Cargando…

Voluntary exercise in mesothelioma: effects on tumour growth and treatment response in a murine model

OBJECTIVE: There is substantial evidence that exercise can safely reduce the risk of cancer and improve survival in different human cancer populations. Long latency periods associated with carcinogen–induced cancers like asbestos induced mesothelioma provide an opportunity to implement exercise as a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fisher, Scott A., Peddle-McIntyre, Carolyn J., Burton, Kimberley,  Newton, Robert U., Marcq, Elly, Lake, Richard A., Nowak, Anna K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7493394/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32933580
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-020-05284-y
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: There is substantial evidence that exercise can safely reduce the risk of cancer and improve survival in different human cancer populations. Long latency periods associated with carcinogen–induced cancers like asbestos induced mesothelioma provide an opportunity to implement exercise as an intervention to delay or prevent disease development. However, there are limited studies investigating the ability of exercise to prevent or delay cancer, and exercise as a preventive strategy has never been assessed in models with a known carcinogen. We investigated the potential of voluntary exercise (VE) to delay development of asbestos related disease (ARD) in our well-characterised, asbestos induced MexTAg model of mesothelioma. RESULTS: Asbestos exposed MexTAg mice were given continuous or delayed access to VE and ARD assessed over time. We found that the addition of VE did not affect ARD development in asbestos exposed MexTAg mice. However, non–asbestos exposed, aged matched control mice participated in significantly more VE behaviours, suggesting subclinical development of ARD after asbestos exposure had a greater impact on VE participation than age alone. These data highlight the importance of model choice and the potential limitation that some pre–clinical studies may not accurately represent the clinical paradigm, particularly in the context of prevention studies.