI,
    6. Going JJ
    . Quantifying tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte subsets: a practical immuno-histochemical method. J Immunol Methods 2007;321:32–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. 98.↵
    1. Steinkamp JA,
    2. Habbersett RC,
    3. Stewart CC
    . A modular detector for flow cytometric multicolor fluorescence measurements. Cytometry 1987;8:353–65.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  99. 99.↵
    1. Aust S,
    2. Bachmayr-Heyda A,
    3. Pils D,
    4. Zhao L,
    5. Tong W,
    6. Berger A,
    7. et al.
    Determination of tumor-infiltrating CD8+ lymphocytes in human ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2013;32:269–76.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  100. 100.↵
    1. Yamada Y,
    2. Saito H,
    3. Ikeguchi M
    . Prevalence and clinical relevance of Th17 cells in patients with gastric cancer. J Surg Res 2012;178:685–91.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  101. 101.↵
    1. Li H,
    2. Bradbury JA,
    3. Dackor RT,
    4. Edin ML,
    5. Graves JP,
    6. DeGraff LM,
    7. et al.
    Cyclooxygenase-2 regulates Th17 cell differentiation during allergic lung inflammation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011;184:37–49.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. 102.↵
    1. Shete A,
    2. Thakar M,
    3. Abraham PR,
    4. Paranjape R
    . A review on peripheral blood CD4+ T lymphocyte counts in healthy adult Indians. Indian J Med Res 2010;132:667–75.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  103. 103.↵
    1. Margolis KL,
    2. Rodabough RJ,
    3. Thomson CA,
    4. Lopez AM,
    5. McTiernan A
    . Prospective study of leukocyte count as a predictor of incident breast, colorectal, endometrial, and lung cancer and mortality in postmenopausal women. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:1837–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. 104.↵
    1. Proctor MJ,
    2. Morrison DS,
    3. Talwar D,
    4. Balmer SM,
    5. Fletcher CD,
    6. O'Reilly DS,
    7. et al.
    A comparison of inflammation-based prognostic scores in patients with cancer. A Glasgow Inflammation Outcome Study. Eur J Cancer 2011;47:2633–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. 105.↵
    1. Deschoolmeester V,
    2. Baay M,
    3. Van Marck E,
    4. Weyler J,
    5. Vermeulen P,
    6. Lardon F,
    7. et al.
    Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes: an intriguing player in the survival of colorectal cancer patients. BMC Immunol 2010;11:19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. 106.↵
    1. D'Andrilli A,
    2. Natoli G,
    3. Scarpino S,
    4. Rendina EA
    . Stage I non–small cell lung cancer: the presence of the lymphocyte-specific protein tyrosin kinase in the tumour infiltrate is associated with a better long-term prognosis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2012;15:148–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  107. 107.↵
    1. de Jong RA,
    2. Leffers N,
    3. Boezen HM,
    4. ten Hoor KA,
    5. van der Zee AG,
    6. Hollema H,
    7. et al.
    Presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes is an independent prognostic factor in type I and II endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114:105–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  108. 108.↵
    1. Mahmoud SM,
    2. Paish EC,
    3. Powe DG,
    4. Macmillan RD,
    5. Grainge MJ,
    6. Lee AH,
    7. et al.
    Tumor-infiltrating CD8+ lymphocytes predict clinical outcome in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1949–55.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  109. 109.↵
    1. Leffers N,
    2. Gooden MJ,
    3. de Jong RA,
    4. Hoogeboom BN,
    5. ten Hoor KA,
    6. Hollema H,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic significance of tumor-infiltrating T-lymphocytes in primary and metastatic lesions of advanced stage ovarian cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2009;58:449–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. 110.↵
    1. Halama N,
    2. Michel S,
    3. Kloor M,
    4. Zoernig I,
    5. Benner A,
    6. Spille A,
    7. et al.
    Localization and density of immune cells in the invasive margin of human colorectal cancer liver metastases are prognostic for response to chemotherapy. Cancer Res 2011;71:5670–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  111. 111.↵
    1. Liu S,
    2. Lachapelle J,
    3. Leung S,
    4. Gao D,
    5. Foulkes WD,
    6. Nielsen TO
    . CD8+ lymphocyte infiltration is an independent favorable prognostic indicator in basal-like breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2012;14:R48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. 112.↵
    1. Baker K,
    2. Lachapelle J,
    3. Zlobec I,
    4. Bismar TA,
    5. Terracciano L,
    6. Foulkes WD
    . Prognostic significance of CD8+ T lymphocytes in breast cancer depends upon both oestrogen receptor status and histological grade. Histopathology 2011;58:1107–16.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  113. 113.↵
    1. Kryczek I,
    2. Wei S,
    3. Vatan L,
    4. Escara-Wilke J,
    5. Szeliga W,
    6. Keller ET,
    7. et al.
    Cutting edge: opposite effects of IL-1 and IL-2 on the regulation of IL-17+ T cell pool IL-1 subverts IL-2–mediated suppression. J Immunol 2007;179:1423–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  114. 114.↵
    1. Sfanos KS,
    2. Bruno TC,
    3. Maris CH,
    4. Xu L,
    5. Thoburn CJ,
    6. DeMarzo AM,
    7. et al.
    Phenotypic analysis of prostate-infiltrating lymphocytes reveals TH17 and Treg skewing. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:3254–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  115. 115.↵
    1. Ye ZJ,
    2. Zhou Q,
    3. Gu YY,
    4. Qin SM,
    5. Ma WL,
    6. Xin JB,
    7. et al.
    Generation and differentiation of IL-17-producing CD4+ T cells in malignant pleural effusion. J Immunol 2010;185:6348–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  116. 116.↵
    1. Gnerlich JL,
    2. Mitchem JB,
    3. Weir JS,
    4. Sankpal NV,
    5. Kashiwagi H,
    6. Belt BA,
    7. et al.
    Induction of Th17 cells in the tumor microenvironment improves survival in a murine model of pancreatic cancer. J Immunol 2010;185:4063–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  117. 117.↵
    1. Hinrichs CS,
    2. Kaiser A,
    3. Paulos CM,
    4. Cassard L,
    5. Sanchez-Perez L,
    6. Heemskerk B,
    7. et al.
    Type 17 CD8+ T cells display enhanced antitumor immunity. Blood 2009;114:596–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  118. 118.↵
    1. Wilke CM,
    2. Kryczek I,
    3. Wei S,
    4. Zhao E,
    5. Wu K,
    6. Wang G,
    7. et al.
