Microarray Analysis Reveals Distinct Gene Expression Profiles Among Different Tumor Histology, Stage and Disease Outcomes in Endometrial Adenocarcinoma

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in developed countries and little is known about the underlying mechanism of stage and disease outcomes. The goal of this study was to identify differentially expressed genes (DEG) between late vs. early stage endometrioid adenocarcinoma (EAC) and uterine serous carcinoma (USC), as well as between disease outcomes in each of the two histological subtypes.Gene expression profiles of 20 cancer samples were analyzed (EAC = 10, USC = 10) using the human genome wide illumina bead microarrays. There was little overlap in the DEG sets between late vs. early stages in EAC and USC, and there was an insignificant overlap in DEG sets between good and poor prognosis in EAC and USC. Remarkably, there was no overlap between the stage-derived DEGs and the prognosis-derived DEGs for each of the two histological subtypes. Further functional annotation of differentially expressed genes showed that the composition of enriched function terms were different among different DEG sets. Gene expression differences for selected genes of various stages and outcomes were confirmed by qRT-PCR with a high validation rate.This data, although preliminary, suggests that there might be involvement of distinct groups of genes in tumor progression (late vs. early stage) in each of the EAC and USC. It also suggests that these genes are different from those involved in tumor outcome (good vs. poor prognosis). These involved genes, once clinically verified, may be important for predicting tumor progression and tumor outcome

Preclinical evaluation of transcriptional targeting strategies for carcinoma of the breast in a tissue slice model system

INTRODUCTION: In view of the limited success of available treatment modalities for metastatic breast cancer, alternative and complementary strategies need to be developed. Adenoviral vector mediated strategies for breast cancer gene therapy and virotherapy are a promising novel therapeutic platform for the treatment of breast cancer. However, the promiscuous tropism of adenoviruses (Ads) is a major concern. Employing tissue specific promoters (TSPs) to restrict transgene expression or viral replication is an effective way to increase specificity towards tumor tissues and to reduce adverse effects in non-target tissues such as the liver. In this regard, candidate breast cancer TSPs include promoters of the genes for the epithelial glycoprotein 2 (EGP-2), cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2), α-chemokine SDF-1 receptor (stromal-cell-derived factor, CXCR4), secretory leukoprotease inhibitor (SLPI) and survivin. METHODS: We employed E1-deleted Ads that express the reporter gene luciferase under the control of the promoters of interest. We evaluated this class of vectors in various established breast cancer cell lines, primary breast cancer cells and finally in the most stringent preclinical available substrate system, constituted by precision cut tissue slices of human breast cancer and liver. RESULTS: Overall, the CXCR4 promoter exhibited the highest luciferase activity in breast cancer cell lines, primary breast cancer cells and breast cancer tissue slices. Importantly, the CXCR4 promoter displayed a very low activity in human primary fibroblasts and human liver tissue slices. Interestingly, gene expression profiles correlated with the promoter activities both in breast cancer cell lines and primary breast cancer cells. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the CXCR4 promoter has an ideal 'breast cancer-on/liver-off' profile, and could, therefore, be a powerful tool in Ad vector based gene therapy or virotherapy of the carcinoma of the breast

Correction to: Clinical recommendations for cardiovascular magnetic resonance mapping of T1, T2, T2* and extracellular volume: A consensus statement by the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) endorsed by the European Association for Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI).

CORRECTION TO: J CARDIOVASC MAGN RESON (2017) 19: 75. DOI: 10.1186/S12968-017-0389-8: In the original publication of this article [1] the "Competing interests" section was incorrect. The original publication stated the following competing interests