To take the CE quiz, click here.
This quiz is open until April 2025.
Margaret L. Musser
DVM, DACVIM (Oncology)
Dr. Musser is an assistant professor and board-certified veterinary oncologist at Iowa State University. She received her veterinary medicine degree from the University of Illinois in 2010. She completed a 1-year rotating internship at VCS West Los Angeles and then a 3-year medical oncology residency at North Carolina State University. She spent 3 years as a veterinary oncologist at 2 private specialty clinics in Connecticut before beginning at Iowa State in 2017.
Updated April 2022Read Articles Written by Margaret L. Musser
Glucocorticoids In Cancer
Natural and synthetic glucocorticoids (GCs) exert their functions within the body through the cytoplasmic glucocorticoid receptor, present on most cells.1,2 Following binding, the GC–receptor complex translocates to the nucleus of the cell, where binding to specific GC response elements or other transcription factors can activate or repress gene transcription.1,2 Synthetic GCs (including prednisone/prednisolone and dexamethasone) have been shown to cause apoptosis of malignant lymphocytes,1,3 and thus are tenets of treatment for both human and veterinary hematopoietic tumors, including leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma.1,3-7
Is Prednisone or Dexamethasone Better?
In adult humans with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the relative efficacy of prednisone or dexamethasone has been found to be dose dependent. Although dexamethasone may confer a moderately superior outcome, it causes significantly more side effects, leaving the decision of which GC to use up to the attending clinician based on individual patient needs.8 However, this literature is mixed, with other clinical trials showing no advantage of one GC over another.9 In the veterinary literature, it is unclear if prednisone or dexamethasone is superior for the treatment of cancer, or if the GC elected affects remission rates or outcomes. Thus, the decision to use prednisone or dexamethasone is typically at the discretion of the clinician or veterinarian, although most chemotherapy protocols use oral prednisone/prednisolone.
The doses of GCs used in veterinary cancer chemotherapy protocols are typically those considered to be anti-inflammatory (0.5 to 1 mg/kg/day or 30 to 40 mg/m2/day)10 rather than immunosuppressive (2 to 3 mg/kg/day or 50 to 60 mg/m2/day for dogs >25 kg), with the exception of very small patients (<10 kg), in which the anti-inflammatory doses mentioned here are immunosuppressive.11 If given in conjunction with chemotherapy, GCs are also usually tapered quickly to avoid inducing adverse effects.
Use in Treating Specific Cancers
Standard therapy for canine and feline large cell lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoma is CHOP chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone/prednisolone), with some nuance based on location and specific type of malignancy.5,12 When standard treatment is declined, GCs alone are often prescribed. A common misconception is that GCs provide palliative care only. However, as previously mentioned, GCs cause apoptosis and death of malignant lymphoid cells,1,3 leading to decreased tumor burden and increased quality of life. However, this effect is transient and overall remission time is often short.5,13
A recent study examined the use of GCs alone in the treatment of naïve peripheral nodal B-cell and T-cell canine lymphoma and found that the overall survival time was 50 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 41 to 59 days). Median survival time was significantly longer for dogs with substage a disease (not clinically ill) than for those with substage b disease (clinically ill), and for those with a higher quality of life score at diagnosis as assessed by the owner. Interestingly, dogs with T-cell disease had a longer survival time (90 days; 95% CI, 67 to 109 days) than those with B-cell disease (39 days; 95% CI, 28 to 49 days).5 This is contrary to the typical finding of dogs with B-cell disease having a better outcome.14-16 While this discrepancy could have been due to lack of statistical power, the authors postulated that perhaps dogs with T-cell lymphoma are more sensitive to the effects of GCs,5 as it appears GCs cause a greater suppression of the blastogenic response of T cells than of B cells.17 A similar study in cats has not been completed. However, an overall response rate of 70% of cats to prednisolone alone with extranodal lymphoma has been reported, with only 30% of cats achieving a complete remission.13 Median survival has been reported to be 60 days, compared with 138 days for cats receiving a variety of chemotherapy protocols.13 Thus, although dogs and cats both initially respond to GCs, the response is transient.
In addition, eliminating prednisone from the CHOP chemotherapy protocol has not been shown to affect the complete remission rate, median progression-free survival, or overall survival time.18,19 Although lack of prednisone was associated with an increased hazard for lymphoma progression and an increased hazard for death, neither result was statistically significant.18
Multiple studies have shown that GC use prior to CHOP chemotherapy for canine and feline leukemia and lymphoma creates chemotherapy resistance and/or a reduced survival time even in patients that achieve a complete remission while on chemotherapy.13,14,20,21 The mechanism of GC-induced chemotherapy resistance is unknown, although it does not appear to be due to early induction of P-glycoprotein expression, which is commonly associated with chemotherapy resistance.22 Similarly, it is unknown when GC-induced resistance develops during treatment. It appears that the influence of GCs on remission times does not change if GCs are given for less than 2 weeks or for longer periods,23 suggesting resistance has already developed 2 weeks into a course of treatment and possibly much earlier.
Due to the effects of GCs on lymphocytes, it is also possible that GC use may make a definitive diagnosis of lymphoma difficult if cytologic samples are hard to interpret because of lymphocyte fragility. Although this has not been definitively proven to occur in veterinary medicine, it appears to be a problem for some types of lymphomas in humans.24
Given these concerns, it is prudent to withhold GC treatment until a diagnosis of lymphoma is made and a treatment plan elected, except potentially in emergent cases (e.g., life-threatening hypercalcemia, tracheal obstruction due to lymph node enlargement).