    Th17 cells in cancer: help or hindrance? Carcinogenesis 2011;32:643–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  119. 119.↵
    1. Clyne B,
    2. Olshaker JS
    . The C-reactive protein. J Emerg Med 1999;17:1019–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. 120.↵
    1. Spranger J,
    2. Kroke A,
    3. Mohlig M,
    4. Hoffmann K,
    5. Bergmann MM,
    6. Ristow M,
    7. et al.
    Inflammatory cytokines and the risk to develop type 2 diabetes: results of the prospective population-based European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Potsdam Study. Diabetes 2003;52:812–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  121. 121.↵
    1. Choi J,
    2. Joseph L,
    3. Pilote L
    . Obesity and C-reactive protein in various populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2013;14:232–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. 122.↵
    1. Gilbert CA,
    2. Slingerland JM
    . Cytokines, obesity, and cancer: new insights on mechanisms linking obesity to cancer risk and progression. Annu Rev Med 2013;64:45–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  123. 123.↵
    1. Renehan AG,
    2. Soerjomataram I,
    3. Tyson M,
    4. Egger M,
    5. Zwahlen M,
    6. Coebergh JW,
    7. et al.
    Incident cancer burden attributable to excess body mass index in 30 European countries. Int J Cancer 2010;126:692–702.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  124. 124.↵
    1. Pischon T,
    2. Lahmann PH,
    3. Boeing H,
    4. Friedenreich C,
    5. Norat T,
    6. Tjonneland A,
    7. et al.
    Body size and risk of colon and rectal cancer in the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:920–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  125. 125.↵
    1. Friedenreich C,
    2. Cust A,
    3. Lahmann PH,
    4. Steindorf K,
    5. Boutron-Ruault MC,
    6. Clavel-Chapelon F,
    7. et al.
    Anthropometric factors and risk of endometrial cancer: the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. Cancer Causes Control 2007;18:399–413.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  126. 126.↵
    1. Olsen CM,
    2. Green AC,
    3. Whiteman DC,
    4. Sadeghi S,
    5. Kolahdooz F,
    6. Webb PM
    . Obesity and the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:690–709.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  127. 127.↵
    1. Larsson SC,
    2. Wolk A
    . Overweight, obesity and risk of liver cancer: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Br J Cancer 2007;97:1005–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  128. 128.↵
    1. McKeown DJ,
    2. Brown DJ,
    3. Kelly A,
    4. Wallace AM,
    5. McMillan DC
    . The relationship between circulating concentrations of C-reactive protein, inflammatory cytokines and cytokine receptors in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 2004;91:1993–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  129. 129.↵
    1. Khuseyinova N,
    2. Imhof A,
    3. Trischler G,
    4. Rothenbacher D,
    5. Hutchinson WL,
    6. Pepys MB,
    7. et al.
    Determination of C-reactive protein: comparison of three high-sensitivity immunoassays. Clin Chem 2003;49:1691–5.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  130. 130.↵
    1. Pepys MB,
    2. Hirschfield GM
    . C-reactive protein: a critical update. J Clin Invest 2003;111:1805–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. 131.↵
    1. Morley JJ,
    2. Kushner I
    . Serum C-reactive protein levels in disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1982;389:406–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. 132.↵
    1. Platz EA,
    2. Sutcliffe S,
    3. De Marzo AM,
    4. Drake CG,
    5. Rifai N,
    6. Hsing AW,
    7. et al.
    Intra-individual variation in serum C-reactive protein over 4 years: an implication for epidemiologic studies. Cancer Causes Control 2010;21:847–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  133. 133.↵
    1. Macy EM,
    2. Hayes TE,
    3. Tracy RP
    . Variability in the measurement of C-reactive protein in healthy subjects: implications for reference intervals and epidemiological applications. Clin Chem 1997;43:52–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  134. 134.↵
    1. Tsilidis KK,
    2. Branchini C,
    3. Guallar E,
    4. Helzlsouer KJ,
    5. Erlinger TP,
    6. Platz EA
    . C-reactive protein and colorectal cancer risk: a systematic review of prospective studies. Int J Cancer 2008;123:1133–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  135. 135.↵
    1. Chaturvedi AK,
    2. Caporaso NE,
    3. Katki HA,
    4. Wong HL,
    5. Chatterjee N,
    6. Pine SR,
    7. et al.
    C-reactive protein and risk of lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2719–26.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  136. 136.↵
    1. Trichopoulos D,
    2. Psaltopoulou T,
    3. Orfanos P,
    4. Trichopoulou A,
    5. Boffetta P
    . Plasma C-reactive protein and risk of cancer: a prospective study from Greece. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:381–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  137. 137.↵
    1. Zhang SM,
    2. Lin J,
    3. Cook NR,
    4. Lee IM,
    5. Manson JE,
    6. Buring JE,
    7. et al.
    C-reactive protein and risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:890–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  138. 138.↵
    1. Allin KH,
    2. Bojesen SE,
    3. Nordestgaard BG
    . Baseline C-reactive protein is associated with incident cancer and survival in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2217–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  139. 139.↵
    1. McSorley MA,
    2. Alberg AJ,
    3. Allen DS,
    4. Allen NE,
    5. Brinton LA,
    6. Dorgan JF,
    7. et al.
    C-reactive protein concentrations and subsequent ovarian cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:933–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  140. 140.↵
    1. Gunter MJ,
    2. Cross AJ,
    3. Huang WY,
    4. Stanczyk FZ,
    5. Purdue M,
    6. Xue X,
    7. et al.
    A prospective evaluation of C-reactive protein levels and colorectal adenoma development. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:537–44.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  141. 141.↵
    1. Toriola AT,
    2. Cheng TY,
    3. Neuhouser ML,
    4. Wener MH,
    5. Zheng Y,
    6. Brown E,
    7. et al.
    Biomarkers of inflammation are associated with colorectal cancer risk in women but are not suitable as early detection markers. Int J Cancer 2013;132:2648–58.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  142. 142.↵
    1. Zhou B,
    2. Liu J,
    3. Wang ZM,
    4. Xi T
    . C-reactive protein, interleukin 6 and lung cancer risk: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e43075.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  143. 143.↵
    1. Lee JG,
    2. Cho BC,
    3. Bae MK,
    4. Lee CY,
    5. Park IK,
    6. Kim DJ,
    7. et al.
