22 research outputs found

    Integrated Analysis of Clinical and Microbiome Risk Factors Associated with the Development of Oral Candidiasis during Cancer Chemotherapy.

    Get PDF
    Oral candidiasis is a common side effect of cancer chemotherapy. To better understand predisposing factors, we followed forty-five subjects who received 5-fluorouracil- or doxorubicin-based treatment, during one chemotherapy cycle. Subjects were evaluated at baseline, prior to the first infusion, and at three additional visits within a two-week window. We assessed the demographic, medical and oral health parameters, neutrophil surveillance, and characterized the salivary bacteriome and mycobiome communities through amplicon high throughput sequencing. Twenty percent of all subjects developed oral candidiasis. Using multivariate statistics, we identified smoking, amount of dental plaque, low bacteriome and mycobiome alpha-diversity, and the proportions of specific bacterial and fungal taxa as baseline predictors of oral candidiasis development during the treatment cycle. All subjects who developed oral candidiasis had baseline microbiome communities dominated by Candida and enriched in aciduric bacteria. Longitudinally, oral candidiasis was associated with a decrease in salivary flow prior to lesion development, and occurred simultaneously or before oral mucositis. Candidiasis was also longitudinally associated with a decrease in peripheral neutrophils but increased the neutrophil killing capacity of Candida albicans. Oral candidiasis was not found to be associated with mycobiome structure shifts during the cycle but was the result of an increase in Candida load, with C. albicans and Candida dubliniensis being the most abundant species comprising the salivary mycobiome of the affected subjects. In conclusion, we identified a set of clinical and microbiome baseline factors associated with susceptibility to oral candidiasis, which might be useful tools in identifying at risk individuals, prior to chemotherapy

    Chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis is associated with detrimental bacterial dysbiosis.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal mucosal injury (mucositis), commonly affecting the oral cavity, is a clinically significant yet incompletely understood complication of cancer chemotherapy. Although antineoplastic cytotoxicity constitutes the primary injury trigger, the interaction of oral microbial commensals with mucosal tissues could modify the response. It is not clear, however, whether chemotherapy and its associated treatments affect oral microbial communities disrupting the homeostatic balance between resident microorganisms and the adjacent mucosa and if such alterations are associated with mucositis. To gain knowledge on the pathophysiology of oral mucositis, 49 subjects receiving 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or doxorubicin-based chemotherapy were evaluated longitudinally during one cycle, assessing clinical outcomes, bacterial and fungal oral microbiome changes, and epithelial transcriptome responses. As a control for microbiome stability, 30 non-cancer subjects were longitudinally assessed. Through complementary in vitro assays, we also evaluated the antibacterial potential of 5-FU on oral microorganisms and the interaction of commensals with oral epithelial tissues. RESULTS: Oral mucositis severity was associated with 5-FU, increased salivary flow, and higher oral granulocyte counts. The oral bacteriome was disrupted during chemotherapy and while antibiotic and acid inhibitor intake contributed to these changes, bacteriome disruptions were also correlated with antineoplastics and independently and strongly associated with oral mucositis severity. Mucositis-associated bacteriome shifts included depletion of common health-associated commensals from the genera Streptococcus, Actinomyces, Gemella, Granulicatella, and Veillonella and enrichment of Gram-negative bacteria such as Fusobacterium nucleatum and Prevotella oris. Shifts could not be explained by a direct antibacterial effect of 5-FU, but rather resembled the inflammation-associated dysbiotic shifts seen in other oral conditions. Epithelial transcriptional responses during chemotherapy included upregulation of genes involved in innate immunity and apoptosis. Using a multilayer epithelial construct, we show mucositis-associated dysbiotic shifts may contribute to aggravate mucosal damage since the mucositis-depleted Streptococcus salivarius was tolerated as a commensal, while the mucositis-enriched F. nucleatum displayed pro-inflammatory and pro-apoptotic capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, our work reveals that chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis is associated with bacterial dysbiosis and demonstrates the potential for dysbiotic shifts to aggravate antineoplastic-induced epithelial injury. These findings suggest that control of oral bacterial dysbiosis could represent a novel preventive approach to ameliorate oral mucositis