Mast Cell Tumors
A variety of treatment options exist for canine and feline mast cell tumors (MCTs). Typically, treatment involves surgical removal, if possible, followed by adjuvant radiation therapy or chemotherapy as dictated by the location and aggressiveness of the tumor. GCs are often part of the treatment plan, either neoadjuvantly to help shrink the tumor before surgery and control histamine release, or adjuvantly following surgical removal. The response rate of canine MCTs to systemic GCs alone ranges from 20% to 70%, supporting the use of GCs in treatment of MCTs.25-27 This wide response rate is likely due to the expression levels of GC receptors on neoplastic mast cells, where lower GC receptor expression has been associated with a decreased response or resistance to GC treatment.28 In addition, it has been shown that MCTs have some inherent drug resistance to GCs or develop GC resistance.29 The impact of previous GC use on MCT response to chemotherapy has not been examined, although anecdotally, previous GC use does not seem to significantly affect outcome.
Intralesional administration of GCs, specifically triamcinolone, has been reported in dogs with cutaneous MCTs.30 In one study, patients were treated with intralesional triamcinolone alone (n = 5); a combination of intralesional triamcinolone and systemic GCs (n = 6); or a combination of intralesional triamcinolone and cytotoxic chemotherapy, with or without systemic GCs and radiation therapy (n = 13). For those treated with triamcinolone only, 1 achieved a complete response, 3 had a partial response, and 1 had stable disease. Adverse events included local hemorrhage (n = 1) and suspected gastrointestinal (GI) ulceration (n = 2; one receiving oral GCs, one not). Thus, it was concluded that intralesional triamcinolone, with or without additional therapy, may be safe and effective for canine cutaneous MCTs.30
If GCs are used prior to MCT surgery, it is recommended that the fur over the mass be shaved, and the mass circled using a Sharpie pen. Due to the relatively high response rate of MCTs to GCs, it is possible that the mass may disappear entirely between starting GCs and the day of surgery. Having the location of the tumor marked will help facilitate appropriate removal of the tumor.
Multiple myeloma is a rare hematopoietic tumor of malignant plasma cells that occurs in both dogs and cats. These malignant plasma cells, typically stemming from the bone marrow, produce an overabundance of a single type or portion of immunoglobulin (the M component), leading to hyperglobulinemia. The clinical signs of multiple myeloma are due to the high levels of circulating M component, neoplastic cell infiltration of bone or organs, or both. Clinical manifestations of multiple myeloma include discrete osteolytic lesions, hyperviscosity syndrome, renal disease, hypercalcemia, cytopenias, abnormal clotting times, and immunodeficiency. A diagnosis of multiple myeloma in dogs is based on the presence of neoplastic plasma cells in the bone marrow, lytic bone lesions, and serum or urine myeloma proteins.
In humans, GCs have been shown to have an antitumor effect in multiple myeloma and are an important part of single-agent and combination therapy.31 This approach has been extrapolated to treatment protocols successfully utilized in dogs and cats with multiple myeloma.7,32
Hyperglobulinemia alone does not indicate a diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lymphoma and tick-borne diseases also commonly present with hyperglobulinemia; therefore, it is important to complete a thorough workup to attain a correct diagnosis.
The treatment of nonhematologic cancers with GCs is more controversial. It appears that GCs, depending on the tumor type, may prevent tumor progression and metastasis, or may inhibit chemotherapy-induced cell apoptosis. These discrepant results are likely due to a multitude of factors, including different cell types of origin, varying GC receptor levels, the type of GC administered, and the dosage of GC administered.1
In human medicine, GCs alone have been shown to produce favorable outcomes in thymoma, breast, and prostate cancer. In breast cancer, GCs increase the response rate to chemotherapy and endocrine therapy when given in combination but do not influence overall survival.33 In vitro data suggest that GCs, through activation of the GC receptor, may reduce estrogen-induced cell proliferation in breast cancer and mitigate androgen receptor activation and expression in prostatic cancer, helping to suppress cancer cell growth in these 2 tumor types. For various types of GI cancer, GCs alone were not found to influence survival times compared with placebo. Studies evaluating the combination of GCs and chemotherapy for GI cancer are mixed, implying a likely neutral effect.33
Metastasis is responsible for 90% of cancer deaths, but adequate treatments for metastatic disease have not been thoroughly evaluated, including GCs.34 In vitro evaluations suggest that GCs suppress cancer cell migration and invasion through induction of E-cadherin or downregulation of matrix metalloproteinases 2 and 9, RhoA (Ras homolog family member A), and interleukin (IL)-6.1 Induction of microRNA, specifically miR-708, decreases cancer cell migration, adhesion, and abdominal metastasis through inhibition of Rap1B.35 In addition, various studies have implied that GCs suppress angiogenesis through downregulation of proangiogenic factors (IL-8 and vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF]), preventing additional blood and nutrients from reaching the growing tumor.
Despite the positive effects seen in breast cancer patients in vivo, in vitro evidence suggests that GCs can induce resistance when combined with radiation or chemotherapy in culture or mouse xenograft models. Many epithelial cancers have been shown to have this propensity, such as breast, ovarian, cervical, prostatic, testicular, urothelial, and pancreatic.1 This resistance is thought to be mediated through upregulation of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase, serine/threonine survival kinase 1, and negative regulator of nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB), although this has not been supported in clinical patients.1
While studies in human medicine generally have shown GCs to have a positive effect, or at least a neutral one, on patient outcome, in some instances GCs lead to less favorable outcomes or deleterious secondary sequelae. The use of GCs for primary central nervous system cancers is typically supported due to their effects on tumor-induced edema and subsequent neurologic deficits.36 However, there is evidence that GCs may exert only a neutral effect on the tumor and may cause significant adverse effects, including an increased risk of infection when combined with chemotherapy.33 In lung cancer, it appears that GCs decrease overall survival when used as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy.33 Given the information available, it has been recommended in human medicine to avoid high-dose continuous GCs in patients with nonhematologic malignancies, as this dosage decreases survival.33
The use of GCs for nonhematologic cancers in veterinary medicine has not been thoroughly studied, either in vitro or in vivo. It is generally accepted that patients with central nervous system tumors benefit from prednisone, likely due to the effect on peritumoral edema,37 although the true impact and cellular changes induced by GCs in this and other nonhematologic malignancies are unknown.