    Preoperative C-reactive protein levels are associated with tumor size and lymphovascular invasion in resected non–small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2009;63:106–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  144. 144.↵
    1. Pierce BL,
    2. Ballard-Barbash R,
    3. Bernstein L,
    4. Baumgartner RN,
    5. Neuhouser ML,
    6. Wener MH,
    7. et al.
    Elevated biomarkers of inflammation are associated with reduced survival among breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3437–44.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  145. 145.↵
    1. O'Dowd C,
    2. McRae LA,
    3. McMillan DC,
    4. Kirk A,
    5. Milroy R
    . Elevated preoperative C-reactive protein predicts poor cancer specific survival in patients undergoing resection for non–small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2010;5:988–92.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  146. 146.↵
    1. Falconer JS,
    2. Fearon KC,
    3. Ross JA,
    4. Elton R,
    5. Wigmore SJ,
    6. Garden OJ,
    7. et al.
    Acute-phase protein response and survival duration of patients with pancreatic cancer. Cancer 1995;75:2077–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  147. 147.↵
    1. Nozoe T,
    2. Saeki H,
    3. Sugimachi K
    . Significance of preoperative elevation of serum C-reactive protein as an indicator of prognosis in esophageal carcinoma. Am J Surg 2001;182:197–201.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  148. 148.↵
    1. Trautner K,
    2. Cooper EH,
    3. Haworth S,
    4. Ward AM
    . An evaluation of serum protein profiles in the long-term surveillance of prostatic cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1980;14:143–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  149. 149.↵
    1. Stamatiadis AP,
    2. Manouras AJ,
    3. Triantos GN,
    4. Katergiannakis VA,
    5. Apostolidis NS
    . Combination of serum carcino-embryonic antigen and C-reactive protein—a useful test in preoperative staging of colorectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 1992;18:41–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  150. 150.↵
    1. Wigmore SJ,
    2. McMahon AJ,
    3. Sturgeon CM,
    4. Fearon KC
    . Acute-phase protein response, survival and tumour recurrence in patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2001;88:255–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  151. 151.↵
    1. McMillan DC,
    2. Wotherspoon HA,
    3. Fearon KC,
    4. Sturgeon C,
    5. Cooke TG,
    6. McArdle CS
    . A prospective study of tumor recurrence and the acute-phase response after apparently curative colorectal cancer surgery. Am J Surg 1995;170:319–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  152. 152.↵
    1. Nozoe T,
    2. Matsumata T,
    3. Kitamura M,
    4. Sugimachi K
    . Significance of preoperative elevation of serum C-reactive protein as an indicator for prognosis in colorectal cancer. Am J Surg 1998;176:335–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  153. 153.↵
    1. Han Y,
    2. Mao F,
    3. Wu Y,
    4. Fu X,
    5. Zhu X,
    6. Zhou S,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic role of C-reactive protein in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Biol Markers 2011;26:209–15.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  154. 154.↵
    1. Gabay C,
    2. Kushner I
    . Acute-phase proteins and other systemic responses to inflammation. N Engl J Med 1999;340:448–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  155. 155.↵
    1. Ballou SP,
    2. Kushner I
    . C-reactive protein and the acute phase response. Adv Intern Med 1992;37:313–36.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  156. 156.↵
    1. Ballou SP,
    2. Lozanski G
    . Induction of inflammatory cytokine release from cultured human monocytes by C-reactive protein. Cytokine 1992;4:361–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  157. 157.↵
    1. Soler L,
    2. Gutierrez A,
    3. Martinez-Subiela S,
    4. Ceron JJ
    . Fast measurement of serum amyloid A in different specimens from swine by using a new one-step time-resolved fluorescent immunoassay. J Vet Diagn Invest 2011;23:902–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  158. 158.↵
    1. Sasazuki S,
    2. Inoue M,
    3. Sawada N,
    4. Iwasaki M,
    5. Shimazu T,
    6. Yamaji T,
    7. et al.
    Plasma levels of C-reactive protein and serum amyloid A and gastric cancer in a nested case–control study: Japan Public Health Center–based prospective study. Carcinogenesis 2010;31:712–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  159. 159.↵
    1. Zhang G,
    2. Sun X,
    3. Lv H,
    4. Yang X,
    5. Kang X
    . Serum amyloid A: a new potential serum marker correlated with the stage of breast cancer. Oncol Lett 2012;3:940–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  160. 160.↵
    1. Pierce BL,
    2. Neuhouser ML,
    3. Wener MH,
    4. Bernstein L,
    5. Baumgartner RN,
    6. Ballard-Barbash R,
    7. et al.
    Correlates of circulating C-reactive protein and serum amyloid A concentrations in breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;114:155–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  161. 161.↵
    1. Cho WC,
    2. Yip TT,
    3. Cheng WW,
    4. Au JS
    . Serum amyloid A is elevated in the serum of lung cancer patients with poor prognosis. Br J Cancer 2010;102:1731–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  162. 162.↵
    1. Wang JY,
    2. Zheng YZ,
    3. Yang J,
    4. Lin YH,
    5. Dai SQ,
    6. Zhang G,
    7. et al.
    Elevated levels of serum amyloid A indicate poor prognosis in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. BMC Cancer 2012;12:365.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  163. 163.↵
    1. Hansen MT,
    2. Forst B,
    3. Cremers N,
    4. Quagliata L,
    5. Ambartsumian N,
    6. Grum-Schwensen B,
    7. et al.
    A link between inflammation and metastasis: serum amyloid A1 and A3 induce metastasis, and are targets of metastasis-inducing S100A4. Oncogene 2014 Jan 27. [Epub ahead of print].
