4.5 Review

Epithelial ovarian cancer stem cells: underlying complexity of a simple paradigm

Journal

REPRODUCTION
Volume 149, Issue 2, Pages R59-R70

Publisher

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/REP-14-0234

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute [2011-700869]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [OVA-111755]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The lack of significant progress in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) underscores the need to gain a better understanding of the processes that lead to chemoresistance and recurrence. The cancer stem cell (CSC) hypothesis offers an attractive explanation of how a subpopulation of cells within a patient's tumour might remain refractory to treatment and subsequently form the basis of recurrent chemoresistant disease. This review examines the literature defining somatic stem cells of the ovary and fallopian tube, two tissues that give rise to EOC. In addition, considerable research has been reviewed, that has identified subpopulations of EOC cells, based on marker expression (CD133, CD44, CD117, CD24, epithelial cell adhesion molecule, LY6A, ALDH1 and side population (SP)), which are enriched for tumour initiating cells (TICs). While many studies identified either CD133 or CD44 as markers useful for enriching for TICs, there is little consensus. This suggests that EOC cells may have a phenotypic plasticity that may preclude the identification of universal markers defining a CSC. The assay that forms the basis of quantifying TICs is the xenograft assay. Considerable controversy surrounds the xenograft assay and it is essential that some of the potential limitations be examined in this review. Highlighting such limitations or weaknesses is required to properly evaluate data and broaden our interpretation of potential mechanisms that might be contributing to the pathogenesis of ovarian cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available