Given the lack of evidence for GC use in veterinary nonhematologic malignancies and the potential detrimental effects as evidenced in human malignancies, judicious use of GCs is recommended in any nonhematologic malignancy.
Glucocorticoids are frequently used as an adjuvant to mitigate adverse events during chemotherapy and radiation therapy. In humans, GCs have been shown to increase appetite; decrease vomiting, nausea, and weight loss; reduce fatigue; decrease ureteric obstruction; and alleviate bone pain associated with metastasis.1 Anecdotally, and based on human studies, GCs are also used in veterinary medicine for many of these same reasons, especially to reduce GI effects from chemotherapy.38
Despite the frequent use of GCs, the mechanisms through which they reduce nausea and vomiting have not been fully elucidated. In humans, several hypotheses exist: physiologically low levels of GCs have been linked to nausea and vomiting, which may be exacerbated during chemotherapy or radiation therapy treatment; anti-inflammatory effects may mitigate these GI signs, as other anti-inflammatory medications (e.g., cyclooxygenase [COX] inhibitors) appear to do; GCs have been shown to reduce serotonin production, blocking transmission of the vomiting response; and finally, GCs inhibit formation of other substances connected to the vomiting response, such as prostaglandin and substance P.4 The best use of GCs and their role in palliative treatment for dogs and cats with cancer have yet to be fully determined.
The use of GCs in veterinary oncologic care is stymied by the potential adverse effects and subsequent effect on quality of life for patient and owner. In dogs, the most frequent adverse effects of systemic GCs have been reported to be polydipsia, polyuria, vomiting, diarrhea, and polyphagia.39 Less commonly reported adverse effects include panting, behavior changes, delayed wound healing,39 and iatrogenic hyperadrenocorticism (Cushing’s disease).40 Research also suggests that anti-inflammatory doses of oral GCs can potentially affect cardiac function in dogs, but not cats, due to an increase in blood pressure and cardiac afterload.41,42 Prednisolone-induced diabetes mellitus has been reported in about 10% of cats receiving high-dose prednisolone therapy (≥1.9 mg/kg/day for >3 weeks)43 but is rarely reported in dogs.44,45 Given the many potential adverse effects of GCs, thorough consideration for each individual patient should be undertaken prior to prescribing GCs for any dog or cat.
While GC-induced resistance to chemotherapy or radiation therapy can be a concern, as discussed above, resistance to GCs can also develop, leading to reduction or loss of response. It appears the most common mechanism of GC resistance is misregulation of both pro-and anti-apoptotic factors, including BCL2 (B-cell lymphoma 2), BIM (BCL-2–like protein 11), and MCL1 (myeloid cell leukemia 1).4 Alternatively, general changes in transcription, repression of cell cycle genes, and alterations in GC receptor regulation may play a role in the development of resistance.4 Unfortunately, it appears that mechanisms of GC resistance are specific to tumor type, preventing one broad-spectrum approach to decreasing GC resistance.
NSAIDs in Cancer
Inflammation, particularly chronic inflammation, has been shown to initiate cancer development through increased angiogenesis, the development of fibrosis, infiltration of mononuclear immune cells, and tissue destruction.46 Following initiation, inflammation has also been shown to influence progression and aggressiveness of certain cancers. Multiple malignancies have been shown to express phenotypes that mimic inflammatory cells as they grow and progress, driving cell migration, angiogenesis, and metastasis. Thus, reducing inflammation may provide an advantage in treating some malignancies.46
Potential therapeutic targets for anti-inflammatory drugs include a myriad of cytokines and chemokines, NF-κB, VEGF, fibroblast growth factor receptors, and most commonly, COX-2. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been shown to increase apoptosis and decrease migration of tumor cells, as well as potentially increase tumor sensitivity to other treatments. In addition, blockade of COX-2 decreases the incidence of human colorectal, breast, lung, bladder, and esophageal cancers.46
Extrapolating from human medicine, many tumor types in veterinary medicine have been evaluated for the expression of COX-2 as a potential therapeutic target. It has been found that numerous cancers of epithelial origin express COX-2 (BOX 1), and thus a COX-2 inhibitor may play a therapeutic role.47 Interestingly, oral fibrosarcoma, histiocytic sarcoma, MCTs, and lymphoma in dogs, as well as cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, pulmonary adenocarcinoma, intestinal carcinoma, lymphoma, and injection site sarcoma in cats, have not been shown to express COX-2.47
- Apocrine gland anal sac adenocarcinoma
- Intestinal adenocarcinoma
- Mammary carcinoma
- Nasal carcinoma
- Oral melanoma
- Prostatic carcinoma
- Renal cell carcinoma
- Squamous cell carcinoma (cutaneous, digital, oral)
- Urothelial carcinoma
- Cutaneous hemangiosarcomaa
- Mammary carcinoma
- Squamous cell carcinoma (oral)
- Urothelial cell carcinoma
aConflicting literature exists.