  164. 164.↵
    1. Fleury C,
    2. Mignotte B,
    3. Vayssiere JL
    . Mitochondrial reactive oxygen species in cell death signaling. Biochimie 2002;84:131–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  165. 165.↵
    1. Circu ML,
    2. Aw TY
    . Reactive oxygen species, cellular redox systems, and apoptosis. Free Radic Biol Med 2010;48:749–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  166. 166.↵
    1. Alfadda AA,
    2. Sallam RM
    . Reactive oxygen species in health and disease. J Biomed Biotechnol 2012;2012:936486.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  167. 167.↵
    1. Cadet J,
    2. Douki T,
    3. Ravanat JL
    . Oxidatively generated base damage to cellular DNA. Free Radic Biol Med 2010;49:9–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  168. 168.↵
    1. Kryston TB,
    2. Georgiev AB,
    3. Pissis P,
    4. Georgakilas AG
    . Role of oxidative stress and DNA damage in human carcinogenesis. Mutat Res 2011;711:193–201.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  169. 169.↵
    1. Waris G,
    2. Ahsan H
    . Reactive oxygen species: role in the development of cancer and various chronic conditions. J Carcinog 2006;5:14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  170. 170.↵
    1. Berquist BR,
    2. Wilson DM III.
    . Pathways for repairing and tolerating the spectrum of oxidative DNA lesions. Cancer Lett 2012;327:61–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  171. 171.↵
    1. Cheng KC,
    2. Cahill DS,
    3. Kasai H,
    4. Nishimura S,
    5. Loeb LA
    . 8-Hydroxyguanine, an abundant form of oxidative DNA damage, causes G—T and A—C substitutions. J Biol Chem 1992;267:166–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  172. 172.↵
    1. Sauvain JJ,
    2. Setyan A,
    3. Wild P,
    4. Tacchini P,
    5. Lagger G,
    6. Storti F,
    7. et al.
    Biomarkers of oxidative stress and its association with the urinary reducing capacity in bus maintenance workers. J Occup Med Toxicol 2011;6:18.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  173. 173.↵
    1. Cooke MS,
    2. Loft S,
    3. Olinski R,
    4. Evans MD,
    5. Bialkowski K,
    6. Wagner JR,
    7. et al.
    Recommendations for standardized description of and nomenclature concerning oxidatively damaged nucleobases in DNA. Chem Res Toxicol 2010;23:705–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  174. 174.↵
    1. Marnett LJ
    . Lipid peroxidation-DNA damage by malondialdehyde. Mutat Res 1999;424:83–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  175. 175.↵
    1. el Ghissassi F,
    2. Barbin A,
    3. Nair J,
    4. Bartsch H
    . Formation of 1,N6-ethenoadenine and 3,N4-ethenocytosine by lipid peroxidation products and nucleic acid bases. Chem Res Toxicol 1995;8:278–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  176. 176.↵
    1. Nair U,
    2. Bartsch H,
    3. Nair J
    . Lipid peroxidation-induced DNA damage in cancer-prone inflammatory diseases: a review of published adduct types and levels in humans. Free Radic Biol Med 2007;43:1109–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  177. 177.↵
    1. Marnett LJ
    . Inflammation and cancer: chemical approaches to mechanisms, imaging, and treatment. J Org Chem 2012;77:5224–38.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  178. 178.↵
    1. Feng Z,
    2. Hu W,
    3. Tang MS
    . Trans-4-hydroxy-2-nonenal inhibits nucleotide excision repair in human cells: a possible mechanism for lipid peroxidation-induced carcinogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:8598–602.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  179. 179.↵
    1. Bartsch H,
    2. Nair J
    . Accumulation of lipid peroxidation-derived DNA lesions: potential lead markers for chemoprevention of inflammation-driven malignancies. Mutat Res 2005;591:34–44.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  180. 180.↵
    1. Bartsch H,
    2. Nair J
    . Chronic inflammation and oxidative stress in the genesis and perpetuation of cancer: role of lipid peroxidation, DNA damage, and repair. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2006;391:499–510.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  181. 181.↵
    1. Morrow JD,
    2. Hill KE,
    3. Burk RF,
    4. Nammour TM,
    5. Badr KF,
    6. Roberts LJ II.
    . A series of prostaglandin F2-like compounds are produced in vivo in humans by a non-cyclooxygenase, free radical-catalyzed mechanism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1990;87:9383–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  182. 182.↵
    1. Fruehauf JP,
    2. Meyskens FL Jr.
    . Reactive oxygen species: a breath of life or death? Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:789–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  183. 183.↵
    1. Halliwell B,
    2. Whiteman M
    . Measuring reactive species and oxidative damage in vivo and in cell culture: how should you do it and what do the results mean? Br J Pharmacol 2004;142:231–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  184. 184.↵
    1. Jablonska E,
    2. Kiersnowska-Rogowska B,
    3. Ratajczak W,
    4. Rogowski F,
    5. Sawicka-Powierza J
    . Reactive oxygen and nitrogen species in the course of B-CLL. Adv Med Sci 2007;52:154–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  185. 185.↵
    1. Valko M,
    2. Izakovic M,
    3. Mazur M,
    4. Rhodes CJ,
    5. Telser J
    . Role of oxygen radicals in DNA damage and cancer incidence. Mol Cell Biochem 2004;266:37–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  186. 186.↵
    1. Yuen JW,
    2. Benzie IF
    . Hydrogen peroxide in urine as a potential biomarker of whole body oxidative stress. Free Radic Res 2003;37:1209–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  187. 187.↵
    1. Halliwell B,
    2. Long LH,
    3. Yee TP,
    4. Lim S,
    5. Kelly R
    . Establishing biomarkers of oxidative stress: the measurement of hydrogen peroxide in human urine. Curr Med Chem 2004;11:1085–92.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  188. 188.↵
    1. Rahman I,
    2. Kelly F
    . Biomarkers in breath condensate: a promising new non-invasive technique in free radical research. Free Radic Res 2003;37:1253–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  189. 189.↵
    1. Ohashi T,
    2. Mizutani A,
    3. Murakami A,
    4. Kojo S,
    5. Ishii T,
    6. Taketani S
    . Rapid oxidation of dichlorodihydrofluorescin with heme and hemoproteins: formation of the fluorescein is independent of the generation of reactive oxygen species. FEBS Lett 2002;511:21–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  190. 190.↵
    1. Shacter E
    . Quantification and significance of protein oxidation in biological samples. Drug Metab Rev 2000;32:307–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  191. 191.↵
    1. Cadet J,
    2. Poulsen H
    . Measurement of oxidatively generated base damage in cellular DNA and urine. Free Radic Biol Med 2010;48:1457–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  192. 192.↵
    1. Valavanidis A,
    2. Vlachogianni T,
    3. Fiotakis C
    . 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG): a critical biomarker of oxidative stress and carcinogenesis. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev 2009;27:120–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  193. 193.↵
    1. Loft S,
    2. Danielsen P,
    3. Lohr M,
    4. Jantzen K,
    5. Hemmingsen JG,
    6. Roursgaard M,
    7. et al.
