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

  • Register
  • Log in
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Focus on Computer Resources
    • 75th Anniversary
    • Meeting Abstracts
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • OnlineFirst
    • Editors' Picks
    • Citations
    • Author/Keyword
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • AACR Publications
    • 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

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Research
Cancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Focus on Computer Resources
    • 75th Anniversary
    • Meeting Abstracts
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • OnlineFirst
    • Editors' Picks
    • Citations
    • Author/Keyword
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
Reviews

Contributions of the Host Microenvironment to Cancer-Induced Bone Disease

Sam W.Z. Olechnowicz and Claire M. Edwards
Sam W.Z. Olechnowicz
Authors' Affiliations: Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claire M. Edwards
Authors' Affiliations: Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United KingdomAuthors' Affiliations: Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-2645 Published March 2014
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The bone marrow provides a specialized and highly supportive microenvironment for tumor growth and development of the associated bone disease. It is a preferred site for breast and prostate cancer bone metastasis and the hematologic malignancy, multiple myeloma. For many years, researchers have focused upon the interactions between tumor cells and the cells directly responsible for bone remodeling, namely osteoclasts and osteoblasts. However, there is ever-increasing evidence for a multitude of ways in which the bone marrow microenvironment can promote disease pathogenesis, including via cancer-associated fibroblasts, the hematopoietic stem cell niche, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, and the sympathetic nervous system. This review discusses the recent advances in our understanding of the contribution of the host microenvironment to the development of cancer-induced bone disease. Cancer Res; 74(6); 1625–31. ©2014 AACR.

Introduction

As a rich source of signaling and growth factors, the bone microenvironment is favored as a site of metastasis for a number of cancers. Adenocarcinomas originating in the prostate, breast, kidney, or lung often metastasize to the bone in late stages, whereas hematologic malignancies such as multiple myeloma are caused by neoplastic plasma cells that are dependent on the bone microenvironment for survival (1, 2). A common feature of all such cancers is the development of a painful and destructive bone disease. Myeloma and breast cancer invasion often causes osteolytic lesions, yet prostate cancers can cause osteoblastic growths or a mixture of the two. Bone metastasis represents a final, incurable stage of these diseases, causing fractures, bone pain, and altered calcium homeostasis (3). The bone also provides a niche in which cancer cells can lay dormant, avoiding chemotherapeutic treatments. The bone microenvironment is not passive and can attract and react to infiltrating cancer cells. The delicate balance between bone mineralization by osteoblasts and resorption by osteoclasts is commonly disrupted by tumor cells, resulting in bone disease. These responses by cancer-associated bone cells can, in turn, aid cancer survival and growth, forming a “vicious cycle” between cancer and bone (Fig. 1; ref. 4). As such, research into therapeutics against bone metastases is often aimed at breaking this cycle, historically focusing on osteoclast activity. An improved understanding of the normal physiology of bone has informed research into the discovery of novel therapeutics, much of which aims to temper the response of the host bone microenvironment to the cancer, rather than attacking the cancer directly. The bone marrow microenvironment contains a highly heterogeneous population of cells, including those derived from hematopoietic stem cells (HSC), bone mesenchymal stem cells (BMSC), vascular endothelial cells, and nerve fibers. The roles of osteoclasts and osteoblasts in cancer-induced bone disease are well documented, and this review will focus upon the contributions of the other cells within the bone marrow microenvironment.

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

Host–tumor interactions within the bone marrow microenvironment. The specialized cell types within the bone marrow can influence tumor growth and cancer-induced bone disease in a multitude of ways. 1, regulation of the immune system. Immune cells have been shown to have both positive and negative effects on osteoclast formation and activity, and to suppress tumor growth, whereas MDSCs are increased in bone metastases and contribute to both immune suppression and osteoclastic bone disease. 2, activation of osteoclastogenesis. Immune cells, dendritic cells, and MDSCs all contribute to osteolytic bone disease, at least in vitro, with major factors implicated including RANKL, IL-17, and TNF-α. 3, matrix- and stromal-derived growth factors. The host microenvironment is an essential source of tumor growth factors, including TGF-β, IGF-1, and IL-6. 4, regulation of osteoblastogenesis. Osteoblast formation in cancer-induced bone disease is tightly controlled by cells, including tumor cells and stromal cells, and mediated by factors including Dkk1, activin A, BMPs, and noggin. 5, hematopoietic stem cell niche. The endosteal HSC niche is maintained by osteoblasts and stromal cells, and controlled by factors including G-CSF and CXCL12.

Hematopoietic stem cells

Early in development, the bone marrow is colonized by HSCs, from where they self-renew and differentiate along a well-characterized hierarchy of erythroid and myeloid blood cell types. Multipotent HSCs are thought to reside in niches associated with the vascular endothelium (5) and endosteal osteoblasts (6). HSCs are mobilized by the bone marrow in response to granulocyte colony—stimulating factor and other stimuli. They return to the marrow through CXCL12 chemokine signaling from the endosteal niche to the CXCR4 receptor expressed by HSCs and adhesion though integrin α4β1 or αVβ3. Once in location, CXCL12/CXCR4 signaling continues between HSC and the marrow, constraining HSC proliferation (7). Cancers that commonly metastasize to bone, such as those of breast (8, 9), prostate (10), and hematopoietic origins (11), have also been found to use CXCR4 to navigate toward the bone marrow, supporting the theory that metastasizing cells are attracted to the HSC niche itself and alter this site to form a metastatic niche (12). The presence of tumor cells could be expected to displace existing HSCs and accordingly recent evidence shows that hematopoietic progenitor cell numbers are reduced in a mouse model of prostate cancer (12), as well as patients with multiple myeloma (13). It is now thought that HSCs do not reside passively in their niche, but also affect the differentiation potential of nearby mesenchymal cells by releasing osteoblast-promoting factors such as bone morphogenic proteins BMP-2 and -6 (14). Osteoblasts in turn maintain the endosteal HSC niche, creating a positive feedback loop between the osteoblasts and HSCs, which is open to hijacking by osteoblastic prostate cancer cells (15).