    Comprehensive and Integrated Genomic Characterization of Adult Soft Tissue Sarcomas

    Get PDF
    Sarcomas are a broad family of mesenchymal malignancies exhibiting remarkable histologic diversity. We describe the multi-platform molecular landscape of 206 adult soft tissue sarcomas representing 6 major types. Along with novel insights into the biology of individual sarcoma types, we report three overarching findings: (1) unlike most epithelial malignancies, these sarcomas (excepting synovial sarcoma) are characterized predominantly by copy-number changes, with low mutational loads and only a few genes (, , ) highly recurrently mutated across sarcoma types; (2) within sarcoma types, genomic and regulomic diversity of driver pathways defines molecular subtypes associated with patient outcome; and (3) the immune microenvironment, inferred from DNA methylation and mRNA profiles, associates with outcome and may inform clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Overall, this large-scale analysis reveals previously unappreciated sarcoma-type-specific changes in copy number, methylation, RNA, and protein, providing insights into refining sarcoma therapy and relationships to other cancer types

    Health risk assessment of head/neck cancer patients.

    No full text

    Physician knowledge, practice patterns, and barriers encountered regarding guideline-concordant use of bone modifying agents for prostate cancer.

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend bone-modifying agents (BMAs) for patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and bone metastasis, but not for castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC). Physicians beliefs and practices regarding BMA therapy are poorly understood. METHODS: This was a qualitative interview study with embedded Likert-scale elements. Study participants were physicians who treat prostate cancer, located within an academic cancer center or an affiliated community-based network. Participants were asked about their experiences and practice patterns regarding BMA therapy. Participants used Likert-scale items to identify the most common barriers to guideline-concordant BMA use and the most effective potential interventions. Participants were subsequently asked to rank the three most common barriers and the three most effective interventions to reduce underuse (for CRPC) and overuse (for CSPC). RESULTS: Nineteen physicians were invited and 15 participated; one physician did not answer some questions as outside of their practice scope. All were aware of the recommendation for BMAs in CRPC. 14% (2/14) were unaware of the recommendation against BMA use for CSPC; an additional 29% (4/14) believed that BMA use could be appropriate for CSPC depending on the metastatic disease burden. 36% (5/14) were unaware of recommendations for screening and treatment of low bone mineral density. The most common barriers (occurring often or sometimes ) were obtaining dental clearance (11/15) and insufficient clinic time (6/15). The interventions identified as most effective to reduce underuse were dental navigation (11/15) and electronic medical record (EMR)-based guidance (9/15). The interventions identified as most effective to reduce overuse were peer-to-peer education (14/15) and EMR-based guidance (13/15). CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of guideline recommendations for screening and treatment of low bone mineral density and against BMA use for CSPC was good, but not complete. Dental navigation, peer-to-peer education, and EMR-based guidance were preferred intervention strategies to improve guideline-concordant use

    American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines

    Full text link
    Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Prostate cancer survivors approach 2.8 million in number and represent 1 in 5 of all cancer survivors in the United States. While guidelines exist for timely treatment and surveillance for recurrent disease, there is limited availability of guidelines that facilitate the provision of posttreatment clinical follow‐up care to address the myriad of long‐term and late effects that survivors may face. Based on recommendations set forth by a National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center expert panel, the American Cancer Society developed clinical follow‐up care guidelines to facilitate the provision of posttreatment care by primary care clinicians. These guidelines were developed using a combined approach of evidence synthesis and expert consensus. Existing guidelines for health promotion, surveillance, and screening for second primary cancers were referenced when available. To promote comprehensive follow‐up care and optimal health and quality of life for the posttreatment survivor, the guidelines address health promotion, surveillance for prostate cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, long‐term and late effects assessment and management, psychosocial issues, and care coordination among the oncology team, primary care clinicians, and nononcology specialists. A key challenge to the development of these guidelines was the limited availability of published evidence for management of prostate cancer survivors after treatment. Much of the evidence relies on studies with small sample sizes and retrospective analyses of facility‐specific and population databases. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:225–249. © 2014 American Cancer Society .Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/108098/1/caac21234.pd
    corecore