    Urinary excretion of 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine as biomarker of oxidative damage to DNA. Arch Biochem Biophys 2012;518:142–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  194. 194.↵
    1. Kasai H
    . Chemistry-based studies on oxidative DNA damage: formation, repair, and mutagenesis. Free Radic Biol Med 2002;33:450–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  195. 195.↵
    1. Irie M,
    2. Asami S,
    3. Nagata S,
    4. Miyata M,
    5. Kasai H
    . Psychological mediation of a type of oxidative DNA damage, 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine, in peripheral blood leukocytes of non-smoking and non-drinking workers. Psychother Psychosom 2002;71:90–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  196. 196.↵
    1. Lee KF,
    2. Chung WY,
    3. Benzie IF
    . Urine 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-oxodG), a specific marker of oxidative stress, using direct, isocratic LC-MS/MS: method evaluation and application in study of biological variation in healthy adults. Clin Chim Acta 2010;411:416–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  197. 197.↵
    1. Inaba Y,
    2. Koide S,
    3. Yokoyama K,
    4. Karube I
    . Development of urinary 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) measurement method combined with SPE. J Chromatogr Sci 2011;49:303–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  198. 198.↵
    1. Smith KA,
    2. Shepherd J,
    3. Wakil A,
    4. Kilpatrick ES
    . A comparison of methods for the measurement of 8-isoPGF(2alpha): a marker of oxidative stress. Ann Clin Biochem 2011;48:147–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  199. 199.↵
    1. Cooke MS,
    2. Olinski R,
    3. Loft S
    . Measurement and meaning of oxidatively modified DNA lesions in urine. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:3–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  200. 200.↵
    1. Barregard L,
    2. Moller P,
    3. Henriksen T,
    4. Mistry V,
    5. Koppen G,
    6. Rossner P Jr.,
    7. et al.
    Human and methodological sources of variability in the measurement of urinary 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2′-deoxyguanosine. Antioxid Redox Signal 2013;18:2377–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  201. 201.↵
    1. Bartsch H,
    2. Nair J
    . Ultrasensitive and specific detection methods for exocylic DNA adducts: markers for lipid peroxidation and oxidative stress. Toxicology 2000;153:105–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  202. 202.↵
    1. Breusing N,
    2. Grune T,
    3. Andrisic L,
    4. Atalay M,
    5. Bartosz G,
    6. Biasi F,
    7. et al.
    An inter-laboratory validation of methods of lipid peroxidation measurement in UVA-treated human plasma samples. Free Radic Res 2010;44:1203–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  203. 203.↵
    1. Lang J,
    2. Celotto C,
    3. Esterbauer H
    . Quantitative determination of the lipid peroxidation product 4-hydroxynonenal by high-performance liquid chromatography. Anal Biochem 1985;150:369–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  204. 204.↵
    1. Borovic S,
    2. Tirzitis G,
    3. Tirzite D,
    4. Cipak A,
    5. Khoschsorur GA,
    6. Waeg G,
    7. et al.
    Bioactive 1,4-dihydroisonicotinic acid derivatives prevent oxidative damage of liver cells. Eur J Pharmacol 2006;537:12–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  205. 205.↵
    1. Hanaoka T,
    2. Nair J,
    3. Takahashi Y,
    4. Sasaki S,
    5. Bartsch H,
    6. Tsugane S
    . Urinary level of 1,N(6)-ethenodeoxyadenosine, a marker of oxidative stress, is associated with salt excretion and omega 6-polyunsaturated fatty acid intake in postmenopausal Japanese women. Int J Cancer 2002;100:71–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  206. 206.↵
    1. Sun X,
    2. Karlsson A,
    3. Bartsch H,
    4. Nair J
    . New ultrasensitive 32P-postlabelling method for the analysis of 3,N4-etheno-2′-deoxycytidine in human urine. Biomarkers 2006;11:329–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  207. 207.↵
    1. Taghizadeh K,
    2. McFaline JL,
    3. Pang B,
    4. Sullivan M,
    5. Dong M,
    6. Plummer E,
    7. et al.
    Quantification of DNA damage products resulting from deamination, oxidation and reaction with products of lipid peroxidation by liquid chromatography isotope dilution tandem mass spectrometry. Nat Protoc 2008;3:1287–98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  208. 208.↵
    1. Nair J,
    2. Barbin A,
    3. Guichard Y,
    4. Bartsch H
    . 1,N6-ethenodeoxyadenosine and 3,N4-ethenodeoxycytine in liver DNA from humans and untreated rodents detected by immunoaffinity/32P-postlabeling. Carcinogenesis 1995;16:613–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  209. 209.↵
    1. Sun X,
    2. Nair J,
    3. Linseisen J,
    4. Owen RW,
    5. Bartsch H
    . Lipid peroxidation and DNA adduct formation in lymphocytes of premenopausal women: role of estrogen metabolites and fatty acid intake. Int J Cancer 2012;131:1983–90.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  210. 210.↵
    1. Tsikas D
    . Measurement of nitrotyrosine in plasma by immunoassays is fraught with danger: commercial availability is no guarantee of analytical reliability. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:141–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  211. 211.↵
    1. Utsumi H,
    2. Yamada K
    . In vivo electron spin resonance-computed tomography/nitroxyl probe technique for non-invasive analysis of oxidative injuries. Arch Biochem Biophys 2003;416:1–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  212. 212.↵
    1. Frost MT,
    2. Halliwell B,
    3. Moore KP
    . Analysis of free and protein-bound nitrotyrosine in human plasma by a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry method that avoids nitration artifacts. Biochem J 2000;345(Pt 3):453–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  213. 213.↵
    1. Tsikas D,
    2. Mitschke A,
    3. Gutzki FM
    . Measurement of 3-nitro-tyrosine in human plasma and urine by gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Methods Mol Biol 2012;828:255–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  214. 214.↵
    1. Chuma M,
    2. Hige S,
    3. Nakanishi M,
    4. Ogawa K,
    5. Natsuizaka M,
    6. Yamamoto Y,
    7. et al.