However, expression of COX-2 does not necessarily correlate with prognosis, and its blockade will not automatically result in a prolonged survival time. A recent systematic review of the literature attempted to correlate expression of COX-2 and outcome.49 It found that in canine mammary carcinoma, melanoma, osteosarcoma, and renal cell carcinoma and in feline mammary carcinoma, urothelial cell carcinoma, and oral squamous cell carcinoma, significant evidence exists to support the conclusion that COX-2 expression is associated with decreased overall survival. However, significant bias was present in some of these studies, making sweeping generalizations about the effect of COX-2 inhibition on outcome difficult.49
COX-2 inhibition is typically achieved using NSAIDs (FIGURE 1), which ultimately prevent synthesis and cancer-driving effects (inhibition of apoptosis, simulation of angiogenesis, decreases in immunity, and promotion of cell proliferation) of prostaglandins. NSAIDs also result in inhibition of cell cycle arrest and metastasis, preventing cancer progression at various points of development.47 However, some in vitro work suggests that antitumor effects are likely not directly cytotoxic.50 In addition, the best NSAID to use has not been established, and while many studies have evaluated piroxicam alone, firocoxib, deracoxib, and carprofen may have therapeutic efficacy.49,51
COX-2 inhibition and the inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis, while potentially preventing progression of certain tumor types, may have significant adverse effects. Prostaglandins protect the GI mucosa through decreased acid production and increased mucus production as well as regulate renal blood flow, especially during decreased renal perfusion; thus, prostaglandin inhibition can negatively affect the GI tract and kidneys.52,53 Although COX-2–selective drugs may diminish GI adverse events in healthy GI tissues, this selectivity does not mitigate renal or hepatic adverse events.54
Tumor Response to COX-2 Inhibition
Although many tumors express COX-2, their responses to NSAID treatment vary widely and evaluation or proof of efficacy is lacking, often making NSAID use experimental instead of proven. TABLE 1 outlines published studies that evaluated NSAIDs in vitro or in vivo for their therapeutic effects. Many tumors that have been shown to express COX-2 have not been evaluated for their response to NSAID treatment. This is most interesting with regard to apocrine gland anal sac adenocarcinoma, for which NSAIDs are frequently recommended, but this recommendation is based on anecdotal evidence.
Given the possible adverse events associated with NSAID use, alternative therapeutic strategies are appealing. COX-2 blockade prevents the production of prostaglandins, inhibiting both detrimental and homeostatic effects within the body (FIGURE 1). Blockade of the cascade after the production of prostaglandins, at their receptors, may confer the same effects as COX-2 inhibition without significant GI or renal impact.
COX-1 and COX-2 produce prostanoids from arachidonic acid (FIGURE 1). These prostanoids exert their effects through various G protein–coupled receptors. Each prostanoid has its own corresponding receptor, with the exception of PGE2 (prostaglandin E2), which exerts its effects through 4 EP (E-type prostanoid) receptor subtypes: EP₁, EP₂, EP₃, and EP₄.96 EP receptors help maintain homeostasis in the brain, kidney, vascular smooth muscle cells, and platelets. Chronic and acute pain signals are also transmitted, in part, through these receptors.97 It has been found that in many species, the EP₄ receptor specifically drives pain associated with osteoarthritis, and blockade of the EP₄ receptor can lead to pain control.98
It has now been shown that the EP₄ receptor is the primary driver of cancer signals and is associated with development and poor prognosis in several human cancers.99 Recently, multiple canine cancers have also been shown to have increased mRNA expression of the EP₄ receptor (BOX 2). Interestingly, canine urothelial cell carcinoma had expression of the EP₄ receptor, but at levels that were less than normal bladder mucosa. The reasons for this finding are not well understood.101 Work evaluating feline cancers for expression of EP₄ receptor mRNA is ongoing.
- Apocrine gland anal sac adenocarcinoma
- Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma
- Lymphoma (B and T cell)
- Osteosarcoma Urothelial cell carcinoma
Given the human literature and the fact that many canine cancers express the EP₄ receptor, use of an EP₄ receptor antagonist may be a novel therapeutic alternative to traditional NSAIDs.
Grapiprant (Galliprant; Elanco, elanco.com) is a prostaglandin receptor antagonist, part of the piprant drug class. It specifically blocks the EP₄ receptor (FIGURE 1) and has been shown to be safe and effective in dogs with osteoarthritis.103 Safety data in cats are also available, although efficacy has yet to be established.104 Theoretically, if many cancers develop through inflammatory signals via PGE2 and the EP₄ receptor, and the EP₄ receptor is expressed or overexpressed on cancer cells, grapiprant may be an attractive alternative therapeutic option for many cancers that respond to NSAIDs.
Although grapiprant should be better tolerated than classical NSAIDs, adverse events can still occur. Those seen most frequently in dogs include mild vomiting, diarrhea, inappetence, and lethargy. These GI effects are typically short lived and self-limiting and rarely require supportive care. No changes to liver or kidney values have been noted in dogs treated with grapiprant.103 Cats also appear to tolerate grapiprant well, at least in short-term studies.105
Glucocorticoids and NSAIDs can be potent primary or adjuvant treatments for a variety of cancers in veterinary medicine. Caution is required to balance the potential adverse effects on the patient and the control of the tumor. The role of GCs in the progression of some cancers is of particular concern and should not be overlooked when determining the role of GCs for a particular patient.
1. Lin KT, Wang LH. New dimension of glucocorticoids in cancer treatment. Steroids. 2016;111:84-88.
2. Yamanaka K, Okuda M, Mizuno T. Functional characterization of canine wild type glucocorticoid receptor and an insertional mutation in a dog. BMC Vet Res. 2019;15(1):363.
3. Smith LK, Cidlowski JA. Glucocorticoid-induced apoptosis of healthy and malignant lymphocytes. Prog Brain Res. 2010;182:1-30.
4. Pufall MA. Glucocorticoids and cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2015;872:315-333.
5. Rassnick KM, Bailey DB, Kamstock DA, et al. Survival time for dogs with previously untreated, peripheral nodal, intermediate- or large-cell lymphoma treated with prednisone alone: the Canine Lymphoma Steroid Only trial. JAVMA. 2021;259(1):62-71.
6. Matus RE, Leifer CE, MacEwen EG, Hurvitz AI. Prognostic factors for multiple myeloma in the dog. JAVMA. 1986;188(11):1288-1292.
7. Hanna F. Multiple myelomas in cats. J Feline Med Surg.
8. Inaba H, Pui CH. Glucocorticoid use in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(11):1096-1106.
9. Labar B, Suciu S, Willemze R, et al. Dexamethasone compared to prednisolone for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or lymphoblastic lymphoma: final results of the ALL-4 randomized, phase III trial of the EORTC Leukemia Group. Haematologica. 2010;95(9):1489-1495.
10. Shmuel DL, Cortes Y. Anaphylaxis in dogs and cats. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio). 2013;23(4):377-394.
11. Swann JW, Garden OA, Fellman CL, et al. ACVIM consensus statement on the treatment of immune-mediated hemolytic anemia in dogs. J Vet Intern Med. 2019;33(3):1141-1172.
12. Collette SA, Allstadt SD, Chon EM, et al. Treatment of feline intermediate- to high-grade lymphoma with a modified university of Wisconsin-Madison protocol: 119 cases (2004-2012). Vet Comp Oncol. 2016;14(suppl 1):136-146.
13. Taylor SS, Goodfellow MR, Browne WJ, et al. Feline extranodal lymphoma: response to chemotherapy and survival in 110 cats. J Small Anim Pract. 2009;50(11):584-592.
14. Marconato L, Stefanello D, Valenti P, et al. Predictors of long-term survival in dogs with high-grade multicentric lymphoma. JAVMA. 2011;238(4):480-485.
15. Ruslander DA, Gebhard DH, Tompkins MB, et al. Immunophenotypic characterization of canine lymphoproliferative disorders. In Vivo. 1997;11(2):169-172.
16. Kiupel M, Teske E, Bostock D. Prognostic factors for treated canine malignant lymphoma. Vet Pathol. 1999;36(4):292-300.
17. Cohn LA. The influence of corticosteroids on host defense mechanisms. J Vet Intern Med. 1991;5(2):95-104.
18. Childress MO, Ramos-Vara JA, Ruple A. A randomized controlled trial of the effect of prednisone omission from a multidrug chemotherapy protocol on treatment outcome in dogs with peripheral nodal lymphomas. JAVMA. 2016;249(9):1067-1078.
19. Zandvliet M, Rutteman GR, Teske E. Prednisolone inclusion in a first-line multidrug cytostatic protocol for the treatment of canine lymphoma does not affect therapy results. Vet J. 2013;197(3):656-661.
20. Hlavaty J, Ertl R, Mekuria TA, et al. Effect of prednisolone pre-treatment on cat lymphoma cell sensitivity towards chemotherapeutic drugs. Res Vet Sci. 2021;138:178-187.
21. Lautscham EM, Kessler M, Ernst T, et al. Comparison of a CHOP-LAsp-based protocol with and without maintenance for canine multicentric lymphoma. Vet Rec. 2017;180(12):303.
22. Boudreaux BB, Smith AN, Lee HP, et al. In vitro evaluation of ABCB1 after exposure to prednisolone and enrofloxacin in two canine lymphoid cell lines: a pilot study. Intern J Appl Res Vet Med. 2012;10(1):31-41.
23. Price GS, Page RL, Fischer BM, et al. Efficacy and toxicity of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide maintenance therapy in dogs with multicentric lymphosarcoma. J Vet Intern Med. 1991;5(5):259-262.
24. Kan E, Levi I, Benharroch D. Alterations in the primary diagnosis of lymphomas pretreated with corticosteroid agents. Leuk Lymphoma. 2011;52(3):425-428.
25. McCaw DL, Miller MA, Ogilvie GK, et al. Response of canine mast cell tumors to treatment with oral prednisone. J Vet Intern Med. 1994;8(6):406-408.
26. Stanclift RM, Gilson SD. Evaluation of neoadjuvant prednisone administration and surgical excision in treatment of cutaneous mast cell tumors in dogs. JAVMA. 2008;232(1):53-62.
27. Takahashi T, Kadosawa T, Nagase M, et al. Inhibitory effects of glucocorticoids on proliferation of canine mast cell tumor. J Vet Med Sci. 1997;59(11):995-1001.
28. Matsuda A, Tanaka A, Amagai Y, et al. Glucocorticoid sensitivity depends on expression levels of glucocorticoid receptors in canine neoplastic mast cells. Vet Immunol Immunopathol.
29. Teng SP, Hsu WL, Chiu CY, et al. Overexpression of P-glycoprotein, STAT3, phospho-STAT3 and KIT in spontaneous canine cutaneous mast cell tumours before and after prednisolone treatment. Vet J. 2012;193(2):551-556.
30. Case A, Burgess K. Safety and efficacy of intralesional triamcinolone administration for treatment of mast cell tumors in dogs: 23 cases (2005-2011). JAVMA. 2018;252(1):84-91.
31. Berenson JR, Crowley JJ, Grogan TM, et al. Maintenance therapy with alternate-day prednisone improves survival in multiple myeloma patients. Blood. 2002;99(9):3163-3168.
32. Matus RE, Leifer CE. Immunoglobulin-producing tumors. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 1985;15(4):741-753.
33. Keith BD. Systematic review of the clinical effect of glucocorticoids on nonhematologic malignancy. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:84.
34. Chaffer CL, Weinberg RA. A perspective on cancer cell metastasis. Science. 2011;331(6024):1559-1564.
35. Lin KT, Yeh YM, Chuang CM, et al. Glucocorticoids mediate induction of microRNA-708 to suppress ovarian cancer metastasis through targeting Rap1B. Nat Commun. 2015;6:5917.
36. Dietrich J, Rao K, Pastorino S, Kesari S. Corticosteroids in brain cancer patients: benefits and pitfalls. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2011;4(2):233-242.
37. Rossmeisl JH Jr, Jones JC, Zimmerman KL, et al. Survival time following hospital discharge in dogs with palliatively treated primary brain tumors. JAVMA. 2013;242(2):193-198.
38. Johannes CM, Musser ML. Anorexia and the cancer patient. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2019;49(5):837-854.
39. Elkholly DA, Brodbelt DC, Church DB, et al. Side effects to systemic glucocorticoid therapy in dogs under primary veterinary care in the UK. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:515.
40. Huang HP, Yang HL, Liang SL, et al. Iatrogenic hyperadrenocorticism in 28 dogs. JAAHA. 1999;35(3):200-207.
41. Masters AK, Berger DJ, Ware WA, et al. Effects of short-term anti-inflammatory glucocorticoid treatment on clinicopathologic, echocardiographic, and hemodynamic variables in systemically healthy dogs. Am J Vet Res. 2018;79(4):411-423.
42. Khelik IA, Berger DJ, Mochel JP, et al. Clinicopathologic, hemodynamic, and echocardiographic effects of short-term oral administration of anti-inflammatory doses of prednisolone to systemically normal cats. Am J Vet Res. 2019;80(8):743-755.
43. Nerhagen S, Moberg HL, Boge GS, Glanemann B. Prednisolone-induced diabetes mellitus in the cat: a historical cohort. J Feline Med Surg. 2021;23(2):175-180.
44. Campbell KL, Latimer KS. Transient diabetes mellitus associated with prednisone therapy in a dog. JAVMA. 1984;185(3):299-301.
45. Jeffers JG, Shanley KJ, Schick RO. Diabetes mellitus induced in a dog after administration of corticosteroids and methylprednisolone pulse therapy. JAVMA. 1991;199(1):77-80.
46. Rayburn ER, Ezell SJ, Zhang R. Anti-inflammatory agents for cancer therapy. Mol Cell Pharmacol. 2009;1(1):29-43.
47. Doré M. Cyclooxygenase-2 expression in animal cancers. Vet Pathol. 2011;48(1):254-265.
48. Knudsen CS, Williams A, Brearley MJ, Demetriou JL. COX-2 expression in canine anal sac adenocarcinomas and in non-neoplastic canine anal sacs. Vet J. 2013;197(3):782-787.
49. Gregorio H, Magalhaes TR, Pires I, et al. The role of COX expression in the prognostication of overall survival of canine and feline cancer: a systematic review. Vet Med Sci. 2021;7(4):1107-1119.
50. Knapp DW, Chan TC, Kuczek T, et al. Evaluation of in vitro cytotoxicity of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs against canine tumor cells. Am J Vet Res. 1995;56(6):801-805.
51. Poradowski D, Obminska-Mrukowicz B. Effect of selected nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on the viability of canine osteosarcoma cells of the D-17 line: in vitro studies. J Vet Res. 2019;63(3):399-403.
52. McLean MK, Khan SA. Toxicology of frequently encountered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in dogs and cats: an update. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2018;48(6):969-984.
53. Mabry K, Hill T, Tolbert MK. Prevalence of gastrointestinal lesions in dogs chronically treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. J Vet Intern Med. 2021;35(2):853-859.
54. KuKanich B, Bidgood T, Knesl O. Clinical pharmacology of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2012;39(1):69-90.
55. Knapp DW, Richardson RC, Bottoms GD, et al. Phase I trial of piroxicam in 62 dogs bearing naturally occurring tumors. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1992;29(3):214-218.
56. Chon E, McCartan L, Kubicek LN, Vail DM. Safety evaluation of combination toceranib phosphate (Palladia®) and piroxicam in tumour-bearing dogs (excluding mast cell tumours): a phase I dose-finding study. Vet Comp Oncol. 2012;10(3):184-193.
57. Yoshitake R, Saeki K, Watanabe M, et al. Molecular investigation of the direct anti-tumour effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in a panel of canine cancer cell lines. Vet J. 2017;221:38-47.
58. Ustun Alkan F, Ustuner O, Bakirel T, et al. The effects of piroxicam and deracoxib on canine mammary tumour cell line. Sci World J. 2012;2012:976740.
59. Knottenbelt C, Chambers G, Gault E, Argyle DJ. The in vitro effects of piroxicam and meloxicam on canine cell lines. J Small Anim Pract. 2006;47(1):14-20.
60. Bakirel T, Ustun Alkan F, Ustuner O, et al. Response of cultured normal canine mammary epithelial cells to deracoxib-doxorubicin combination. Acta Vet Hung. 2017;65(3):366-381.
61. Bakirel T, Alkan FU, Ustuner O, et al. Synergistic growth inhibitory effect of deracoxib with doxorubicin against a canine mammary tumor cell line, CMT-U27. J Vet Med Sci. 2016;78(4):657-668.
62. de M Souza CH, Toledo-Piza E, Amorin R, et al. Inflammatory mammary carcinoma in 12 dogs: clinical features, cyclooxygenase-2 expression, and response to piroxicam treatment. Can Vet J. 2009;50(5):506-510.
63. Lavalle GE, De Campos CB, Bertagnolli AC, et al. Canine malignant mammary gland neoplasms with advanced clinical staging treated with carboplatin and cyclooxygenase inhibitors. In Vivo. 2012;26(3):375-379.
64. Arenas C, Pena L, Granados-Soler JL, Pérez-Alenza MD. Adjuvant therapy for highly malignant canine mammary tumours: COX-2 inhibitor versus chemotherapy: a case-control prospective study. Vet Rec. 2016;179(5):125.
65. Rossi F, Sabattini S, Vascellari M, Marconato L. The impact of toceranib, piroxicam and thalidomide with or without hypofractionated radiation therapy on clinical outcome in dogs
with inflammatory mammary carcinoma. Vet Comp Oncol. 2018;16(4):497-504.
66. Woodruff MJ, Heading KL, Bennett P. Canine intranasal tumours treated with alternating carboplatin and doxorubin in conjunction with oral piroxicam: 29 cases. Vet Comp Oncol. 2019;17(1):42-48.
67. Langova V, Mutsaers AJ, Phillips B, Straw R. Treatment of eight dogs with nasal tumours with alternating doses of doxorubicin and carboplatin in conjunction with oral piroxicam. Aust Vet J. 2004;82(11):676-680.
68. Cancedda S, Sabattini S, Bettini G, et al. Combination of radiation therapy and firocoxib for the treatment of canine nasal carcinoma. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2015;56(3):335-343.
69. Boria PA, Murry DJ, Bennett PF, et al. Evaluation of cisplatin combined with piroxicam for the treatment of oral malignant melanoma and oral squamous cell carcinoma in dogs. JAVMA. 2004;224(3):388-394.
70. Ong SM, Saeki K, Tanaka Y, et al. Effects of etoposide alone and in combination with piroxicam on canine osteosarcoma cell lines. Vet J. 2016;218:51-59.
71. Pang LY, Argyle SA, Kamida A, et al. The long-acting COX-2 inhibitor mavacoxib (Trocoxil™) has anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic effects on canine cancer cell lines and cancer stem cells in vitro. BMC Vet Res. 2014;10:184.
72. London CA, Gardner HL, Mathie T, et al. Impact of toceranib/piroxicam/cyclophosphamide maintenance therapy on outcome of dogs with appendicular osteosarcoma following amputation and carboplatin chemotherapy: a multi-institutional study. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0124889.
73. Sorenmo KU, Goldschmidt MH, Shofer FS, et al. Evaluation of cyclooxygenase-1 and cyclooxygenase-2 expression and the effect of cyclooxygenase inhibitors in canine prostatic carcinoma. Vet Comp Oncol. 2004;2(1):13-23.
74. Rathore K, Alexander M, Cekanova M. Piroxicam inhibits masitinib-induced cyclooxygenase 2 expression in oral squamous cell carcinoma cells in vitro. Transl Res. 2014;164(2):158-168.
75. Schmidt BR, Glickman NW, DeNicola DB, et al. Evaluation of piroxicam for the treatment of oral squamous cell carcinoma in dogs. JAVMA. 2001;218(11):1783-1786.
76. de Vos JP, Burm AG, Focker AP, et al. Piroxicam and carboplatin as a combination treatment of canine oral non-tonsillar squamous cell carcinoma: a pilot study and a literature review of a canine model of human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Vet Comp Oncol. 2005;3(1):16-24.
77. Byer B, Schlein LJ, Rose B, Séguin B. In-vitro effects of taurolidine alone and in combination with mitoxantrone and/or piroxicam on canine transitional cell carcinoma. Can J Vet Res. 2020;84(2):115-123.
78. Knapp DW, Richardson RC, Chan TC, et al. Piroxicam therapy in 34 dogs with transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. J Vet Intern Med. 1994;8:273-278.
79. Mohammed SI, Bennett PF, Craig BA, et al. Effects of the cyclooxygenase inhibitor, piroxicam, on tumor response, apoptosis, and angiogenesis in a canine model of human invasive urinary bladder cancer. Cancer Res. 2002;62(2):356-358.
80. McMillan SK, Boria P, Moore GE, et al. Antitumor effects of deracoxib treatment in 26 dogs with transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. JAVMA. 2011;239(8):1084-1089.
81. Knapp DW, Ruple-Czerniak A, Ramos-Vara JA, et al. A nonselective cyclooxygenase inhibitor enhances the activity of vinblastine in a naturally-occurring canine model of invasive urothelial carcinoma. Bladder Cancer. 2016;2(2):241-250.
82. Allstadt SD, Rodriguez CO Jr, Boostrom B, et al. Randomized phase III trial of piroxicam in combination with mitoxantrone or carboplatin for first-line treatment of urogenital tract transitional cell carcinoma in dogs. J Vet Intern Med. 2015;29(1):261-267.
83. Robat C, Burton J, Thamm D, Vail D. Retrospective evaluation of doxorubicin-piroxicam combination for the treatment of transitional cell carcinoma in dogs. J Small Anim Pract. 2013;54(2):67-74.
84. Marconato L, Zini E, Lindner D, et al. Toxic effects and antitumor response of gemcitabine in combination with piroxicam treatment in dogs with transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. JAVMA. 2011;238(8):1004-1010.
85. Greene SN, Lucroy MD, Greenberg CB, et al. Evaluation of cisplatin administered with piroxicam in dogs with transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. JAVMA. 2007;231(7):1056-1060.
86. Upton ML, Tangner CH, Payton ME. Evaluation of carbon dioxide laser ablation combined with mitoxantrone and piroxicam treatment in dogs with transitional cell carcinoma. JAVMA. 2006;228(4):549-552.
87. Boria PA, Glickman NW, Schmidt BR, et al. Carboplatin and piroxicam therapy in 31 dogs with transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Vet Comp Oncol. 2005;3(2):73-80.
88. Henry CJ, McCaw DL, Turnquist SE, et al. Clinical evaluation of mitoxantrone and piroxicam in a canine model of human invasive urinary bladder carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9(2):906-911.
89. Knapp DW, Glickman NW, Widmer WR, et al. Cisplatin versus cisplatin combined with piroxicam in a canine model of human invasive urinary bladder cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2000;46(3):221-226.
90. Knapp DW, Henry CJ, Widmer WR, et al. Randomized trial of cisplatin versus firocoxib versus cisplatin/firocoxib in dogs with transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. J Vet Intern Med. 2013;27(1):126-133.
91. Malfassi L, Fidanzio F, Sala M, et al. A combined protocol with piroxicam, chemotherapy, and whole pelvic irradiation with simultaneous boost volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for muscle-invasive canine urinary transitional cell carcinoma: first clinical experience. J Vet Med Sci. 2021;83(4):695-704.
92. Poirier VJ, Forrest LJ, Adams WM, Vail DM. Piroxicam, mitoxantrone, and coarse fraction radiotherapy for the treatment of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder in 10 dogs: a pilot study. JAAHA. 2004;40(2):131-136.
93. Marconato L, Weyland M, Tresch N, et al. Toxicity and outcome in cats with oral squamous cell carcinoma after accelerated hypofractionated radiotherapy and concurrent systemic treatment. Vet Comp Oncol. 2020;18(3):362-369.
94. Marconato L, Buchholz J, Keller M, et al. Multimodal therapeutic approach and interdisciplinary challenge for the treatment of unresectable head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in six cats: a pilot study. Vet Comp Oncol. 2013;11(2):101-112.
95. Wilson HM, Chun R, Larson VS, et al. Clinical signs, treatments, and outcome in cats with transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: 20 cases (1990-2004). JAVMA. 2007;231(1):101-106.
96. Narumiya S, Sugimoto Y, Ushikubi F. Prostanoid receptors: structures, properties, and functions. Physiol Rev. 1999;79(4):1193-1226.
97. Smyth EM, Grosser T, Wang M, et al. Prostanoids in health and disease. J Lipid Res. 2009;50(suppl):S423-S428.
98. Shaw KK, Rausch-Derra LC, Rhodes L. Grapiprant: an EP4 prostaglandin receptor antagonist and novel therapy for pain and inflammation. Vet Med Sci. 2016;2(1):3-9.
99. Yokoyama U, Iwatsubo K, Umemura M, et al. The prostanoid
EP4 receptor and its signaling pathway. Pharmacol Rev. 2013;65(3):1010-1052.
100. Musser ML, Viall AK, Phillips RL, et al. Analysis of gene expression of prostaglandin EP4 receptor in canine osteosarcoma. Can J Vet Res. 2021;85(1):68-71.
101. Musser ML, Viall AK, Phillips RL, et al. Gene expression of prostaglandin EP4 receptor in three canine carcinomas. BMC Vet Res. 2020;16(1):213.
102. Musser ML, Viall AK, Phillips RL, et al. Prostaglandin EP4 receptor mRNA expression in canine lymphoma. Vet Comp Oncol. 2022;20(1):127-133.
103. Rausch-Derra L, Huebner M, Wofford J, Rhodes L. A prospective, randomized, masked, placebo-controlled multisite clinical study of grapiprant, an EP4 prostaglandin receptor antagonist (PRA), in dogs with osteoarthritis. J Vet Intern Med. 2016;30(3):756-763.
104. Rausch-Derra LC, Rhodes L. Safety and toxicokinetic profiles associated with daily oral administration of grapiprant, a selective antagonist of the prostaglandin E2 EP4 receptor, to cats. Am J Vet Res. 2016;77(7):688-692.
105. Lebkowska-Wieruszewska B, De Vito V, Owen H, et al. Pharmacokinetics of grapiprant, a selective EP4 prostaglandin PGE2 receptor antagonist, after 2 mg/kg oral and i.v. administrations in cats. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2017;40(6):e11-e15.
This article has been submitted for RACE approval for 1 hour of continuing education credit and will be opened for enrollment when approval has been received. To receive credit, take the test for free by visiting vetfolio.com. Free registration is required. Questions and answers online may differ from those below. Tests are valid for 2 years from the date of approval.
This article describes the uses of glucocorticoids and NSAIDs in veterinary oncology.
After reading this article, participants will be able to explain the scientific basis for use of glucocorticoids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in veterinary oncology. In addition, they will be able to give examples of specific tumors for which glucocorticoids or NSAIDs are potentially effective treatments.
1. Which of the following statements about glucocorticoid use in canine lymphoma is true?
a. Glucocorticoids cause apoptosis of lymphoid cells.
b. Glucocorticoids confer a longer survival time for dogs with B-cell lymphoma.
c. Previous glucocorticoid use does not affect overall survival time.
d. Previous glucocorticoid use does not affect achieving an accurate diagnosis of lymphoma.
2. Mast cell tumor response to glucocorticoids ranges from 20% to 70% because some mast cell tumor cells have _________.
a. Increased glucocorticoid efflux pumps
b. Decreased glucocorticoid receptors
c. Glucocorticoid receptors
d. Decreased glucocorticoid transmembrane pumps
3. Which of the following statements is/are true regarding glucocorticoids and solid malignancies?
a. Glucocorticoids can suppress angiogenesis.
b. Glucocorticoids can decrease cancer cell migration.
c. Glucocorticoids can decrease the formation of abdominal metastatic disease.
d. All of the above
4. Which of the following statements about the use of glucocorticoids for central nervous system cancers is true?
a. Glucocorticoids cause apoptosis of central nervous system cancer cells.
b. Glucocorticoids decrease metastatic spread.
c. Glucocorticoids decrease tumor-induced edema.
d. Glucocorticoids decrease lymphangiogenesis.
5. In humans, when used as supportive care, glucocorticoids have been shown to _______.
a. Increase appetite
b. Decrease vomiting
c. Decrease weight loss
d. All of the above
6. Which of the following is not a known driver of chronic inflammation in cancer development?
a. Decreased angiogenesis
b. Fibrosis development
c. Tissue destruction
d. Infiltration of mononuclear immune cells
7. Expression of COX-2 by a tumor always correlates with prognosis.
8. Which of the following tumors has been shown to express COX-2 and respond favorably to NSAID therapy?
a. Intestinal carcinoma
b. Digital squamous cell carcinoma
c. Urothelial cell carcinoma
9. Which of the following prostanoid receptors is thought to contribute most to neoplasia development?
10. Which of the following canine cancers might respond to grapiprant based on positive prostanoid receptor expression?
a. Apocrine gland anal sac adenocarcinoma
b. Renal carcinoma
d. Oral squamous cell carcinoma