Lymphocytes

Lymphoid lineage cells also have a complex relationship with invading cancer cells, with many signaling pathways disrupted in a manner similar to that seen in other disorders of bone, such as rheumatoid arthritis. T lymphocytes in general are responsive to myeloma, releasing key osteoclast signaling factor RANKL and suppressing IFN-γ in response to myeloma-derived interleukin (IL)-7, thus promoting osteoclastogenesis (16). Others have identified the TH17 subset of CD4+ helper T cells as supporting myeloma and osteoclast growth in the bone through release of IL-17 (17), a similar mechanism to that observed in arthritis (18). Conversely, TH1 and TH2 cells are now thought to act as osteoclast suppressors through release of IFN-γ and several inhibitory interleukins (19), whereas cytotoxic CD8+ T cells have a suppressive effect toward melanoma metastasis and growth in bone, which is independent of osteoclast activity (20). B cells are a major source of the RANKL-inhibitor osteoprotegerin (OPG) within the bone and are stimulated by T cells through binding of CD40 ligand to increase OPG release (21), providing a mechanism by which they may contribute to cancer-induced bone disease. In this way, lymphocytes can control the RANKL/OPG balance and consequently cause both anabolic and catabolic bone remodeling. With such apparently contrary roles, it is clear that lymphocytes have the potential to act as regulatory gatekeepers in the bone and as such are targeted by cancer cells to create permissive conditions for bone metastases, particularly at sites of osteolytic lesions but also perhaps at osteoblastic growths. However, our understanding of the in vivo role of lymphocytes in disease pathogenesis is limited by the prevalent use of immune cell–deficient hosts for in vivo models of metastasis.

Myeloid-derived cells

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) are a class of myeloid lineage cells that act to quell immune cell activation and have an influence on the bone metastatic niche (22). MDSCs are commonly recruited by cancers to suppress immune system surveillance (23). Within the bone, myeloma cells have been shown to cause increased MDSC activity in mouse models (24). Recently, it has been revealed that MDSCs can also respond to RANKL to form mature osteoclasts and promote osteolysis in murine models of breast cancer and myeloma (25–27). This suggests an interesting pathway linking cancer-induced osteolysis to immune system avoidance. Invading tumor cells could recruit MDSCs to the metastatic site to suppress lymphocyte activation, with some MDSCs fusing to bolster osteoclast numbers as a side effect. Furthermore, bone marrow myeloid progenitors are also mobilized by cancers to initiate metastatic niches in other organs, such as the lungs (28), through signaling by pathways involving exosomes and activation of c-MET (29) and hypoxic induction of lysyl oxidases (30). These results underscore the significance of the metastatic bone microenvironment, as developing therapies that target these interactions may also be relevant to cancers that migrate to other favored sites.

Dendritic cells are also reported to contribute to bone metastases, with accumulating evidence to support a role in the development of cancer-induced bone disease. Myeloma cells can stimulate dendritic cells to differentiate into osteoclasts in vitro (31) and depletion of plasmacytoid dendritic cells was found to prevent breast cancer metastasis to bone, associated with the activation of cytotoxic CD8+ T cells and a reduction in MDSCs (32). Megakaryocytes are derived from HSCs, and once fully differentiated are responsible for platelet production. There is increasing evidence to support a role for platelets and platelet-derived lysophosphatidic acid in the development of bone metastases (33–35).

Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells and stromal cells

Although for many years researchers have focused predominantly upon the role of the osteoclast, recently the contribution of osteoblasts and bone formation to the pathogenesis of cancer-induced bone disease has also been well studied and has been reviewed elsewhere (36). However, it is becoming increasingly clear that mesenchymal lineage cells control a multitude of aspects of bone metastasis, in addition to the direct regulation of bone formation and bone resorption. The niches occupied by HSCs and their descendants are intimately regulated by the structure of the bone and marrow, which in turn is organized by cells originating from BMSCs. These multipotent cells give rise to a variety of cell types: osteoblasts and osteocytes, adipocytes, chondrocytes, and fibroblasts. Mesenchymal cells are known to be recruited into primary tumors to become cancer-associated fibroblasts, where they encourage epithelial–mesenchymal transition and metastasis of cancer cells (37–40). Therefore, it is no surprise that cancer cells also recruit mesenchymal cells at their secondary sites within the bone marrow.

Cancer-associated fibroblasts are well known to play essential roles in primary tumor growth and metastasis (40), and their pivotal role in tumor growth within bone is emerging. Development of myeloma is dependent, at least in part, upon stromal-derived Dkk1 (41), and expression of TGF-β type II receptor is lost in cancer-associated fibroblasts in prostate cancer bone metastases, promoting development of the associated bone disease (42). Intriguingly, cancer-associated fibroblasts at the primary site have recently been shown to dictate the pattern of metastasis, with expression of CXCL12 and IGF-1 promoting metastasis to bone (43). Gene expression profiles of cancer-associated osteoblasts, fibroblasts and mesenchymal stem cells are altered in skeletal malignancies; however, whether these changes are cause or consequence of tumor growth within bone remains unclear. Expression of XBP1s in myeloma-associated stromal cells has been found to promote tumor growth and bone disease (44), whereas stromal expression of Gfi1 is necessary for bone formation inhibition (45).