    8-Hydroxy-2′-deoxy-guanosine is a risk factor for development of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;23:1431–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  215. 215.↵
    1. Kumar A,
    2. Pant MC,
    3. Singh HS,
    4. Khandelwal S
    . Assessment of the redox profile and oxidative DNA damage (8-OHdG) in squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck. J Cancer Res Ther 2012;8:254–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  216. 216.↵
    1. Bahar G,
    2. Feinmesser R,
    3. Shpitzer T,
    4. Popovtzer A,
    5. Nagler RM
    . Salivary analysis in oral cancer patients: DNA and protein oxidation, reactive nitrogen species, and antioxidant profile. Cancer 2007;109:54–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  217. 217.↵
    1. Kuo HW,
    2. Chou SY,
    3. Hu TW,
    4. Wu FY,
    5. Chen DJ
    . Urinary 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) and genetic polymorphisms in breast cancer patients. Mutat Res 2007;631:62–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  218. 218.↵
    1. Musarrat J,
    2. Arezina-Wilson J,
    3. Wani AA
    . Prognostic and aetiological relevance of 8-hydroxyguanosine in human breast carcinogenesis. Eur J Cancer 1996;32A:1209–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  219. 219.↵
    1. Chang D,
    2. Wang F,
    3. Zhao YS,
    4. Pan HZ
    . Evaluation of oxidative stress in colorectal cancer patients. Biomed Environ Sci 2008;21:286–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  220. 220.↵
    1. Khadem-Ansari MH,
    2. Shahsavari Z,
    3. Rasmi Y,
    4. Mahmoodlo R
    . Elevated levels of urinary 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine and 8-isoprostane in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J Carcinog 2011;10:14.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  221. 221.↵
    1. Diakowska D,
    2. Lewandowski A,
    3. Kopec W,
    4. Diakowski W,
    5. Chrzanowska T
    . Oxidative DNA damage and total antioxidant status in serum of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology 2007;54:1701–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  222. 222.↵
    1. Rasanen JV,
    2. Sihvo EI,
    3. Ahotupa MO,
    4. Farkkila MA,
    5. Salo JA
    . The expression of 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine in oesophageal tissues and tumours. Eur J Surg Oncol 2007;33:1164–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  223. 223.↵
    1. Loft S,
    2. Olsen A,
    3. Moller P,
    4. Poulsen HE,
    5. Tjonneland A
    . Association between 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2′-deoxyguanosine excretion and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer: nested case–control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2013;22:1289–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  224. 224.↵
    1. Loft S,
    2. Svoboda P,
    3. Kawai K,
    4. Kasai H,
    5. Sorensen M,
    6. Tjonneland A,
    7. et al.
    Association between 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine excretion and risk of lung cancer in a prospective study. Free Radic Biol Med 2012;52:167–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  225. 225.↵
    1. Rossner P Jr.,
    2. Gammon MD,
    3. Terry MB,
    4. Agrawal M,
    5. Zhang FF,
    6. Teitelbaum SL,
    7. et al.
    Relationship between urinary 15-F2t-isoprostane and 8-oxodeoxyguanosine levels and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:639–44.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  226. 226.↵
    1. Dai Q,
    2. Gao YT,
    3. Shu XO,
    4. Yang G,
    5. Milne G,
    6. Cai Q,
    7. et al.
    Oxidative stress, obesity, and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai Women's Health Study. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2482–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  227. 227.↵
    1. Cai F,
    2. Dupertuis YM,
    3. Pichard C
    . Role of polyunsaturated fatty acids and lipid peroxidation on colorectal cancer risk and treatments. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2012;15:99–106.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  228. 228.↵
    1. Cobanoglu U,
    2. Demir H,
    3. Cebi A,
    4. Sayir F,
    5. Alp HH,
    6. Akan Z,
    7. et al.
    Lipid peroxidation, DNA damage and coenzyme Q10 in lung cancer patients—markers for risk assessment? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2011;12:1399–403.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  229. 229.↵
    1. Peddireddy V,
    2. Siva Prasad B,
    3. Gundimeda SD,
    4. Penagaluru PR,
    5. Mundluru HP
    . Assessment of 8-oxo-7, 8-dihydro-2′-deoxyguanosine and malondialdehyde levels as oxidative stress markers and antioxidant status in non–small cell lung cancer. Biomarkers 2012;17:261–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  230. 230.↵
    1. Leufkens AM,
    2. van Duijnhoven FJ,
    3. Woudt SH,
    4. Siersema PD,
    5. Jenab M,
    6. Jansen EH,
    7. et al.
    Biomarkers of oxidative stress and risk of developing colorectal cancer: a cohort-nested case–control study in the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition. Am J Epidemiol 2012;175:653–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  231. 231.↵
    1. Beevi SS,
    2. Rasheed AM,
    3. Geetha A
    . Evaluation of oxidative stress and nitric oxide levels in patients with oral cavity cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2004;34:379–85.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  232. 232.↵
    1. Ekmekcioglu S,
    2. Ellerhorst J,
    3. Smid CM,
    4. Prieto VG,
    5. Munsell M,
    6. Buzaid AC,
    7. et al.
    Inducible nitric oxide synthase and nitrotyrosine in human metastatic melanoma tumors correlate with poor survival. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:4768–75.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  233. 233.↵
    1. Hata AN,
    2. Breyer RM
    . Pharmacology and signaling of prostaglandin receptors: multiple roles in inflammation and immune modulation. Pharmacol Ther 2004;103:147–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  234. 234.↵
    1. Funk CD
    . Prostaglandins and leukotrienes: advances in eicosanoid biology. Science 2001;294:1871–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  235. 235.↵
    1. Dannenberg AJ,
    2. Altorki NK,
    3. Boyle JO,
    4. Dang C,
    5. Howe LR,
    6. Weksler BB,
    7. et al.
    Cyclo-oxygenase 2: a pharmacological target for the prevention of cancer. Lancet Oncol 2001;2:544–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  236. 236.↵
    1. Wang D,
    2. Dubois RN
    . Eicosanoids and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2010;10:181–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  237. 237.↵
    1. Tsikas D
    . Application of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to assess in vivo synthesis of prostaglandins, thromboxane, leukotrienes, isoprostanes and related compounds in humans. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl 1998;717:201–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  238. 238.↵
    1. Il'yasova D,
    2. Morrow JD,
    3. Ivanova A,
    4. Wagenknecht LE
    . Epidemiological marker for oxidant status: comparison of the ELISA and the gas chromatography/mass spectrometry assay for urine 2,3-dinor-5,6-dihydro-15-F2t-isoprostane. Ann Epidemiol 2004;14:793–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  239. 239.↵
    1. Murphey LJ,
    2. Williams MK,
    3. Sanchez SC,
    4. Byrne LM,
    5. Csiki I,
    6. Oates JA,
    7. et al.
    Quantification of the major urinary metabolite of PGE2 by a liquid chromatographic/mass spectrometric assay: determination of cyclooxygenase-specific PGE2 synthesis in healthy humans and those with lung cancer. Anal Biochem 2004;334:266–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  240. 240.↵
    1. Cao H,
    2. Xiao L,
    3. Park G,
    4. Wang X,
    5. Azim AC,
    6. Christman JW,
    7. et al.
