Loss of aquaporin-4 expression and putative function in non-small cell lung cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Aquaporins (AQPs) have been recognized to promote tumor progression, invasion, and metastasis and are therefore recognized as promising targets for novel anti-cancer therapies. Potentially relevant AQPs in distinct cancer entities can be determined by a comprehensive expression analysis of the 13 human AQPs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We analyzed the presence of all AQP transcripts in 576 different normal lung and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) samples using microarray data and validated our findings by qRT-PCR and immunohistochemistry.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Variable expression of several AQPs (AQP1, -3, -4, and -5) was found in NSCLC and normal lung tissues. Furthermore, we identified remarkable differences between NSCLC subtypes in regard to AQP1, -3 and -4 expression. Higher transcript and protein levels of AQP4 in well-differentiated lung adenocarcinomas suggested an association with a more favourable prognosis. Beyond water transport, data mining of co-expressed genes indicated an involvement of AQP4 in cell-cell signalling, cellular movement and lipid metabolism, and underlined the association of AQP4 to important physiological functions in benign lung tissue.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our findings accentuate the need to identify functional differences and redundancies of active AQPs in normal and tumor cells in order to assess their value as promising drug targets.</p

Treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or entecavir in chronic hepatitis B virus-infected patients with renal impairment: results from a 7-year, multicentre retrospective cohort study

Background: Limited data exist regarding tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) safety and effectiveness in chronic hepatitis B virus–infected (CHB) patients with renal impairment (RI). Aims: To compare real-world data on renal safety and effectiveness of TDF vs entecavir (ETV) in CHB patients with moderate-to-severe RI. Methods: Retrospective, non-interventional, cohort study analysing medical records for TDF/ETV-treated CHB patients (54 European centres). Included patients experienced moderate-to-severe RI (creatinine clearance 20-60&nbsp;mL/min [Cockcroft-Gault]) either before TDF/ETV initiation (‘before’ subgroup [baseline&nbsp;=&nbsp;treatment initiation]) or after TDF/ETV initiation (‘after’ subgroup [baseline&nbsp;=&nbsp;first RI occurrence]). The primary objective was TDF safety, particularly renal-related adverse events of special interest (AESI). TDF and ETV safety and effectiveness were compared and multivariate analyses were performed using inverse probability treatment weighting. Results: ‘Before’ subgroup included 107 TDF- and 91 ETV-treated patients; ‘after’ subgroup included 212 TDF- and 77 ETV-treated patients. Mean baseline creatinine clearance was higher for TDF- vs ETV-treated patients (both subgroups). Median follow-up was 3.1&nbsp;years (both treatments). AESI were more frequent with TDF vs ETV (‘before’: 18.7% vs 8.8%; ‘after’: 9.9% vs 3.9%); however, differences were not significant by multivariate analysis. Only TDF-treated patients experienced renal tubular dysfunction (6.5% ‘before’; 1.9% ‘after’) as well as renal adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (8.4% ‘before’; 7.1% ‘after’). Effectiveness was similar between treatments. Conclusions: Overall safety was similar for TDF vs ETV (both subgroups). Given that renal tubular dysfunction occurred with TDF and not with ETV, renal safety concerns may be greater with TDF in CHB patients with RI

Biomechanical Assessment of Liver Integrity: Prospective Evaluation of Mechanical Versus Acoustic MR Elastography

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) can quantify tissue biomechanics noninvasively, including pathological hepatic states like metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis. PURPOSE: To compare the performance of 2D/3D-MRE using the gravitational (GT) transducer concept with the current commercial acoustic (AC) solution utilizing a 2D-MRE approach. Additionally, quality index markers (QIs) were proposed to identify image pixels with sufficient quality for reliably estimating tissue biomechanics. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: One hundred seventy participants with suspected or confirmed liver disease (median age, 57 years [interquartile range (IQR), 46-65]; 66 females), and 11 healthy volunteers (median age, 31 years [IQR, 27-34]; 5 females). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Participants were scanned twice at 1.5 T and 60 Hz vibration frequency: first, using AC-MRE (2D-MRE, spin-echo EPI sequence, 11 seconds breath-hold), and second, using GT-MRE (2D- and 3D-MRE, gradient-echo sequence, 14 seconds breath-hold). ASSESSMENT: Image analysis was performed by four independent radiologists and one biomedical engineer. Additionally, superimposed analytic plane shear waves of known wavelength and attenuation at fixed shear modulus were used to propose pertinent QIs. STATISTICAL TESTS: Spearman's correlation coefficient (r) was applied to assess the correlation between modalities. Interreader reproducibility was evaluated using Bland-Altman bias and reproducibility coefficients. P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Liver stiffness quantified via GT-2D/3D correlated well with AC-2D (r ≥ 0.89 [95% CI: 0.85-0.92]) and histopathological grading (r ≥ 0.84 [95% CI: 0.72-0.91]), demonstrating excellent agreement in Bland-Altman plots and between readers (κ ≥ 0.86 [95% CI: 0.81-0.91]). However, GT-2D showed a bias in overestimating stiffness compared to GT-3D. Proposed QIs enabled the identification of pixels deviating beyond 10% from true stiffness based on a combination of total wave amplitude, temporal sinusoidal nonlinearity, and wave signal-to-noise ratio for GT-3D. CONCLUSION: GT-MRE represents an alternative to AC-MRE for noninvasive liver tissue characterization. Both GT-2D and 3D approaches correlated strongly with the established commercial approach, offering advanced capabilities in abdominal imaging compared to AC-MRE. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2