Osteocytes are derived from BMSCs and express significant amounts of both OPG and RANKL, acting to control osteoclast formation as well as maintaining the rigidity of the bone extracellular matrix and mobilizing HSCs from their niche (46, 47). These cells are therefore also likely to play a major role in communicating with invading cancer cells. The osteocyte transcription profile is altered by metastasis (48), and their activity should not be discounted in future in vivo studies.

Adipocytes

It has long been known that bone marrow has a significant fat content; however, the nature of the fat-containing cells in marrow is more complex than that of a simple energy store. Bone adipocytes follow a similar differentiation pathway as visceral or subcutaneous adipocytes, responding to activation of the C/EBPα transcription factor and the master adipocyte regulator PPARγ. However, despite not being used for heat generation in humans, they share a profile closer to “brown” fat cells (49). Differentiation cues for BMSCs are thought to often result in mutually exclusive responses, observed particularly in the reciprocal repression between osteoblasts and adipocytes. The relationship between levels of bone fat and bone mass is complex; however, the high proportion of adipocytes within this specialized environment raises the possibility that they may play a functional role in skeletal metastasis. Adipocytes have been shown to support the proliferation and migration of myeloma cells in vitro (50). Furthermore, the adipokine adiponectin has been shown to play a causal role in myeloma pathogenesis and represent a novel therapeutic target, with a loss of host-derived adiponectin increasing myeloma tumor growth and development of the associated osteolytic bone disease in vivo (51).

Endothelial cells and angiogenesis

Uncontrolled cell growth in both primary and metastatic tumors means that cancers are frequently challenged with low nutrient conditions. Low oxygen is also a strong driving force for disorganized vascularization within bone and other sites of cancer development and areas of the bone marrow are known to be physiologically hypoxic even before the added burden of tumor metabolism. Hypoxia activates the HIF transcription pathway in both tumor cells and the microenvironment, increasing production and secretion of factors such as VEGF, HGF, and CXCL12, which recruit bone marrow endothelial cells to activate vasculogenesis (52, 53). As with the other cell types of the marrow, the gene expression profile of endothelial cells is altered when associated with cancer cells. Cancer-associated endothelial cells repress regulatory pathways and contribute a range of chemokines to the microenvironment (54, 55). Targeting HIF is an effective approach to reduce tumor burden and bone disease (56).

Sympathetic and nociceptive nerves

Bone is known to be innervated, and there has been recent interest in the role of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) in providing bone homeostatic signals. For example, leptin has been shown to influence SNS signaling through the hypothalamus to cause a wide variety of effects, such as decreased osteoblast proliferation and increased RANKL and osteoclast activity (57). Leptin serum levels do not seem to correlate with breast cancer or myeloma; however, stress and anxiety are also thought to be able to cause bone loss through the SNS (58), and have been shown to have an effect on not only the osteolytic effect of breast cancer, but also the metastatic infiltration of bone (59). SNS signaling to β-adrenergic receptors on osteoblasts has also been implicated in potentiating other signals, such as parathyroid hormone, osteopontin and IGF-1, and release of HSCs from their niche, which may also have implications for invading cancers (60). Bone pain and neuropathy is a frequent result of bone metastasis, resulting from a variety of mechanisms such as aberrant sprouting and activation of nociceptive fibers, in turn caused by secreted factors from both cancer cells and cancer-associated cells (61). Blocking NGF has been shown to reduce the bone pain associated with prostate cancer bone metastasis, despite not affecting tumor burden or osteolytic bone disease (62).

The extracellular matrix

The cells of the bone microenvironment provide many of the signals that provoke a response from metastases; however, the extracellular matrix itself may also regulate cancer cell behavior. Bone and marrow matrices are very rigid, and the stiffness of this substrate onto which cells adhere is known to have an influence on gene transcription, for instance, in selecting between BMSC differentiation pathways (63). While the matrix is known to become stiffer in solid tumors (64), migrating cancer cells are able to move by either releasing matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) or by deforming the matrix in a Rho-associated, coiled-coil containing protein kinase 1 (ROCK)- and myosin-dependent fashion (65). Once within the rigid bone microenvironment, cancer cells are able to respond to the stiffness of the matrix by upregulating osteolytic gene expression, once again using a ROCK- and myosin-dependent mechanism (66).

The MMP family of proteins is frequently dysregulated by cancer cells, causing not only collagen proteolysis and reorganization of the extracellular matrix but also activation of other prosignaling factors and pro-MMPs by cleavage. Host-derived MMP9 has been found to promote myeloma and breast cancer osteolysis (67, 68), whereas osteoclast-derived MMP-7 promotes osteolytic bone disease in murine models of breast and prostate cancer, via solubilization of RANKL (69, 70). The mineralized extracellular matrix is also a considerable store of growth factors (71), and MMPs can release and activate TGF-β, an integral factor in cancer-induced bone disease (72).