    An improved LC-MS/MS method for the quantification of prostaglandins E(2) and D(2) production in biological fluids. Anal Biochem 2008;372:41–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  241. 241.↵
    1. Kim S,
    2. Taylor JA,
    3. Milne GL,
    4. Sandler DP
    . Association between urinary prostaglandin E2 metabolite and breast cancer risk: a prospective, case-cohort study of postmenopausal women. Cancer Prev Res 2013;6:511–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  242. 242.↵
    1. Dong LM,
    2. Shu XO,
    3. Gao YT,
    4. Milne G,
    5. Ji BT,
    6. Yang G,
    7. et al.
    Urinary prostaglandin E2 metabolite and gastric cancer risk in the Shanghai Women's Health Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:3075–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  243. 243.↵
    1. Peng L,
    2. Zhou Y,
    3. Wang Y,
    4. Mou H,
    5. Zhao Q
    . Prognostic significance of COX-2 immunohistochemical expression in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of the literature. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e58891.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  244. 244.↵
    1. Nassar A,
    2. Radhakrishnan A,
    3. Cabrero IA,
    4. Cotsonis G,
    5. Cohen C
    . COX-2 expression in invasive breast cancer: correlation with prognostic parameters and outcome. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2007;15:255–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  245. 245.↵
    1. Ferrandina G,
    2. Lauriola L,
    3. Zannoni GF,
    4. Distefano MG,
    5. Legge F,
    6. Salutari V,
    7. et al.
    Expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in tumour and stroma compartments in cervical cancer: clinical implications. Br J Cancer 2002;87:1145–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  246. 246.↵
    1. Ferrandina G,
    2. Lauriola L,
    3. Zannoni GF,
    4. Fagotti A,
    5. Fanfani F,
    6. Legge F,
    7. et al.
    Increased cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) expression is associated with chemotherapy resistance and outcome in ovarian cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2002;13:1205–11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  247. 247.↵
    1. Ferrandina G,
    2. Ranelletti FO,
    3. Lauriola L,
    4. Fanfani F,
    5. Legge F,
    6. Mottolese M,
    7. et al.
    Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and Her-2/neu expression in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2002;85:305–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  248. 248.↵
    1. Czachorowski MJ,
    2. Amaral AF,
    3. Montes-Moreno S,
    4. Lloreta J,
    5. Carrato A,
    6. Tardon A,
    7. et al.
    Cyclooxygenase-2 expression in bladder cancer and patient prognosis: results from a large clinical cohort and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e45025.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  249. 249.↵
    1. Karin M,
    2. Greten FR
    . NF-kappaB: linking inflammation and immunity to cancer development and progression. Nat Rev Immunol 2005;5:749–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  250. 250.↵
    1. Karin M
    . Nuclear factor-kappaB in cancer development and progression. Nature 2006;441:431–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  251. 251.↵
    1. Colotta F,
    2. Allavena P,
    3. Sica A,
    4. Garlanda C,
    5. Mantovani A
    . Cancer-related inflammation, the seventh hallmark of cancer: links to genetic instability. Carcinogenesis 2009;30:1073–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  252. 252.↵
    1. Staudt LM
    . Oncogenic activation of NF-kappaB. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2010;2:a000109.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  253. 253.↵
    1. Terzic J,
    2. Grivennikov S,
    3. Karin E,
    4. Karin M
    . Inflammation and colon cancer. Gastroenterology 2010;138:2101–14 e5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  254. 254.↵
    1. Park GY,
    2. Christman JW
    . Nuclear factor kappa B is a promising therapeutic target in inflammatory lung disease. Curr Drug Targets 2006;7:661–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  255. 255.↵
    1. Luo JL,
    2. Maeda S,
    3. Hsu LC,
    4. Yagita H,
    5. Karin M
    . Inhibition of NF-kappaB in cancer cells converts inflammation-induced tumor growth mediated by TNFalpha to TRAIL-mediated tumor regression. Cancer Cell 2004;6:297–305.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  256. 256.↵
    1. Grivennikov SI,
    2. Karin M
    . Inflammation and oncogenesis: a vicious connection. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2010;20:65–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  257. 257.↵
    1. Grivennikov SI,
    2. Karin M
    . Dangerous liaisons: STAT3 and NF-kappaB collaboration and crosstalk in cancer. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2010;21:11–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  258. 258.↵
    1. Lin WW,
    2. Karin M
    . A cytokine-mediated link between innate immunity, inflammation, and cancer. J Clin Invest 2007;117:1175–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  259. 259.↵
    1. Li N,
    2. Grivennikov SI,
    3. Karin M
    . The unholy trinity: inflammation, cytokines, and STAT3 shape the cancer microenvironment. Cancer Cell 2011;19:429–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  260. 260.↵
    1. Bottero V,
    2. Imbert V,
    3. Frelin C,
    4. Formento JL,
    5. Peyron JF
    . Monitoring NF-kappa B transactivation potential via real-time PCR quantification of I kappa B-alpha gene expression. Mol Diagn 2003;7:187–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  261. 261.↵
    1. Blaecke A,
    2. Delneste Y,
    3. Herbault N,
    4. Jeannin P,
    5. Bonnefoy JY,
    6. Beck A,
    7. et al.
    Measurement of nuclear factor-kappa B translocation on lipopolysaccharide-activated human dendritic cells by confocal microscopy and flow cytometry. Cytometry 2002;48:71–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  262. 262.↵
    1. White KL,
    2. Vierkant RA,
    3. Phelan CM,
    4. Fridley BL,
    5. Anderson S,
    6. Knutson KL,
    7. et al.
    Polymorphisms in NF-kappaB inhibitors and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. BMC Cancer 2009;9:170.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  263. 263.↵
    1. Andersen V,
    2. Christensen J,
    3. Overvad K,
    4. Tjonneland A,
    5. Vogel U
    . Polymorphisms in NFkB, PXR, LXR and risk of colorectal cancer in a prospective study of Danes. BMC Cancer 2010;10:484.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  264. 264.↵
    1. Seufert BL,
    2. Poole EM,
    3. Whitton J,
    4. Xiao L,
    5. Makar KW,
    6. Campbell PT,
    7. et al.
