Mark Dewhirst

Dr. Mark Dewhirst

Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

36Years (1991-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 December 2017 in Nature Reviews Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MDMark Dewhirst
Mark Dewhirst
TSTimothy W. Secomb
Timothy W. Secomb

18 May 2011 in International Journal of Hyperthermia
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
PYPavel S. Yarmolenko
Pavel S. Yarmolenko
EMEui Jung Moon
Eui Jung Moon
CLChelsea Landon
Chelsea Landon
AMAshley Manzoor
Ashley Manzoor
DHDaryl W. Hochman
Daryl W. Hochman
MDMark Dewhirst
Mark Dewhirst
The purpose of this review is to summarise a literature survey on thermal thresholds for tissue damage. This review covers published literature for the consecutive years from 2002–2009. The first review on this subject was published in 2003. It included an extensive discussion of how to use thermal dosimetric principles to normalise all time-temperature data histories to a common format. This review utilises those same principles to address sensitivity of a variety of tissues, but with particular emphasis on brain and testis. The review includes new data on tissues that were not included in the original review. Several important observations have come from this review. First, a large proportion of the papers examined for this review were discarded because time–temperature history at the site of thermal damage assessment was not recorded. It is strongly recommended that future research on this subject include such data. Second, very little data is available examining chronic consequences of thermal exposure. On a related point, the time of assessment of damage after exposure is critically important for assessing whether damage is transient or permanent. Additionally, virtually no data are available for repeated thermal exposures which may occur in certain recreational or occupational activities. For purposes of regulatory guidelines, both acute and lasting effects of thermal damage should be considered.

18 August 2011 in Nature Protocols
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
GPGregory Palmer
Gregory Palmer
AFAndrew N Fontanella
Andrew N Fontanella
SSSiqing Shan
Siqing Shan
GHGabi Hanna
Gabi Hanna
GZGuoqing Zhang
Guoqing Zhang
MDMark Dewhirst
Mark Dewhirst

14 July 2016 in Cancer Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KAKathleen A. Ashcraft
Kathleen A. Ashcraft
RPRalph M. Peace
Ralph M. Peace
ABAllison S. Betof
Allison S. Betof
MDMark Dewhirst
Mark Dewhirst
LJLee W. Jones
Lee W. Jones
A major objective of the emerging field of exercise–oncology research is to determine the efficacy of, and biological mechanisms by which, aerobic exercise affects cancer incidence, progression, and/or metastasis. There is a strong inverse association between self-reported exercise and the primary incidence of several forms of cancer; similarly, emerging data suggest that exercise exposure after a cancer diagnosis may improve outcomes for early-stage breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer. Arguably, critical next steps in the development of exercise as a candidate treatment in cancer control require preclinical studies to validate the biological efficacy of exercise, identify the optimal “dose”, and pinpoint mechanisms of action. To evaluate the current evidence base, we conducted a critical systematic review of in vivo studies investigating the effects of exercise in cancer prevention and progression. Studies were evaluated on the basis of tumor outcomes (e.g., incidence, growth, latency, metastasis), dose–response, and mechanisms of action, when available. A total of 53 studies were identified and evaluated on tumor incidence (n = 24), tumor growth (n = 33), or metastasis (n = 10). We report that the current evidence base is plagued by considerable methodologic heterogeneity in all aspects of study design, endpoints, and efficacy. Such heterogeneity precludes meaningful comparisons and conclusions at present. To this end, we provide a framework of methodologic and data reporting standards to strengthen the field to guide the conduct of high-quality studies required to inform translational, mechanism-driven clinical trials. Cancer Res; 76(14); 4032–50. ©2016 AACR.

12 September 2013 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KKKelly M. Kennedy
Kelly M. Kennedy
PSPeter M. Scarbrough
Peter M. Scarbrough
ARAnthony Ribeiro
Anthony Ribeiro
RRRachel Richardson
Rachel Richardson
HYHong Yuan
Hong Yuan
MDMark Dewhirst
Mark Dewhirst
Lactate accumulation in tumors has been associated with metastases and poor overall survival in cancer patients. Lactate promotes angiogenesis and metastasis, providing rationale for understanding how it is processed by cells. The concentration of lactate in tumors is a balance between the amount produced, amount carried away by vasculature and if/how it is catabolized by aerobic tumor or stromal cells. We examined lactate metabolism in human normal and breast tumor cell lines and rat breast cancer: 1. at relevant concentrations, 2. under aerobic vs. hypoxic conditions, 3. under conditions of normo vs. hypoglucosis. We also compared the avidity of tumors for lactate vs. glucose and identified key lactate catabolites to reveal how breast cancer cells process it. Lactate was non-toxic at clinically relevant concentrations. It was taken up and catabolized to alanine and glutamate by all cell lines. Kinetic uptake rates of lactate in vivo surpassed that of glucose in R3230Ac mammary carcinomas. The uptake appeared specific to aerobic tumor regions, consistent with the proposed “metabolic symbiont” model; here lactate produced by hypoxic cells is used by aerobic cells. We investigated whether treatment with alpha-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamate (CHC), a MCT1 inhibitor, would kill cells in the presence of high lactate. Both 0.1 mM and 5 mM CHC prevented lactate uptake in R3230Ac cells at lactate concentrations at ≤20 mM but not at 40 mM. 0.1 mM CHC was well-tolerated by R3230Ac and MCF7 cells, but 5 mM CHC killed both cell lines ± lactate, indicating off-target effects. This study showed that breast cancer cells tolerate and use lactate at clinically relevant concentrations in vitro (± glucose) and in vivo. We provided additional support for the metabolic symbiont model and discovered that breast cells prevailingly take up and catabolize lactate, providing rationale for future studies on manipulation of lactate catabolism pathways for therapy.

8 November 2010 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
EMEui Jung Moon
Eui Jung Moon
Pierre SonveauxPierre Sonveaux
Pierre Sonveaux
Paolo PorporatoPaolo Porporato
Paolo Porporato
PDPierre Danhier
Pierre Danhier
BGBernard Gallez
Bernard Gallez
MDMark Dewhirst
Mark Dewhirst
Hyperthermia (HT) is a strong adjuvant treatment with radiotherapy and chemotherapy because it causes tumor reoxygenation. However, the detailed molecular mechanisms of how HT enhances tumor oxygenation have not been elucidated. Here we report that 1 h of HT activates hypoxia-inducible factor-1 (HIF-1) in tumors and its downstream targets, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase 1 (PDK1). Consistent with HIF-1 activation and up-regulation of its downstream genes, HT also enhances tumor perfusion/vascularization and decreases oxygen consumption. As a result, tumor hypoxia is reduced after HT, suggesting that these physiological changes contribute to HT-induced tumor reoxygenation. Because HIF-1 is a potent regulator of tumor vascularization and metabolism, our findings suggest that HIF-1 plays a role in HT-induced tumor reoxygenation by transactivating its downstream targets. We demonstrate that NADPH oxidase-mediated reactive oxygen species production, as a mechanism, up-regulates HIF-1 after HT. Furthermore, we determine that this pathway is initiated by increased transcription of NADPH oxidase-1 through the ERK pathway. In conclusion, this study determines that, although HIF-1 is a good therapeutic target, the timing of its inhibition needs to be optimized to achieve the most beneficial outcome when it is combined with other treatments of HT, radiation, and chemotherapy.