Targeting the bone microenvironment

The first drugs targeted toward the bone microenvironment in metastatic disease were aimed at cancer-associated osteoclasts, and the success of bisphosphonates against cancer-induced bone disease has been reviewed elsewhere (73). An alternative approach toward osteoclasts has been to target RANKL signaling, by preventing receptor binding using an anti-RANKL antibody. The humanized anti-RANKL antibody Denosumab has progressed through clinical trials against bone metastases arising from multiple myeloma, prostate, lung and breast cancers, as well as non–cancer-related diseases such as osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis (74). Targeting TGF-β has proven effective in murine models of skeletal tumors (75, 76). As osteoblasts are now being recognized as major regulators of the bone microenvironment, treatments have also been developed, which encourage osteoblast formation to restore homeostasis and combat osteolytic metastases. Anti-Dkk1 and anti-activin A increase osteoblast differentiation in osteolytic myeloma and breast cancer metastases (77–79), whereas anti–IL-6 offers a pathway to reduce the cancer-supportive signaling responses of myeloma-associated osteoblasts (80). Metastatic cancer cells are attracted to the bone marrow through HSC homing signals such as CXCL12. Therefore, blockade of HSC signals may be able to prevent metastasis and also may increase effectiveness of other therapies when used in combination (81). AMD3100 (now known as Plerixafor) is a CXCR4 antagonist and is effective in preclinical models of myeloma and breast cancer bone metastasis (9, 82). Broad-spectrum MMP inhibitors are no longer considered viable for development due to side effects; however, a specific inhibitor of MMP-13 has improved preclinical effect against breast cancer bone metastasis, indicating that these targets are still worth pursuing (83). The role of the SNS in bone remodeling also suggest that existing β-blockers such as propanolol may be repurposed to stimulate osteoblast activity and inhibit resorption in bone metastases (59).

Conclusions and Future Directions

It has long been recognized that the bone marrow provides a hospitable environment allowing many types of tumor to grow and survive. Importantly, this is not a passive environment and reciprocal interactions occur between tumor cells and host cells of the bone marrow. These interactions are critical to multiple stages in disease pathogenesis, from initial homing to the endosteal HSC niche and escape from normal immune suppression, to support of tumor growth and development of cancer-induced bone disease. The delicate balance between the numerous marrow cell types is difficult to recreate in vitro, necessitating the use of in vivo models that both replicate the clinical features of human disease and distinct steps in disease development. The rapidly developing field of mathematical modeling offers an intriguing approach to this problem. Initial studies are encouraging, as discrete interactions within the bone have been modeled, with the ultimate goal of creating a mathematical model of the complete tumor–bone marrow microenvironment (84–86). The progression of research, from studying interactions between tumor cells, osteoclasts, and osteoblasts, to including all components of the specialized bone marrow microenvironment has dramatically advanced our understanding of disease pathogenesis. It is exciting to predict that this enhanced knowledge will ultimately reveal novel and effective therapeutic targets, with many encouraging results already arising from preclinical models. Furthermore, there is great enthusiasm for those studies that identify the potential for repurposing drugs currently in clinical use for other conditions, which have effects on the host microenvironment to modulate either tumor growth or osteolytic bone disease. Because of the inextricable nature of the relationship between tumor cells and host cells, the effective treatments of the future will likely utilize a combination of therapeutics targeting both the tumor and the bone marrow microenvironment, to ultimately eradicate this final fatal step in tumor progression.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute through R01-CA137116, Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research, the Kay Kendall Leukaemia Fund, and a Marie Curie Career Integration Grant within the 7th European Community Framework Programme.

  • Received September 13, 2013.
  • Revision received December 19, 2013.
  • Accepted January 13, 2014.
  • ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Kyle RA,
    2. Gertz MA,
    3. Witzig TE,
    4. Lust JA,
    5. Lacy MQ,
    6. Dispenzieri A,
    7. et al.
    Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc 2003;78:21–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Hess KR,
    2. Varadhachary GR,
    3. Taylor SH,
    4. Wei W,
    5. Raber MN,
    6. Lenzi R,
    7. et al.
    Metastatic patterns in adenocarcinoma. Cancer 2006;106:1624–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Coleman RE
    . Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12:6243s–6249s.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Mundy GR
    . Metastasis to bone: causes, consequences and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer 2002;2:584–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Kiel MJ,
    2. Yilmaz OH,
    3. Iwashita T,
    4. Yilmaz OH,
    5. Terhorst C,
    6. Morrison SJ
    . SLAM family receptors distinguish hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells and reveal endothelial niches for stem cells. Cell 2005;121:1109–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Xie Y,
    2. Yin T,
    3. Wiegraebe W,
    4. He XC,
    5. Miller D,
    6. Stark D,
    7. et al.
    Detection of functional haematopoietic stem cell niche using real-time imaging. Nature 2009;457:97–101.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Nie Y,
    2. Han YC,
    3. Zou YR
    . CXCR4 is required for the quiescence of primitive hematopoietic cells. J Exp Med 2008;205:777–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Müller A,
    2. Homey B,
    3. Soto H,
    4. Ge N,
    5. Catron D,
    6. Buchanan ME,
    7. et al.
    Involvement of chemokine receptors in breast cancer metastasis. Nature 2001;410:50–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Smith MC,
    2. Luker KE,
    3. Garbow JR,
    4. Prior JL,
    5. Jackson E,
    6. Piwnica-Worms D,
    7. et al.
    CXCR4 regulates growth of both primary and metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Res 2004;64:8604–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Taichman RS,
    2. Cooper C,
    3. Keller ET,
    4. Pienta KJ,
    5. Taichman NS,
    6. McCauley LK
    . Use of the stromal cell-derived factor-1/CXCR4 pathway in prostate cancer metastasis to bone. Cancer Res 2002;62:1832–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Alsayed Y,
    2. Ngo H,
    3. Runnels J,
    4. Leleu X,
    5. Singha UK,
    6. Pitsillides CM,
    7. et al.
    Mechanisms of regulation of CXCR4/SDF-1 (CXCL12)-dependent migration and homing in multiple myeloma. Blood 2007;109:2708–17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Shiozawa Y,
    2. Pedersen EA,
    3. Havens AM,
    4. Jung Y,
    5. Mishra A,
    6. Joseph J,
    7. et al.
    Human prostate cancer metastases target the hematopoietic stem cell niche to establish footholds in mouse bone marrow. J Clin Invest 2011;121:1298–312.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Martínez-Jaramillo G,
    2. Vela-Ojeda J,
    3. Flores-Guzmán P,
    4. Mayani H
    . In vitro growth of hematopoietic progenitors and stromal bone marrow cells from patients with multiple myeloma. Leuk Res 2011;35:250–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Jung Y,
    2. Song J,
    3. Shiozawa Y,
    4. Wang J,
    5. Wang Z,
    6. Williams B,
    7. et al.
    Hematopoietic stem cells regulate mesenchymal stromal cell induction into osteoblasts thereby participating in the formation of the stem cell niche. Stem Cell 2008;26:2042–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Joseph J,
    2. Shiozawa Y,
    3. Jung Y,
    4. Kim JK,
    5. Pedersen E,
    6. Mishra A,
    7. et al.
    Disseminated prostate cancer cells can instruct hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells to regulate bone phenotype. Mol Cancer Res 2012;10:282–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Giuliani N,
    2. Colla S,
    3. Sala R,
    4. Moroni M,
    5. Lazzaretti M,
    6. La Monica S,
    7. et al.
    Human myeloma cells stimulate the receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL) in T lymphocytes: a potential role in multiple myeloma bone disease. Blood 2002;100:4615–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Noonan K,
    2. Marchionni L,
    3. Anderson J,
    4. Pardoll D,
    5. Roodman GD,
    6. Borrello I
    . A novel role of IL-17-producing lymphocytes in mediating lytic bone disease in multiple myeloma. Blood 2010;116:3554–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Sato K,
    2. Suematsu A,
    3. Okamoto K,
    4. Yamaguchi A,
    5. Morishita Y,
    6. Kadono Y,
    7. et al.
    Th17 functions as an osteoclastogenic helper T cell subset that links T cell activation and bone destruction. J Exp Med 2006;203:2673–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Takayanagi H,
    2. Ogasawara K,
    3. Hida S,
    4. Chiba T,
    5. Murata S,
    6. Sato K,
    7. et al.
    T-cell-mediated regulation of osteoclastogenesis by signalling cross-talk between RANKL and IFN-gamma. Nature 2000;408:600–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Zhang K,
    2. Kim S,
    3. Cremasco V,
    4. Hirbe AC,
    5. Collins L,
    6. Piwnica-Worms D,
    7. et al.
    CD8+ T cells regulate bone tumor burden independent of osteoclast resorption. Cancer Res 2011;71:4799–808.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Li Y,
    2. Toraldo G,
    3. Li A,
    4. Yang X,
    5. Zhang H,
    6. Qian WP,
    7. et al.
    B cells and T cells are critical for the preservation of bone homeostasis and attainment of peak bone mass in vivo . Blood 2007;109:3839–48.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Talmadge JE
    . Pathways mediating the expansion and immunosuppressive activity of myeloid-derived suppressor cells and their relevance to cancer therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:5243–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Bronte V,
    2. Serafini P,
    3. Apolloni E,
    4. Zanovello P
    . Tumor-induced immune dysfunctions caused by myeloid suppressor cells. J Immunother 2001;24:431–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    1. Van Valckenborgh E,
    2. Schouppe E,
    3. Movahedi K,
    4. De Bruyne E,
    5. Menu E,
    6. De Baetselier P,
    7. et al.
    Multiple myeloma induces the immunosuppressive capacity of distinct myeloid-derived suppressor cell subpopulations in the bone marrow. Leukemia 2012;26:2424–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Sawant A,
    2. Deshane J,
    3. Jules J,
    4. Lee CM,
    5. Harris BA,
    6. Feng X,
    7. et al.
    Myeloid-derived suppressor cells function as novel osteoclast progenitors enhancing bone loss in breast cancer. Cancer Res 2013;73:672–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Zhuang J,
    2. Zhang J,
    3. Lwin ST,
    4. Edwards JR,
    5. Edwards CM,
    6. Mundy GR,
    7. et al.
    Osteoclasts in multiple myeloma are derived from Gr-1+CD11b+myeloid-derived suppressor cells. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e48871.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Danilin S,
    2. Merkel AR,
    3. Johnson JR,
    4. Johnson RW,
    5. Edwards JR,
    6. Sterling JA
    . Myeloid-derived suppressor cells expand during breast cancer progression and promote tumor-induced bone destruction. Oncoimmunology 2012;1:1484–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Kaplan RN,
    2. Riba RD,
    3. Zacharoulis S,
    4. Bramley AH,
    5. Vincent L,
    6. Costa C,
    7. et al.
    VEGFR1-positive haematopoietic bone marrow progenitors initiate the pre-metastatic niche. Nature 2005;438:820–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Peinado H,
    2. Alečković M,
    3. Lavotshkin S,
    4. Matei I,
    5. Costa-Silva B,
    6. Moreno-Bueno G,
    7. et al.
    Melanoma exosomes educate bone marrow progenitor cells toward a pro-metastatic phenotype through MET. Nat Med 2012;18:883–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Erler JT,
    2. Bennewith KL,
    3. Cox TR,
    4. Lang G,
    5. Bird D,
    6. Koong A,
    7. et al.
    Hypoxia-induced lysyl oxidase is a critical mediator of bone marrow cell recruitment to form the premetastatic niche. Cancer Cell 2009;15:35–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Kukreja A,
    2. Radfar S,
    3. Sun BH,
    4. Insogna K,
    5. Dhodapkar MV
    . Dominant role of CD47-thrombospondin-1 interactions in myeloma-induced fusion of human dendritic cells: implications for bone disease. Blood 2009;114:3413–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Sawant A,
    2. Hensel JA,
    3. Chanda D,
    4. Harris BA,
    5. Siegal GP,
    6. Maheshwari A,
    7. et al.
    Depletion of plasmacytoid dendritic cells inhibits tumor growth and prevents bone metastasis of breast cancer cells. J Immunol 2012;189:4258–65.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Kerr BA,
    2. McCabe NP,
    3. Feng W,
    4. Byzova TV
    . Platelets govern pre-metastatic tumor communication to bone. Oncogene 2013;32:4319–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Boucharaba A,
    2. Serre CM,
    3. Grès S,
    4. Saulnier-Blache JS,
    5. Bordet JC,
    6. Guglielmi J,
    7. et al.
    Platelet-derived lysophosphatidic acid supports the progression of osteolytic bone metastases in breast cancer. J Clin Invest 2004;114:1714–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Bakewell SJ,
    2. Nestor P,
    3. Prasad S,
    4. Tomasson MH,
    5. Dowland N,
    6. Mehrotra M,
    7. et al.
    Platelet and osteoclast beta3 integrins are critical for bone metastasis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:14205–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Fowler JA,
    2. Edwards CM,
    3. Croucher PI
    . Tumor-host cell interactions in the bone disease of myeloma. Bone 2011;48:121–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Jung Y,
    2. Kim JK,
    3. Shiozawa Y,
    4. Wang J,
    5. Mishra A,
    6. Joseph J,
    7. et al.
    Recruitment of mesenchymal stem cells into prostate tumours promotes metastasis. Nat Commun 2013;4:1795.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Karnoub AE,
    2. Dash AB,
    3. Vo AP,
    4. Sullivan A,
    5. Brooks MW,
    6. Bell GW,
    7. et al.
    Mesenchymal stem cells within tumour stroma promote breast cancer metastasis. Nature 2007;449:557–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Malanchi I,
    2. Santamaria-Martínez A,
    3. Susanto E,
    4. Peng H,
    5. Lehr HA,
    6. Delaloye JF,
    7. et al.
    Interactions between cancer stem cells and their niche govern metastatic colonization. Nature 2012;481:85–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Franco OE,
    2. Shaw AK,
    3. Strand DW,
    4. Hayward SW
    . Cancer associated fibroblasts in cancer pathogenesis. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2010;21:33–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Fowler JA,
    2. Mundy GR,
    3. Lwin ST,
    4. Edwards CM
    . Bone marrow stromal cells create a permissive microenvironment for myeloma development: a new stromal role for Wnt inhibitor Dkk1. Cancer Res 2012;72:2183–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Li X,
    2. Sterling JA,
    3. Fan K-H,
    4. Vessella RL,
    5. Shyr Y,
    6. Hayward SW,
    7. et al.
    Loss of TGF-β responsiveness in prostate stromal cells alters chemokine levels and facilitates the development of mixed osteoblastic/osteolytic bone lesions. Mol Cancer Res 2012;10:494–503.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Zhang XH,
    2. Jin X,
    3. Malladi S,
    4. Zou Y,
    5. Wen YH,
    6. Brogi E,
    7. et al.
    Selection of bone metastasis seeds by mesenchymal signals in the primary tumor stroma. Cell 2013;154:1060–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Xu G,
    2. Liu K,
    3. Anderson J,
    4. Patrene K,
    5. Lentzsch S,
    6. Roodman GD,
    7. et al.
    Expression of XBP1s in bone marrow stromal cells is critical for myeloma cell growth and osteoclast formation. Blood 2012;119:4205–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. D'Souza S,
    2. del Prete D,
    3. Jin S,
    4. Sun Q,
    5. Huston AJ,
    6. Kostov FE,
    7. et al.
    Gfi1 expressed in bone marrow stromal cells is a novel osteoblast suppressor in patients with multiple myeloma bone disease. Blood 2011;118:6871–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Asada N,
    2. Katayama Y,
    3. Sato M,
    4. Minagawa K,
    5. Wakahashi K,
    6. Kawano H,
    7. et al.
    Matrix-embedded osteocytes regulate mobilization of hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells. Cell Stem Cell 2013;12:737–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Bonewald LF
    . The amazing osteocyte. J Bone Miner Res 2011;26:229–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Eisenberger S,
    2. Ackermann K,
    3. Voggenreiter G,
    4. Sültmann H,
    5. Kasperk C,
    6. Pyerin W
    . Metastases and multiple myeloma generate distinct transcriptional footprints in osteocytes in vivo. J Pathol 2008;214:617–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Fazeli PK,
    2. Horowitz MC,
    3. MacDougald OA,
    4. Scheller EL,
    5. Rodeheffer MS,
    6. Rosen CJ,
    7. et al.
    Marrow fat and bone–new perspectives. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013;98:935–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Caers J,
    2. Deleu S,
    3. Belaid Z,
    4. De Raeve H,
    5. Van Valckenborgh E,
    6. De Bruyne E,
    7. et al.
    Neighboring adipocytes participate in the bone marrow microenvironment of multiple myeloma cells. Leukemia 2007;21:1580–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Fowler JA,
    2. Lwin ST,
    3. Drake MT,
    4. Edwards JR,
    5. Kyle RA,
    6. Mundy GR,
    7. et al.
    Host-derived adiponectin is tumor-suppressive and a novel therapeutic target for multiple myeloma and the associated bone disease. Blood 2011;118:5872–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Muir C,
    2. Chung LWK,
    3. Carson DD,
    4. Farach-Carson MC
    . Hypoxia increases VEGF-A production by prostate cancer and bone marrow stromal cells and initiates paracrine activation of bone marrow endothelial cells. Clin Exp Metastasis 2006;23:75–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Storti P,
    2. Bolzoni M,
    3. Donofrio G,
    4. Airoldi I,
    5. Guasco D,
    6. Toscani D,
    7. et al.
    Hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)-1α suppression in myeloma cells blocks tumoral growth in vivo inhibiting angiogenesis and bone destruction. Leukemia 2013;27:1697–706.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Vacca A,
    2. Scavelli C,
    3. Serini G,
    4. Di Pietro G,
    5. Cirulli T,
    6. Merchionne F,
    7. et al.
    Loss of inhibitory semaphorin 3A (SEMA3A) autocrine loops in bone marrow endothelial cells of patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 2006;108:1661–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    1. Ria R,
    2. Todoerti K,
    3. Berardi S,
    4. Coluccia AML,
    5. De Luisi A,
    6. Mattioli M,
    7. et al.
    Gene expression profiling of bone marrow endothelial cells in patients with multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:5369–78.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    1. Dunn LK,
    2. Mohammad KS,
    3. Fournier PGJ,
    4. McKenna CR,
    5. Davis HW,
    6. Niewolna M,
    7. et al.
    Hypoxia and TGF-beta drive breast cancer bone metastases through parallel signaling pathways in tumor cells and the bone microenvironment. PLoS ONE 2009;4:e6896.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Elefteriou F,
    2. Ahn JD,
    3. Takeda S,
    4. Starbuck M,
    5. Yang X,
    6. Liu X,
    7. et al.
    Leptin regulation of bone resorption by the sympathetic nervous system and CART. Nature 2005;434:514–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Yirmiya R,
    2. Goshen I,
    3. Bajayo A,
    4. Kreisel T,
    5. Feldman S,
    6. Tam J,
    7. et al.
    Depression induces bone loss through stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006;103:16876–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. 59.↵
    1. Campbell JP,
    2. Karolak MR,
    3. Ma Y,
    4. Perrien DS,
    5. Masood-Campbell SK,
    6. Penner NL,
    7. et al.
    Stimulation of host bone marrow stromal cells by sympathetic nerves promotes breast cancer bone metastasis in mice. PLoS Biol 2012;10:e1001363.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Elefteriou F,
    2. Campbell P,
    3. Ma Y
    . Control of bone remodeling by the peripheral sympathetic nervous system. Calcif Tissue Int 2013;94:140–51.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Mantyh PW
    . Cancer pain and its impact on diagnosis, survival and quality of life. Nat Rev Neurosci 2006;7:797–809.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Halvorson KG,
    2. Kubota K,
    3. Sevcik MA,
    4. Lindsay TH,
    5. Sotillo JE,
    6. Ghilardi JR,
    7. et al.
    A blocking antibody to nerve growth factor attenuates skeletal pain induced by prostate tumor cells growing in bone. Cancer Res 2005;65:9426–35.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. 63.↵
    1. Engler AJ,
    2. Sen S,
    3. Sweeney HL,
    4. Discher DE
    . Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell 2006;126:677–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Paszek MJ,
    2. Zahir N,
    3. Johnson KR,
    4. Lakins JN,
    5. Rozenberg GI,
    6. Gefen A,
    7. et al.
    Tensional homeostasis and the malignant phenotype. Cancer Cell 2005;8:241–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Zaman MH,
    2. Trapani LM,
    3. Sieminski AL,
    4. Siemeski A,
    5. Mackellar D,
    6. Gong H,
    7. et al.
    Migration of tumor cells in 3D matrices is governed by matrix stiffness along with cell-matrix adhesion and proteolysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006;103:10889–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. 66.↵
    1. Ruppender NS,
    2. Merkel AR,
    3. Martin TJ,
    4. Mundy GR,
    5. Sterling JA,
    6. Guelcher SA
    . Matrix rigidity induces osteolytic gene expression of metastatic breast cancer cells. PLoS ONE 2010;5:e15451.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. Fowler JA,
    2. Mundy GR,
    3. Lwin ST,
    4. Lynch CC,
    5. Edwards CM
    . A murine model of myeloma that allows genetic manipulation of the host microenvironment. Dis Model Mech 2009;2:604–11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. 68.↵
    1. Thiolloy S,
    2. Edwards JR,
    3. Fingleton B,
    4. Rifkin DB,
    5. Matrisian LM,
    6. Lynch CC
    . An osteoblast-derived proteinase controls tumor cell survival via TGF-beta activation in the bone microenvironment. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e29862.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Lynch CC,
    2. Hikosaka A,
    3. Acuff HB,
    4. Martin MD,
    5. Kawai N,
    6. Singh RK,
    7. et al.
    MMP-7 promotes prostate cancer-induced osteolysis via the solubilization of RANKL. Cancer Cell 2005;7:485–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. Thiolloy S,
    2. Halpern J,
    3. Holt GE,
    4. Schwartz HS,
    5. Mundy GR,
    6. Matrisian LM,
    7. et al.
    Osteoclast-derived matrix metalloproteinase-7, but not matrix metalloproteinase-9, contributes to tumor-induced osteolysis. Cancer Res 2009;69:6747–55.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. 71.↵
    1. Sterling JA,
    2. Edwards JR,
    3. Martin TJ,
    4. Mundy GR
    . Advances in the biology of bone metastasis: how the skeleton affects tumor behavior. Bone 2011;48:6–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    1. Dallas SL,
    2. Rosser JL,
    3. Mundy GR,
    4. Bonewald LF
    . Proteolysis of latent transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta)-binding protein-1 by osteoclasts. A cellular mechanism for release of TGF-beta from bone matrix. J Biol Chem 2002;277:21352–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. 73.↵
    1. Gnant M,
    2. Clézardin P
    . Direct and indirect anticancer activity of bisphosphonates: a brief review of published literature. Cancer Treat Rev 2012;38:407–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    1. Brown JE,
    2. Coleman RE
    . Denosumab in patients with cancer-a surgical strike against the osteoclast. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012;9:110–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Biswas S,
    2. Nyman JS,
    3. Alvarez J,
    4. Chakrabarti A,
    5. Ayres A,
    6. Sterling J,
    7. et al.
    Anti-transforming growth factor β antibody treatment rescues bone loss and prevents breast cancer metastasis to bone. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e27090.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. 76.↵
    1. Mohammad KS,
    2. Javelaud D,
    3. Fournier PGJ,
    4. Niewolna M,
    5. McKenna CR,
    6. Peng XH,
    7. et al.
    TGF-beta-RI kinase inhibitor SD-208 reduces the development and progression of melanoma bone metastases. Cancer Res 2011;71:175–84.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. 77.↵
    1. Chantry AD,
    2. Heath D,
    3. Mulivor AW,
    4. Pearsall S,
    5. Baud'huin M,
    6. Coulton L,
    7. et al.
    Inhibiting activin-A signaling stimulates bone formation and prevents cancer-induced bone destruction in vivo. J Bone Miner Res 2010;25:2633–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    1. Vallet S,
    2. Mukherjee S,
    3. Vaghela N,
    4. Hideshima T,
    5. Fulciniti M,
    6. Pozzi S,
    7. et al.
    Activin A promotes multiple myeloma-induced osteolysis and is a promising target for myeloma bone disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:5124–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. 79.↵
    1. Yaccoby S,
    2. Ling W,
    3. Zhan F,
    4. Walker R,
    5. Barlogie B,
    6. Shaughnessy JD
    . Antibody-based inhibition of DKK1 suppresses tumor-induced bone resorption and multiple myeloma growth in vivo. Blood 2007;109:2106–11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. 80.↵
    1. Fulciniti M,
    2. Hideshima T,
    3. Vermot-Desroches C,
    4. Pozzi S,
    5. Nanjappa P,
    6. Shen Z,
    7. et al.
    A high-affinity fully human anti-IL-6 mAb, 1339, for the treatment of multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:7144–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. 81.↵
    1. Shiozawa Y,
    2. Pienta KJ,
    3. Taichman RS
    . Hematopoietic stem cell niche is a potential therapeutic target for bone metastatic tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:5553–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. 82.↵
    1. Azab AK,
    2. Runnels JM,
    3. Pitsillides C,
    4. Moreau AS,
    5. Azab F,
    6. Leleu X,
    7. et al.
    CXCR4 inhibitor AMD3100 disrupts the interaction of multiple myeloma cells with the bone marrow microenvironment and enhances their sensitivity to therapy. Blood 2009;113:4341–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  83. 83.↵
    1. Shah M,
    2. Huang D,
    3. Blick T,
    4. Connor A,
    5. Reiter LA,
    6. Hardink JR,
    7. et al.
    An MMP13-selective inhibitor delays primary tumor growth and the onset of tumor-associated osteolytic lesions in experimental models of breast cancer. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e29615.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    1. Ryser MD,
    2. Qu Y,
    3. Komarova S V
    . Osteoprotegerin in bone metastases: mathematical solution to the puzzle. PLoS Comput Biol 2012;8:e1002703.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    1. Ayati BP,
    2. Edwards CM,
    3. Webb GF,
    4. Wikswo JP
    . A mathematical model of bone remodeling dynamics for normal bone cell populations and myeloma bone disease. Biol Direct 2010;5:28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    1. Wang Y,
    2. Pivonka P,
    3. Buenzli PR,
    4. Smith DW,
    5. Dunstan CR
    . Computational modeling of interactions between multiple myeloma and the bone microenvironment. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e27494.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Research: 74 (6)
March 2014
Volume 74, Issue 6
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author

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 Research 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.
Contributions of the Host Microenvironment to Cancer-Induced Bone Disease
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Research.
Citation Tools
Contributions of the Host Microenvironment to Cancer-Induced Bone Disease
Sam W.Z. Olechnowicz and Claire M. Edwards
Cancer Res March 15 2014 (74) (6) 1625-1631; DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-2645

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Contributions of the Host Microenvironment to Cancer-Induced Bone Disease
Sam W.Z. Olechnowicz and Claire M. Edwards
Cancer Res March 15 2014 (74) (6) 1625-1631; DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-2645
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
    • Conclusions and Future Directions
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • USP18 as an Antineoplastic Target
  • Targeting T-type Channels
  • Oncogenic Specificity of Ras Isoforms
Show more Reviews
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians
  • Reviewers

About Cancer Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2018 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Research Online ISSN: 1538-7445
Cancer Research Print ISSN: 0008-5472
Journal of Cancer Research ISSN: 0099-7013
American Journal of Cancer ISSN: 0099-7374

Advertisement