    IkappaBKbeta and NFkappaB1, NSAID use and risk of colorectal cancer in the Colon Cancer Family Registry. Carcinogenesis 2013;34:79–85.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  265. 265.↵
    1. Yamamoto M,
    2. Taguchi Y,
    3. Ito-Kureha T,
    4. Semba K,
    5. Yamaguchi N,
    6. Inoue J
    . NF-kappaB non-cell-autonomously regulates cancer stem cell populations in the basal-like breast cancer subtype. Nat Commun 2013;4:2299.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  266. 266.↵
    1. Scartozzi M,
    2. Bearzi I,
    3. Pierantoni C,
    4. Mandolesi A,
    5. Loupakis F,
    6. Zaniboni A,
    7. et al.
    Nuclear factor-kB tumor expression predicts response and survival in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab–irinotecan therapy. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3930–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  267. 267.↵
    1. Coghill AE,
    2. Newcomb PA,
    3. Poole EM,
    4. Hutter CM,
    5. Makar KW,
    6. Duggan D,
    7. et al.
    Genetic variation in inflammatory pathways is related to colorectal cancer survival. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:7139–47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  268. 268.↵
    1. Piperdi B,
    2. Ling YH,
    3. Liebes L,
    4. Muggia F,
    5. Perez-Soler R
    . Bortezomib: understanding the mechanism of action. Mol Cancer Ther 2011;10:2029–30.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  269. 269.↵
    1. Hideshima T,
    2. Ikeda H,
    3. Chauhan D,
    4. Okawa Y,
    5. Raje N,
    6. Podar K,
    7. et al.
    Bortezomib induces canonical nuclear factor-kappaB activation in multiple myeloma cells. Blood 2009;114:1046–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  270. 270.↵
    1. McCormack VA,
    2. Hung RJ,
    3. Brenner DR,
    4. Bickeboller H,
    5. Rosenberger A,
    6. Muscat JE,
    7. et al.
    Aspirin and NSAID use and lung cancer risk: a pooled analysis in the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO). Cancer Causes Control 2011;22:1709–20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  271. 271.↵
    1. Zhao YS,
    2. Zhu S,
    3. Li XW,
    4. Wang F,
    5. Hu FL,
    6. Li DD,
    7. et al.
    Association between NSAIDs use and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;117:141–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  272. 272.↵
    1. Ulrich CM,
    2. Bigler J,
    3. Potter JD
    . Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for cancer prevention: promise, perils and pharmacogenetics. Nat Rev Cancer 2006;6:130–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  273. 273.↵
    1. Baandrup L,
    2. Faber MT,
    3. Christensen J,
    4. Jensen A,
    5. Andersen KK,
    6. Friis S,
    7. et al.
    Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92:245–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  274. 274.↵
    1. Rostom A,
    2. Dube C,
    3. Lewin G,
    4. Tsertsvadze A,
    5. Barrowman N,
    6. Code C,
    7. et al.
    Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors for primary prevention of colorectal cancer: a systematic review prepared for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:376–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  275. 275.↵
    1. Ladurner P,
    2. Pfister D,
    3. Seifarth C,
    4. Scharer L,
    5. Mahlknecht M,
    6. Salvenmoser W,
    7. et al.
    Production and characterisation of cell- and tissue-specific monoclonal antibodies for the flatworm Macrostomum sp. Histochem Cell Biol 2005;123:89–104.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  276. 276.↵
    1. Rothwell PM,
    2. Price JF,
    3. Fowkes FG,
    4. Zanchetti A,
    5. Roncaglioni MC,
    6. Tognoni G,
    7. et al.
    Short-term effects of daily aspirin on cancer incidence, mortality, and non-vascular death: analysis of the time course of risks and benefits in 51 randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2012;379:1602–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  277. 277.↵
    1. Rothwell PM,
    2. Wilson M,
    3. Price JF,
    4. Belch JF,
    5. Meade TW,
    6. Mehta Z
    . Effect of daily aspirin on risk of cancer metastasis: a study of incident cancers during randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2012;379:1591–601.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  278. 278.↵
    1. Harris RE
    . Cyclooxygenase-2 (cox-2) blockade in the chemoprevention of cancers of the colon, breast, prostate, and lung. Inflammopharmacology 2009;17:55–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  279. 279.↵
    1. Vanoirbeek E,
    2. Krishnan A,
    3. Eelen G,
    4. Verlinden L,
    5. Bouillon R,
    6. Feldman D,
    7. et al.
    The anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory actions of 1,25(OH)(2)D(3). Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;25:593–604.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  280. 280.↵
    1. Krishnan AV,
    2. Feldman D
    . Mechanisms of the anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory actions of vitamin D. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2011;51:311–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  281. 281.↵
    1. Shimizu M,
    2. Tanaka T,
    3. Moriwaki H
    . Obesity and hepatocellular carcinoma: targeting obesity-related inflammation for chemoprevention of liver carcinogenesis. Semin Immunopathol 2013;35:191–202.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  282. 282.↵
    1. Duraiswamy J,
    2. Kaluza KM,
    3. Freeman GJ,
    4. Coukos G
    . Dual blockade of PD-1 and CTLA-4 combined with tumor vaccine effectively restores T-cell rejection function in tumors. Cancer Res 2013;73:3591–603.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  283. 283.↵
    1. Couzin-Frankel J
    . Breakthrough of the year 2013. Cancer immunotherapy. Science 2013;342:1432–3.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 23 (9)
September 2014
Volume 23, Issue 9
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Review of the Application of Inflammatory Biomarkers in Epidemiologic Cancer Research
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A Review of the Application of Inflammatory Biomarkers in Epidemiologic Cancer Research
Darren R. Brenner, Dominique Scherer, Kenneth Muir, Joellen Schildkraut, Paolo Boffetta, Margaret R. Spitz, Loic Le Marchand, Andrew T. Chan, Ellen L. Goode, Cornelia M. Ulrich and Rayjean J. Hung
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev September 1 2014 (23) (9) 1729-1751; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0064

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A Review of the Application of Inflammatory Biomarkers in Epidemiologic Cancer Research
Darren R. Brenner, Dominique Scherer, Kenneth Muir, Joellen Schildkraut, Paolo Boffetta, Margaret R. Spitz, Loic Le Marchand, Andrew T. Chan, Ellen L. Goode, Cornelia M. Ulrich and Rayjean J. Hung
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev September 1 2014 (23) (9) 1729-1751; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0064
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Inflammation Biomarkers
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Grant Support
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Epigenetic Alterations and Cervical Cancer Development
  • Lessons Learned from Setting Up a Prospective Study
  • Environmental Exposures and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
Show more Reviews
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn